# Reading > General Literature >  Lolita

## waxmephilosophical

I am currently reading Lolita, by Nabokov. Everytime I tell someone that, they make a disgusted face at me (because Lolita is about a pedophile). I think that Nabokov was a genius of language, and he writes so eloquently that it is easy to ignore his main character's socially deviant behavior. I especially like the pseudonyms that "Humbert Humbert" uses for himself and the other characters of the story...they're genius! Anyone else read this? Any comments? I'd love to talk about it.

----------


## waxmephilosophical

Oh come on, really, has no one read Lolita?!? It's an awesome book...well then, this is now a book recommendation.

----------


## Koa

I read it when I was 16 hiding it inside the cover of another book so my mum couldnt find out i was reading such things.... :Wink: 

I found it veeeery slooooow....I don't remember much else...

Nabokov was Russian, moved to the USA and wrote in English...he was perfeclty bilingual and translated his own works...he was a teacher and wrote essays...I find all this interesting, especially the linguistic side of it.

This is what comes to my mind now...i might come back with further thoughts after a bit of brainstorming (and of sleep)

----------


## waxmephilosophical

It's interesting to me that people view this book as 'dirty'. It raises so many questions, and really got me thinking. It wasn't long before I didn't even care that Humbert Humbert was a pedophile...becuase that was no longer the point of the book. I agree, it does move a little slowly, but I found Nabokov's writing to be so fluid and eloquent that I wouldn't have cared what he was writing about, or if the book had a plot at all.

----------


## AbdoRinbo

> It's interesting to me that people view this book as 'dirty'. It raises so many questions, and really got me thinking. It wasn't long before I didn't even care that Humbert Humbert was a pedophile...becuase that was no longer the point of the book. I agree, it does move a little slowly, but I found Nabokov's writing to be so fluid and eloquent that I wouldn't have cared what he was writing about, or if the book had a plot at all.


That's the genius of Nobakov, I suppose (though I haven't read 'Lolita'). In 'A Clockwork Orange', the protagonist, Alex, rapes a woman in front of her husband, steals their money, kills another woman and then gets sent to state jail ('staja') for fourteen years. All the time, I was amazed by how sorry I felt for him because here was this horrible person commiting unspeakable strocities, and yet it was because he was able to choose violence over reason that you sincerely admired him . . . and it was when he was finally subdued into pacifism by his conditioning that you really started to feel as though more wrong had been done to him than he had ever done to others. I am familiar with the general theme of 'Lolita', and it sounds like Nobakov assembled a very paradoxical story along the same lines as Burgess some years later.

----------


## waxmephilosophical

I agree. I'm familiar with A Clockwork Orange, but haven't read it yet...it's on my summer reading list though.  :Smile:  Another reason that I was sucked into feeling sorry for Humbert is that he never once rationalizes what he does or how he feels. It would be pointless for someone to psychoanalyze him, because he could point out his deficiencies and the reasons for them better than any psychiatrist could ever do. He knows exactly why he is the way he is, and makes no excuses for it.

----------


## Downer

hi,
I'm new to the forums. 
I read Lolita last year, I was amazed at some of the comments people gave about 'should be reading that kind of thing, especialy at work'.
I don't really understand why it's often put forward as a piece of erotic literature - or indeed 'dirty' I can only assume its only branded so by people that haven't actually read it.
As for the writing style, it's superb. I wonder if the fluidity and elaborate nature of the language he uses comes from the fact that English wasn't his first tongue and he was in some way proving a point by writing in a far better manner than most native English speakers ever could. 
I must get around to reading some more Nabokov - can anyone suggest a good next title of his, I had 'Bend Sinister' in mind.
incidentaly despite the comments about Lolita, noone at work so much as gave me a second glance when I read 'Venus in Furs' and 'the Delta of Venus' in the coffee room, perhaps I should read them out loud,

Home time for me,
Downer

----------


## Koa

> incidentaly despite the comments about Lolita, noone at work so much as gave me a second glance when I read 'Venus in Furs' and 'the Delta of Venus' in the coffee room, perhaps I should read them out loud,


Try "Lady Chatterley's Lover". I'm reading it now and it's very explicit (it was censored too).  :Wink: 
It' s just that Lolita has a FAME of being 'dirty', probably more than other books because the girl is so young... and society fears this kind of thing, even if they're just written in a novel...

----------


## Black Flag

I've never read Lolita, though it sounds interesting. I liked Lady Chatterly's Lover, though I can't stand the female characters in Lawrence's books. They either dislike sex but "graciously" sacrifice themselves to their mates or they like sex but then change their minds about who they wish to have it with. They are fickle and comlicated beyond measure, and their complexity leaves me disgusted. 

Neverthless, I keep reading his novels!

----------


## stavrokin

:-? 
I read the Chinese Version of Lolita
came across many abstacle

afterward, i know that this book was writen by at least 4 kinds of lauguage
Nabokov was a lauguage master, wasn't he?

6 months ago, i bought an oringinal book
oh my God, it's too hard to me!

I'd better go back to improve my English.  :Frown:

----------


## gatsbysghost

Keep trying and you'll get it. I admire you for taking on the daunting task of learning English. I am just starting to pick up Spanish and from what I understand English is one of the hardest languages to learn.

----------


## waxmephilosophical

Yes, he was a master of language! (gushes with admiration)...

----------


## MdaCruz

That's the genius of Nobakov, I suppose (though I haven't read 'Lolita'). In 'A Clockwork Orange', the protagonist, Alex, rapes a woman in front of her husband, steals their money, kills another woman and then gets sent to state jail ('staja') for fourteen years. All the time, I was amazed by how sorry I felt for him because here was this horrible person commiting unspeakable strocities, and yet it was because he was able to choose violence over reason that you sincerely admired him . . . and it was when 
he was finally subdued into pacifism by his conditioning that you really started to feel as though more wrong had been done to him than he had ever done to others. I am familiar with the general theme of 'Lolita', and it sounds like Nobakov assembled a very paradoxical story along the same lines as Burgess some years later.[/quote]

Having read both Burgess's _A Clockwork Orange_ and Nabokov's _Lolita_ I can assure you that while both books contain deviant behavior the themes and writing styles are completely different. I dont know if you read Burgesss 21 chapter complete text or the truncated 20 chapter Americanized, Kubrickian version but if you compare the two works using the complete 21 chapter text you will note that while Burgess remains wedded to the idea of salvation for all Nabokov harbors no such ideals. While Alex finds peace and fulfillment, or at least Burgess leads us to believe he will, Nabokovs Humbert and Dolores are both destroyed by their experiences. Humbert and Dolores both play the role of the destroyer of lives and the victim of that same destroyer, Nabokov sums up this idea near the end of _Lolita_, He broke my heart. You merely broke my life. Unlike Burgesss Alex, Nabokov holds out no hope of salvation for his characters and their illicit and impure love. Nabokov, unlike Burgess, is not in the business of giving us happy endings.Burgess gave us a tale of good and evil; of the humanity inherit in choosing between the two, and of the ability of humanity to, eventually and in whatever round-about manner, choose good over evil. Nabokov gave us a tale of human failings, human weakness, the complexities of humanity, and lives lying in rubble with no phoenix arising from the ashes. Humbert and Dolores werent granted Alexs second chance at life.

----------


## Koa

> :-? 
> I read the Chinese Version of Lolita
> came across many abstacle
> 
> afterward, i know that this book was writen by at least 4 kinds of lauguage
> Nabokov was a lauguage master, wasn't he?
> 
> 6 months ago, i bought an oringinal book
> oh my God, it's too hard to me!
> ...


??? I thought Lolita was written originally in American English, even if nabokov was Russian... I know he was bilingual and translated his own works... (i believe I've already said this somewhere). Anything else I need to know about the languages???




> Keep trying and you'll get it. I admire you for taking on the daunting task of learning English. I am just starting to pick up Spanish and from what I understand English is one of the hardest languages to learn.


*
gatsbysghost*, English is not too hard. Its grammar is incredibly easy to learn, then it's hard to master the whole of the language because it's very varied etc... But grammatically, I'm sure it's the easiest language I've ever known. If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...

----------


## MdaCruz

Nabokov wrote most of his later works, including _Lolita_ in English.

----------


## Sitaram

http://avalon.unomaha.edu/itwsjr/Thi...gLolita.15.htm

I was quite impressed by a television interview with Azar Nafisi, author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran."

What caught my attention was when Nafisi quoted Nabokov's statement, from his novel "Bend Sinister," that curiosity...is insubordination in its purest form.

Nabokov's novel, Bend Sinister is a dramatic fantasy of modern man menaced by the rising tyrant State which, under the familiar slogans of Equality and Community, extinguishes the free intelligence and all normal human relations.

Nabokov's Lolita, whose personality is denied and whose life is confiscated by Humbert, felt close to them, whose ambitions and individualities were crushed by the rules dictated by Khomeini and his successors.

In James's Daisy Miller, the students admired the woman who has the courage to be herself despite the strict standards imposed by society.

The Great Gatsby showed them the power of dreams and the danger to make these dreams come true. 

Literature can be used in a variety of ways, but according to Nafisi, "do not, under any circumstance, belittle a work of fiction by trying to turn it into a carbon copy of real life; what we search for is not so much reality but the epiphany of truth" (p. 3). 

What is the connection between literature and morality? To begin with, Nafisis quote of the German philosopher Theodor Adorno is worth repeating: "the highest form of morality is not to feel at home in ones own home" (p. 94). 

The interview with Professor Nafisi inspired me to do an internet search on Nabokov. The most inspiring thing I found is at

http://www.vahidnab.com/kafka.htm

Nabokov's essay on Kafka's "Metamorphosis."

The most inspiring statement in that essay, for me, is:

"Curiously enough, Gregor the beetle never found out that he had wings under the hard covering of his back. (This is a very nice observation on my part to be treasured all your lives. Some Gregors, some Joes and Janes, do not know that they have wings.) "

=======================

I am still searching for my wings. - Sitaram

----------


## Ron Price

SELF-CONTROL

In 1962, on the eve of the start of my pioneering life, the controversial movie Lolita was released. Lolita was a listless and rebellious teenager, a character created in a poetic idiom by Russian novelist Vladimir Nabokov in his 309 page 1955 analysis of the nature of love. A middle-aged man, played by James Mason, falls in love with Lolita, a girl of fifteen. She is a precocious, seductive, pubescent, beautiful "nymphet." The film was Stanley Kubrick's sixth and his first independent effort. This experience is a common one in the human condition: nymphet-pubescent girls and older men. In todays world the theme, while still controversial, has a greater social acceptance. -Ron Price , Pioneering Over Four Epochs, June 10, 2004.

I'd dried out to the bone
in Australia's semi-desert 
and Canada's frozen north
and she was sweet and hot,
and full of an erotic life
that I had lost or never found.
Where her hand reached down,
where my hand reached down
when we laid in the grass,
in the woods, wherever we could
in the spring and summer days
of the sixties which came 
a little late downunder when
Nixon and Whitlam were just 
beginning on their road out
of a different kind of game.
And I was learning the dangers
of youthful seduction and fatal
attractions to the sweet and hot.

The damage done was not
as great as it was to Mason's
who gave away all that he had
for the passions of the hour,
the dalliance, the fatal attraction.
My dalliance of, perhaps, three
months taught me a lesson
I seemed to learn over again
in different forms: self-control
of the concupiscible appetite
for the progress of my soul.1

1 The Universal House of Justice, Letter dated February 6th 1973 to all NSAs.

Ron Price
June 10 2004

----------


## roxanacazan

To those who have read Lolita:

Do you really think that Humbert is just a pedophile and poor Lolita is but an abused kiddo? I just have the feeling that actually Lolita is to be blamed; I'm not saying by this that I disconsider the problematics of child abuse, but in this particular case and in literature at large, morality/ethics are discussed in terms of artistic experience; thus, there's no point is saying that Lo is an poor abused child, that's out of the question. What surprises me is her double nature!!!! Even if we do approach the abuse issue, one could argue that an abused kid is more likely to withdraw from the sexual scene and become a sexually disabled individual; in Lo's case, she's always flirting with guys, not to mentions that she runs away from Humbert just to have a relationship with some other man.
Another idea would be, is this the real way a 12-13 year-old girl talks and feels about sex? I remember that when I was 13 I was very ashamed of my breasts and legs, and I would cover them; I would never think of sex, on the contrary, I would be disgusted; in a Freudian perspective, every child has a sexual experience in her/his childhood, BUT the experience is not purposely sought or acknowledged!!!
In this sense, doubled by the fact that Humbert is an UNRELIABLE narrator, how can one reallt take him for granted whenever he depicts Lo as abused, or crying? She is not verosimile!

What's your opinion about this?

Roxana

----------


## baddad

roxana;

It is not uncommon for sexually abused children to become permiscious. It is not uncommon for sexually abused children to experiment with any and all types of sexual activity/depravity, or to become addicted to sex, addicted to the pleasurable feelings (often compounded by massive guilt), as much as an addict becomes addicted to any substance.
Pedophile? In the eyes of some societies yes....others...no. Lolita to blame for some parts of this scenario? No matter her impetus, need or rationale.....she is still a child and so is guilty of little other than being ignorant/uneducated by those responsible for her welfare at an earlier age. Is she old enough to consider all the ramifications of the decisions she is making, and the behaviors she is engaging in?

----------


## Helga

I think it is a very beautyful story. My English teacher thinks I'm weird because of what I see in so many books including Lolita. she only saw the uglyness in it and the whole class stared at me like I was a freak when I pointed out how Nabakov found sweetness in things that are so ugly and he was a brilliant man, he made me understand the mind of both the girl and the man. 

(They also thought it was weird to find Clegg in the collector by Fowles romantic)

----------


## roxanacazan

Baddad

"she is still a child and so is guilty of little other than being ignorant/uneducated by those responsible for her welfare at an earlier age. Is she old enough to consider all the ramifications of the decisions she is making, and the behaviors she is engaging in?[/QUOTE]"
So you mean that age is an excuse? So when you are 12-13 you can do anything of the sort, you're just a silly kid? What if at times she's behaving really cunningly? What sort of a kid for example, tells her "dad" that she had been having sex every day at camp with Charlie? I mean, if I would have done such a thing, I would have kept it a secret, I would have been ashamed (for lack of a better word) of it, and wouldn't disclose it not even to my friends, not to mention an adult. And first of all, I do not believe she's been abused by Humbert. When they ahd sex, she was not still a virgin!!! If it wasn't for her, Humbert would have been contepted with his voyeurism or his vivid imagination.

----------


## Ron Price

> SELF-CONTROL
> 
> In 1962, on the eve of the start of my pioneering life, the controversial movie Lolita was released. Lolita was a listless and rebellious teenager, a character created in a poetic idiom by Russian novelist Vladimir Nabokov in his 309 page 1955 analysis of the nature of love. A middle-aged man, played by James Mason, falls in love with Lolita, a girl of fifteen. She is a precocious, seductive, pubescent, beautiful "nymphet." The film was Stanley Kubrick's sixth and his first independent effort. This experience is a common one in the human condition: nymphet-pubescent girls and older men. In todays world the theme, while still controversial, has a greater social acceptance. -Ron Price , Pioneering Over Four Epochs, June 10, 2004.
> 
> I'd dried out to the bone
> in Australia's semi-desert 
> and Canada's frozen north
> and she was sweet and hot,
> and full of an erotic life
> ...


_______________________________
Six months after writing this prose-poem, I thought I would append the following quotations from the Baha'i Writings to this reflection on Lolita:
________________________________________
Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage; according to the Baha'i Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse. The Baha'i youth should, on the one hand, be taught the lesson of self-control which, when exercised, undoubtedly has a salutary effect on the development of character and of personality in general, and on the other should be advised, nay even encouraged, to contract marriage while still young and in full possession of their physical vigour.-Shoghi Effendi: A Chaste and Holy Life, Page: 56.
_________________________
The exercise of self-control in this, as in so very many other aspects of life, has a beneficial effect on the progress of the soul. It should, moreover, be borne in mind that although to be married is highly desirable, and Baha'u'llah has strongly recommended it, it is not the central purpose of life. If a person has to wait a considerable period before finding a spouse, or if ultimately, he or she must remain single, it does not mean that he or she is thereby unable to fulfil his or her life's purpose." -Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 366.
_____________________________________________
As a 60 year old man and as a person who has been associated with the Baha'i Faith for over 50 years, I am conscious of the high standard to which Baha'is are called. I place these quotations here for I think they place my piece of writing in a broader perspective. Here is another quote:
________________________________
.....there existeth in man a faculty which deterreth him from, and guardeth him against, whatever is unworthy and unseemly, and which is known as his sense of shame. This, however, is confined to but a few; all have not possessed and do not possess it. 
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 63)
______________________________
the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene. 
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, Page: 110)
____________________________________

----------


## Avalive

Yea,that book takes ur breath away

----------


## Rechka

I read Lolita five years ago so my perception of Lolita may be a little distorted as I have the memory of a chicken. However, I feel that in no way is the book vulgar or condemnable. It is by no means equal to any story of child abuse that you might read about in the paper these days. Many may argue that these are not the times for simulated pedophilia when there is so much real pedophilia in the world. However, in Nabokov's _Pale Fire_ you will find the following excerpt: "[...] reality is neither the subject nor the object of true art which creates its own special reality having nothing to do with the average "reality" perceived by the communal eye." I think that thought is appropriate here.

This story of the "love affair" between a mature man and a pubescent girl is at times comical but always tragic, full of ambiguety and madness. A forbidden relationship in today's society and certainly Nabokov and his narrator know that such a relationship is wrong. Humbert Humbert is aware that he is a monster, a "brute". He may well be just that but he is also a man tortured by memories of his lost adolescent love. In his eyes, Lolita becomes the "reincarnation" of that lost lover. His one and only love before him once again, so close and so real that he can reach out and touch her -pardon the pun. His human obsession with Lolita suffocates him. He is constantly struggling against his conscience. For me professor Humbert is a character worthy of compassion. 

I don't believe that Humbert Humbert is a "pedophile" in the full extent of the word. He is a man too old or not young enough to be in love with this girl but without a doubt he is in love with Lolita. He is not just a mature man attracted to young girls. The language he employs to describe her carries such beauty, poignance and poetry. It is moving and memorable in every aspect. Nowhere in the book will you find obscenity; nowhere an encouragement for pedophilia or incest. 

Nabokov, coincidentally, was born the same day as Shakespeare and Cervantes. Like these two virtuosos of language, Nabokov's mastery of the English language is superb, even more so if you consider that it is not his mother tongue. Lolita is plagued with puns and literary allusions. To read Nabokov is to indulge yourself in literary richness throughout its passages. Few times has English been so gracefully written. It seems ironic that non English readers have discovered this book's worth with so much of Nabokov's wittiness and skill lost in translation.

----------


## Sitaram

> In Nabokov's _Pale Fire_ you will find the following excerpt: "[...] reality is neither the subject nor the object of true art which creates its own special reality having nothing to do with the average "reality" perceived by the communal eye."


Superb!

(The forum monster has just informed me that my message is too short and I must lengthen it to at least ten words, so I shall echo back to monster its own words, and it shall surely hear them anew and find them most profound)

----------


## roxanacazan

But what do you think about her, Lolita, the 12, 13, 14 years old girl? Do girls her age behave the way she does? Is she oversexualized? Is she the seductress?

----------


## Sitaram

You have asked me what I think. I shall tell you some of my thoughts, based on my life experiences. The topic is sex, so I shall strive to speak in the most tasteful and tactful manner possible. I hope that my words offend no one.


We are most likely all equally sexual, males and females. The difference for each of us lies in how much of it is expressed and how much is repressed. That difference of expression vs repression is most likely a function of many things; our peer group standards, the era in which we live, our religious upbringing, our parents, our education, so many things. 

I used to work in a neighborhood which was regularly patrolled by prostitutes. Many, but not all, were addicted to heroine. I asked one of them one day, a petite, almost child like woman in her late 20's, how she got started. She told me that she grew up near a military base and by the time she was 18, she had been with several hundred men.

My step-daughter went to school with a girl from the neighborhood who by the age of 13 had been with nine lovers (all of whom were older teenaged boys.) Her story was a very sad one. At age 14, she developed lukemia, a cancer of the blood cells. She underwent chemotherapy. All her hair fell out. The doctors explained to her that she could no longer be sexually active because her immune system was now compromised by the chemotherapy. After a year, she suddenly went into remission (something which often happens but rarely lasts.) She began to look healthier. She wore a wig while her hair grew back. She became sexually active again, but this time, she went on a rampage through the neighborhood, finding as many partners as she could. It was as though she knew she did not have long, and she wanted to burn her candle at both ends while she had some time left. After a year in remission, cancer came back with a vengence. She developed a tumor in her face which left a large hole. She died soon thereafter. She used to come home with my step-daugher sometimes. She looked so young and innocent. She acted so quite and shy. To look at her, you would never guess that there was another side to her life. The neighborhood teens would gossip about her adventures. One night, on a dare, she bent over at a street corner intersection and had intercourse. Another time, again, on a dare, she climbed the stairs of a building with some boys and on each landing made love to a different one.


I could tell you so many stories, true stories, about so many young girls. My step-daughter had her own problems, dropped out of highschool, became pregnant, when through a number of different partners/relationship, all before she was 16. She became suicidal at one point, and was in a mental hospital for teenagers. Many of the teenagers in her ward had problems with sex, drugs, alcohol, depression, suicidal thoughts. I visited her every day. There was on absolutly gorgeous blond patient aged 17. The first time I saw her in a crowed room, she made a strange seductive gesture to me with her eyes. During the weeks that I visited my step-daughter, this patient told me some episodes from her life. In high school, she took about ten teenaged boys into the bathroom, and they all lined up to take their turn.


I knew of one Spanish family with a 14 year old girl, and her lover was 26. They liked him. They approved. Technically, he could have gone to prison for statutory, but no one was complaining, no one was pressing charges. They felt he was decent, had a job, and if their daughter were not with him, she might be with a drop-out drug dealer.

I suppose I will close this post by telling you a true story of something which happend around 1910-1916. My wife's mother was widowed, and married a man much her senior. She was in her 50's and he was in his 70's or older. He had been a marine officer prior to World War II and had served as an officer during World War II. He was a very strict military type. Whenever I visited him, he would shout at me, and scold me for little things, like putting my elbow on the table. One day we came to see them. I walked in, looked at him and announced "Ive come to drink your whiskey and smoke your tobacco." He laughed, cussed me out, and gave me a drink and a cigar. The women went out shopping and we were alone. I looked at the gruff old man and thought to myself, wickedly "I know how I can make him REALLY angry." So, I said to him "Tell me, sir, how old were you the first time you had sexual experience?" Well, he didn't get angry. He broke into a broad grin and started laughing. He expained: "I was about twelve years old. It was a GROUP EFFORT. Six of my friends had discovered a Polish maid down the street who was "very friendly." So, the seven of us went down to see her one day. We lined up, and took our turn, one after the other.

I was astounded. I didnt ask him the year, but I am guessing this was around 1910-1916. We think of those years as very conservative and repressed. Had that maid been discovered with those boys today, it would be an international scandal and she would go to prison. Back in those times, people probably would have laughed and hushed it up.

One of Freud's disciples, Wilhelm Reich, went on to become a psychologist/psychiatrist and invented something called the "orgone" machine. I read his autobiography. He tells of being 5 years old, and a teenaged servant girl was caring for him. This was during the late 1800's. He said the girl would lie on the bed, and pretend to be sound asleep, and remain motionless while he "explored" beneath her dress.

I can remember from my own childhood. When I was aged 9 or so, I was very curious about women and sex. At that age of nine, I did approach one adult woman who was my caretaker, with an inappropriate request/proposition. She seemed shocked, understandably, and said no. But had she said yes, and done something inappropriate with me, then it would be the same thing as Lolita, a woman old enough to be my mother being intimate with me. And, since I was the one to suggest the idea, I suppose I would be the one guilty of seduction.

Always remember, the most seductive word anyone can say is "Yes."

Which reminds me of e. e. cummings:

yes is a world.
and in this world of yes live
(skilfully curled)
all worlds

love is a place.
and through this place of love move
(with brightness of peace)
all places.

----------


## Rechka

Sitaram, looks like you got enough material there to write a book yourself! hehehe

----------


## Sitaram

Ur.... uhhh... I AM writing a book at http://toosmallforsupernova.org

or did you mean a book about SEX

----------


## Rechka

hehehe, yes, a book about sex - a controversial one at that.

----------


## Sitaram

I tried to write something autobiographical here:

http://toosmallforsupernova.org/fromtheauthor.htm

but it started to touch upon sex.... in a most tasteful manner, I hope...

but to keep on the Lolita thread, I think that at age nine I was a prime example of a male version of Lolita, perfectly capable of premeditated seduction.... in fact, I dont "think," rather I "KNOW" beyond any shadow of a doubt. 

Yet in our society of today, if a child, such as I was, is ever successful, then it means a prison sentence for the adult.

----------


## Rechka

I have been staring at this quick reply for the longest time. I start writing something, then I see the contradiction, so I type delete and type delete again. When it comes to sex there is just too much contradiction so I am going to just stick by my other post. Is fiction, art in this case, subject to ethics?

----------


## baddad

... Art can have no ethic. Art is about vision........art is about new perspectives......ethics are about acceptance.......

----------


## Scheherazade

But surely the person who performs or creates the art has ethics? And those reflect in their work?

----------


## Sitaram

Oh, you mean like Baudelaire and Rimbaud? Or perhaps you were thinking of Truman Capote or F. Scott Fitzgerald? Hemingway perhaps? 

Hmmm.... lets see. Policemen must always be good and honest, right? I mean, they enforce the law! Or, judges, who create the laws! Hard to imagine a corrupt judge.

I guess its only those politicians, that everyone votes for, and those clergymen that everyone looks to for guidance who become corrupt and get involved in scandals.

There are a lot of people in the world who "talk the talk" but do not "walk the walk."


Here is an interesting example from the links I posted yesterday on Lawrence Durrell.

http://www.50connect.co.uk/turner/cr...icismLD05.html




> Alas, one can be a great writer and a sordid little sh!t. Specifically, though, can one write about love and not know anything about it? Durrells and Millers obsession with sex  Miller in his late eighties was canoodeling twenty year old Asian girls  seems adolescent, indeed retarded. At the level of emotional truth Durrell appears completely inadequate. He remains stridently anti-Christian, and in a way this is ones entrée: what a massively selfish thing it is to be a writer. But is this necessarily so, or just a peculiarity of Durrell? 
> 
> 
> His marriages last until a child is born, then he becomes jealous, rejecting, aggressive. After Claude, who seems to have managed to type for and organise him, and to have created for a few blessed years the structure of a real family for herself, Durrell and their four children by other spouses, Ghislaine, his next wife, is humiliated and brutalised from the first elements of the wedding. Before, during and after these and his other marriages, Larry demonstrated clearly that he would sleep with anyone at all. This suggests compulsiveness, the absence of meaning. Tender and bountiful with friends, he seems never to have a made a success of any deeper relationship. I recall the books about Zen by Alan Watts, approved of by Durrell, and how the best commentary on these is a knowledge of his life (another sordid little sh!t). The words just do not tie up with the reality.



Perhaps we should turn everything around and ask, not whether art and artists have and reflect ethics, but rather may ethics be artistic, or may ethical dynamics and dissonance serve as the material or building blocks which an artist uses to create a fictive world in which there is a definition beauty or a definition of truth.


Consider Oscar Wilde and "Picture of Dorian Gray." Oscar Wilde was openly gay in a society and era during which such a lifestyle was criminalized and condemned. Oscar Wilde, in a sense, creates art by means of juxtaposing the ethics of a Christian Victorian society side by side with the hypocrisy of their actions. For Wilde, the very essense of the Christian message, forgiveness for all sins, is something most monstrous (as it was for Gandhi) in that it creates a Dorian Gray, all pure and innocent on the outside, but, somewhere else, locked away, a picture of a monster oozing stench and corruption.

----------


## Scheherazade

Ethics are set of beliefs which control our behaviour, right? Therefore everyone would have sets of beliefs;whether they would be morally admirable or acceptable in traditional sense is another question.
An artist's beliefs -or sometimes the ones s/he stands against- are bound to reflect in his/her work. To expect otherwise is to assume their minds to be empty and not affected by any prior experience.

----------


## Sitaram

Now, in the New Testament (which may certainly be considered a form of literature), when the devil tempts Jesus in the wilderness, it is obvious that the devil has a set of beliefs designed to control behavior, and the devil is sufficiently well versed in Biblical scholarship to be able to quote scripture in support of his beliefs. 

We see, in Milton's Paradise Lost, Satin, a former angel, now caste out from heaven, say "Evil be thou my good."

Plato's Republic is quite an investigation of ethics. There are bad boys like Thrasymachus whose ethics are more or less "do good to our friends and get even with our enemies."

The hackneyed phrase "honor among thieves" is a way of saying that thieves have a form of ethics (the Mafia has a code of honor and a sense of disgrace in the face of betrayal.)

----------


## Scheherazade

The fact we do not agree with someone's ethics does not nullify their existence, surely?

----------


## Sitaram

The real point is that the devil has ethics, the mafia has ethics. Socrates said "every person by nature desires the good." "Ethics" does not equate to "good" or "virtue" ipso facto. We are lulled into a false sense of goodness and virtue, just as children have the naieve notion that all policemen and clergymen are good.

The artist literally creates a fictive world, with laws, ethics, a physics and chemistry all its own, where a certain kind of causality takes place. In fairy tales, it is a world where the wicked are punished and the virtuous are rewarded and live happily ever after. In some existential work, perhaps, the wicked prosper and prevail, and the innocent is mocked, tormented, destroyed.

Possibly, one might speak of the meta-ethics of the author from an omniscient vantage point.


The word "ethics" is a problematic word. We tend to confuse "ethics" 
with "morality" and we tend to confuse "morality" with some notion of 
absolute good.

The ethics of Oscar Wilde's time condemned homosexuality as a sin 
and crime, and also considered the word "aint" as incorrect.

In my own lifetime, in the 1960's, the word "aint" was added to 
dictionaries, so children might no longer taunt that "aint AINT in the 
dictionary. Also, during the 1960's or 70s, homosexuality was 
declassified as a mental illness or abnormality and removed from the 
DSMIII-R (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders.)


Below is a wonderful link which discusses the "ethics" of chemists.


http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/davis.htm







> Ethics has at least five senses in 
> ordinary English. In one, it is a mere synonym for ordinary morality, 
> those universal standards of conduct that apply to moral agents 
> simply because they are moral agents. Etymology fully justifies this 
> first sense. The root for ethics (ethos) is the Greek word for custom 
> just as the root of morality (mores) is the Latin word for it. 
> 
> Etymologically, ethics and morality are twins (as are ethic and 
> morale). In this first sense of ethics, chemists and engineers must 
> ...




As I think on these matters, I would venture to say that the driving 
force of fiction and art is often the dissonace and conflict of 
ethics/morality/conscience verses personal desires and the good of 
society. On the one hand, military service and patriotism are noble, 
but on the other hand we have artistic expressions such as Picasso's 
"Guernica" painting, and novels like "The Red Badge of Courage" and 
"All Quiet on the Western Front."

e.e. cummings has a wonderful line about "the dilemma of flutes." It 
is our own existential dilemma, torn between conflicting ethics and 
allegiences, which powers and drives drama.


Some of you might find it interesting to read an essay I wrote entitled 
"Good, Evil and Ideas Which Transform"


http://toosmallforsupernova.org/page005.htm





> Imagine, if good and evil were analogous to those high and low energy molecules in the atmosphere. A certain balanced measure of both constitute a normal atmosphere while an imbalance creates a moral dilemma. 
> 
> I am very fond of an old saying from India: "The cow and the bee and the viper all drink the same water from a pond, and yet the cow transforms that water into soothing milk, while the bee transforms the very same water into honey, yet the viper transforms the water into a deadly poisonous venom." How may we see molecules of good and evil in the water which surrounds us, and in what manner do we personally transform the world around us as we pass through this life? 
> 
> ......
> 
> In Genesis, we see that at the end of each day of creation, God looks and sees that "It is GOOD". But when the entire work of creation is finally completed, God looks and sees that "it is VERY GOOD". Jewish tradition sees within this "very good" the "yetzer harah", the natural human tendency or inclination towards evil which may be spiritually harnessed as an energy and redirected towards GOOD. For example, the man with a tendency towards greed may become greedy for Torah knowledge or spiritual wisdom. 
> 
> R. Nahman said in R. Samuel's name: BEHOLD, IT WAS VERY GOOD refers to the Good Desire; AND BEHOLD, IT WAS VERY GOOD, to the Evil Desire. Can then the Evil Desire be very good? That would be extraordinary! But for the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: 
> ...

----------


## Scheherazade

So do you agree with



> ... Art can have no ethic. Art is about vision........art is about new perspectives......ethics are about acceptance.......


or not?

*edit*

Just realised you have editted your previous reply  :Smile: 

I know that you like playing, please excuse the expression-no offence meant, devil's advocate but can you simply tell me whether you personally -based your own ethics  :Wink:  - agree with baddad's statement or not? Yes or no?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Sitaram

There is mathematics, but then there is the metamathematics of mathematician Kurt Godel.

There are philosophies, but then there is the metaphilosophy of Hegel's "Phenomenology."

There are ethics, and then there is metaethics.

There is a formal study of ethics, with professors and books, so obviously, since they analyze and compare different ethical systems, there is an "ethics of ethics."

We must never be too hasty to agree to anything. Santayana said that doubt and scepticism are like our virginity; we must not be anxious and willing to surrender it to the first person (or idea) which somes along.

There are those who feel that things are simple, straight forward, cut and dry, and they are anxious to quickly arrive at agreement with "yes or no" questions, and they feel vulnerable and out of control if they cannot quickly pidgeonhole issues.

Then there are others who want to delve deeper, to peel away ever greater levels of complexity, and hold judgment in abeyance.


I am thinking now about Samuel Clemens and Harriet Beecher Stow. In their time and society, slavery was legal, and there was a certain "ethos" in place.

The artist/author stands back and surveys the ethics of time and places, and has the "vision" to see through or beyond it, and critique it with a metaethics.
Each work of art has its own ethics, or metaethics, but it is often attacked by its contemporary society and culture.

People attacked Picasso because "women do not have three breasts, and certainly not on the forehead." Well, for Picasso, breaking THEIR rules became his rule.

People tend to attack, criticize and reject what is new and different, but gradually it becomes accepted, and ultimately it becomes classical and perhaps irreproachable.

----------


## Scheherazade

Yet, sometimes we face the risk of delving too deep into things, so much so that we cannot find the way back home... or even forget why we have been delving, losing the sight of the question and answer all at the same time.

----------


## Sitaram

I will take drowning in the depths over dog-paddling in the shallows any day. I like taking risks. But that's just "me." Besides, digging deep is hard work, and sometimes there are rewards.

I am reminded of the perennial feud between Hemingway and Faulkner. Faulkner said, "Hemingway was never known to send his reader to a dictionary." Hemingway had his own rebuttal to Faulkner. But Faulkner also criticized Hemingway, saying "He found a certain niche, voice, style, at which he was quite excellent. BUT, he never ventured out of that style. For me, it is better to strive for something beyond, even if it means failure."

I suppose I am more of a Faulkner than a Hemingway.

What can I say. We live in a free society where we are free even to be fools, if that is what freedom leads to. But I do not demand that anyone follows me, or that they agree with me.

I don't believe I have in any of my posting to date told anyone what they should or should not do or think, or insisted that they agree with me (at least I sincerely hope I have not.)

----------


## Scheherazade

Being different in our views makes neither of us fools but simply... different.

----------


## Sitaram

Consider how this thread on Nabokov's "Lolita" started. 

Some people were reading it when suddenly society (the moral majority which are neither moral nor a majority) looked over their shoulder and said, "Oh, how wicked of you to read such a book, since it deals with pedophilia."

Seems pretty cut-and-dry, "yes or no", true or false. Surely you are not in favor of pedophilia! Surely you do not approve of genocide! Tsk, Tsk, how politically incorrect of you!

In school, we used to taunt one another with "damned if you do and damned if you dont" questions, like "does your mother know you do wicked things when your alone?" (I cleaned up the example). The charm of such a question is that it poses itself as a simple "yes or no" question, but it is not a valid "yes or no" question. If I give you a cup of tea and say "do you care for sugar, yes or no?" then that is a valid yes or no question. But then, if you were to have ME to tea, and present me with such an allegedly simple and straight-forward "yes or no" question, I would protest and say: "Well, I am diabetic, so I cannot have sugar, but I want my tea to taste sweet, so I request aspartamine (but not splenda)", but THEN when I realize that the tea you are giving me is Lapsang Suchong, with its smokey flavor, ruined by sweeteners, I would put back the packet of "Equal" and take the tea straight.
Wittgenstein was correct to observe that there are some things we must pass over in silence.



Nothing that is of profound philosophical or artistic or theological significance lends its self to simple "yes or no" or "true or false."

When we look at the brilliance of Nabokov, his language, his message, and we look deeply into the personality of the characters, and then we say "hey this might be of great artistic importance with some profound message, perhaps its not so pornographic after all."

You ask me for a simple "yes or no" but I have never been a simple "yes or no" kind of person. That is part of my "style." If you will notice, I never once use any kind of "smiley" icon. Its "not my style." I want to depend solely upon words and ideas to make my points. I rarely address myself to particular individuals, and solicit their personal opinion or agreement. I feel that one great error of our culture and heritage is using common majority consensus as a touchstone for truth or justice. I am preoccupied with ideas, not individuals or personalities. In a brief hundred years from now, all of us who post here will be dead. It shall not matter if Sally agreed with Joe. If any of our words, posts survive, then it is the words and ideas which shall stand on their own merit or demerit in the minds of future readers, yet unborn.

In 1998 I had a dialogue with a fanatical Christian which I posted
under the title:

Beware the Simple Answer YES or NO 

http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page006.htm

In that dialogue, I attempt to explain what I see as the deficiencies in "yes or no" questions and a linear type of Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning of the form: A implies B (wouldn't you agree, "yes or no?"), B implies C.... X implies Y (ohhh and I already got you to say yes to "Q implies R" so dont try to wriggle out of this now).... and finally Y implies Z, so therefore I have forced you to agree that God exists (or some such conclusion.)

I do not see the world in terms of "yes or no" or "true or false."

I see the world in terms of an ancient Jain logic term, "anekantavada" (sometimes called "many-pointedness") which simply translates as "no one single point of view." It means that any attempt to capture the "truth" in words is but a partial statement of the truth as seen from only one perspective. Wittgenstein got into this sort of thing.

In the ninth century C.E. a theologian by the name of Shankaracharya arose in India, and converted all of India back to Hinduism from Buddhism. Shankaracharya wrote one hymn which starts "Oh Thou, from whom all words recoil." Apophatic means "speaking away" from a subject. The writings of so-called Dionysius the Areopagite gave apophatic theology a firm foundation. It is difficult to say what something (such as God, or Justice) IS, so we shall be apophatic in our approach and say all that IT IS NOT, and perhaps somehow we shall sneak up on God, or truth, or beauty or justice just as calculus sneaks up on an incommensurable area by approaching the limit of an infinite sum.

As I reconsider the original phrase which started all this, namely "Art can have no ethic," I see room for refinement, qualification.

Indeed, an author and a work has its own internal ethics, physics, karma.
A book might be saying "its ok to be gay" for example. When we say "Art can have no ethic" I think what we are really trying to say is that the prevailing arbitrary "ethic" of our particular society and times has no right to silence the artistic voice. This is freedom of speech in a democracy. Books such as Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer were "banned in Boston" until around the 1950s when certain high court decisions proclaimed that it was "ok" to publish such books. In the early 1900s, a certain woman in America was publishing Ulysses in serialized form in her magazine. The scene which got her in trouble with the law was a beautiful passage describing a young man and woman at a fireworks display. As the young woman leaned farther and farther back to follow the course of a roman candle in the sky, the young man was peeking up her dress and admiring her charms. By todays standards the passage seems harmless.

The mistake of the "moral majority" and all those Texan fundamentalists is that they equate our democratic republic only with "majority rule." What they conveniently forget is that our Constitution is as much about protecting the rights of the minority as it is about soliciting the consensus of the majority.

We may dislike pornography, but when we try to suppress it, we run the risk of replacing it with something far more filthy and ugly, namely the repressive book-burning mentality of a theocracy with blasphemy laws, enforcing an external morality with torture and amputation.

===========

I have re-read this entire thread a number of times this morning (which started for me at 4:30am and it is now 9am)

I see a statement posted by Rechka:

"Is fiction, art in this case, subject to ethics?"

A possible refinement is "SHOULD fiction be subject to ethics." OF COURSE, it IS subject, or should I say subjectED to the ethics of the moral majority all the time or to the tastes of whining critics who have never written anything of their own which is profound. Everytime a manuscript is rejected by a publisher, it has been sujected to MONITARY ethics. This Internet is kind of a revolution to all this censorship because it allows any fool (like me) to get a site for a few dollars a year, and speak their mind to the world, infiltrating the search engines.

----------


## Ron Price

Since this thread has gone on and on and on, I thought I'd add a poetic mixture to the fire. It may cause the thread to blaze up; it may even put an end to the fire. Let us see:
__________________________________________________ _  :Brow:  

PROVOCATIVE AND INFLAMMATORY

Sappho shows that love poetry is how Western personality defines itself; some loved person exists in this poetry primarily as a focus of the poet's consciousness. This 'love' is essentially: infatuation, fascination, a bittersweet state. It is like a storm, sudden and passing. The imagery is vivid and luminous, sometimes boiling with ecstatic elemental forms. For poets like Yeats "women's haunting beauty is the heart of life's mystery", or, like Roethke, she is an unknowable Muse ruling an oozy sexual matrix. From Sappho to our time there is a tormented history of Western 'love' available for our study. -Ron Price with thanks to Camille Paglia, Vamps and Tramps: New Essays, Viking Press, 1994, pp. 319-326.  :Cool:  


They came at me right from
an early age: the most beautiful
things imaginable, pierced my
brain, penetrated my inmost
being: sultry, smoldering,
caresses on hot summer days,
tortured affairs in my dreams;
I must have been dependent
even then on some force that
threatened to blow me away
with lust and rage and that now
follows me into my old age,
something so utterly provocative,
vibrations and signals, inflammatory.  :Goof:  

Ron Price
20 June 1998  :Banana:

----------


## starrwriter

As a fiction writer, Russian-born author Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) was known for his artistry, word play and descriptive detail. His novels include "Despair," (1937) "Laughter In The Dark" (1938) and "Pale Fire" (1962) but his most famous book was "Lolita" (1955). He also wrote many short stories (best collection "Details Of A Sunset and Other Stories") and poetry.

Excerpt from "Lolita," which depicts a very taboo subject (pederasty) without resorting to obscene language or description. The novel's mixture of tragedy and subtle comic genius have led to it being widely considered one of the best fiction works of the 20th century:

*Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.

She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. 

Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. 

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns ...

Annabel was, like the writer, of mixed parentage: half-English, half-Dutch, in her case. I remember her features far less distinctly today than I did a few years ago, before I knew Lolita. There are two kinds of visual memory: one when you skillfully recreate an image in the laboratory of your mind, with your eyes open (and then I see Annabel in such general terms as: "honey-colored skin," "thin arms," "brown bobbed hair," "long lashes," "big bright mouth"); and the other when you instantly evoke, with shut eyes, on the dark innerside of your eyelids, the objective, absolutely optical replica of a beloved face, a little ghost in natural colors (and this is how I see Lolita). 

Let me therefore primly limit myself, in describing Annabel, to saying she was a lovely child a few months my junior. Her parents were old friends of my aunt's, and as stuffy as she. They had rented a villa not far from Hotel Mirana. Bald brown Mr. Leigh and fat, powdered Mrs. Leigh (born Vanessa van Ness). How I loathed them! At first, Annabel and I talked of peripheral affairs. She kept lifting handfuls of fine sand and letting it pour through her fingers. Our brains were turned the way those of intelligent European preadolescents were in our day and set, and I doubt if much individual genius should be assigned to our interest in the plurality of inhabited worlds, competitive tennis, infinity, solipsism and so on. The softness and fragility of baby animals caused us the same intense pain. She wanted to be a nurse in some famished Asiatic country; I wanted to be a famous spy. 

All at once we were madly, clumsily, shamelessly, agonizingly in love with each other ... Among some treasures I lost during the wanderings of my adult years, there was a snapshot taken by my aunt which showed Annabel, her parents and the staid, elderly, lame gentleman, a Dr. Cooper, who that same summer courted my aunt, grouped around a table in a sidewalk café. Annabel did not come out well, caught as she was in the act of bending over her chocolate glacé and her thin bare shoulders and the parting in her hair were about all that could be identified (as I remember that picture) amid the sunny blur into which her lost loveliness graded; but I, sitting somewhat apart from the rest, came out with a kind of dramatic conspicuousness: a moody, beetle-browed boy in a dark sport shirt and well-tailored white shorts, his legs crossed, sitting in profile, looking away. That photograph was taken on the last day of our fatal summer and just a few minutes before we made our second and final attempt to thwart fate. Under the flimsiest of pretexts (this was our very last chance, and nothing really mattered) we escaped from the cafe to the beach, and found a desolate stretch of sand, and there, in the violet shadow of some red rocks forming a kind of cave, had a brief session of avid caresses, with somebody's lost pair of sun-glasses for only witness. I was on my knees, and on the point of possessing my darling, when two bearded bathers, the old man of the sea and his brother, came out of the sea with exclamations of ribald encouragement, and four months later she died of typhus in Corfu. 

I leaf again and again through these miserable memories, and keep asking myself, was it then, in the glitter of that remote summer, that the rift in my life began; or was my excessive desire for that child only the first evidence of an inherent singularity? When I try to analyze my own cravings, motives, actions and so forth, I surrender to a sort of retrospective imagination which feeds the analytic faculty with boundless alternatives and which causes each visualized route to fork and re-fork without end in the maddeningly complex prospect of my past. I am convinced, however, that in a certain magic and fateful way Lolita began with Annabel. 

I also know that the shock of Annabel's death consolidated the frustration of that nightmare summer, made of it a permanent obstacle to any further romance throughout the cold years of my youth. The spiritual and the physical had been blended in us with a perfection that must remain incomprehensible to the matter-of-fact, crude, standard-brained youngsters of today. Long after her death I felt her thoughts floating through mine. Long before we met we had had the same dreams. We compared notes. We found strange affinities. The same June of the same year (1919) a stray canary had fluttered into her house and mine, in two widely separated countries. Oh, Lolita, had you loved me thus! 

I have reserved for the conclusion of my "Annabel" phase the account of our unsuccessful first tryst. One night, she managed to deceive the vicious vigilance of her family. In a nervous and slender-leaved mimosa grove at the back of their villa we found a perch on the ruins of a low stone wall. Through the darkness and the tender trees we could see the arabesques of lighted windows which, touched up by the colored inks of sensitive memory, appear to me now like playing cards--presumably because a bridge game was keeping the enemy busy ... I saw her face in the sky, strangely distinct, as if it emitted a faint radiance of its own ...

I recall the scent of some kind of toilet powder--I believe she stole it from her mother's Spanish maid --a sweetish, lowly, musky perfume. It mingled with her own biscuity odor, and my senses were suddenly filled to the brim; a sudden commotion in a nearby bush prevented them from overflowing--and as we drew away from each other, and with aching veins attended to what was probably a prowling cat, there came from the house her mother's voice calling her, with a rising frantic note--and Dr. Cooper ponderously limped out into the garden. But that mimosa grove--the haze of stars, the tingle, the flame, the honey-dew, and the ache remained with me, and that little girl with her seaside limbs and ardent tongue haunted me ever since--until at last, twenty-four years later, I broke her spell by incarnating her in another.*

----------


## EAP

> Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.


A worthy contender for the title of the best paragraph ever penned in English Literature.

----------


## starrwriter

> A worthy contender for the title of the best paragraph ever penned in English Literature.


I agree. Nabokov should be an inspiration for writers whose first language is not English. Although he spoke some English before he left Russia, he didn't begin writing in English until years later.

----------


## emily655321

I've tried to read _Lolita_ twice, and failed both times. I found it too disturbing, to the point of making me feel physically ill every time I picked up the book. Nabakov understood the power of language; sometimes metaphor and insinuation paint more upsetting images than blatant obscenity ever could. Not that he didn't resort to it; my professor provided translations of some of the passages not in English, and they're not pleasant.

I've read a couple of Nabakov's short stories, in addition, and I agree that he is one of the most impressive writers I have ever had the displeasure of reading. His grasp of language is uncanny, even before you take into account that English was his third (after Russian and French). Still, I always got the creeping feeling that he was a sociopath; anti-social. I can accept the assertion that he was not a pedaphile, but only by believing that he was so removed from human emotion as to not be disturbed by the things he was writing. I wrote something about it for class, with citations that I can't recall. But I do recall having the distinct impression that his way of addressing emotions was more in the manner of objective, clinical observation than that of someone who had experienced them. Certainly, a good writer can remove himself from the scene to paint it objectively, but he also immerses himself in the characters' emotion so that he might write from their point of view. Nabakov's removal seems so total as to almost seem like mimickry; he describes people in misery with an almost quizzical-dog expression. He knows people act this way, but his manner suggests no empathy with the emotion behind the action.

----------


## starrwriter

> Nabokov understood the power of language; sometimes metaphor and insinuation paint more upsetting images than blatant obscenity ever could. Not that he didn't resort to it; my professor provided translations of some of the passages not in English, and they're not pleasant.


Just when I thought you had a head on your shoulders ... Believe it or not Emily, you will encounter some things in life that are not very pleasant. It's unavoidable, so you might as well get used to the idea.

As to the professor translating passages to titillate his class with prurient content, I think you should worry more about his motives than Nabokov's.

----------


## emily655321

> Just when I thought you had a head on your shoulders ... Believe it or not Emily, you will encounter some things in life that are not very pleasant. It's unavoidable, so you might as well get used to the idea.


What's your point?




> As to the professor translating passages to titillate his class with prurient content, I think you should worry more about his motives than Nabokov's.


Umm... yeah. 'Kay. Sometimes understanding a book and academic discussion come before titilation, Starr. It was a course on the history of literary censorship, and the point was to illustrate how Nabokov circumvented the censors by putting the "worst stuff" in another language. Nabakov's is a good study in just how un-titilating sexual content can be.

----------


## PeterL

> I agree. Nabokov should be an inspiration for writers whose first language is not English. Although he spoke some English before he left Russia, he didn't begin writing in English until years later.


English was Nabokov's first language. He didn't start to learn Russian until he was eight. French was his second language.

----------


## emily655321

> English was Nabokov's first language. He didn't start to learn Russian until he was eight. French was his second language.


Really? Wow, I did not know that. The facts must have gotten very mixed up in my head.

----------


## ArcherSnake

How old were Humbert Humbert and his little girlfriend at the beach? I know that Lolita is 12 when he meets her, but I dont think he says how old he and the girl were. If they were 8 or 9, it might be a little more disturbing than if they were 13 and 14, or even 12 and 13 is not so bad. As for the entire story being disturbing...I found The Lovely Bones to be alot worse.

----------


## emily655321

I remember they were very young. Definitely pre-pubescent.

----------


## starrwriter

> English was Nabokov's first language. He didn't start to learn Russian until he was eight. French was his second language.


I stand corrected. How odd that a Russian boy wouldn't be taught Russian as his first language. His parents must have been Anglophiles.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Still, I always got the creeping feeling that he was a sociopath; anti-social. I can accept the assertion that he was not a pedaphile, but only by believing that he was so removed from human emotion as to not be disturbed by the things he was writing. I wrote something about it for class, with citations that I can't recall. But I do recall having the distinct impression that his way of addressing emotions was more in the manner of objective, clinical observation than that of someone who had experienced them. Certainly, a good writer can remove himself from the scene to paint it objectively, but he also immerses himself in the characters' emotion so that he might write from their point of view. Nabakov's removal seems so total as to almost seem like mimickry; he describes people in misery with an almost quizzical-dog expression. He knows people act this way, but his manner suggests no empathy with the emotion behind the action.


This is an interesting viewpoint. When I read Lolita I was aware of a sense of detachment but put this down to style rather than a lack of empathy on Nabokov's part. The book shows a deep understanding of Humbert Humbert's feelings and emotions. An understanding that I suggest could _only_ have come from someone with a highly developed empathic sense. I took his detachment to be a deliberate ploy in tackling such controversial subject matter; an attempt to remove any hint of sensationalism or titillation.

Not having read any other works by the author (Pale Fire has been recommended to me recently and is on my 'to read' list) I can't comment on whether this is Nabokov's usual tone or merely one adopted for the book. I would be interested in hearing other reader's viewpoints on this.

I also didn't know that english was his first language - Thanks for that PeterL.

----------


## PeterL

> I stand corrected. How odd that a Russian boy wouldn't be taught Russian as his first language. His parents must have been Anglophiles.


As I understand it, in his later years Nabokov also found it odd. His parents were aristocrats, so anything non-Russian was better.

----------


## Koa

I read it when I was 16 and I found it weird...really slow (which is respected in the movies...) and heavy in the language (I learnt more than a few very high Italian words that I have never heard/seen after that) but it was a translation...the quick read I gave to the passage above seems definitely more fascinating.

I'm kinda disappointed at the news of him being taught English as a first language, and I will try to find out if it's true... cos it was some kind of example to me in mastery of a foreign language... Incidentally, my teachers of Russian also mentioned him as a native Russian speaker... maybe that fact that PeterL quoted is kinda unknown... It somehow makes sense, though it was one century later than the French-mania and English was a kinda odd choice, but as starr said, maybe his parents were anglo-maniacs...

----------


## Logos

This Penn State university site is about the The International Vladimir Nabokov Society

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/nabsoc.htm

This page (and next one) has a bio on him  :Smile: 

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/bio.htm

It says that Nabakov, born into an aristocratic family in St. Petersburg, Russia, described himself as "a perfectly normal *trilingual* child in a family with a large library". 

He first learned English and French, then Russian. 

It is mentioned that _Lolita_ was first published in France in 1955.

Just wanted to add: it appears that when he (first) started to write it was well-received, but not outside of of the Russian-speaking population of Berlin and Paris.

He wasn't interested in writing in a socio-political vein, like many of his peers; he was criticised for his lack of `Russianness' and decided writing in English would give him best exposure and income. 

After moving to New York City, and between the ages of 45-55, he composed _Lolita_ whilst vacationing in the American Rocky Mountains, where he also pursued his butterfly studies  :Biggrin:

----------


## Sami

> English was Nabokov's first language. He didn't start to learn Russian until he was eight. French was his second language.



I didnt know this either  interesting info., because I remember being in awe of the fact that anyone could write so beautifully in his or her second language when I read "Lolita". (By the way, I think English was _not_ Joseph Conrads first language? Maybe I am wrong about this also?)

----------


## PeterL

> I didnt know this either  interesting info., because I remember being in awe of the fact that anyone could write so beautifully in his or her second language when I read "Lolita". (By the way, I think English was _not_ Joseph Conrads first language? Maybe I am wrong about this also?)


I can't remember where I found that item. I looked at information about Nabokov from many sources last year, but it fits the other information that I have seen about him and about Russian aristocrats. 

There's a good chance that you are right about Conrad. I just looked it up and found that he "learned English before the age of 21".

----------


## ArcherSnake

Just a tidbit...apparently Nabokov was an avid devotee of Flaubert's, particularly his book "Madame Bovary", which he even taught at a university (there was an entire foreward about it in the copy of "Madame Bovary" that I read).

----------


## Koa

> I didnt know this either  interesting info., because I remember being in awe of the fact that anyone could write so beautifully in his or her second language when I read "Lolita". (By the way, I think English was _not_ Joseph Conrads first language? Maybe I am wrong about this also?)


I think you're right about Conrad cos he was Polish.

...actually, I'm looking it up in my copy of Heart of Darkness and it says he was born in what is now Ukraine, at that time a Polish province under Russian rule. And his name was Jozef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski. He started to work as a sailor when he was 15 and in that way ended up at some point on a British ship and then he started to learn English. According to the book, he was twenty, and he then said he would have never written anything if he hadn't known English.

Impressive, as Heart of Darkness was one of the most challenging books I've read in English, linguistically as well.

----------


## Scheherazade

> How old were Humbert Humbert and his little girlfriend at the beach? I know that Lolita is 12 when he meets her, but I dont think he says how old he and the girl were. If they were 8 or 9, it might be a little more disturbing than if they were 13 and 14, or even 12 and 13 is not so bad. As for the entire story being disturbing...I found The Lovely Bones to be alot worse.


Humbert was 13 wheh he met Annabel, who is described as 'a few months [his] junior' in the book.

Just finished reading the book. My thoughts and feelings are very mixed: The story is a rather upsetting one but the language is so breathtaking that it kept me reading. Humbert's intelligence, wit and command of language are such that the reader is almost under his spell and keeps wanting to know what happens to him/he does and I could not help a little guilty because of this: For caring to know more about this obsessed man who preys on young girls. It made me feel like as if I were some kind of accomplice, which is what Humbert was trying to do, I believe, when he addressed to the 'reader'. What is very interesting in my eyes that even though he keeps addressing to the reader, offering explanations, Humbert is well aware that his actions are not acceptable. He does feel guilty (I don't mean that this makes it all OK).

I agree with XC that the sense of detachment is part of Nabokov's style rather than lack of emphathy. The book is not devoid of emotions but while dealing with a sensitive issue like this (not to mention the fact that it was written about 50 years ago), he needed to put a distance between himself and the narrator. I think that is one of the reasons he might have prefered first person point of view.

What do you think of the ending? The fact that he stopped pursuing Lolita when she told him that she does not want to go away with him? Has he stopped objectifying her?

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Is Humbert really a paedophile?

I've always viewed Quilty as the real villain in this book. Humbert is seduced by Lolita, not the other way around, but there are many hints that Quilty was the original seducer, even though it is never explicitly stated (unless my memory of the book deceives me.) I personally think that he was definitely the original serpent in Lolita's garden.

Would she have seduced Humbert if she hadn't already experienced a physical relationship? I'm not sure that she would - the relationship might have been just a 'normal' teenage crush, never consummated. Paedophiles actively 'groom' children and are cunning and proactive in the ways that they engineer opportunities for sex with them. They also tend to implicate the child into the crime, playing on their immature logic - "If you tell anyone, you'll be in trouble." None of this sounds like Humbert.

It is also worth bearing in mind when judging Humbert, that Lolita is _not_ physically immature. She is legally a child but physically a woman. Had this been otherwise, the book would almost certainly have been banned outright. There is nothing to suggest that Humbert is attracted to Lolita because of her age, rather it is her precocious beauty and maturity that attracts him. In this respect, he is not really a classic paedophile either; they seek out sexually immature children in the main.

Humbert is not a paedophile, just a morally weak man. He is physically attracted to Lolita (as many of us probably would be) and when the opportunity for a sexual relationship is presented to him, on a plate as it were, he is unable to resist, despite the fact that he knows her age, knows the law, and feels that it is a wrong thing to do. Remember that the age of consent is a human construct, and variable from country to country and from time to time. Juliet was only 13. Were Romeo and Paris paedophiles?

----------


## Mark F.

> Humbert is not a paedophile, just a morally weak man. He is physically attracted to Lolita (as many of us probably would be) and when the opportunity for a sexual relationship is presented to him, on a plate as it were, he is unable to resist, despite the fact that he knows her age, knows the law, and feels that it is a wrong thing to do. Remember that the age of consent is a human construct, and variable from country to country and from time to time. Juliet was only 13. Were Romeo and Paris paedophiles?


I don't agree with you on this, he is not attracted only to Lolita as he suggests throughout the novel that he had sex with more than one "nymphet". If anything he is attracted to and frustrated by his Annabel experience. This story takes place in midtwentieth century, when does "Romeo and Juliet" take place? Sixteenth century, maybe before. I can't remember exactly. Anyway, the point is you really shouldn't compare those two situations. Humbert Humbert recognises the fact that he acts in an immoral way throughout the novel.

What does it matter if English is his first or second language, lets not miss the point here. The first chapter of "Lolita" is simply one of the greatest bits of literature ever. The first time I read the book I had to read the first chapter three times before continuing because it was so beautifully written.

Emily, somebody has to take the trash out. I think Nabokov was brave to tackle this subject and you're right it is disturbing as he doesn't tend to judge his main character who often resorts to humour, all the while accepting the fact that he is a pervert...a deviant.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I've always viewed Quilty as the real villain in this book. Humbert is seduced by Lolita, not the other way around, but there are many hints that Quilty was the original seducer, even though it is never explicitly stated (unless my memory of the book deceives me.) I personally think that he was definitely the original serpent in Lolita's garden.


I agree that Quilty is the real villain in the book simply because he never admits that his actions are not acceptable and have negative effect on the lives of others. He never seems to show any remorse and, what is worse, when faced by Humbert, he tries to bribe/seduce him as well.


> Would she have seduced Humbert if she hadn't already experienced a physical relationship? I'm not sure that she would - the relationship might have been just a 'normal' teenage crush, never consummated. Paedophiles actively 'groom' children and are cunning and proactive in the ways that they engineer opportunities for sex with them. They also tend to implicate the child into the crime, playing on their immature logic - "If you tell anyone, you'll be in trouble." None of this sounds like Humbert.


Humbert _does_ actively goes after Lolita. He plans her mother's murder to be able to stay alone with her; he kidnaps her; he buys her gifts to impress her; he drugs her to be able to have sex with her; after their relationship is consumated, he keeps reminding her that if she tells others, he will be sent to prison and she, into fostercare. 

If Lolita hadn't initiated their initial intercourse (please keep in mind that we have only Humbert's word for this, who is not the most reliable of sources), he was going to get his way at all cost.


> And It is also worth bearing in mind when judging Humbert, that Lolita is _not_ physically immature. She is legally a child but physically a woman. Had this been otherwise, the book would almost certainly have been banned outright. There is nothing to suggest that Humbert is attracted to Lolita because of her age, rather it is her precocious beauty and maturity that attracts him. In this respect, he is not really a classic paedophile either; they seek out sexually immature children in the main.


Lolita might be physically 'mature' (are you refering to the fact that she had already had sex with another boy with this remark?), she is still a 12 year old, who is not mentally, psychologically mature enough to be in such a relationship. What's more, I don't think apart from her youth and beauty, there is much he likes about her. He is not happy with her vulgar language, fondness for the fashionable music etc and is always trying to 'cultivate' her mind by buying her books (arts, botanics) and insists she learns how to play tennis 'right'.

There is _everything_ to suggest that he is attracted to her because of her age. From the very first page of the book, Humbert admits that he has been attracted to 'nymphets' (he defines them as girls between 9-14) and he admits that once Lolita gets older and start looking like a 'woman', he is more than likely to lose his interest in her. Before and after Lolita, he is still attracted to other 'nymphets' and tries his best to be close to them/touch them.

I would also like to point out that Humbert does not know about Lolita's escapades with Charlie in the summer camp till she admits it on the eve of their first intercourse and he does express some kind of disappointment over that.


> Humbert is not a paedophile, just a morally weak man. He is physically attracted to Lolita (as many of us probably would be) and when the opportunity for a sexual relationship is presented to him, on a plate as it were, he is unable to resist, despite the fact that he knows her age, knows the law, and feels that it is a wrong thing to do. Remember that the age of consent is a human construct, and variable from country to country and from time to time. Juliet was only 13. Were Romeo and Paris paedophiles?


Humbert _is_ a paedophile _and_ morally weak (he doesn't hesitate to plan her mother's murder to get closer to Lolita!). He actively plans to be with her and pursues her to the bitter end. He is deceitful and cunning. I think the only saving grace for Humbert is that, unlike Quilty, he admits that what he did was wrong and feels bad about it. Also, the fact that he still wants to be with her after she grows up and is pregnant, shows that he has actually loved her.

As for Romeo and Juliet, they do not choose Juliet because she is 13. They do not do this illegally (no kidnapping, drugging, intending murder her mother, threatening). We need to keep in mind the cultural and moral differences of the time.

My grandmother was 14 when she got married.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

That's the trouble with commenting on a book you haven't read for years. You forget stuff. I'll admit that Humbert is a lot closer to the classic paedophile than I earlier claimed. But I still think he falls just a little short. He's half way between a true paedophile and Peter Stringfellow in my book. 

But I think I'm right in saying (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm not!) that the kidnapping, murder and drugging _all_ take place _after_ the initial seduction. Humbert is attracted to very young women - very young indeed! - but not pre-pubescent girls.
What Humbert dislikes in Lolita are the things that he discovers as he gets to know her better. He wants a sophisticated woman in the body of a nymphet - such creatures don't exist.
Of course she is not emotionally and mentally mature at 12 - most people aren't at 20, let's face it! But, from the descriptions of her, she is physically mature. It's not that long ago that she could be married at that age - in some parts of the world, she still could be (this was the only reason that I mentioned R & J).



> are you refering to the fact that she had already had sex with another boy with this remark?


I was actually referring to the fact that I believe that Quilty had already seduced her. It is obvious that she was seeing him behind Humberts back during their flight together - I think it started much sooner. Of course, I only have little hints to base this on, because our narrator was in denial about a lot of things.

----------


## AttorneyGonzo

that almost moves me to tears ... otherwise I refrain from watching romantic movies or reading romantic books. Too often, too many of them get corny.

Well only poor Humbert is in love but anyway. Nabokov"s writing never gets filthy and repulsive, of course the prude moral apostle would argue otherwise but he would in any case, irregardless of the truth inherent in the book and its literary value.

----------


## Theshizznigg

Hi Guys.
Bought this a while back, and I have just recently decided to read it. 
I had first found a library edition and sat for a half hour through the first chapter, hence the reason I now want a first edition  :Biggrin: 
I was instantly taken with the writing style, and now that I'm reading it again, I am reminded of why I liked the books in the first place. 
Anyways, questions. 
Has anybody else read this book? And if so, what did you think? 
Do you think H,H, is a monster, or an a victim of his own past? 
Do you think Dolores Haze was partly responsible, considering her attitudes behaviour and actions?


Looking forward to some good feedback. 
Shizz.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I'll save you a bit of time - there was a similar thread a few months back - see HERE.

And you are right, the writing is unbelievably good.

----------


## Theshizznigg

> Is Humbert really a paedophile?
> 
> I've always viewed Quilty as the real villain in this book. Humbert is seduced by Lolita, not the other way around, but there are many hints that Quilty was the original seducer, even though it is never explicitly stated (unless my memory of the book deceives me.) I personally think that he was definitely the original serpent in Lolita's garden.
> 
> Would she have seduced Humbert if she hadn't already experienced a physical relationship? I'm not sure that she would - the relationship might have been just a 'normal' teenage crush, never consummated. Paedophiles actively 'groom' children and are cunning and proactive in the ways that they engineer opportunities for sex with them. They also tend to implicate the child into the crime, playing on their immature logic - "If you tell anyone, you'll be in trouble." None of this sounds like Humbert.
> 
> It is also worth bearing in mind when judging Humbert, that Lolita is _not_ physically immature. She is legally a child but physically a woman. Had this been otherwise, the book would almost certainly have been banned outright. There is nothing to suggest that Humbert is attracted to Lolita because of her age, rather it is her precocious beauty and maturity that attracts him. In this respect, he is not really a classic paedophile either; they seek out sexually immature children in the main.
> 
> Humbert is not a paedophile, just a morally weak man. He is physically attracted to Lolita (as many of us probably would be) and when the opportunity for a sexual relationship is presented to him, on a plate as it were, he is unable to resist, despite the fact that he knows her age, knows the law, and feels that it is a wrong thing to do. Remember that the age of consent is a human construct, and variable from country to country and from time to time. Juliet was only 13. Were Romeo and Paris paedophiles?


Well said Xam. 

I think to understand Humbert's Character we must understand what made Humbert a Pedophiliac in the first instance. Humbert could have quiet easily gone on to lead a totally ordinary life, if not for that fateful meeting with Annabel Leigh - Pronounced - Lee. Hence Do - Lo- Res -Lee- Ta - (If I remember correctly the Ta comes from a girl he once fanticized about).

This meeting would change his life forever, because he fell quite madly in love with Annabel, and both were deeply driven to consumate that enflamed passion. Though they both were denied at every turn.

When Annabel died, Edward Humbert was left with a burning unfounded passion for a love that could never be. 
Hence, while he aged his ideal lover stayed both the same age, and general description of Annabel Leigh.

He was so in love with her, so in love with her spirit and the love they never had, that he was forever searching for a girl of roughly the same age, same description, in which he could take out his feelings of pent up passion and frustration. He found this in Dolores Haze. 

Note: Dolores starts out as a twelve year old, and leave Humbert when she is fifteen. Humbert evinces in his journal that he was planning on taking her over the border to Mexico and marrying her, where the legal age/people were different. 

The story itself is sad, and I completely agree that Quilty is indeed the true villian. Lolita, was a victim of Humbert's love. Humbert himself was a victim of his own love, and past. Both are in my mind to be pitied equally. 

Shizz. 


 :Banana:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Thanks Shizz,

It's nice to know I wasn't completely wrong in my opinions (or at least to know that there are others that share my delusions).

----------


## Boris239

I've read Nabokov in Russian. His Russian is beautiful and I enjoyed the richness of his works, but it wasn't an easy read at all for me- some of his sentences were endless.

----------


## Scheherazade

> But I think I'm right in saying (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm not!) that the kidnapping, murder and drugging _all_ take place _after_ the initial seduction.


Actually, they take place before the seduction. He plans the mother's murder and later on, when he 'kidnaps' her, tries to drug her to be able to seduce her. 


> But, from the descriptions of her, she is physically mature.


I think he mentions that once she starts to develop physically, he would lose interest in her.


> I was actually referring to the fact that I believe that Quilty had already seduced her. It is obvious that she was seeing him behind Humberts back during their flight together - I think it started much sooner. Of course, I only have little hints to base this on, because our narrator was in denial about a lot of things.


I agree with this. I think she had started 'seeing' him during their play at school - before Humbert takes her for their final journey together (I think Humbert gets suspicious and decides to take her away anyway).

*Theshizznigg>*I am sorry but I can't see the point you are trying to make (it is after 3 am here!  :Smile: ). We all agree, I assume, that Humbert's obsession with young girl starts with Annabel Leigh. Are you suggesting that he finds a replacement in Dolores and that is all? I would disagree with that because even when he is with Dolores, he encourages her to invite her friends over so that he can look up their skirts (if not touch) whenever possible. He is not satisfied only with Dolores and definitely does not stop there.

I would also like to repeat that:


> Humbert is a paedophile and morally weak (he doesn't hesitate to plan her mother's murder to get closer to Lolita!). He actively plans to be with her and pursues her to the bitter end. He is deceitful and cunning. I think the only saving grace for Humbert is that, unlike Quilty, he admits that what he did was wrong and feels bad about it. Also, the fact that he still wants to be with her after she grows up and is pregnant, shows that he has actually loved her.

----------


## kathycf

I think Lolita strictly from a literary view, is a well-written and very evocative novel. From a personal standpoint, it repulses me. Simply because a 12 year old _looks_ like a woman does *not* equip her with maturity, nor the ability to deal with Humbert on an adult level, which is, of course, part of her appeal.

He seems quite repulsed by Lolita's mother and uses her simply to get to the child ( I am sorry , I have a hard time thinking of a 12 year old as a woman).Also, as Scheherazade says, he plans the mother's murder with nary a qualm. As well written as this book is, it is one I cannot bear to read again.

----------


## PeterL

I think that Lolita is easier to read and understand on a symbolic level than on a literal level. In "Pale Fire" Nabokov referred to "Lolita" as "The Cup of Hebe" by John Shade, as one example.

----------


## Theshizznigg

Either way the conversation goes, I find it most unfortunate when someone, (and I was included in this group) is reading Lolita, and then those around him/her accuse them of reading something that promotes pedophilia, and then they usually go into the whole speal of how the books is wrong, and you shouldn't read it.
By the end of it, I started asking people, "Have you read this book?" And when they answered no, I replied. "Then you are in no position to criticize it, when you have deemed to read it, then damn it all you wish." 
Usually this leaves people stunned, and they solemnly retreat to making jives, and off hand comments. 

All I really have to say toward the whole, is it ethical idea. It comes down to the freedom of choice and the freedom of free speech. 
The writer of the book was willing to stake his reputation on the book, and those who are not afraid of the stigma surrounding the book, have read it time and time again.
It is a book, nothing more and nothing less.

----------


## Gawaine

> Baddad
> 
> "she is still a child and so is guilty of little other than being ignorant/uneducated by those responsible for her welfare at an earlier age. Is she old enough to consider all the ramifications of the decisions she is making, and the behaviors she is engaging in?


"
So you mean that age is an excuse? So when you are 12-13 you can do anything of the sort, you're just a silly kid? What if at times she's behaving really cunningly? What sort of a kid for example, tells her "dad" that she had been having sex every day at camp with Charlie? I mean, if I would have done such a thing, I would have kept it a secret, I would have been ashamed (for lack of a better word) of it, and wouldn't disclose it not even to my friends, not to mention an adult. And first of all, I do not believe she's been abused by Humbert. When they ahd sex, she was not still a virgin!!! If it wasn't for her, Humbert would have been contepted with his voyeurism or his vivid imagination.[/QUOTE]

Understand that your experiences may be rather different from hers. Look around the world, and you will see many promiscuous young teenagers. Particularly out of the lower class.

----------


## Cormeister37

I am currently reading Lolita and though I have heard great things about it I don't know if I like it. The writing is great and sometimes its interesting but I it doesn't stimulate me like Joyce or Fitzgerald or others can.

----------


## kimpossible

Doesn't stimulate you? I'm sorry by I find Nabakov one of the most stimulating writers i have read. His prose is so charged, so drenched in Humbert's obsession. You can really feel the (creepy and somewhat disturbing [but nonetheless hilarious]) overwhelming emotion in Humbert's narrative. Now, don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Fitzgerald and Joyce. I am actually doing a project on Fitzgerald right now. I just find Nabakov more stimulating, not necessarily more interesting or powerful.

----------


## PeterL

> I am currently reading Lolita and though I have heard great things about it I don't know if I like it. The writing is great and sometimes its interesting but I it doesn't stimulate me like Joyce or Fitzgerald or others can.


It's kind of funny that you mention Joyce, because I see a lot of similarity between Lolita and Ulysses.

----------


## samah

When I first read Lolita I was 14 years old but it wasnt the original book they cut many parts of it so It was such a huge step for me to take , from reading " Weathering Heights" and " Gone With The Wind " to Lolita ! 
but I liked the part that it was a true story and the writer was executed at the end , so I found it a little bit strange and the girl lolita I've never met a girl like that , maybe because I come from a different society and a different country or maybe because I was too young but in general I found it somehow disgusting especially the writer he was a good writer maybe but lets admit it he was crazy , but maybe if I reread it now I'll change my mind about it who knows?

----------


## Grumbleguts

> When I first read Lolita I was 14 years old but it wasnt the original book they cut many parts of it so It was such a huge step for me to take , from reading " Weathering Heights" and " Gone With The Wind " to Lolita ! 
> but I liked the part that it was a true story and the writer was executed at the end , so I found it a little bit strange and the girl lolita I've never met a girl like that , maybe because I come from a different society and a different country or maybe because I was too young but in general I found it somehow disgusting especially the writer he was a good writer maybe but lets admit it he was crazy , but maybe if I reread it now I'll change my mind about it who knows?


Is this a genuine post? It has all the hallmarks of somebody playing games. 'WEATHERING heights' indeed!
Giving you the benefit of the doubt I am very much afraid that you have exhibited a profound lack of knowledge on this subject. 
Nabokov's novel was not based on his own experience, it is merely written in the first person. It is fiction. If you reread the ending you will also find that while Humbert Humbert does indeed die in prison, he is not executed but dies of an heart attack. Nabokov himself died in Switzerland in 1977, 22 years after the book's publication of natural causes.
I have never heard any imputation except for yours that Nabokov was 'crazy' unless you count lepidoptery (butterfly collecting) as a mania. He was one of the finest authors of the last century and a personal favourite of mine.
I recommend that you really should reread the book as you patently failed to gain any insight into it upon your first reading.

----------


## blondeatheart

i love the adrian lyne version of lolita ie the movie

----------


## PeterL

> When I first read Lolita I was 14 years old but it wasnt the original book they cut many parts of it so It was such a huge step for me to take , from reading " Weathering Heights" and " Gone With The Wind " to Lolita ! 
> but I liked the part that it was a true story and the writer was executed at the end , so I found it a little bit strange and the girl lolita I've never met a girl like that , maybe because I come from a different society and a different country or maybe because I was too young but in general I found it somehow disgusting especially the writer he was a good writer maybe but lets admit it he was crazy , but maybe if I reread it now I'll change my mind about it who knows?


That's almost funny, because the preface is, if anything, more fictional than the narrative. I believe that the author's afterword is also fictional. I can't imagine anyone chopping up Lolita so that it wouldn't hint at sex without destroying to meaning and the beauty of the prose.

----------


## Grumbleguts

> That's almost funny, because the preface is, if anything, more fictional than the narrative. I believe that the author's afterword is also fictional. I can't imagine anyone chopping up Lolita so that it wouldn't hint at sex without destroying to meaning and the beauty of the prose.


I think that Samah is referring to an abridged version rather than a censored version. Either way I am in complete agreement that it would destroy a piece of literary genius to bowdlerise it in such a way.

----------


## PeterL

> I think that Samah is referring to an abridged version rather than a censored version. Either way I am in complete agreement that it would destroy a piece of literary genius to bowdlerise it in such a way.


Abridged or censored, neither would be worth reading.

----------


## samah

Ok I'm so sorry. I said that I read it when I was 14 years old and I dont know why I thought it was a true story? but that what was written in the version that I read and I thougt that the writer is some old man who is in love with a teenage girl and trying to write his memoires from jail , maybe little bit foolish and naive but actually in that time I didnt hear about the novel or the writer ,I didnt even watch the movie I just bought it from the book store because I just liked the title! 
and I said before I'll try to reread it again . 
And I'm so sorry again to you all especially to you grumbleguts I hope now we are cool .

----------


## PeterL

> Ok I'm so sorry. I said that I read it when I was 14 years old and I dont know why I thought it was a true story? but that what was written in the version that I read and I thougt that the writer is some old man who is in love with a teenage girl and trying to write his memoires from jail , maybe little bit foolish and naive but actually in that time I didnt hear about the novel or the writer ,I didnt even watch the movie I just bought it from the book store because I just liked the title! 
> and I said before I'll try to reread it again . 
> And I'm so sorry again to you all especially to you grumbleguts I hope now we are cool .


There's no reason for you to be apologetic. The novel was written with a foreward with the spurious signature of a a doctor of something that said that the author had been convicted of child molestation, etc. I can imagine many odf the events in the novel actually happening. The only material printed between the covers of Lolita that can be taken as true with any degree of confidence is the material on the Copyright page and on the titla page. The autor's afterword may have some elements of truth in it, but I wouldn't be confident about that either.

----------


## superunknown

I just finished reading it two days ago, and I loved it. It's just amazingly well written; Nabokov is much more than just a writer, he is an artist, and his style is brilliant. And the thing is, there actually is a point to the exaggerated eloquence, because it's coming from a very intelligent and extremely well-spoken narrator, and the manner in which he speaks gives us more insight into his mind than the words he uses.

Humbert is really just a tortured soul who can't control his emotions, and though at the beginning he desperately wants to avoid tarnishing Lolita, but when her mother dies and he's the only thing she has and it's offered to him on a platter, he's so tortured by his emotions and by his desire to relive that unfinished and doomed romance that he just can't turn it down, and he replaces Lolita with Annabel so that he can try to resolve his destructive psychological problems. I also found it technically subtle and emotionally touching how, though Humbert is most of the time concerned with himself and with his own emotions, whenever he gives us a glimpse into Lolita's mind it is always very brief but incredibly powerful. In particular there are two instances, one in which Lolita's friend's father is holding her and Lolita gets sore, and Humbert tells us that he realizes Lolita would prefer the worst upbringing to this joke of a childhood, and the second is when he tells us that, at night when he pretended to be asleep, he would hear her crying, every night without fault.

I was talking to my English teacher about it (he hasn't read it), and he said that it's probably very much like Huck Finn: those who instantly jump on the superficialities without really taking any time or patience whatsoever to get down into the book are simply willing to dismiss it as racist, when in fact it isn't. In the same way, those who aren't willing to study or even read Lolita think it's pedophilic. In Huck Finn racism is a means to an end (the racist attitudes of all the corrupt, morally lacking people contrasts against the goodness of Jim and results in the opposite of racism) just as it is in Lolita (a touching portrait of a man who is rendered completely insane by passions which he simply cannot control, though he knows they are wrong).

----------


## superunknown

> ??? I thought Lolita was written originally in American English, even if nabokov was Russian... I know he was bilingual and translated his own works... (i believe I've already said this somewhere). Anything else I need to know about the languages???
> 
> 
> 
> *
> gatsbysghost*, English is not too hard. Its grammar is incredibly easy to learn, then it's hard to master the whole of the language because it's very varied etc... But grammatically, I'm sure it's the easiest language I've ever known. If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...


You think English grammar is easy? Try Mandarin. They don't mess around with any of this possessive crap. It's "I house," "you car"... and the tenses are so much easier. I'd panic if I came from Chinese and suddenly there's all these conjugations to do.

----------


## 2AddersFanged

Lolita is a great, great book, and one of my favorites. Nabokov writes beautifully in English--as well or better than many native-born writers. In fact, he wrote Lolita as a sort of "love song" to English, a language he loved.

If anyone gives you a "face" when you mention Lolita, just remember that many people are incredibly close-minded and do not understand that art is art, even if it deals with a "sensitive" subject. They don't know what they are missing; it's their loss. The only time to trouble about them is when bands of these people get together and start braying en masse about which art should be available and which should not. 


-2AF

If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...

--In my opinion and experience, Spanish is probably one of the easier languages for native English speakers to learn. English is an incredibly rich, complicated and persnickety language: it has a more varied vocabulary than many other languages, and it is constantly breaking its own rules. English grammar is, in fact, not that simple at all. The romance languages, on the other hand, pretty much stick to their own rules. Once one learns the rules, the rest follows suit.

When I was learning French, for example, I was also able to read Spanish, merely because the structure and the vocabulary is so simple and straight-forward. At the time, my friend who was taking Spanish could not read my French books in the same way as I could read her Spanish texts. 

The _most_ complicated language I ever learned was Ancient Greek (Attic). Now _that's_ a complicated, declined language--more verb forms than Latin, and everything has tenses, even nouns. Now _that_ was a challenge!




> ??? I thought Lolita was written originally in American English, even if nabokov was Russian... I know he was bilingual and translated his own works... (i believe I've already said this somewhere). Anything else I need to know about the languages???
> 
> 
> 
> *
> gatsbysghost*, English is not too hard. Its grammar is incredibly easy to learn, then it's hard to master the whole of the language because it's very varied etc... But grammatically, I'm sure it's the easiest language I've ever known. If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...





------In my opinion and experience, Spanish is probably one of the easier languages for native English speakers to learn. English is an incredibly rich, complicated and persnickety language: it has a more varied vocabulary than many other languages, and it is constantly breaking its own rules. English grammar is, in fact, not that simple at all. The romance languages, on the other hand, pretty much stick to their own rules. Once one learns the rules, the rest follows suit.

When I was learning French, for example, I was also able to read Spanish, merely because the structure and the vocabulary is so simple and straight-forward. At the time, my friend who was taking Spanish could not read my French books in the same way as I could read her Spanish texts. 

The most complicated language I ever learned was Ancient Greek (Attic). Now that's a complicated, declined language--more verb forms than Latin, and everything has tenses, even nouns. Now that was a challenge!

----------


## Theshizznigg

All in all, I would say that the story is just that. 
A story, a rather well written narative of the opinions and views of the slightly psycotic Humbert Humbert, as he attempts to fulfil a lost childhood memory with the object of his obsession.

----------


## Sibe

Just like to point out that the story in the story is writen by Humbert for the courts, so any pity or mercy you feel for Humbert is because this is his story and he wrote it ORGINIALLY for his case. Even so, I'm sure he would still want pity for himself after he and Lolita were both dead.

This is a great technique Nabokov uses to, in a way, fool his own readers into believeing Humbert's plee. While I'm sure Humbert deserves some pity, he 'milks' it as much as he can by the way he makes the story. For example he makes nymphets seem like the bad guys, he also makes Quilty look as the ultimate bad guy. He also leads the audience on the journey with him, for example when he and Lolita were being followed. The writer Humbert knew who he was but never told the audience who he was, he made the audience feel as much as he did. And even when Lolita told him who it was, he did not tell the reader and still left us wondering.

----------


## white camellia

I did find Lolita beautifully written and Humbert's story intriguing and on the whole even no verisimilitude was missed that advisable sympathy was evoked. It's been a long time since I read it but I can still recall how Humbert indulged himself with nymphets--his great loss of a maiden in his adolescence which left its stamp on his mind. As for language, one of the most important things for the master is to be creative in regard to art and its impact on the readers, not exactly being strictly native or not. 

As a Chinese, as far as I've learnt, I think the language does have possessive forms, people can understand you if you say "I house,""you car", but it's not unusual as we say "my house,""your car". It's interesting that with a few nouns, we seem too lazy to use possessive forms, but with most, we just adopt possessive, such as "my book,""my cloth,""my food", etc.(it would be definitely odd if we say "I book,""I cloth" and "I food" here)...and this language also have tenses though it appears not so remarkable as some other languages. (we often add some auxiliary words to the verb as it stands unchanged and independent it self)...

sorry if i seem long-winded. All languages are marvellously created and not that easy.  :Smile:

----------


## MDalloway112

I have to say...

I love the tempo of this book. Yes, it is slow, but every moment of excruciating anticipation is mirrored detail by shocking detail.

Nabokov is one of the most capable and emotive writers of the 20th century, and his use of the english language is almost unparalleled, I would say. This in itself is astounding, and not because he's a Russian writer. He is a native English speaker, as it was his first language (he did not learn Russian until the age of 8).

The question of ethics in literature/art is a very frustrating one. I don't usually like to take part in these debates -- I think the question is moot -- but I will say, with regard to _Lolita_, there is no attempt made by author or narrator to disguise the ethical missteps Humbert takes. If Humbert himself is an unethical pedophile, that is one thing. _Lolita_ as a work of art is straightforward, vivid, and uncompromising. It should be given credit for that, at the very least.

----------


## plainjane

> Doesn't stimulate you? I'm sorry by I find Nabakov one of the most stimulating writers i have read. His prose is so charged, so drenched in Humbert's obsession. You can really feel the (creepy and somewhat disturbing [but nonetheless hilarious]) overwhelming emotion in Humbert's narrative. Now, don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Fitzgerald and Joyce. I am actually doing a project on Fitzgerald right now. I just find Nabakov more stimulating, not necessarily more interesting or powerful.


I could not agree more! I've read some of Nabokov's novels, _Lolita_ being the first, and if/when I go off to other authors, when I return to Nabokov, it is like coming home. His prose is the most beautifully written that I have encountered.

----------


## plainjane

> I have to say...
> 
> I love the tempo of this book. Yes, it is slow, but every moment of excruciating anticipation is mirrored detail by shocking detail.
> 
> Nabokov is one of the most capable and emotive writers of the 20th century, and his use of the english language is almost unparalleled, I would say. This in itself is astounding, and not because he's a Russian writer. He is a native English speaker, as it was his first language (he did not learn Russian until the age of 8).
> 
> The question of ethics in literature/art is a very frustrating one. I don't usually like to take part in these debates -- I think the question is moot -- but I will say, with regard to _Lolita_, there is no attempt made by author or narrator to disguise the ethical missteps Humbert takes. If Humbert himself is an unethical pedophile, that is one thing. _Lolita_ as a work of art is straightforward, vivid, and uncompromising. It should be given credit for that, at the very least.



Again, without a doubt! Nabokov makes no excuses for the behaviour of his creatures. It is what it is. The first time I read _Lolita_ I do admit to having a difficult time getting through it. I'd stop, but I was compelled to return. And in the end I realized that what Nabokov was getting at was his characters striving for human freedom. 

Someone above wrote about certain persons acting unapproving of their reading _Lolita_, I have constantly run into that as well.....but only from those that have not read it. 
Some believe that ignorance is bliss. I'd call that plain narrow minded.

----------


## orra

Hi am a new member in this forum  :Smile: 
I have read Lolita two years ago and it was just a reading , i did like the story and i was fascinated by the author who did play with the psychology of characters which makes the readers like the book.
And now am rereading it again but i have a purpose, i ll work inthis book for my thesis of the license and am interrested about what was written about lolita.
I have read all the replies to this thread and they were intersting but i did notice that there is no one who talk about Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties. We know that Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian born as well an Amercian citizen and who considered Amercia as his second mother home. But we can notice that Nabokov gave his own view of America and we cant forget that he came from exile. 
What do you think?

----------


## PeterL

> Hi am a new member in this forum 
> I have read Lolita two years ago and it was just a reading , i did like the story and i was fascinated by the author who did play with the psychology of characters which makes the readers like the book.
> And now am rereading it again but i have a purpose, i ll work inthis book for my thesis of the license and am interrested about what was written about lolita.
> I have read all the replies to this thread and they were intersting but i did notice that there is no one who talk about Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties. We know that Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian born as well an Amercian citizen and who considered Amercia as his second mother home. But we can notice that Nabokov gave his own view of America and we cant forget that he came from exile. 
> What do you think?


To a degree, Lolita is about Nabokov's view of America in the early 1950's. He wrote about his love for driving around and seeing America in various places. Look around, and you will find some of those. I believe that Lolita is like Ulysses to a degree. Both are about wandering a place and various thoughts about the trip. In Pale Fire Nabokov referred to Lolita as "The Cup of Hebe", so there is a substantial amount of symbolism, even though Nabokov claimed not to like symbolism in the postscript. I think that comment should be taken to mean that there was a substantial amount of symbolism.

----------


## Walter

> I have read all the replies to this thread and they were interesting but i did notice that there is no one who talk about Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties. We know that Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian born as well an American citizen and who considered America as his second mother home. But we can notice that Nabokov gave his own view of America and we cant forget that he came from exile. 
> What do you think?


Hello *Orra*,
I'm late to this discussion and am unfamiliar with what went before.
However, I can't help remarking on the notion of "Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties" that you are interested in. The meaning depends somewhat on how one parses that notion.
Nabokov had certainly become familiar with America in his road trips across the Country. And Lolita certainly contains his reactions to what he saw -- he was a very keen observer! And he very explicitly wished to write _Lolita_ as an "American novel."
All of which, however, is not to say that the America presented in _Lolita_ is a photographic view of America, or its culture, as it was in the 50's. Certain parts are incredibly "right on" -- as aspects of American culture seen with a heightened artistic 'super-reality.' Other parts are seen as satire or parody, as explained by Appel in his introduction and notes to _The Annotated Lolita_. One important cultural aspect that Nabokov found "exhilarating," and highlighted in his writing (whether found in American _or_ European contexts), was what he called "poshlost," and translated by him as "philistine vulgarity." So some parts of his view are decidedly (and deliberately) not very complimentary for artistic reasons of plot or character development. 
In summary I would offer the thought that the evidences of America as seen in _Lolita_ are not of the "America of the 50's," but rather are the America of the 50's as reflected off Nabokov's particular cultural sensitivities and artistic intentions for his novel.
Condensed still further, I would say that _Lolita_ is _not_ an image, but a redrawn image after viewing through the more or less distorting lenses of particular cultural and artistic perspectives.
At root, _Lolita_ is still fundamentally a novel and a successful work of artistic fiction.

----------


## PeterL

> Hello *Orra*,
> I'm late to this discussion and am unfamiliar with what went before.
> However, I can't help remarking on the notion of "Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties" that you are interested in. The meaning depends somewhat on how one parses that notion.
> Nabokov had certainly become familiar with America in his road trips across the Country. And Lolita certainly contains his reactions to what he saw -- he was a very keen observer! And he very explicitly wished to write _Lolita_ as an "American novel."
> All of which, however, is not to say that the America presented in _Lolita_ is a photographic view of America, or its culture, as it was in the 50's. Certain parts are incredibly "right on" -- as aspects of American culture seen with a heightened artistic 'super-reality.' Other parts are seen as satire or parody, as explained by Appel in his introduction and notes to _The Annotated Lolita_. One important cultural aspect that Nabokov found "exhilarating," and highlighted in his writing (whether found in American _or_ European contexts), was what he called "poshlost," and translated by him as "philistine vulgarity." So some parts of his view are decidedly (and deliberately) not very complimentary for artistic reasons of plot or character development. 
> In summary I would offer the thought that the evidences of America as seen in _Lolita_ are not of the "America of the 50's," but rather are the America of the 50's as reflected off Nabokov's particular cultural sensitivities and artistic intentions for his novel.
> Condensed still further, I would say that _Lolita_ is _not_ an image, but a redrawn image after viewing through the more or less distorting lenses of particular cultural and artistic perspectives.
> At root, _Lolita_ is still fundamentally a novel and a successful work of artistic fiction.


Another factor to remember is that Lolita was originally written in and set in Europe. I would love to read the original version to see how much was changed from one to the other.

----------


## Walter

> Another factor to remember is that Lolita was originally written in and set in Europe. I would love to read the original version to see how much was changed from one to the other.


Published certainly. Written? Set?
Are you referring to _The Enchanter?_

----------


## PeterL

> Published certainly. Written? Set?
> Are you referring to _The Enchanter?_


He may have called the orignial version _The Enchanter?_, I don't remember, but in one set of his sollected works there were comments by him about his writing, and the comments for Lolita mentioned that item. That collection also included his screenplay for Lolita and comments about the movie. While the movie claims that he wrote the screenplay, he actually wrote on a couple of the scenes that are in the movie.

----------


## orra

Hello Walter,
I agree with you in the fact that Nabokov's Lolita is a reflection of the American fifties as Nabokov saw it. And we dont forget that the 1950s were called the innocent 50s because Amercia was still conservative, the puritans values were there.With the beginning of the 60s, there was a change. it was a decade of sexual permissiveness. Therefore Lolita in the 1950s was a taboo in America and in Europe too.
Moreover his eloquent language and his genuis in writing the story makes the novel a whole representation of reality which was not hte real image if America. Maybe it was his reality through his eyes.
what do you think?

----------


## orra

I ask for ur opinions in that question because I need that in my research.

----------


## Walter

> I ask for ur opinions in that question because I need that in my research.


If your research is surveying opinions, then I think I have already stated mine as well as I can. I think VN was a _very_ keen and accurate observer of the world around him and that in _Lolita_ he took what he saw of America and recreated it artistically in a brilliant work of fiction. I do not believe for an instant that he saw America as a parody of itself and mistook that for reality.

If your research regards cultural background for _Lolita_, then I have to say that cultural history and trends in America are subjects far from my background and I have no worthwhile opinions for you on those subjects.

If you are seeking information, rather than collecting individual personal opinions, then at best I can only suggest exploring on-line among the numerous articles relating to cultural history, the 50's, Nabokov and _Lolita._ I am sure you can find people who speak better to those topic than I can.

All of that assumes that your question was directed to me in the first place. I suspect there are also others in this thread who will have valid responses for your interest. So, I would respectfully prefer to regard yours as a question and discussion open to all.

----------


## orra

I ll be so happy to get other reponses to this thread from other members, we are here to share ideas and opinions. 
I would like to focus on the fact that Lolita can be read from many prospectives and it is such a complex unity that u are overwhlemed with different ideas. For instance today i have just finished my fourth reading of this book and my points upon which i want to focus on are oriented in other diffrent way. This time i did find that working on Nabokov'Amercia on Lolita is really so vague and the diffrent points of view of many critics would lead me to lose the real concern on the book and also put me in some confusions.
I make my mind to deal with the quest in Lolita which is a key theme in the novel and which was treated through the whole process of the narrative. The ambiguities of this quest is embedded in the real meaning of the quest as well as its importance as a theme.There are different quests in this novel. We can find the quest for art,quest of Humbert Humbert himself( his doubling Quilty)and also the quest for innocence. Lolita is so rich that we cannot overwhelmed allthemes Nabokov comes across.

----------


## Logos

Hello orra, may I suggest Azar Nafisi's _Reading Lolita in Tehran_.. it brings some interesting perspective to a book (_Lolita_) that has been at times banned and condemned in the west; read as a forbidden book in a Muslim country by a group of female students. 

While avoiding the discussion of current politics because that's not allowed here, part of their conclusions are they can _"feel sympathy for Humbert's victims ... without approving of them."_ and _"Nabakov's villains are brutal and totalitarian rulers trying to possess and control imaginitive minds."_ which the women can wholly identify with.

----------


## PeterL

> I make my mind to deal with the quest in Lolita which is a key theme in the novel and which was treated through the whole process of the narrative. The ambiguities of this quest is embedded in the real meaning of the quest as well as its importance as a theme.There are different quests in this novel. We can find the quest for art,quest of Humbert Humbert himself( his doubling Quilty)and also the quest for innocence. Lolita is so rich that we cannot overwhelmed allthemes Nabokov comes across.


Hurrah, someone else sees Lolita as an quest story. There are many parallels with _Ulysses_ and with ancient quest myths. Remember that Nabokov was a Joyce expert.

----------


## Walter

Hadn't thought of it that way before, but that thought does cause quite a few things to snap into focus.

----------


## Vassilissa

Hi everybody. Sometimes things happens - that's what I thought, as this afternoon, looking lazily for a literature forum, I found you and your thread about one of the books I loved more in my life - and it's even one of the few books I would have writtten myself. My experience with Lolita is quite unusual, I dare say. I read it the first time when I was the same age of Lolita at the beginning of the book - i.e. 11. My mother had no rules about novels, as well as my grandmother: in my family, we followed the principle of St. Paul: omnia munda mundis, ("everything is pure for the one who is pure"), so I was allowed to read everything I could possibly find in my house. I did not know anything about Nabokov; I choosed it just because I was fascinated from the book's cover, which was green and solid, and very comfortable to handle. I started reading, and there I was - heartstruck. St. Paul was right - I did not even understand H.H. was a pedophile, for I did not even know what pedophilia was; and I found it difficult to remember he was about forty, even if I knew that no man of forty could love a girl of 11. Nor I was shocked by the fact Lolita was as old as me. I could not identify myself with Lolita. She was an alien to me: I was not precocious, I did not know what was to have a sexual life and to be a rebel, and, most of all, I loved to study. Weird as it sounds, I identified myself with H.H! At that time, I was in love with a schoolmate (gosh, it is the first time I confess it): she was slender, serious, blonde and untouchable, very different from Lolita, but I perfectly understood H.H.'s urge for Lo; for his unacceptable, vast, silent desire exactly was like mine. That is the reason why I still believe "Lolita" is basically a love story, in which love, unfortunatly, is wrong (VERY WRONG), impossible and lost. Of course, the America's theme has a big part (I read enough about Nabokov - which is absolutely and definitely, even if I leave "Lolita" apart, one of my favourite writers - to have an idea of how United States could have impressed him as he came in the '50 as an immigrant). But this came with maturity. I still remember myself in the slow winter afternoons of our house by the seaside, the book in my hands. I found very soon there had been somebody on earth who knew what passion was. Hugs, Vassilissa.

----------


## plainjane

I'm a little late coming to this thread, but wanted to comment on a few things anyway.  :Smile:  
I just read _Speak, Memory_ a few months ago, and in it Nabokov does say that he learned Russian when he was five years old, when his father came home (to their summer place) and realized that the boys only spoke English (and French I suppose), the father was horrified, and immediately hired a local school master to tudor them. Someone above quoted the "perfectly normal trilingual child" bit, and is absolutely correct. 

I first read _Lolita_ about 2 years ago, and have reread a few times, and each time more story surfaces, his layers are endless.
I think in the end Humbert was in love with Lolita, his feelings had become truer and he understood what he'd done to her, and how terrible it was.

But what no one seems to remember or at least mention from the book is his encounter with Rita...honestly I was laughing almost all the way through that section....if only he could have stayed with her. /sigh/

----------


## godhelpme2

I also have read it but only recently. The beauty of this artwork is rather fascinating. It is far more than morally educational. I am overwhelmed by the author's excellent skill of using words, his abundant knowledge of literature and religion and philosophy etc, his brave behavior of writing such an sensitive topic among the public. i love it, it is really beautiful.

----------


## Bysshe

I'm fifteen years old, and I was wondering if I should try reading it now, or if I should wait until I'm older. I know that there are some books that you probably can't properly appreciate till you're slightly older. I'm looking for something new to read, and it's one of those books that keeps appearing on lists of "classic books". Apart from anything else, I've read short extracts from the book and I'm intrigued by Nabokov's style of writing. I'm trying to write a book myself - I know that sounds horribly pretentious coming from a teenager - and I want to read a variety of books by different authors to gain ideas and inspiration.

So, two questions, really. Firstly, am I too young to appreciate Lolita, and secondly, will I get funny looks from the school librarian if I try to take it out?

----------


## Virgil

Not pretentious at all. Good luck.

I have not read Lolita, so I can't answer your question.

----------


## Logos

An ironic question given the book you're asking about  :Tongue:  My first thought is of course you should read it! why not!?  :Biggrin:  I think the question of age is subjective: _you_ might be mature enough, sophisticated enough, well-read and worldly enough, and/or be able to think critically and independently enough that you can read _Lolita_ and understand it, grasp its subject, context, symbolism, and themes and appreciate what the author is getting at etc. whereas another 15 yr. old might be confused, they might not 'get' it. but heck I know some 40somethings who read comics and don't 'get' them   :Tongue:  

But what is the harm in trying? 


Here is the first major discussion of _Lolita_ at LitNet that you might want to check out:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ghlight=Lolita

.
.

----------


## Bysshe

Thank you for the advice! I'll take a look at the Lolita discussions.

----------


## JCamilo

Yeah, the problem of Lolita is nowhere related to the sexual content, in fact, today the book would be probally less rated than a Britney Spears music video...
It is getting Nabokov, his sarcasm and irony, his critic to psychology (he hated Freud with all strength of intelect) and all in all, the trip he does to write a road book, his literary references...

By the way, there is no wrong age to read a book. If you can enjoy beauty, you can enjoy a book.

----------


## PeterL

If you are old enough to fully appreciate Ulysses, then you are old enough to appreciate Lolita. The sexual content in negligible.

----------


## F.Emerald

Bysshe, you remind me so much of me when I was 15! We're both from London for a start, and I actually read Lolita when I was 15, and it's still one of my all time favourites. I think that if I could appreciate it then, you definitely could. Maybe you should read a couple of Nabokov's short stories first, to get a taste of his style maybe? (which is very inspirational indeed), they're worth reading too, The Admiralty Spire in particular.

Let me know how it goes.

----------


## grace86

Go ahead and read it. I think you will be just fine.

----------


## botkin

I first read it when I was 14, and understood it pretty well, but not very completely. I think you'll get the story, and appreciate the monstruosity of H.H. and Nabokov's beautiful prose, but PLEASE read it again in a few years. When I reread it at 18 (and again this january) the book seemed so much richer, the shadows so much darker, so much deeper. It's grown as I've grown, and that's not happened with a lot of books I've read.

As for the funny looks, I'm 21 and my father almost had a seizure when he saw me reading it. People ignorant of the story will always overreact. Pay them no heed and enjoy your book  :Smile:

----------


## Bysshe

Thank you...I'm not sure if I'm "old enough to fully appreciate Ulysses", but I'll give it a go anyway.

Thanks for the short story recommendation too, F.Emerald. I'll see if the library has any collections of his short stories before I borrow Lolita.

And I think I'll definitely consider re-reading it later. There are some books I've read over the past couple of years that I'm already re-reading, and I'll probably continue to re-read them on a regular basis. I can imagine that Lolita would be one of those books that needs to be read again.

Fingers crossed my parents don't have seizures! Thanks again, everyone.

----------


## Isagel

I think Botkin gives good advice. I suspect that this is a book that you read from different perspectives at different ages. I also think that it is hard to say if there is a right way of understanding a book - but we experience the story in different ways because we have different knowledge, and experience. There might be things in Lolita that a teenager would understand differently than me, who read it late.

----------


## Cien

I read Lolita when I was fifteen. It is one of my favorite books, though I (as somebody who is primarily interested in older men and always has been) dislike the way it bastardizes any attraction an adult may have towards a minor. 

Anyway, yes, you should read Lolita. Don't sell yourself short because of your age. It's not becoming. It may make older people like you more on ocassion, but it's not worth it.

----------


## Pensive

> I know that there are some books that you probably can't properly appreciate till you're slightly older.


Generally speaking, I think you are quite right. But as Logos has already mentioned, there are some people who would not appreciate a good book even at the age of forty or more.  :Tongue:  

So why wait for the time when you will be able to fully appreciate it? As far as your age goes - I think that at fifteen, a person is quite conscious of what is happening around him/her. This is the age when you learn things, and you are highly observant of all that is happening around you. This is the time when questions are bugging in your mind, and you have to learn to hear people's answers of those questions without following them all. Reading books, like Lolita, Mein Kampf, etc, is the same matter. When you will read them, your mind will be full of questions, and there are chances that the book will influence you but if you are strong enough to crush that influence and instead just take the book as an opinion, not as a fact, it will be better. 

I mean in this way, the book will be like another person giving his/her opinion about a certain matter or telling a tale to you of her/his/its life. And at the age of fifteen, with all things at the open (like drug use in schools), one should be able to form his/her own opinion rather than be influenced by a certain book without a thorough understanding. 

So all I can say is that you should read the book if you want to, but don't be too sure about "inspiration" without having read the book.

----------


## Bysshe

Thank you. I think I will take it out, and maybe I'll post here when I've read it and tell you what I thought...

----------


## NewAgewriter389

> The writer Humbert knew who he was but never told the audience who he was, he made the audience feel as much as he did. And even when Lolita told him who it was, he did not tell the reader and still left us wondering.


I just finished the book on my second day at almost 3 AM and felt kinda confused. i figured Quilty was the one who "rescued" (as Humbert Humbert would sarcastically say..) her, and that he saw her by accident. was he the guy that at one point ni the book was smiling and looking at Hubert with a weird look or something, after he had found her on the bed and thought that she had cheated on him, and did she ever cheat? al in al, what i am trying to say, was Quilty also like himbert? Confused reader here...

----------


## PeterL

> I just finished the book on my second day at almost 3 AM and felt kinda confused. i figured Quilty was the one who "rescued" (as Humbert Humbert would sarcastically say..) her, and that he saw her by accident. was he the guy that at one point ni the book was smiling and looking at Hubert with a weird look or something, after he had found her on the bed and thought that she had cheated on him, and did she ever cheat? al in al, what i am trying to say, was Quilty also like himbert? Confused reader here...


It's easy to be confused about that. Quilty and Humbert were different aspects of the same person.

----------


## JuLe

Lolita is on my summer reading list, I hope that someone will buy me this book for my birthday. I heard only really good comments about the book.
Amy Tan has even dedicated a full chapter to this book in her novel "The opposite of fate".

----------


## Nossa

I haven't read Lolita, though I was familiar with its name and its author. I'd like to comment on the point of how the book was labeled as "dirty" and "bad" and that it was banned from some countries. I find it rather irritating when authorities decide to ban a certain book, based on assumptions that it might do harm to certain notions that has been established in the society. People would NEVER forgive a pedophile , but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that we should ban ANY book talking about the subject, it's simply wrong. This happened before with ana arabic novel written by Naguin Mahfouz in Egypt in the 50s (Children of Gebelawi)..and it was banned, till just THIS year, when it was firstly published. I had the chance to get the book and started reading, and I found that many of the claims some people made about how the book insults God and prophets, were merely out of THIER own interpretation. I mean, isn't it an essential thing for a literary book to bare more than one interpretation?! I read a part of the book now, and I don't find it insulting. Sorry for being off point, but this IS affilliated with what we're discussing here.
The fact that Nabokov succeeded in making you feel sorry for such a person,whom people normaly regard as a bastard who should be shot, this should be looked upon as a sign of that man's greatness, not to ban the book!! At least give the people the chance to decide for themselves, without shoving opinions down thier throats. That's what I think.

----------


## tudwell

> It's easy to be confused about that. Quilty and Humbert were different aspects of the same person.


Umm... What? I'm usually open to alternate interpretations, but when it comes to _Lolita_, I don't think there's much to interpret. Nabokov violently opposed didacticism. What's on the page is what's there. And besides, how could Humbert go to prison for murdering an aspect of himself?

Sorry, but your interpretation just doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting your interpretation.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PeterL

> Umm... What? I'm usually open to alternate interpretations, but when it comes to _Lolita_, I don't think there's much to interpret. Nabokov violently opposed didacticism. What's on the page is what's there. And besides, how could Humbert go to prison for murdering an aspect of himself?
> 
> Sorry, but your interpretation just doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting your interpretation.


What makes you think that Humbert went to prison for murdering anyone? And why do you think that Nabokov opposed didacticism? Nabokov also claimed in the Epilogue that he hated symbolism, but he lied.

----------


## plainjane

Um, have you guys read the book?  :Confused:  

Humbert starts out in a prison cell first of all, and is addressing the jury throughout the book. That's the first clue.

----------


## PeterL

> Um, have you guys read the book?  
> 
> Humbert starts out in a prison cell first of all, and is addressing the jury throughout the book. That's the first clue.


That's the way that Nabokov presented it, but why would anyone take it at face value? Is Humbert a reliable narrator?

----------


## plainjane

> That's the way that Nabokov presented it, but why would anyone take it at face value? Is Humbert a reliable narrator?


 :Rolleyes:  
Humbert? Reliable?  :Biggrin:  One has to take certain framing techniques as fact.

----------


## tudwell

> What makes you think that Humbert went to prison for murdering anyone? And why do you think that Nabokov opposed didacticism? Nabokov also claimed in the Epilogue that he hated symbolism, but he lied.


Nabokov was an aesthete, a great admirer of Poe and Poe's philosophy (Poe is the most referenced author in _Lolita_) and if Nabokov says he hated symbolism, then I'll believe him.

And did you read the foreword? It's narrated by someone _other_ than Humbert Humbert and describes the situation: Humbert was awaiting trial for the murder of Quilty, but he died of a heart attack. After Lolita dies during childbirth, the qualifications for publishing the book set by Humbert himself are met and the book is published (after being edited by the narrator of the foreword).

----------


## PeterL

> Humbert? Reliable?  One has to take certain framing techniques as fact.


Why? _Lolita_ is a work of fiction. The technique of using unreliable narrators is quite ordinary and common. The framing of most novels usually sets the scene, but there is no actual particular reason why the introduction of a novel must be accepted at face value. I consider the introduction of _Lolita_ to be fiction about fiction. We readers have no way of knowing whether Humbert is the narrator, or if another character dreamed up the story about Humbert and put it into his point of view.




> Nabokov was an aesthete, a great admirer of Poe and Poe's philosophy (Poe is the most referenced author in _Lolita_) and if Nabokov says he hated symbolism, then I'll believe him.
> 
> And did you read the foreword? It's narrated by someone _other_ than Humbert Humbert and describes the situation: Humbert was awaiting trial for the murder of Quilty, but he died of a heart attack. After Lolita dies during childbirth, the qualifications for publishing the book set by Humbert himself are met and the book is published (after being edited by the narrator of the foreword).


I would believe the assertion that Nabokov hated symbolism, if it weren't false from the internal evidence of his writing. The use of "Annabel Lee" and symbols clearly related to that poem show that Nabokov used symbolism, and there were many other symbols. Remember that Nabokov was an expert on the writings of James Joyce, especially _Ulysses_ and consider the travel and various activities in _Lolita_. I consider the two novels to be quite similar in the use of moving around and referring to a wide variety of symbols.

If you wish to accept the narrator of the Epilogue (presented as Nabokov) has truthful, then do so; but I can see no reason to believe that that part of the book is anything except more fiction.

----------


## Walter

So, does anyone think Vladimir Nabokov was a ficitional person? How many levels of fictional framing is one willing to accept or declare before saying fiction ends there and [whatever] starts here? Does anyone even think I wrote this post? Or that I read the book? Or even know what a frame is?

----------


## tudwell

Hmm... I think I have a different definition of "symbolism" than some. I found a webpage about symbolism in _Lolita_. It said Humbert Humbert referred to two (Italian, I believe) kings named Humbert who were both dethroned, which obviously parallels the novel's Humbert to some extent. I, however, wouldn't consider this symbolism. It's a reference to something else, and one must know of the two things to appreciate its value. Symbolism, to me, would be like the color red representing death (to use a cliche). So what you consider symbolism involving Poe and "Annabel Lee" I would call a literary allusion.

And while I wouldn't consider the afterward a complete fiction, I do believe there is some symbolism in _Lolita_, and Nabokov can't be as literalist as he claims to be.

I'm still interested in your interpretation. If Quilty is just some aspect of Humbert Humbert, I take it he didn't really exist, and Humbert didn't really kill him? If so, then what parts of the story do you believe actually _did_ happen (in Humbert's world, of course), if any. It just seems to me that you're headed down a road where the entire novel could be seen as, like you already said, a dream. I prefer to take it at face value.

----------


## PeterL

> Hmm... I think I have a different definition of "symbolism" than some. I found a webpage about symbolism in _Lolita_. It said Humbert Humbert referred to two (Italian, I believe) kings named Humbert who were both dethroned, which obviously parallels the novel's Humbert to some extent. I, however, wouldn't consider this symbolism. It's a reference to something else, and one must know of the two things to appreciate its value. Symbolism, to me, would be like the color red representing death (to use a cliche). So what you consider symbolism involving Poe and "Annabel Lee" I would call a literary allusion.


So would I, but as part of the allusion, there were the people who appeared from the sea. I would have to read that section again for the details, but I believe that was symbolic. I also believe that there was symbolism in the barbershop section, and other places. I believe that I wrote that I consider Lolita to be very similar to _Ulysses_, which is solid symbolism.




> And while I wouldn't consider the afterward a complete fiction, I do believe there is some symbolism in _Lolita_, and Nabokov can't be as literalist as he claims to be.
> 
> I'm still interested in your interpretation. If Quilty is just some aspect of Humbert Humbert, I take it he didn't really exist, and Humbert didn't really kill him? If so, then what parts of the story do you believe actually _did_ happen (in Humbert's world, of course), if any. It just seems to me that you're headed down a road where the entire novel could be seen as, like you already said, a dream. I prefer to take it at face value.


OK, take it at face value. I should reread it (it's been a couple of years), but had a strong feeling from early on that there was something fishy about it. His use of "Annabel Lee" made me wonder how serious the novel was, because that poem is beautiful, silly verse. Perhaps I am too cynical, but the actual narrative doesn't ring true, unless I read it as allegorical. And in _Palefire_ there is a mention of John Shade's "Cup of Hebe" in proximity to Hurricane Lolita tearing up the East Coast. Lolita was a symbol of young, immature women. A cup is a symbol for women, and Hebe was the Greek goddess of youth. I don't think that Lolita is very good purely at face value, but, if one sees it as an arrangement of symbols, it is great.

----------


## PeterL

> So, does anyone think Vladimir Nabokov was a ficitional person? How many levels of fictional framing is one willing to accept or declare before saying fiction ends there and [whatever] starts here? Does anyone even think I wrote this post? Or that I read the book? Or even know what a frame is?


Fictional framing is fiction. It is dangerous to expect that anything that characters or narrators do or say in a work of fiction is not fictional.

----------


## Walter

I hardly know what to say other than "Yes."

----------


## plainjane

> Fictional framing is fiction. It is dangerous to expect that anything that characters or narrators do or say in a work of fiction is not fictional.


Extrapolate all the way out to..how do we know we are real, how do we know we are not a character in either someone else's dream or imagination. How do we know we are not the same difference as a microbe in a pitre dish in some scientists laboratory. The line has to be drawn by common sense, which is not too common.

----------


## Walter

I prefer to discuss the book as written, not as it might have been written, as the latter frequently leads to an elevated discussion that wanders all over the landscape without any necessity for participants having read the book or even checking back with it occasionally for corroborating detail. For myself I prefer book discussion to philosophizing.

----------


## PeterL

> Extrapolate all the way out to..how do we know we are real, how do we know we are not a character in either someone else's dream or imagination. How do we know we are not the same difference as a microbe in a pitre dish in some scientists laboratory. The line has to be drawn by common sense, which is not too common.


I agree with that sentiment completely. Nothing can be known with certainty, and we have to decide what to accept as true. Different people draw the line at different places. 

In literature I prefer to use evidence within the work to decide what is true within the framework of the work of fiction.

----------


## Spanky30025

Hey, - I have to admit a love for Nabokov's works in general, however I found "Lolita" worthy but dull when I read it years ago. I recommend "Pale Fire", - a demanding work so don't start it until you're utterly sure; I suggest easing in with his short stories, among the best written in the Western tradition, but bettered by Borges.
I really only posted this to recommend a modern instance of the 'literature of Lolita' that I enjoyed, - "The End of Alice" by A.M. Homes, - disturbingly witty and perversely zestful.

----------


## Walter

> In literature I prefer to use evidence within the work to decide what is true within the framework of the work of fiction.


Couldn't agree more. Glad to hear it.  :Smile:

----------


## plainjane

> I agree with that sentiment completely. Nothing can be known with certainty, and we have to decide what to accept as true. Different people draw the line at different places. 
> 
> In literature I prefer to use evidence within the work to decide what is true within the framework of the work of fiction.


Perhaps I was a bit satirical in my approach, but allow me to be clearer. Certain aspects have to be taken literally, at face value. The actual frame of the story for example. When I mentioned Common Sense in my previous post I thought I was putting that across. Sorry, but it seems I was not clear enough. 

Someone upstream mentioned a possibility of Humbert and Quilty being aspects of the same person. And while there is a certain doppleganger aspect there, in no way can I or do I believe that to be the case. There has to be a certain given logic in a novel, and logically Humbert killed Quilty and was in a prison cell awaiting trial there by giving him the time to write. 
Now...where the wiggle room comes in is Humbert's intrepretation of his "relationship" with Lolita. BTW, I use the term "relationship" very loosely, since such a relationship is abhorrent.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

Please excuse me for going somewhat off-topic here (only "somewhat" because the book I refer to is also about sexual obsession), but I've been going nuts trying to remember the title or the author of what I thought a fine novel in which the first half is narrated by a youngish man who has kidnapped a young woman he is sexually drawn to, is carrying her around (I think) in his truck or has her imprisoned in his house, and the other half is narrated by the young woman, his prisoner.

----------


## Moira

> Please excuse me for going somewhat off-topic here (only "somewhat" because the book I refer to is also about sexual obsession), but I've been going nuts trying to remember the title or the author of what I thought a fine novel in which the first half is narrated by a youngish man who has kidnapped a young woman he is sexually drawn to, is carrying her around (I think) in his truck or has her imprisoned in his house, and the other half is narrated by the young woman, his prisoner.


Fowles' The Collector. Great novel :Smile: .

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Fowles' The Collector. Great novel.


YES! Thank you! Now I can get it and read it again. And the least, the VERY LEAST I can do for you is to urge you to get hold of _Arthur & George_ by Julian Barnes, which you have now freed me to go back and finish reading...except I hate the thought that it will soon be over...

Given your excellent taste, why not suggest to me another novel you admire? Only do it privately perhaps since we shouldn't derail this thread.

----------


## PeterL

> Perhaps I was a bit satirical in my approach, but allow me to be clearer. Certain aspects have to be taken literally, at face value. The actual frame of the story for example. When I mentioned Common Sense in my previous post I thought I was putting that across. Sorry, but it seems I was not clear enough.


I understood your sarcasm and choose to ignore that. "Common sense" comes in many forms. Consider the frame of the story carefully, and you may see that it is a phony frame, an additional layer of fiction. Consider also the Epilogue, and you should notice that it is yet another layer of fiction. If you want to consider the narrative at face value, then do so; but, if one considers the narrative at face value, then what is the theme of the novel?





> Someone upstream mentioned a possibility of Humbert and Quilty being aspects of the same person. And while there is a certain doppleganger aspect there, in no way can I or do I believe that to be the case. There has to be a certain given logic in a novel, and logically Humbert killed Quilty and was in a prison cell awaiting trial there by giving him the time to write. 
> Now...where the wiggle room comes in is Humbert's intrepretation of his "relationship" with Lolita. BTW, I use the term "relationship" very loosely, since such a relationship is abhorrent.


I don't disagree with you on these points, except in degree. Again, I have to ask what the story is really about; what is the theme? What does it mean? Your interpretation of the theme would determine your attitude toward each part of the novel, and toward each character.

----------


## plainjane

> I understood your sarcasm and choose to ignore that. "Common sense" comes in many forms.


Sarcasm is too strong a word for my intention. Although I certainly can be heavy handed on occasion, but didn't mean to be here. Just imagine a Spockian eyebrow move. 

As far as what I think the book is about.....on one level at least it struck me as survivalist, and a striving for freedom. Lolita herself survives and thrives in a sense, her _possibilities_ thrive lets say. Maybe more about the elasticity of human beings to survive. But in the end it is what someone will do to be free. Humbert, free to love the person he wishes/imagines, and Lolita to be free of first her mother than Humbert and in the end Quilty. 
And even manipulation and power of one over the other. 
Maybe I look at things too simply.  :Smile:  

I've read about the theories about old Europe debauching young America, or even the reverse, and eye them with the same jaundiced eye that VN did.

----------


## PeterL

> As far as what I think the book is about.....on one level at least it struck me as survivalist, and a striving for freedom. Lolita herself survives and thrives in a sense, her _possibilities_ thrive lets say. Maybe more about the elasticity of human beings to survive. But in the end it is what someone will do to be free. Humbert, free to love the person he wishes/imagines, and Lolita to be free of first her mother than Humbert and in the end Quilty. 
> And even manipulation and power of one over the other. 
> Maybe I look at things too simply.


I partly agree with you, but I see the characters (Lolita, Humbert, and Quilty, at least) as mostly symbolic. Humbert wishes to regain his youth through contact with the essence of youth. Lolita, the Cup of Hebe, is young, immature womanhood. Because she is an immature woman, she couldn't bear children, because that would show that she was a mature woman; she would die as that symbolic type, if she hadn't physically died.. The story is somewhat like the myth of Tithonus with twists. I think that Lolita's death is the most important event in the novel.

----------


## tudwell

I didn't do much analysis, and nothing particularly jumped up screaming for hours of deep thought. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. _Lolita_ contains some of the best prose I've ever read. Nabokov is a master. I mean, just read the first chapter!

But then again, it seems that you, PeterL, got much more out of the novel than I did. I felt the plot and characters were a bit flat and boring and that it was really only the style that gave the novel any of its worth. Perhaps I was wrong. I'm interested to reread it again, approaching it at a more symbolic level.

----------


## plainjane

> I partly agree with you, but I see the characters (Lolita, Humbert, and Quilty, at least) as mostly symbolic. Humbert wishes to regain his youth through contact with the essence of youth. Lolita, the Cup of Hebe, is young, immature womanhood. Because she is an immature woman, she couldn't bear children, because that would show that she was a mature woman; she would die as that symbolic type, if she hadn't physically died.. The story is somewhat like the myth of Tithonus with twists. I think that Lolita's death is the most important event in the novel.


But I don't think it was with _any_ "essence of youth". He saw Lolita almost as a reincarnation of Annabel, and yes wanted to regain _that_ youth. Remember he'd had many liaisons in his past. None satisfied him. Part of his first description of Lolita:


> It was the same child--the same frail, honey-hued shoulders, the same silky supple bare back, the same chestnut head of hair......I recognized the tiny dark-brown mole on her side.


Later he mentions that Lolita was to eclipse her prototype [Annabel]. 
What you mention about her death in child birth though I find most interesting.

----------


## plainjane

> I didn't do much analysis, and nothing particularly jumped up screaming for hours of deep thought. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. _Lolita_ contains some of the best prose I've ever read. Nabokov is a master. I mean, just read the first chapter!


The prose alone is wonderful, I so agree! 
I do believe though one could read Lolita every year or so and get something new out of the reading, the levels are practically endless.

----------


## PeterL

> But I don't think it was with _any_ "essence of youth". He saw Lolita almost as a reincarnation of Annabel, and yes wanted to regain _that_ youth. Remember he'd had many liaisons in his past. None satisfied him. Part of his first description of Lolita:
> Later he mentions that Lolita was to eclipse her prototype [Annabel].


To Humbert she was the essence of youth, a way for him to become the child playing with Annabel again. In Humbert's World of Forms Lolita equalled Annabel, who equalled youth. Of course no others satisfied; he was looking for the ideal.

----------


## plainjane

> To Humbert she was the essence of youth, a way for him to become the child playing with Annabel again. In Humbert's World of Forms Lolita equalled Annabel, who equalled youth. Of course no others satisfied; he was looking for the ideal.


Plus following that line of logic perhaps there was a bit of looking for forgiveness from Lolita/Annabel as well.
Humbert lost his mother early..."picnic, lightening", His aunt as she prophetically told.....the women in his life dropped like flies. No matter how lightly these deaths are told of, the trauma of them had to affect him terribly. 
And Annabel. Did Humbert blame himself? Possible, children will unreasonably do so.

----------


## PeterL

> Plus following that line of logic perhaps there was a bit of looking for forgiveness from Lolita/Annabel as well.
> Humbert lost his mother early..."picnic, lightening", His aunt as she prophetically told.....the women in his life dropped like flies. No matter how lightly these deaths are told of, the trauma of them had to affect him terribly. 
> And Annabel. Did Humbert blame himself? Possible, children will unreasonably do so.


There is a lot of room for interpretation in _Lolita_, and I tink that was what VN intended.

----------


## Nico87

Won't make a new thread for this, but I'm currently thinking of buying both _Lolita_ and _Pnin_. So, help me on my way!

----------


## adampearson

I really like Lolita and am always awestruck by the way Nabakov writes. He is a master wordsmith and a smile surely remains on your face throughout the entire experience of reading his works. One thing about Lolita in particular though, while written in breathtakingly wonderful prose, it lacks the substance of truly great novels. Humbert Humbert is not a character from whom you can take something with you. I would compare this novel to the most beautiful woman you've ever seen. Her stunning beauty will surely take your breath away, but alas, beauty alone does not a great woman make.

Adam

----------


## kelby_lake

I think it's very good, but what are your thoughts?

----------


## JBI

One of the greatest novels of the twentieth century, Nabokov creates a tragic comedy, fused by an absolutely brilliant narrator, to poke fun at the very foundations and biases that we have created about society. Personally, I feel Nabokov, through his narrator is laughing at us, saying "You sick perverts, you fell into the trap of my narrator, and I should you how sick and twisted your perverse lives are."

----------


## kelby_lake

I reckon that the two are both victims, although they clash. Vivian Darkbloom, Clare Quilty's assistant, is the anagram of Vladimir Nabokov.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> I actually see Lolita as more predatory than Humbert Humbert. She used Humbert more than he used her, in my opinion. Of course, he's usually seen as the "user" and she the "victim" in part because he was the adult and she the child.


I think that this is one of the worst (which is to say easiest) ways to misread _Lolita_. If you read Nabokov's afterword to _Lolita_, then you would find out that the 'first gleams' of _Lolita_ lay in a story which Nabokov read in a newspaper, in which a monkey which was trained to draw, drew the bars on it's cage. I think that Nabokov's example encapsulates Lolita's situation throughout her tenure with Humbert. Humbert is a very intelligent, articulate, erudite and sometimes funny narrator ('frigid gentlewomen of the jury!, 'I have noticed a drop in Lolita's morals' etc.), yet, for all his erudition, he is essentially a narcissist-he is completely disinterested in the lives and opinions of other people, he has little or no empathy and, until the end of the novel, little or no regret over his rape and abduction of a young girl. A lot of people forget that Lolita is a young girl; she is forced to grow up quickly and yet too few people recognise this as they are held under the spell woven by a witty and intelligent narcissist. He doesnt allow Lolita to grow up, or to be herself, simply because he wants her to remain the same forever, he wants Lolita to remain a slave to his will, an echo of his insensitivity. 

Another important passage in the novel which illustrates this the passage when Lolita repels Humbert's advances following his revelation that her mother has died-she goes back to Humbert because she had nowhere else to go. Nabokov notes that in Kafka's _The Metamorphoses_ Gregor's family are insects masquerading as human beings-the same could be said of Humbert Humbert.

----------


## kelby_lake

> I'm fifteen years old, and I was wondering if I should try reading it now, or if I should wait until I'm older. I know that there are some books that you probably can't properly appreciate till you're slightly older. I'm looking for something new to read, and it's one of those books that keeps appearing on lists of "classic books". Apart from anything else, I've read short extracts from the book and I'm intrigued by Nabokov's style of writing. I'm trying to write a book myself - I know that sounds horribly pretentious coming from a teenager - and I want to read a variety of books by different authors to gain ideas and inspiration.
> 
> So, two questions, really. Firstly, am I too young to appreciate Lolita, and secondly, will I get funny looks from the school librarian if I try to take it out?


i read it when i was your age and was fine. things aren't step-by-step graphically explained but the horror comes out of what is implied and a few shocking sentences, because of the thoughts behind them.
the librarian didn't give me funny looks but my english teacher looked suitably shocked. he kept going on about how horrible it was because the paedophile was the narrator but i don't think he properly appreciated it. because it's a book you'd naturally make assumptions about, i suggest you read it twice.

which film of lolita do you think was truer to the book/better?

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> Humbert Humbert is, to me, his own victim. I'm not saying he's Lolita's victim, but his own. Most of us can control our impulses - anger, desire, jealousy - and we don't fall victim to them, but Humbert Humbert did. Lolita didn't fall victim to her impulses or even to Humbert's. She made of her life what she wanted. She did the choosing. She didn't choose wisely, but she did have the luxury of choosing. Of course, her choosing was constrained, but who's isn't? We all have constraints placed on our lives and choices. Humbert didn't have that luxury of choice. Not that he wasn't a predatory character. Of course he was. Of course he tried to control and seduce Lolita. He used her poor unwitting mother, who was much more of a victim than Lolita.


I agree, in part, with the assesment of Humbert as being, in a sense, enslaved to his own desires-he could not help being what he was. But he was a cruel and malicious individual in other ways-notice his treatment of his sily and stupid first wife, his treatment of Lolita's utterly phillistine mother-note the way in which he describes them, as being idiotic creatures who deserved what they got-remember it is Humbert who is narrarating the events, Humbert who is describing the characters, Humbert who is describing the actions of various characters, it is Humbert who traps us into thinking that his wives were idiots, that Lolita was manipulating him, that he was a victim of his own perversity.

Humbert does not allow Lolita to grow up-he wants her to reflect his ideal image, his Annabel Lee, it is Humbert who drugs and rapes Lolita. Humbert fails to see Lolita outside of his own narrow and arbitary prism of what Lolita _should be_, he only loves and desires Lolita insofar that she reflects his own personality and tastes. Humbert is a true despot. Lolita's 'freedom' is not too dissimilair to the 'freedom' of citizens who live under a autocratic regime. 

You say that Lolita has a degree of choice-but what choice does she have? Both of her parents are dead and she is kidnapped by a perverted lunatic and taken on a long road trip, followed by a stint at a place where she knows nobody-Humbert withdraws her from the place as soon as she begins to show the slightest semblance of recalcitrance, of independence, of wanting to be a 'normal' teenager. She could have gone to somebody for help, but she was just a young girl, and I as I mentioned before, a lot of people tend to forget that and think that she is a lot older simply because she was raped by an older man. As Lolita's mother notes, deep down she is just a 'normal girl' however bourgeoisie that may sound to Humbert's tendentious ears.

People also tend to forget how Lolita was often treated like an unwanted child by her 'victim' mother (Or as Humbert may describe her; car crash, dead.)

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> which film of lolita do you think was truer to the book/better?


For what it is worth, Nabokov collaborated and helped write the Kubrick version, and thought it was a masterpiece, or something along those lines, and this coming from someone who rarely watched movies! I guess Kubrick's film would be less 'steamy' or sexually explicit because of film censorship of the time, but that is not what Lolita is about. Plus Kubrick is one of the greatest directors of all time, and the film boasts a great cast. (Peter Sellers, James Mason.) I have not seen the newer version with Jeremy Irons in it.

----------


## kelby_lake

In response to Inderjit Sanghe, I also agree- HH is a manipulator, he admits that 
himself. Apart from Lolita, he describes the rest of the characters as being silly and open to manipulation but ironically he is manipulated by a child. Lolita's mother really is selfish. I think HH and Lolita, for all their clashes, are very alike- both are lonely and both are clever.
At the end, when she is older, I think that he is really and truly in love with her at that point- she is no longer like a 'nymphet' but he finally realises.

----------


## PeterL

> For what it is worth, Nabokov collaborated and helped write the Kubrick version, and thought it was a masterpiece, or something along those lines, and this coming from someone who rarely watched movies! I guess Kubrick's film would be less 'steamy' or sexually explicit because of film censorship of the time, but that is not what Lolita is about. Plus Kubrick is one of the greatest directors of all time, and the film boasts a great cast. (Peter Sellers, James Mason.) I have not seen the newer version with Jeremy Irons in it.


Nabokov almost collaborated on the screenplay. Kubrick hired him, and he wrote a screenplay, but that wasn't what was used. If you look around, you should be able to find a copy of his screenplay with notes. There was one scene in the movie that had some relationship with Nabokov's screenplay, but I con't remember which one.

----------


## bounty

i have not read lolita yet (i plan to) but ive recently been through anne rice's belinda and i enjoyed large parts of that very much...

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> Nabokov almost collaborated on the screenplay. Kubrick hired him, and he wrote a screenplay, but that wasn't what was used. If you look around, you should be able to find a copy of his screenplay with notes. There was one scene in the movie that had some relationship with Nabokov's screenplay, but I con't remember which one


Really? I always thought Nabokov helped write the screenplay, guess I am wrong.

[QUOTE][Oh, Humbert was a manipulator and a nasty man, but he wasn't a very good manipulator, whereas Lolita was much better at it/QUOTE]

Not too sure about Humbert not being a good manipulator-he is, after all, the narrator of the story, he tells us what he wants us to hear and in a way (somewhat brilliantly) manipulates the readers. He also manipulates his wife into thinking he loves her and many of his neighbours and colleagues into thinking he was a normal, healthy stepfather-to say that Lolita is somehow more manipulative than Lolita simply because she does her best to (rightfully) get away from his tyranny is a rather weak argument given that Humbert himself manipulates a lot of the characters in the novel-notice that the one character who is unable to manipulate is his 'fellow pervert', Quilty. 

Nabokov better developed the concept of 'unreliable narrators in the form of Kinbote in _Pale Fire_, another (possible) sociopath who fits the story and the actions of other people into the narrow prism of his own imagination. Yes, Humbert had his "good points", he was not a complete monster after all, and yes Lolita could be manipulative too, everybody is and can be manipulative to an extent, and everybody sees only what they want to see-like in _In Search of Lost Time_, when the narrator complains that one of the characters, Bloch, only views the actions of others in relation to himself, that Bloch thought that if a friend didn't send a letter to him for a week then it was because that friend disliked Bloch, rather than because the said friend was sick or busy. Humbert is kind of like a more neurotic, obsequious and perverse Bloch. We rarely see the more positive sides of the characters who Humbert despises (namely most of the characters in the novel)-they are all idiots or frauds. 





> There are a lot of unwanted children and a lot of orphaned children as well, however, most of them aren't manipulators, most don't end up loving a pedophile, and most turn out okay. No child really has "freedom." All children under the age of eighteen have some lack of freedom


Really? Lolita "loved" Humbert? Did she? Yes, she flirted with him, even prior to her mothers death, but love is too strong a word for what Lolita may or may not have felt for Humbert-as I have already mentioned Humbert is a highly unreliable narrator, he only sees what he wants to see and so he is able to con himself into believing that Lolita is somehow in love with him, thus alleviating his guilt. He doesn't really talk about Lolita's desire to be a normal teenager with a normal boyfriend (he derides teenage boys as being all "muscles and gonnera(sp?)" and fails to dwell upon Lolitas sobbing in the night-even when he does he tends to dismiss it. It is kind of like his 'trick' of using the actions of other men (Poe, Dante) to justify his actions-hey Dante loved a 12 year old, so why the hell can't I? In a sense he is right, societal norms and vales are entirely arbitrary, but it is a sign of severe moral immaturity and apathy to use the actions of others to justify your own. 





> In an autocratic society, Lolita wouldn't have been allowed to receive mail from Quilty, which she did, or leave with him, which she did.


I agree-she could have and should have gone to someone else (i.e. the police), and I was wrong on the 'autocratic' point. 




> I don't really judge any character in the book and don't feel Nabokov was doing so, either. He has written that he believed art should be aesthetic only, never moralistic, so I don't feel Lolita is truly a tale of a child molester. Nabokov always said that literature should plunge its reader into "aesthetic bliss." He wasn't concerned with making a moral statement of any kind. I see Lolita as much more about verbal eroticism than physical eroticism.


Yes, Nabokov favoured the 'aesthetic' reading of the novel to the political (which he found banal) and the moral. But if we were to judge Lolita purely from Nabokov's perspective then we would have little to talk about-apart from the fact that it is a beautifully written novel.

Nabokov, in his literary criticism, also 'criticised' or commented on the 'morals' of the characters. Dostoevskii's heroes are sociopathic 'sinning their way to Jesus', the Samsa family are insects, Chichikov works for the devil etc. In Madame Bovary, Homais was a 'philistine', Emma and Léon are terrible readers-in many ways Nabokov's thoughts are echoes of what Flaubert, who also wrote for aesthetic bliss (until he was corrupted by George Sand), wanted to say about his characters-no novelist, no matter how strongly her or she propagates the idea of 'art for arts sake' wants his characters to be one dimensional and entirely free of moral judgement, and in many ways Nabokov is a reflection of his own aesthetic and to a certain point moral views. He thought that nature was a great deceiver, and that books, or fairy tales (as he called them) were extension of this-they frequently deceive and manipulate readers, and the prevalence of unreliable narrators in Nabokov's novels reflects this-unreliable narrators are choc-a-bloc in Nabokov's novels. 

Nabokov's favourite characters in his novels were (I think) Lolita and Cincinnatus C-both characters have certain things in common, for example Cincinnatus's imprisonment is a reflection of Lolita's (perhaps less tangible) imprisonment and our own (partial) imprisonment to Humbert's narration. Cincinnatus is imprisoned for no reason (or for having his own opinion) and is told that he can not dream, that he cannot think sexually about other people, and that is he does, it could be considered as construing rape. Like Cincinnatus, Lolita is subject to the depravities of her jailer(s). 

[QUOTE][Whatever one takes from the book, I think Lolita is a brilliant masterpiece./QUOTE]

I agree-it has been nice talking about Lolita with you.  :Smile:

----------


## Kafka's Crow

_Lolita_ is next on my reading list. I have read _Granita_, a story by Umberto Eco which depicts a young man who falls in love with old and decrepit grannies! It is in the collection titled _Misreadings._ Good laugh:

http://everything2.com/title/Misreadings

----------


## PeterL

> _Lolita_ is next on my reading list. I have read _Granita_, a story by Umberto Eco which depicts a young man who falls in love with old and decrepit grannies! It is in the collection titled _Misreadings._ Good laugh:


One should read _Lolita_ before reading "Granita", because "Granita" was a parody of _Lolita_.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

Humbert was a master manipulator, right from the word go-

Humbert's narcissism is apparent from the start, note for example his hilarious statement that the McCoo's house burned down due to the "the synchronous conflagration that had been raging all night in my veins"-ironic, perhaps, interesting nonetheless. Also note his description of the dog which is nearly run over by the car he is travelling in, the kind of dog that will always be at risk from being run over my cars, in any case he is tempting fate as his conclusion is an oddly prophetic summarisation of his own relationship with Lolita. (And ironic, considering the fact that the car that runs over Dolores tries to avoid a dog and thus hits her.)

He immediately sets upon Dolores-best get the description out of the way as quickly as possible-accusing her of philistine vulgarity, all American pretension and drabness a book-club bourgeoisie if ever there was one. Perhaps he was right, but he fails to notice the fakeness behind his own "old world politeness" how is equally constrained by the image of him as a old world intellectual and how he needs to keep this image up in order to hide his inner, perverse nature. Baudelaire once claimed that the devil's greatest trick was to convince the world he didn't exist and Humbert's trick echoes the devil's deceit.

He deceives Dolores into thinking he is in love with her-that is coldness is a old world idiosyncrasy, rather than being a manipulation of Dolores, supposed instantaneous, attraction to him. When she threatens to send Lolita to boarding school he knows that he cannot beat her into submission like he did to Valeria, twisting the wrist she once broke, he had to manipulate her, and make it out as if it was she who always made the decisions, that Dolores wore the trousers in the house and that Humbert lived in a state of perpetual acquiescence, poor, vulnerable Humbert! He tricks his rather bland next-door-neighbours, Jane and John (even their names are a reflection of bland, dour Americana!) into thinking that he had an affair with Dolores year before and that he was in fact Lolita's real father-not that he lets us see this in a negative light, it was an act of cleverness, rather than a string in the web of Humbert's deceit. But even the subtlest spiders have weak points!

He fails to differentiate the difference between a moth and a butterfly when he picks up Lolita and he convinces her that if she leaves him she will only end up in a cold, loveless home, where she will rot amongst the drudgery. He fails to see how much Lolita desires normality, how she wants a father figure in her life-instead he deceives us with his nebulous neologisms, he sexually manipulates Lolita when she is sick and constantly tricks a wide range of people-priests, psychoanalysts and naive neighbours and teachers-as well as Lolita herself in delaying the news of her mothers death.

----------


## PeterL

> Oh, I agree!  "Granita" was a terrific story, but made all the better if one has read _Lolita_ first. It only makes sense, right? In order to understand the parody, one needs to be familiar with what's being parodied.


Yes, I think that you are right. Parodies are only really funny when the reader knows the original work. I don't think that "Granita" would even make sense to someone who hadn't read _Lolita_.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> One should read _Lolita_ before reading "Granita", because "Granita" was a parody of _Lolita_.


I read _Granita_ around 9 years ago but was quite familiar with Nabokov's work by that time. It did make sense and will, surely, make more sense when I go back to it after finishing reading _Lolita._ Started reading the book today and am already blown away by the style of it. Strange but today my sister-in-law told me that my long-time favorite song, Radiohead's 'Creep,' is about pedophilia! Never thought of it that way but then my liking of the song started after watching Yvan Attal's _Ils se marièrent et eurent beaucoup d'enfants_ which featured it and had nothing to do with little girls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpblnsJEWM

----------


## chasestalling

The victims are the the constituents of the censors who really believed that by censoring the book they'd achieve their objective.

----------


## kelby_lake

? Not sure what you mean

----------


## chasestalling

LOLITA was censored, deemed a menace to public morals, etcetera etcetera. Now if the censors had just shut up...who knows maybe they might've gotten what they really wanted.

----------


## Lily Adams

I LOVE Lolita! Amazing, incredible, genius work of literary merit. I read the book and then saw the Kubrick movie, and I cried both times at the end...I felt so bad for Humbert. I mean, yes, he was a very sick man, but he was in love and Lolita just used him like that. Nabokov did his job of making me sympathsize with Humbert.

One of my favorite parts in the book was the scene of Humbert in the park and he's twitching from the pleasure of all the little girls around him and this lady comes up to him and says, "Are you all right?" Hahahaha. Oh man. It was an "ew" moment but a very funny one. I love black comedy.

Also I thought it was unfathomable that Nabokov wrote it that well in English when he wasn't even a native speaker. Absolute genius. Such imagery. It totally twisted my mind and made me look at things differently.

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

_Granita_ by Eco is indeed quite funny, though I prefer his 'editorial criticsms' of Dante, Kafka and Proust in the same book.




> LOLITA was censored, deemed a menace to public morals, etcetera etcetera. Now if the censors had just shut up...who knows maybe they might've gotten what they really wanted


Nabokov, I believe, was able to get the book first published via a French Erotica publisher, which could also boast of Henry Miller and Jean Genet! I also remember reading about how Graham Greene was one of the first people to recognise Lolita's genius-most people at the time thought that it was a pornographic book and ridiculed Greene when he named is in his lost of the three best books of the year. If it wasn't for Greene, Lolita may not have been recognised as a masterpiece. 

Another point on the movie-I can't help but think that James Mason, talented actor that he was, was the wrong person to play Humbert. I think that somebody like Marlon Brando would have been a better choice, or maybe Montgomery Clift, though he may have looked a little bit too 'boyish'. Mason, for me, just didn't have that rugged, European handsomeness which Humbert claims he has.

----------


## kelby_lake

I agree that Mason was the wrong choice. I don't know whether Humbert is actually good-looking but the other characters seem to think it. Jeromy Irons was aesthetically better, although still wasn't quite there.

----------


## Alphabet Soup

*Inderjit Sanghe*, one would think someone as knowledgeable as yourself would get the character's names right. Surely you're not that careless?

----------


## Emil Miller

> _Granita_ 
> Another point on the movie-I can't help but think that James Mason, talented actor that he was, was the wrong person to play Humbert. I think that somebody like Marlon Brando would have been a better choice, or maybe Montgomery Clift, though he may have looked a little bit too 'boyish'. Mason, for me, just didn't have that rugged, European handsomeness which Humbert claims he has.


I thought that Mason was perfect for Humbert, as were all of the rest of the cast. Brando would have been a disaster, as per his performance in Last Tango in Paris 11 years later,.How could the all-American Brando have had the European handsomness necessary for the part?

----------


## Mag Master 21

Portions of the novel have extremely well crafted prose; however, I thought a fair amount of it was boring and forgettable.

----------


## Wilde woman

For those of you who voted that both Humbert and Dolores are victims, do you mean that Humbert was victimized _by Dolores_?

I personally find it hard to believe Humbert is a victim of Dolores. If he argues that she seduced him, I'd argue that he's not exactly the most reliable of narrators. Or do you mean Humbert is victimized by Dolores' unfaithfulness? Sleeping with another boy at summer camp and later running away with Quilty?

Or perhaps do you mean that Humbert is victimized by something else?

----------


## Emil Miller

> For those of you who voted that both Humbert and Dolores are victims, do you mean that Humbert was victimized _by Dolores_?
> 
> I personally find it hard to believe Humbert is a victim of Dolores. If he argues that she seduced him, I'd argue that he's not exactly the most reliable of narrators. Or do you mean Humbert is victimized by Dolores' unfaithfulness? Sleeping with another boy at summer camp and later running away with Quilty?
> 
> Or perhaps do you mean that Humbert is victimized by something else?


Humbert was victim because he was in love with her and it was inevitable that he would lose her.

----------


## kelby_lake

> I thought that Mason was perfect for Humbert, as were all of the rest of the cast. Brando would have been a disaster, as per his performance in Last Tango in Paris 11 years later,.How could the all-American Brando have had the European handsomness necessary for the part?


Oh, you couldn't had an American play him!
We need a new film of Lolita, I think.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Oh, you couldn't had an American play him!
> We need a new film of Lolita, I think.


Well, we could have an American play him if there were anyone available, but the current crop of Hollywood pretty boys, who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, would be out of their depth. Who do you propose for the part? Bruce Willis perhaps; but unfortunately there are no car chases or fireball explosions in the story. There may be other possiblities but I no longer bother with a Hollywood that relinquished genuine film making to the inanities of Wall Street backers years ago. The Oscars were presented recently: who cares? They give them away in Corn Flake packets these days.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Well, we could have an American play him if there were anyone available, but the current crop of Hollywood pretty boys, who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, would be out of their depth. Who do you propose for the part? Bruce Willis perhaps; but unfortunately there are no car chases or fireball explosions in the story. There may be other possiblities but I no longer bother with a Hollywood that relinquished genuine film making to the inanities of Wall Street backers years ago. The Oscars were presented recently: who cares? They give them away in Corn Flake packets these days.


Hmm...not sure actually. We need someone who looks sort of dignified and well-spoken...and I think they should have stubble. And they shouldn't be so old! Poor Humbert was only 36, not 50 million!

----------


## Emil Miller

> Hmm...not sure actually. We need someone who looks sort of dignified and well-spoken...and I think they should have stubble. And they shouldn't be so old! Poor Humbert was only 36, not 50 million!


Mason was 43 when he made Lolita, somewhat short of 50 million and a very convincing age for Humbert, despite 36 being the original protagonist's age. By today's standards 36 is the new 17-years-old, although the coming depression is going to force them grow up. Personally, I am looking forward to the days when real men, rather than spoilt little pretty boys, set the standard of acting and behaviour in general. Currently, I can't think of anybody who is well-spoken and dignified, and stubble is the sign of a slob and the antithesis of dignity; despite advertisers trying to persuade impressionable people otherwise.

----------


## kelby_lake

Yeah, you have a point. Though Jeremy Irons didn't have the right build I think, he had the right sort of style.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Yeah, you have a point. Though Jeremy Irons didn't have the right build I think, he had the right sort of style.


I thought Irons was pretty good and the girl was more in keeping with Nobokov's creation but the direction was a disaster.

----------


## kelby_lake

It did look a bit awkward.

----------


## WICKES

> Well, we could have an American play him if there were anyone available, but the current crop of Hollywood pretty boys, who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, would be out of their depth. Who do you propose for the part? Bruce Willis perhaps; but unfortunately there are no car chases or fireball explosions in the story. There may be other possiblities but I no longer bother with a Hollywood that relinquished genuine film making to the inanities of Wall Street backers years ago. The Oscars were presented recently: who cares? They give them away in Corn Flake packets these days.


It would have to be a European playing him. You really need someone with an upper class English accent- an RSC actor type. If Hollywood made it though it would be sanitised, have an ugly script, star Tom Cruise and be completely unwatchable.

----------


## Emil Miller

> It would have to be a European playing him. You really need someone with an upper class English accent- an RSC actor type. If Hollywood made it though it would be sanitised, have an ugly script, star Tom Cruise and be completely unwatchable.


I think the film would have to be sanitised to a certain extent because ( even in these degenerate days ) it would be difficult to get away with a 12 year old girl as the lover of a 36 year old man in a film. Which is why the 1961 version starring James Mason had to be made in the UK rather than the USA even though a major backer of the film was MGM. Even then, the girl was presented as a 15 year old which is practically the age of consent.
The 1997 version starring Jeremy Irons was a Franco/USA co-production but, apart from Irons and the girl, was totally unconvincing to the extent that I switched off about a quater of the way through. 
Both films failed for different reasons. The girl in the earlier version was a regular little glamour puss whereas the one in the later version was much nearer the mark and actually looked childlike. However, the first film was well directed by Stanley Kubrick but the second was all at sea.
Another important fact is that Nobokov scripted the earlier version.
As British actors, Irons and Mason were good as Humbert but they were not best served by the factors I have mentioned.

----------


## kelby_lake

I found it hard to see why a 12 year old girl, or her mother, would be attracted to Mason. He wasn't at all good-looking.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I found it hard to see why a 12 year old girl, or her mother, would be attracted to Mason. He wasn't at all good-looking.


Not in the pretty boy way so prevalent among actors (?) these days, but there was a time when women were attracted to genuine masculine personalities as opposed to the male celebrities (?) ( don't make me laugh ) who infest the cinema nowadays with their total lack of personal, as opposed to publicity generated, charisma.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Not in the pretty boy way so prevalent among actors (?) these days, but there was a time when women were attracted to genuine masculine personalities as opposed to the male celebrities (?) ( don't make me laugh ) who infest the cinema nowadays with their total lack of personal, as opposed to publicity generated, charisma.


They don't really have charisma these days, do they?

Maybe we should get a French guy in, with a seductive accent...

----------


## Emil Miller

> They don't really have charisma these days, do they?
> 
> Maybe we should get a French guy in, with a seductive accent...


Why are you so against Mason's portrayal? OK he didn't look like Jude Law or whoever the current flavour of the month may be, but he was convincing in the role. Admittedly, it's a long time since I saw the film but, given the circumstances under which it was made, I thought Stanley Kubrick got within a reasonable shot of the story. One of the things I remember from the book is that there seemed to be a certain amount of tedious prose writing that had to be waded through which, thankfully, Kubrick was able to dispense with in the film version. However, the premise of the story is so good, that I intend to read it again to see if a second reading overcomes my reservations.

----------


## Mariamosis

I really appreciate this thread! All of the interesting feedback urged me to read this book. Although I am only 1/3 of the way through it, I am entranced.

It did feel uncomfortable to get into, but Nabokov really pulls you in. His style is exactly what I have been looking for, and I expect to read many more of his books....

----------


## kelby_lake

There's a beautifully sad bit right near the end- genius.

----------


## Emil Miller

> There's a beautifully sad bit right near the end- genius.


Where have you been Kelby? Don't you realise that we are the only ones keeping this thread alive ?

----------


## kelby_lake

Someone might come along and resucitate it, hopefully...  :Smile:

----------


## dianwulansari

hi, i'm new here.. i'm from indonesia, sorry if my english is not very good.
well, i read Lolita a year ago.. and it suddenly became my favorite. 
now i'm planning to conduct my undergraduate thesis about Lolita..
i want to discuss the narrative techniques.. but my advisor told me it will be too broad and suggested me to choose a more specific topic..what do you guys think will be the best for me?
i'd really love to read your comments..

----------


## blazeofglory

Of course I too have read the book and this is really a marvelous book, magnum opus, something of world classic. This book was criticized as being obscene and as a matter of fact this book is philosophically appealing.

What is more this book is kind of open and straightforward and was banned in some countries when it was printed.

----------


## kelby_lake

> hi, i'm new here.. i'm from indonesia, sorry if my english is not very good.
> well, i read Lolita a year ago.. and it suddenly became my favorite. 
> now i'm planning to conduct my undergraduate thesis about Lolita..
> i want to discuss the narrative techniques.. but my advisor told me it will be too broad and suggested me to choose a more specific topic..what do you guys think will be the best for me?
> i'd really love to read your comments..


How about 'How does the narration affect how we view the novel?'

----------


## plainjane

> How about 'How does the narration affect how we view the novel?'


Or something along the lines of how does Nabokov manage to make a person like Humbert a somewhat sympathetic figure? 

Or even take the tack...making a dastardly person into a sympathetic character, not only Humbert, but any character, by any narrator.

----------


## mojcaoblak

Hello, everyone!
I'm from Slovenia and I'm new on this forum. As dianwulansari, I too am writing my undergraduate thesis about Lolita... I'm thinking of writing about the Lolita's influence on modern literature and culture. Since this is a very broad theme, I don't quite know where to start. I was thinking about the title "Lolitas after Lolita", meaning I would like to concentrate on different literature works, film characters and fashion styles perhaps which have clearly been influenced on by Nabokov's character of Lolita.
If you have some useful ideas or some other suggestions, I would be extremely grateful if you could share them with me.
Thank you so much.

----------


## kelby_lake

Lolita is a strong influence in _American Beauty_

----------


## PeterL

> Hello, everyone!
> I'm from Slovenia and I'm new on this forum. As dianwulansari, I too am writing my undergraduate thesis about Lolita... I'm thinking of writing about the Lolita's influence on modern literature and culture. Since this is a very broad theme, I don't quite know where to start. I was thinking about the title "Lolitas after Lolita", meaning I would like to concentrate on different literature works, film characters and fashion styles perhaps which have clearly been influenced on by Nabokov's character of Lolita.
> If you have some useful ideas or some other suggestions, I would be extremely grateful if you could share them with me.
> Thank you so much.


You probably should a new thread..

Later writers avoided having Lolitas, because underage firls can be trouble.

----------


## mojcaoblak

Yes, "American Beauty" also came to my mind :Smile:  "Reading Lolita in Teheran" is also one of the books which mention Lolita, but otherwise, I really have no other idea.....
So I agree with PeterL that maybe I should try something else. Any ideas? :Smile:

----------


## PeterL

> Yes, "American Beauty" also came to my mind "Reading Lolita in Teheran" is also one of the books which mention Lolita, but otherwise, I really have no other idea.....
> So I agree with PeterL that maybe I should try something else. Any ideas?


There are many aspects of _Lolita_ that lend themselves to comment without even suggesting lewdness. One is the parallel between _Lolita_ and Joyce's _Ulysses_ Nabokov was an expert on Joyce, and taught a course on _Ulysses_ for many years. You might go through and point out as may literary allusions as you can find. There are others, but you can dream them up.

----------


## Aurora

_Lolita_ is my favourite novel of everything I've read. So far the language is absolutely unrivaled for me, Nabokov is a genius and it's one of the only books which makes me feel like I'm reading poetry rather than prose. 

Every time I read it I'm in a flood of tears! The more I read it the more I see Lolita as the tragic victim of the novel. She's certainly not the most likeable character, especially on first reading but it's harrowing when you remember that she's really only a child, quite an immature one in some ways. 

I understand the stigma that comes attached to this novel and that people would deem it inappropriate (my mum certainly didn't want me to read it even though I was 17) but I always defend it. It's far too beautiful and tragic to be seen as disgusting in any way. 

Has anybody read _Lo's Diary_? I forget the name of the author but I believe she's Italian and it begins with P...Anyways, I read it which was such a bad decision, of course nothing was going to match or even come close to my own idea of what Lolita's narrative or inner thoughts were like but it was really quite bad. Highly disappointing but definitely my own fault for reading it!

----------


## Dolly Haze

Dolores Haze is, without a doubt, the victim of the novel, as is her mother, Charlotte Haze.

Humbert Humbert is a subtle but absolute destructive force in the lives of the Haze women. He uses both of their affections to essentially destroy them. What makes him such a complex character is that we see his love as genuine, even though we know he's an unreliable narrator. Even though we can see through his self-serving narrative and realize that his words are those of a man trying desperately to justify his actions ("Gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover" is just one of several perfect examples; the consistent addressing of a metaphorical jury blatantly shows that Humbert is a man asserting his innocence before those who would judge him -- the readers, that is), he still forces us to believe in his star-crossed, intense love for Dolores, even as he solipsizes her to tragic ends.

This is what I absolutely adore about this book above practically all others; Nabokov completely eviscerates Humbert through the written word, as most people would any pedophile who abuses a child in such an emotionally manipulative way, yet it's not in any conventional manner that he does so. Our society is aware of why child abuse is bad, no one needed a moral treatise on the subject, but what Nabokov gives us is more of a stage to reaffirm our convictions on the matter. Despite Humbert's relentless rationalization, projections, and deflections of guilt and blame, the reader can't help but be left with a feeling of utter certainty that the lives of both Charlotte and Dolores Haze would have been unmistakably better had Humbert never stepped foot into them. We realize that the whole of his actions have ruined two innocent lives. (Which is why I simply cannot understand how anyone could think Lolita glorifies pedophilia in any way; I believe the only people who could ever make that claim are those who have never read the novel).

----------


## Freudian Monkey

A brilliant novel, no doubt. To date it's still one of the most frightening books I've ever read, much more frightening than any horror novels I've read. This is mostly due to the fact that _Lolita_ makes you feel like you are inside the head of a pedophile. Pedophilia is probably one of the taboos that will never be broken and that's why Lolita will continue to be an extraordinarily powerful novel in the minds of future generations.

----------


## Mr.lucifer

The victim is you.

----------


## Dolly Haze

> The victim is you.


I'll agree with this as well. The book forces the reader to be complicit in Humbert's actions. Combined with the repulsive nature of their relationship, the reader can easily be considered victimized.

----------


## R.F. Schiller

Resurrecting a fairly old thread, but I want to bring some new discussion to my favourite novel. My question is that do you think Humbert Humbert truly regretted his actions at the end of the novel (some go even further to say that Humbert truly _loved_ Lolita at the end of the novel), or was he still playing his manipulative games? 

*Reasons Why He Did:* 

- If we take him strictly by his word
- He returns thousands of dollars to Dolores Haze during their last encounter without any stipulations 
- Humbert hears a chorus of children singing and laughing at play leading him to conclude that --> *"...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." 
*

*Reasons Why He Did Not:* 

- Humbert is naturally an incredibly unreliable narrator who has manipulated us previously, why would he be genuine now? 
- Humbert has repeatedly lied to many, many characters - Charlotte, the Farlowes; he also feigned madness to psychiatrists just to mess with them 
- Humbert is writing his memoir understanding that he will be evaluated morally (*"Gentlemen and Gentlewomen of the Jury!"*) and is thus trying to make himself look better
- Right after Humbert has his last encounter with Lolita and laments the error of his ways, he returns to Ramsdale and appears to show more questionable behaviour towards young girls: 

*"All at once I noticed that from the lawn I had mown a golden-skinned, brown-haired nymphet of nine or ten, in white shorts, was looking at me with wild fascination in her large blue-black eyes. I said something pleasant to her, meaning no harm, an old-world compliment, what nice eyes you have, but she retreated in haste and the music stopped abruptly, and a violent-looking dark man, glistening with sweat, came out and glared at me."*

I personally was convinced Humbert was still his manipulative self at the end until I read Nabokov's Russian novel Despair (1934) which he later revised and translated in 1965. _Despair_ involves a supposedly mad, unreliable narrator as well, Hermann, who sees a lot of doubling and eventually commits heinous crimes as well; it has been called a precursor to _Lolita_. In the Introduction to the English version, Nabokov writes: 

*"Hermann and Humbert are alike only in the sense that two dragons painted by the same artist at different periods of his life resemble each other. Both are neurotic scoundrels, yet there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann."
*

This leads me to think that Nabokov intended Humbert to be read as a repenting character as he claims that "there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann". 

What do others think?

----------


## PeterL

You really should have started a new thread for this.

But it is my opinion that Humbert was more delusional than anything else. He is a completely unreliable narrator, so we don't know what actually happened, and everything could have happened in his mind.

----------


## R.F. Schiller

> You really should have started a new thread for this.
> 
> But it is my opinion that Humbert was more delusional than anything else. He is a completely unreliable narrator, so we don't know what actually happened, and everything could have happened in his mind.


Yeah, but there are degrees of being delusional and it's always been a hotly debated topic among scholars to whether Humbert legitimately regretted his actions or was continuing his manipulative play. I thought the Nabokov quote from _Despair_ was an example of how he tried to control this interpretation but w/e.

----------


## PeterL

> Yeah, but there are degrees of being delusional and it's always been a hotly debated topic among scholars to whether Humbert legitimately regretted his actions or was continuing his manipulative play. I thought the Nabokov quote from _Despair_ was an example of how he tried to control this interpretation but w/e.


There are people who are willing to argue whether blue of green is a better color, but doesn't make the discussion valid or useful. I wonder if those "scholars" ever figured out the difference between fiction and non-fiction. 

It is my opinion that Nabokov told the story that he meant to tell, and left it open enough that people could discuss it to their hearts' content. Keep in mind that Nabokov was a professor of literature whose main course was on _Ulysses_, including the interpretation of Bloom's wandering.

----------


## mona amon

> Resurrecting a fairly old thread, but I want to bring some new discussion to my favourite novel. My question is that do you think Humbert Humbert truly regretted his actions at the end of the novel (some go even further to say that Humbert truly _loved_ Lolita at the end of the novel), or was he still playing his manipulative games? 
> 
> *Reasons Why He Did:* 
> 
> - If we take him strictly by his word
> - He returns thousands of dollars to Dolores Haze during their last encounter without any stipulations 
> - Humbert hears a chorus of children singing and laughing at play leading him to conclude that --> *"...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." 
> *
> 
> ...


It's been a while since I read _Lolita_, but I didn't get the feeling that HH tries to deliberately manipulate the reader. It is a highly subjective account of what goes on in his twisted mind and he's so poetic, witty and self-deprecating that many readers, especially first time readers, are charmed into sympathizing with him, but the hints are all there for the anyone who reads between the lines - the girl is no irresistible super-seductive Nymphet. Above all, she is not 'Lolita'. She is a normal twelve year-old girl by the name of Dolores Haze, and it is only in the narrator's twisted mind that she undergoes her demonic transformation. What I'm trying to say is, HH gives us the facts as well as his subjective viewpoint. It is up to us whether we get manipulated or not.

As for regret, he never at any point felt his actions were justified, so in a way he was always regretful, but as long as the girl was with him, the obsessive nature of his love and overpowering lust for her overcome his conscience, and he becomes her tyrant. It is only when she leaves him that he is able to reflect on his actions in a more objective way.

----------


## RecoveringScot

> I personally was convinced Humbert was still his manipulative self at the end until I read Nabokov's Russian novel Despair (1934) which he later revised and translated in 1965. _Despair_ involves a supposedly mad, unreliable narrator as well, Hermann, who sees a lot of doubling and eventually commits heinous crimes as well; it has been called a precursor to _Lolita_. In the Introduction to the English version, Nabokov writes: 
> 
> *"Hermann and Humbert are alike only in the sense that two dragons painted by the same artist at different periods of his life resemble each other. Both are neurotic scoundrels, yet there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann."
> *
> 
> This leads me to think that Nabokov intended Humbert to be read as a repenting character as he claims that "there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann". 
> 
> What do others think?


Hi folks, My first post. so be gentle with me.

I think Nabokov was (again) wrongfooting the hopeful interpreter in this last quote you gave.

Re-read the quote, and ask yourself 'How can there be time in Paradise?' Humbert is obviously in Paradise, I would say.

I've always noted a jarring thing in the very first words that Humbert writes:

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul."

Notice that in this first incantation Humbert alliterates the first phrase describing Lolita, and the concluding sentence. However his alliteration deserts him when he claims that sexual power that Lolita allegedly has over him. Why? It's a kind of stumble. It's his first untruth. Such a literary genius as Humbert could surely have found a suitable phrase (I've invented some mediocre ones myself today). What we are then left with if we delete that phrase is this:

"Light of my life. My sin, my soul."

Doesn't this sound more like a sort of religious affirmation than anything sexual? (I note you used the word 'repent' which is religious in origin).

Humbert's tale, as told by him, is a lie, in one sense, from start to finish. But it's also true in another way, and doesn't resemble the everyday 'bare facts' which is the story without his 'interpretation'. I have my views on this, but they're still at the 'nymph' stage at the moment, and I don't know if they'll grow wings and fly. Surely Humbert is a butterfly, and as Nabokov mentions in 'Speak, Memory' the adult butterfly evades its enemies through the means of 'enchantment and deception' and displays an 'aesthetic beauty'. But Humbert will fly and wander down that green lane in Paradise most certainly, if I'm right.

Nabokov's estimation of 'The Metamorphosis' of Kafka (one of the greatest works of the 20th C he said) is very interesting to me, as Gregor Samsa and Humbert are sort of related. Both are imprisoned for one thing, though in apparently different ways. So is Hermann, but he'll never get 'parole'. That again is very suggestive of a particular 'spiritual' interpretation to me.
Think gnostic.

----------


## R.F. Schiller

> Hi folks, My first post. so be gentle with me.
> 
> I think Nabokov was (again) wrongfooting the hopeful interpreter in this last quote you gave.
> 
> *Re-read the quote, and ask yourself 'How can there be time in Paradise?' Humbert is obviously in Paradise, I would say.*
> 
> I've always noted a jarring thing in the very first words that Humbert writes:
> 
> "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul."
> ...


First of all, thanks for your opinion. This was the kind of response I was looking for several months ago, when I wrote my post. I re-read the quote, and I'm quite convinced that Nabokov is implying that Humbert is in Hell with Hermann but is allowed to leave Hell and enter Paradise once a year, not that Humbert is in Paradise. I believe he is alluding to mythology (there is actually a story in Chinese Mythology that is very similar and I'm guessing there is an equivalent in the West). Also, why can't there be time in Hell/Paradise? Nabokov did not believe in time altogether, although his fiction was very precise in dating. However, I've read many, many interview of Nabokov, mostly from _Strong Opinions_, and it's not inconceivable that he is deliberately misleading his reader. It wouldn't be the first, nor the last. I'm not sure what you're really getting at with the bit after that, so I won't comment. However, Nabokov was an agnostic who had little care for religion (looked through his letters/interviews and he never mentions it at all), so I'm not sure a spiritual reading would be effective here. 

I highly disagree with your penultimate point of characterizing Humbert as a butterfly. I believe it is Lolita who Nabokov characterizes as a butterfly - I actually wrote a paper for my undergraduate class last year on this and there is a similar essay in the _Garland Companion to Nabokov_. If you think about the word "nymphet" it alludes to the word "nymph" which is the juvenile form of the butterfly. You're right about the similarities in _Speak, Memory_, but once again, it seems to associate Lolita with butterflies and not Humbert (who is more in-line with Nabokov himself). The descriptions of Nabokov in the open grass enjoying the butterflies around him are very, very similar to Humbert "enjoying" Lolita. In some sentences, you could literally replace the word "butterfly" with "little girl" and the passage from Speak, Memory would sound like it was from _ Lolita_. If anything, Humbert is associated with spiders, which is a natural predator of butterflies. From_ Lolita_: 

*"I am like one of those
inflated pale spiders you see in old gardens. Sitting in the middle of a
luminous web and giving little jerks to this or that strand. My web
is spread all over the house as I listen from my chair where I sit like a
wily wizard. Is Lo in her room? Gently I tug on the silk."*

Again, later on:

*"My arms and legs were
convex surfaces between which--rather than upon which--I slowly progressed
by some neutral means of locomotion: Humbert the Wounded Spider."*

----------


## JCamilo

just a note, one could easily argue, that in the sentence, life conects to fire and loins to sin (not to mention to Lolita and soul). The tale still a lie from first line...

----------


## R.F. Schiller

> just a note, one could easily argue, that in the sentence, life conects to fire and loins to sin (not to mention to Lolita and soul). The tale still a lie from first line...


Interesting... I've always assumed that "light of my life" was referring to the angelic and heavenly while "fire of my loins" was referring to sin and hell. Duality is a prominent theme in the novel and Lolita herself is characterized both ways, as Humbert wonders about "the nature of this twofold nymphet". He sometimes describes her as akin to an angel, yet othertimes as a demonness. On one hand, his love for her has given him new life, yet it has also condemned him to hell.

----------


## JCamilo

well, I didn't mean as conected by the meaning, but about RecoveringScot suggesting that 'fire of my loins" could be removed due the lack of alliteration, so we could interpret the sentence because of this. My idea is that "fire of my loins" actually links "Light of my life" to "my sin, my soul", because the "alliteration" is there still. In fact "my loins" seems to be an almagam of "my sin, my soul". 

You are probally right about Lolita duality in the sentence, I would add that there is a strong "air" element in the sentence, or at least something ephemeral (light, loins, soul), so we may be seeing a reference to her, perhaps even stages of the nymph transformation. Or perhaps it was just a cleaver way to start a book  :Biggrin:

----------


## RecoveringScot

> First of all, thanks for your opinion. This was the kind of response I was looking for several months ago, when I wrote my post. I re-read the quote, and I'm quite convinced that Nabokov is implying that Humbert is in Hell with Hermann but is allowed to leave Hell and enter Paradise once a year, not that Humbert is in Paradise. I believe he is alluding to mythology (there is actually a story in Chinese Mythology that is very similar and I'm guessing there is an equivalent in the West). Also, why can't there be time in Hell/Paradise? Nabokov did not believe in time altogether, although his fiction was very precise in dating. However, I've read many, many interview of Nabokov, mostly from _Strong Opinions_, and it's not inconceivable that he is deliberately misleading his reader. It wouldn't be the first, nor the last. I'm not sure what you're really getting at with the bit after that, so I won't comment. However, Nabokov was an agnostic who had little care for religion (looked through his letters/interviews and he never mentions it at all), so I'm not sure a spiritual reading would be effective here. 
> 
> I highly disagree with your penultimate point of characterizing Humbert as a butterfly. I believe it is Lolita who Nabokov characterizes as a butterfly - I actually wrote a paper for my undergraduate class last year on this and there is a similar essay in the _Garland Companion to Nabokov_. If you think about the word "nymphet" it alludes to the word "nymph" which is the juvenile form of the butterfly. You're right about the similarities in _Speak, Memory_, but once again, it seems to associate Lolita with butterflies and not Humbert (who is more in-line with Nabokov himself). The descriptions of Nabokov in the open grass enjoying the butterflies around him are very, very similar to Humbert "enjoying" Lolita. In some sentences, you could literally replace the word "butterfly" with "little girl" and the passage from Speak, Memory would sound like it was from _ Lolita_. If anything, Humbert is associated with spiders, which is a natural predator of butterflies. From_ Lolita_: 
> 
> *"I am like one of those
> inflated pale spiders you see in old gardens. Sitting in the middle of a
> luminous web and giving little jerks to this or that strand. My web
> is spread all over the house as I listen from my chair where I sit like a
> wily wizard. Is Lo in her room? Gently I tug on the silk."*
> ...



But there you go believing Humbert again. Everything Humbert says is loaded, loaded in a particular way. He's telling you a very simple story dressed up under so much multi-layered and multi-functioned camouflage - and that for a very particular reason.

In the gnostic belief the physical world is a prison (an alternative reading of the 'fall from Paradise'). The soul of humans is held in the grip of evil spirits who attempt to prevent the soul from reaching paradise for eternity. However in Gnostic beliefs what the soul has to do to reach Paradise is to fool the evil spirits into thinking it is still captive while escaping their clutches.

The layers of Humberts story represent this in three ways.

1. The basic story of the realm of the physical and death, Humbert, Charlotte and Dolly Haze. All are implicated in the realm of death - the book is full of dead children, including Dolly's sibling, and many other dead children e.g. Annabel Leigh and the son of the Kasbeam barber, and Dolly's own baby. Living only in the physical brings death. Note how all the people (many parodic grotesques) who are involved with Dolly are all concerned with trapping her in wordly concerns - conventional 'good' behaviour (Charlotte), marriage and kids (Shirley Holmes), mechanical physical sexual behaviour (Quilty), marriage (Dick Schiller) cupidity (advertisers).

2. Humbert's parody mythological realm - the 'princedom by the sea' which nonetheless intimates the truth about Layer 3, but deceptively.

3. Reality for Humbert. Eternity in Paradise as his soul, "Lolita"

The process by which Humbert negotiates his way from 1 to 3 is enchantment (his descriptions of the paradisal, cliched and metaphorical of course by necessity - Paradise as a garden, a 'kingdom', the spiritual actors as fairytale analogues, Kings, Queens, Knaves, flunkeys etc.) and deception (the tale-telling method he uses, his 'camouflage'). 

The timing of Humbert's narrative is crucial in understanding what's happening. To evade the 'Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury' (the wordly spirits) he has to get them to believe that, far from being destined for heaven he's one of them. Lustful, carnal, jealous, revengeful, a controlling 'spider' with his hoped-for prey. His joke, in asking for 35 years for rape, is that he has already served that 'sentence' in the physical world. Since his tale has to end with his death and release from the evil of 'worldly reality' he tells it and dies before any judgment (it's no accident that Dolly Haze, Humbert and Quilty all die in 1952 - in my view at the same instant - but I think only Humbert escapes the world). Humbert is cousin to the girl in 1001 Nights (read: an eternity) who has to tell tales to evade the evil ruler's plan for her 'death' (she can be read as an analogue to Humbert).

This parabolic telling of a truth in the guise of deceptive fiction is expressed by a previous religious figure as follows:

"And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them."
(Gospel of Mark Ch.4 vv.11-12)

We have to always remember that Nabokov was a Russian, of an aristocratic Orthodox background. In the 19C gnostic ideas had flourished in literary circles, particulary aristocratic ones, thanks to people like Mme. Blavatsky. Gnosticism was always more popular in the Eastern Christian environment than the Western, which was mainly Catholic then Protestant ('creation is good'). Impetus to this renascence of Eastern beliefs had been given by the translation of eastern religious texts in the early 19C (Upanishads etc.) and the discovery of Gnostic gospels at Oxyrhynchus in the late 19C. These ideas were very influential. Some of Kafka's aphorisms show similarities to distinct gnostic ideas (the world as prison, the physical world as the domain of evil). In ancient Gnostic thought sexual revulsion (nothing to do with everyday 'morality') was a consequence of the view of material, physical reality as a trap for the soul (therefore procreation and sexual desire were the instruments of the evil spirits of the world who used them to hold the soul in the world - too much attachment to the physical was the problem). The soul was 'bewitched' and 'trapped' by being in thrall to sexual desire.

Now there are clear signs that Humbert, despite his protestations of carnal lust towards the female sex, was actually not what he claimed to be. His relations with homosexuals like Gaston Godin, and the 'Uranists' in the 'Deux Magots' in Paris suggest, not necessarily that he was homosexual, but that he might be asexual or 'denatured' in some way, hence his 'pedophlia' (note that Dolly is pre-pubescent, i.e. not in herself distinctively 'female' or to be distinguished from similarly-aged 'asexual' young boys except by trivial physical indicators). Notice also that at a crucial moment in the plot, just before he goes to rescue Lolita and shoot Dick Schiller, whom he thinks is his persecuting enemy, he shaves his beard and his chest (!), and dresses in silk. The denaturing of the sexual characteristics is typical of gnosticism (some early Gnostics castrated themselves). Many of the authors that come and go by allusion in Lolita are sexually odd or ambivalent: Poe, Proust, Wilde ('Hi Melmoth, thanks a lot, old fellow'), Petrarch, Housman, Shakespeare, Dante. Kafka, whom Nabokov admired, was sexually tormented and suffered revulsions at 'normal' male-female relationships and never achieved one. One of my favourites bits in Lolita is when a ('queerly observant') friend of Dolly's says to Humbert that he'd never seen a man actually wearing a smoking-jacket before, except in films, where it is frequently associated with sexually odd characters (Noel Coward being a particularly well-known example). Now I'm not suggesting Nabokov intended Humbert to be a straight one-to-one 'Freudian' version of himself in worldly terms, but that Humbert is cueing (no pun intended, or is there?) us to Nabokov's best side and by extension ours, with his discernment and advocacy of the eternal and beautiful under the dying and dead physical unreality of life. 

Now, quite by accident, after my initial post I have discovered (only last night) that my original suspicion that Nabokov was in fact a 'gnostic' of a sort (perhaps not directly Christian) turns out to be not only my idea. The proposition is advanced in a book by V. E. Alexandrov "Nabokov's Otherworld" (Princeton UP). I have not read it, but look forward to doing so.

----------


## axolotl

i really liked lolita! but now i'm feeling pretty disturbed.

----------

