Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

[pontalba]

Yeah, but what does it mean?

Lucky I have a dictionary built into my browser, eh?

What I really like about that phrase, is that for one thing, who could imagine those two words in conjunction? Yes, our Peder thats who!

 

[StillILearn]

SFG says = LOL-Just like my students, "how long does it have to be?"

steffee says = 3 or 4 500-word sentences?

( I saw a comma in there between the 4 and the 5 at first glance, which totally cracked me up, nothing being impossible here!)

pontalba says = That has to win 'The Sentence of the Day' award, non?

Because Peder's answer /conjecture does lie within a sentence that consists of somewhere between 3 and 4,500 perfectly chosen words:

... as I recall, both books were absolutely, completely, totally, 100%, undeniably, irrevocably, unswervingly, unequivocally and implacably ambiguous on the matter. However, who knows, maybe closer rereading will reveal that they are actually only vague and evasive.

No wonder this is becoming become the never-ending thread!

 

[Peder]

Truth and falsity

No wonder this is becoming become the never-ending thread!

The secret is out!

But actually, StillILearn, I did take the books with me, and did look at them, but only to some avail. There were fascinating things to read in Ellen Pifer's Casebook but nothing on how to tell exactly when Humbert is lying -- only, remarkably, on when he is telling the truth!
The first essay "The Art of Persuasion in Lolita," by Nomi Tamir-ghez, is is about exactly the essay title, namely the various ways that Humbert (and the author) use to sway our opinion about the events of the story, or in Tamir-Ghez's more elegant words (p 18)

The purposes of the present essay are, first, to give a more detailed (although by no means exhaustive) description of the major rhtetorical devices that Nabokov uses while practicng his art of persusaion in Lolita. ... [Nabokov] insures that Humbert's arguments are not airtight and that enough incriminating information leaks out. Nabokov does intend us to identify with the protagonist to a certain degree, to accept him as a human being, while at the same time strongly to condemn his deeds.... While all the efforts of the narrator to win over the reader fail, the author finally wins us over, using as his strongest weapon the protagonist's own realization of his guilt.

At the end she summarizes (p 34-35)

... [Humbert] at last gives up the cynicism underlying his rhetoric and his tone becomes more sincere. For the first time he is now able to transcend his self-centered passions and think of Lolita as a human being

What I heard was but the melody of children at play ... and then I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita's absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord

... Moreover only at the end does he (and therefore the reader) understand that he actually loves Lolita, not the nymphet in her.

I looked and looked at her and know as clearly as I know that I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else

Seen that way for the first time -- without his jesting pose, suffering for the pain he has inflicted on the girl, and realizing his love transcends his passion -- Humbert at last wins us over, just as the author intends."

Italics mine, just as the author intends!
For the rest, it seems there is no way to tell when Humbert the 'unreliable narrator' is lying, except that

...the author ensures that Humbert's arguments are not airtight and that enough incriminating information leaks out ... strongly to condemn his deeds.

Unlesss I missed something,
Which is always possible,
Next, The Enchanted Hunters,
Peder

 

[Peder]

The Enchanted Hunters episode

Oh come on, the little tart knew what she was up to the whole time.

SFG et all,
To hear Humbert tell it, indeed she did! (Lolita p 119-141)

However, when they reach the Enchanted Hunters hotel and first enter the single room that they are to share, Lo's reaction includes

Because, my dahrling, when dahrling Mother finds out, she'll divorce you and strangle me....The word is incest.

Humbert minimizes the significance of the first part of that quote by calling it

Just dynamic. Not taking the matter too seriously.

Hah, might I just say?
There ensues the long episode which culminates in Lo allegedly saying

OK .. here is where we start.

and which is the alleged basis for Humbert claiming "She seduced me."
Later, in the car, Lo comments

You revolting creature. Look what you've done to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me. Oh, you dirty, dirty old man.

So we have the word sequence: "incest." "she seduced me," "rape."

Those two flanking words from Lo are the extent of the evidence, which Nabokov 'allows to leak out,' that we get to use as background against which to judge whether to believe Hiumbert or not in that particular situation.

That the events in the hotel room are appalling and in Humbert's disfavor, no matter whose version we accept, is beyond doubt.

Whether Humbert, however, is actually telling the truth about the events would seem to be undermined by Nabokov himself placing the words "incest" and "rape" in Lolita's mouth as bookends to the episode.

And, so far, that is about as far as I can analyze the claim of Humbert, the unreliable narrator. Beyond, of course, having a genuine personal antipathy to it, and a general skepticism of Humbert's own self-interested pleas.

Nabokov leaves it to us, it seems,
Whether or not to believe Humbert.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

SFG et all,

So we have the word sequence: "incest." "she seduced me," "rape."

Those two flanking words from Lo are the extent of the evidence, which Nabokov 'allows to leak out,' that we get to use as background against which to judge whether to believe Hiumbert or not in that particular situation.

No matter how you slice it Lolita was right, technically it was Incest, and it was Rape. He was legally her father, although not by blood, and underage [way] so by definition it was rape. Now as to Humbert's claim that she seduced him, well didn't he set it up that way? If he hadn't set it up, there would have been no "seduction".

Now I do believe that it got out of hand [to say the least], and that HH didn't fully intend to let it go that far. But it did and he did. As he said later p.140:

.....with whom a heavy-limbed , foul-smelling adult had had strenuous intercourse three times that very morning.

Now really, maybe once "by error or accident" carried away or whatever, but three times! Oh ladies and gentlemen of the Jury! Hah!
But otoh:

...it had in a sense, overshot its mark--and plunged into a nightmare. I had been careless, stupid, and ignoble.

Then:

Mingled with pangs of guilt....

Yes! pangs of guilt!

 

[SFG75]

Some thoughts.....

Arthur claimed to have two sides, one as *predator; one as father. He realized that there was a chasm between the two.

"I know that I would be a loving father in the common sense of the word, and to this day cannot decide whether this is a natural complement or a demonoic contradiction."

"...often I have tried to catch myself in the transition from one kind of tenderness to the other, from the simple to the special, and would very much like to know whether they are mutualy exclusive..."

The case for Arthur as *situational offender*

...he had learned to regulate his longing and had hypocritically resigned himself to the notion that only a most fortunate combination of circumstances, a hand most inadvertently dealt him by the fate, could result, in a momentary semblance of the impossible.

 

[StillILearn]

Oh, the subtlety of it all. VN really does spoil one for writers who used to seem to be 'good enough'.

 

[Peder]

Oh, the subtlety of it all. VN really does spoil one for writers who used to seem to be 'good enough'.

Still,
Have no fear!
You are not ruined forever! I just read a Grisham novel.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Still,
Have no fear!
You are not ruined forever! I just read a Grisham novel.
Peder

 

[Peder]

Now I do believe that it got out of hand [to say the least], and that HH didn't fully intend to let it go that far. But it did and he did. As he said later p.140:

Now really, maybe once "by error or accident" carried away or whatever, but three times! Oh ladies and gentlemen of the Jury! Hah!

Yes! pangs of guilt!

Pontalba,
I truly hadn't noticed those remarks of self-criticism by Humbert himself, concentrated as I was on finding out whether or not he was telling the truth. Now those two sentences together seem to make no sense at all, I realize, but they are true, and that is how it is with me and Lolita. There is just so much that I never get into my head all at once.
How could I have missed Humbert saying it had gone wrong and that he -- he Humbert! -- actually felt guilty? Dunno! And so early in the game? Double dunno.
But I do know that I am overjoyed you pointed them out, so that I can go back and reread again and see the episode in yet another different light. Many, many thanks Pontalba (of the Eagle-eyes) for looking at that episode and coming up with further amazing insight. Certainly amazing to me anyway.
Sincerely,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Oh good, so now I get the same message posted twice, after first being told the page could not be displayed and then a V-Bulletin message that it was an invalid link.
Sorry.

 

[pontalba]

peder Thats why I got so darn excited when I read that! I knew I felt that he had guilty feelings, but I could not find evidence to back up my feelings!!!!! I practically jumped up and down with delight at finding that one little phrase "mingled with pangs of guilt"!

 

[SFG75]

Still,
Have no fear!
You are not ruined forever! I just read a Grisham novel.
Peder

I'm afraid that VN has wrecked any interest that I formerly had for popular fiction writers. Who can I turn to now?.....

 

[Peder]

I'm afraid that VN has wrecked any interest that I formerly had for popular fiction writers. Who can I turn to now?.....

SFG,
That's a dangerous question you ask there! Because I'm sure we could all inundate you with recommendations. So on the off chance that it is not rhetorical, please allow me to suggest the recent Kurt Wallander detective series by Henning Mankell, if you are at all into that genre. The thinking (wo)man's mystery writer, with stories set in Sweden.
But if it has to be Nabokov, fortunately he has a lot! I now have almost all his 17 [!] novels and am looking forward to long luxurious reads.
Come on in, the water's fine
Peder

PS there is a also a little "off" switch in my brain which helps, a little.

 

[Peder]

peder Thats why I got so darn excited when I read that! I knew I felt that he had guilty feelings, but I could not find evidence to back up my feelings!!!!! I practically jumped up and down with delight at finding that one little phrase "mingled with pangs of guilt"!

Pontalba,
My reaction also! That is a gem of a find, of the sort we have been wondering about for so long! And there it was. I can still hardly believe it!
/more jumping up and down/

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

peder Thats why I got so darn excited when I read that! I knew I felt that he had guilty feelings, but I could not find evidence to back up my feelings!!!!! I practically jumped up and down with delight at finding that one little phrase "mingled with pangs of guilt"!

Even Jeremy feels some sympathy for ol' HH:

" ... You see, the difference with Humbert is that he's not really a pedophile, in the classical sense." Really? "No, because he realises he's doing wrong. And a pedophile doesn't. A pedophile thinks the girl, or the boy, wants his attentions."

 

[pontalba]

Even Jeremy feels some sympathy for ol' HH:

What an informative article. He seems like a genuinely nice man. But where on earth do they get that he is so good looking? Fairly attractive, yes. Wonderfully seductive voice, natch. But gorgeous? Nah. IMO

Thanks for posting that SIL. I think a lot of people agree with his views, but are too afraid or too sensible to publicize them. And isn't that ridiculous? Its a miserable indictment of "free speech'.

 

[Peder]

Even Jeremy feels some sympathy for ol' HH:

Still,
/gasping for breath/
That is one wild endorsement for a strange reason from an odd guy.
I don't even know which part of that I think is more surprising.
Apparently he set the interviewer back a little too.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Well, actually Humbert is not a classic situational or any kind of "classic" pedophile. He'd never acted out any of his fantasies before, and only acted on this one thru a variety of rather far fetched circumstances artistically contrived by Nabokov. Really, first off, the guys house he was suposed to go to burned down! Then he ran into "hot to trot" mother haze. Then he stupidly keeps a diary, she finds it, deciphers it (hah!), and conveniently runs in front of a car....yeah Right! On top of all that Lolita herself...need I say any more about her inclinations? Oh, and of course Humberts Annabel Lee...........

Yes Humbert is abnormal, and a pedophile, but ain't nuttin "classic" about him in that sense.

 

[Peder]

Well, actually Humbert is not a classic situational or any kind of "classic" pedophile. He'd never acted out any of his fantasies before, and only acted on this one thru a variety of rather far fetched circumstances artistically contrived by Nabokov. Really, first off, the guys house he was suposed to go to burned down! Then he ran into "hot to trot" mother haze. Then he stupidly keeps a diary, she finds it, deciphers it (hah!), and conveniently runs in front of a car....yeah Right! On top of all that Lolita herself...need I say any more about her inclinations? Oh, and of course Humberts Annabel Lee...........

Yes Humbert is abnormal, and a pedophile, but ain't nuttin "classic" about him in that sense.

Pontalba,
The set of circumstances that got him to where he was were very highly contrived, but I thought that, narrowed down to the fact he only "acted out" once, might have qualified him for "situational" pedophile. But as I recall SFG's original link, that would have needed some inner general anger or hostility that drove him to vent his attitude on the nearest person available (with Polly Klaas the example) and not necessarily a child. And that part doesn't sound like our Hum to me. As you suggest, VN clearly works up a scenario where he was perhaps enticed, but was certainly overcome, by an earlier memory. So, thus far, it all sounds to me like psychology a la Nabokov, unless that is what was suggested by the journalistic coverage of the Sally Horner story, or those 'case studies' (with no further details mentioned) that he was aware of back then.

Hoping (maybe against hope) that Freud and Nabokov will say something about it -- my principal reason for being interested in the book. But it's not here yet. (And it might only rehash all the ways that VN took potshots at SF, which is my worst expectation).

The notion that the pedophile thinks the child wants his/her advances, as mentioned by Irons, is totally new to me and contrary to anything I have ever heard. So I wonder where he got that idea? Which is why I called it a "strange" reason. But maybe that was his thespian interpretation of Lolita's interest/curiosity in Humbert and Humbert's reaction to her. Psychology a la thespian!
Really curious to see how it sorts out,
If it ever sorts out,
Peder