Pet Peeve about Lolita

[Dark Muse]

I am currently reading Lolita right now, and I suppose I am the kind of person who can become bothered by seemingly small details. There is always some little thing which may not play in important role within the greater plot or theme of the book (and I do this with movies too) that will just start to bother me.

So the thing that is nagging me in Lolita, is the fact that Humbert seems to have an unlimited supply of funding. He is traveling all around the country, staying in hotels, buying necessities like food and clothes, in addition to trinkets, magazines, souvenirs and such of the like for Lolita, and as far as I can tell, he is not doing anything to earn any more money. He had mentioned writing a book when he was with Hazel but now it seems he is not doing anything to add to his income, but never seems to run out of cash.

Granted many of the hotels he is staying at are dives, but still after a while, and combined with the other expenses it would start to add up after a time.

Did I miss something where he is supposed to be particularly wealthy? Or did he get some sort of large inheritance from Hazel when she died?

[PeterL]

That was a slight problem for me, But I think that Nabokov gave an adequate excuse. You mentioned the book, and you have to remember the time. In the a950's an author would have gotten enough to be independent. Apparently you haven't gotten there yet, but Humbert will get a permanent job.

[Dark Muse]

That was a slight problem for me, But I think that Nabokov gave an adequate excuse. You mentioned the book, and you have to remember the time. In the a950's an author would have gotten enough to be independent. Apparently you haven't gotten there yet, but Humbert will get a permanent job.

I did not think it was every really made clear if he actually published the book, it just mentioned his writing it, but it is true that if the book was published and sold at that time it would have gone a long way for his financial state.

[dfloyd]

I lent it to him, and the cheapskate never paid me back.

[PeterL]

I did not think it was every really made clear if he actually published the book, it just mentioned his writing it, but it is true that if the book was published and sold at that time it would have gone a long way for his financial state.

I haven't read it recently, but I recall that he had translated a number of books. I got the impression that they were poets of earlier centuries, so he would have gotten all of the royalties.

His degree of wealth was not clear, but that wasn't what the book was about, so it wasn't important. I think that it would be best to think that Humbert had enough money to do what he did. In the mid-50's the average wage was $5000 per year, and that allowed a family to live better than $50,000 would do now. I thought of him making between $5000 and 10,000 a year.

[Hayseed Huck]

Dear one,

The movie director Howard Hawks always
filmed a scene with no logical connection
to the plot of the film-- maybe a nonsense
bit with Grant and Hepburn.

Great writers do that too-- in many ways.

Look for logic elsewhere-- in the work of
language philosophers, (Not Wittgenstein,
tho)

HH

[Dark Muse]

I haven't read it recently, but I recall that he had translated a number of books. I got the impression that they were poets of earlier centuries, so he would have gotten all of the royalties.

His degree of wealth was not clear, but that wasn't what the book was about, so it wasn't important. I think that it would be best to think that Humbert had enough money to do what he did. In the mid-50's the average wage was $5000 per year, and that allowed a family to live better than $50,000 would do now. I thought of him making between $5000 and 10,000 a year.

No it is not important to the story, but I think it is a bit sloppy or reckless of an author to allude to how much money the character as at one point Humbert mentions how he drops 100$ on something or other, and he does talk about all of his various different expenses, without providing the reader with an explanation for what is backing his finances.

But as you said, I suppose that in considering the time period it would be presumed that he has earned enough of a living to support his chosen lifestyle.

[SleepyWitch]

I think he published some translations or a volume of an encyclopedia or something before. Wasn't there also something about a wealthy relative bequeathing his company on him on condition that he do some work there? Or am I mixing it up with another book?

[kelby_lake]

I thought he was a professor? But seeing as he's a paedophile and also slightly mad, his accounts of his finance are dubious.

[Dark Muse]

I thought he was a professor? But seeing as he's a paedophile and also slightly mad, his accounts of his finance are dubious.

I think he does refer to himself as being a professor but during the time he is running around with Lolita he dose not acutally work as one though I suppose he could have money saved up from when he did work, but it does not seem like at the time the book is taking place he is currently a professor

[The Comedian]

I read this book a while ago, but I think that he also got a significant sum of money when his wife died.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, his expenses are not that awesome and he will end needing money besides the ammount he had already. But mostly: he is lying.

[stlukesguild]

The Comedian has hit it on the nail. Beside his previous income as a professor (and one might assume that this was quite generous in comparison to the average living wage in the 1950s) Humbert logically would have inherited a good sum with the death of his wife... as well as having gained access to whatever share of his wife's estate went to Dolores/Lolita as her "care-taker".

[Modest Proposal]

I too think the Comedian is correct. Not because I remember the book, but anyone with an avatar relating to Watership Down is most likely correct.

That movie scared me so bad as a kid...