Assertions in Nabokov's Essay 'On A Book Entitled Lolita'

[rbaird2001]

Nabokov writes an essay as a kind of afterward at the end of the novel. I have learned that this was at the request of the publisher to make the work more palatable. There are a number of assertions in this book. But the one that intrigues me the most is when he equates the opposition of his Novel to with two other types of fiction. Quoting Nabokov:

(T)here are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: A Negro-White Marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at age 106.

Of these three themes, pedophilia, interracial marriage, and happy, productive, and long living atheists, only one is a taboo in our time.

My questions are:

1. Are the other two themes really that taboo in the time of this publication?

2. If they are taboo, is Nabokov seeking to embarrass publishers for the taboos and thus seeing his theme as equally acceptable as the other are?

3. Does he attempt to align with attitudes that might be outdated in order to discourage the opposition to his theme?

4. Is the theme of pedophilia a taboo today? Should it be?

I ask these as I am seeing many ways that Nabokov tries to preempt the attack on his work that he obviously anticipates. His claim of the aesthetic being the only real value and the only rod of judgment for literature is something I get. He knows that the claim will not be effective enough and adds other pieces to it that I will not discuss here. I am just wondering if his quote is part of that arsenal of preempted counter attacks.

I would love to hear views and if any articles or books address this, I would love any references to them.

[EJMathews]

I think Lolita is a great book and misunderstood by the general population. How absurd can a story be?

She initiates the physical contact (to be delicate) though doesn't enjoy it, she puts up with it to the bribes, then after travelling around the country they settle in a small town and Dolly is allowed to be in the play written by another older man.

This play write then steels her from Humbert Humbert so she can star in his own pornographic movies, this just gets more and more ridiculous.

There is so much word play, double entendres, puns, it's unfortunate that people have seen the pornography only.

That is a sign of the times. Wasn't Mary about twelve when she became pregnant with Jesus?

I know I have not addressed the essay by the author, I've just given my thoughts about the book, but there you have it.

[rbaird2001]

Ummmmm.....next?

[kelby_lake]

Nabokov writes an essay as a kind of afterward at the end of the novel. I have learned that this was at the request of the publisher to make the work more palatable. There are a number of assertions in this book. But the one that intrigues me the most is when he equates the opposition of his Novel to with two other types of fiction. Quoting Nabokov:

(T)here are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: A Negro-White Marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at age 106.

Of these three themes, pedophilia, interracial marriage, and happy, productive, and long living atheists, only one is a taboo in our time.

My questions are:

1. Are the other two themes really that taboo in the time of this publication? Yes. Maybe not so much the atheist one...it is supposed to be a witty attack on their values

2. If they are taboo, is Nabokov seeking to embarrass publishers for the taboos and thus seeing his theme as equally acceptable as the other are?
I don't think he's equating paedophilia with atheism if that's what you mean

3. Does he attempt to align with attitudes that might be outdated in order to discourage the opposition to his theme?
No

4. Is the theme of pedophilia a taboo today? Should it be?
As a theme, it isn't taboo. Have you read any of those real-life tragedy stories? The vast majority are about child abuse. Obviously as a practice, it is illegal

I ask these as I am seeing many ways that Nabokov tries to preempt the attack on his work that he obviously anticipates. His claim of the aesthetic being the only real value and the only rod of judgment for literature is something I get. He knows that the claim will not be effective enough and adds other pieces to it that I will not discuss here. I am just wondering if his quote is part of that arsenal of preempted counter attacks.

I would love to hear views and if any articles or books address this, I would love any references to them.

I think you're focusing too much on it, really.

[LMK]

Is this a class assignment?

I ask because it is the first post ever from the OP, the second was the unkind and outright dismissal made to a response, whether or not it's agreed with, no discussion, just dismiss. It made me wonder if the thread was designed to help with the OP's homework.

I won’t do your homework for you, but I will engage in a discussion of Lolita. I, too, consider it to be a misunderstood novel. The shocking subject matter is just a vehicle, to choose something that will get attention, but then in the writing it isn't the focus, the absurdity, as EJ points out is what the focus becomes.

[PeterL]

Nabokov writes an essay as a kind of afterward at the end of the novel. I have learned that this was at the request of the publisher to make the work more palatable. There are a number of assertions in this book. But the one that intrigues me the most is when he equates the opposition of his Novel to with two other types of fiction. Quoting Nabokov:

(T)here are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: A Negro-White Marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at age 106.

Of these three themes, pedophilia, interracial marriage, and happy, productive, and long living atheists, only one is a taboo in our time.

It is my opinion that the afterword is as fictional as the rest of the book. Perhaps the publisher did ask for something to ese readers' feelings, but htat essay did nothing.


1. Are the other two themes really that taboo in the time of this publication?

I have never seen that atheist theme in a novel, but the "mixed race theme" was around. It wasn't as controversal, because there were mix "race' couples.


2. If they are taboo, is Nabokov seeking to embarrass publishers for the taboos and thus seeing his theme as equally acceptable as the other are?

I don't think that Nabokov cared how publishers treated his novel. he had published a shorter version in Erupoe in the 1930's, and little was ever heard of it.


3. Does he attempt to align with attitudes that might be outdated in order to discourage the opposition to his theme?

Maybe, but I think that he had completely other things in mind, and those two themes were red herrings.


4. Is the theme of pedophilia a taboo today? Should it be?

The love of children has been essential to humanity since before tere were humans. The matter of sexual intercourse between an adult male and an under aged female has been a matter of lust for nearly as long. You should differentiate between "ledophilia" and pederasty"; they are different in concept and activity.


I ask these as I am seeing many ways that Nabokov tries to preempt the attack on his work that he obviously anticipates. His claim of the aesthetic being the only real value and the only rod of judgment for literature is something I get. He knows that the claim will not be effective enough and adds other pieces to it that I will not discuss here. I am just wondering if his quote is part of that arsenal of preempted counter attacks.

I would love to hear views and if any articles or books address this, I would love any references to them.

Several years ago I did a lot of reading about Lolita, and i came to the conclusion that it is not about sexual intercourse between and adult man and an undraged owman, but that is one feature of it. While the afterword insists that there is no symbolism, I insist that the book is solid symbolism. Nabokov was an expert on Joyce, and on one level Lolita is a rewrite of Ulysses.

[EJMathews]

Several years ago I did a lot of reading about Lolita, and i came to the conclusion that it is not about sexual intercourse between and adult man and an undraged owman, but that is one feature of it. While the afterword insists that there is no symbolism, I insist that the book is solid symbolism. Nabokov was an expert on Joyce, and on one level Lolita is a rewrite of Ulysses.

I don't know about the Ulysses adaptation, I would have to study both works. So far I have only read them, but I do agree that there is much symbolism and that the sexual nature is not the main point, but (however) distasteful a means to bring the story about.

That they all die was unexpected, the mother, Delores, Humbert Humbert and Clare Quilty.

[PeterL]

I don't know about the Ulysses adaptation, I would have to study both works. So far I have only read them, but I do agree that there is much symbolism and that the sexual nature is not the main point, but (however) distasteful a means to bring the story about.

That they all die was unexpected, the mother, Delores, Humbert Humbert and Clare Quilty.


There is not a direct parallel between Ulysses[/i[] and [i]lolita, but there are many similarities.

The death of Mrs Haze was a device to move the story along. Dolores had to die; I believe that was central to the novel.

[rbaird2001]

I don't think Nabokov ever said there is no symbolism to the story. I think he said it is not a moral tale. It is not intended to be a cautionary tale that either promotes or discourages the theme.

I do believe his post novel essay when he says for him the purpose of the novel is to provide aesthetic bliss. This purpose could be interpreted many different ways. There is no doubt the prose is alone amazingly beautiful and sharp and I could write two pages on the opening paragraph alone. But is more than this. There is symbolism.

The essay also works in conjunction with the forward, written by a fictitious character. In the forward, John Ray Jr. acts as a type of moral conscience. He is the voice of those who see this as a morality tale. He says it is released as a warning to prevent others from making the same mistakes in these dangerous times. His language in this opening is a stark contrast to Humbert's prose. It is full of cliche' and bad illiterations (demented diarist? Can you say Lemony Snicket). It acts as a moral justification for a reader, but it mocks such need by showing how the language of morality is a language of cliches.

Now look at his essay when he takes on the pornographer. It is not a moral stance, it is a linguistic stance. Pornography is always banal. "Every kind of aesthetic enjoyment has to be replaced with sexual stimulation which demands the traditional word...thus in pornographic novels, action has to be limited to the copulation of cliches."

So he equates pornography with cliche in the essay and equates morality with cliche in the foreword. To Nabokov, they are two sides of the same coin (speaking of cliche). By doing this he lays down rules for how the book is to be read. Make no mistake, for Nabokov, reading a book correctly is as important as writing it correctly. Look to his essay Good Readers and Good Writers for his view.

I have become more convinced that the prose's beauty is only one piece of the aesthetic in this book. For the author it is more about a solution, a challenge between the reader and the author in which the rules are set by him and he seeks our solution to his puzzle.

This is why i posted my questions. Is this association with two other types of taboos, which just don't seem that taboo, a way of telling us not to find a moral tale in this morally repugnant character? If so, what should we find in this Novel.

Am I overly focused on this? Perhaps. But if all Nabokov wanted was to create such language alone for the beauty of it, why choose a subject for which moral judgment for any of us is guaranteed; unless of course we can think of an older man raping a 13-15 year old girl as somehow acceptable or irrelevant.

Those who see this story as morally wrong and therefore should not be read are of course disdained and ridiculed by those who appreciate his artistry. However, those who claim the we must ignore the subject matter entirely and focus on the language are equally wrong.

We cannot say let's ignore the subject matter and focus on the language. That's just silly. If that's what he wanted the subject chosen would not evoke such immediate judgment.

There is no way this book could have been written and thus read without the moral conflict of the subject. It is a juxtaposition of amazing language and beautiful imagery describing a horrible act of a man with a horrible obsession. This is the puzzle. I believe his association with the other taboo subjects is part of that puzzle. We are given the rules in the foreword and the afterword and the solution lies in the body of the novel.

And no, I am not doing this for an assignment. I am doing this for my own exploration of literature. I am using the Yale online course, "The American Novel since 1945" as my guide.

If you are not familiar with the Yale courses, you should go to oyc.yale.edu (http://oyc.yale.edu) and follow the English link. I am having a wonderful time with it.

[ktm5124]

Nabokov writes an essay as a kind of afterward at the end of the novel. I have learned that this was at the request of the publisher to make the work more palatable. There are a number of assertions in this book. But the one that intrigues me the most is when he equates the opposition of his Novel to with two other types of fiction. Quoting Nabokov:

(T)here are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: A Negro-White Marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at age 106.

Of these three themes, pedophilia, interracial marriage, and happy, productive, and long living atheists, only one is a taboo in our time.

My questions are:

1. Are the other two themes really that taboo in the time of this publication? Seeing how there was still segregation at the time of publication, interracial marriage was definitely a taboo. Not so sure about atheism.

2. If they are taboo, is Nabokov seeking to embarrass publishers for the taboos and thus seeing his theme as equally acceptable as the other are? Well, Nabokov advocates "art without morals". The fact that this book was a success shows that there are few if any taboos in art.

3. Does he attempt to align with attitudes that might be outdated in order to discourage the opposition to his theme?What outdated attitudes are you referring to?

4. Is the theme of pedophilia a taboo today? Should it be? In art? no. But of course in practice it's an evil. It's not that society's thoughts have changed on pedophilia, it's that society has changed its conception of art.

I ask these as I am seeing many ways that Nabokov tries to preempt the attack on his work that he obviously anticipates. His claim of the aesthetic being the only real value and the only rod of judgment for literature is something I get. He knows that the claim will not be effective enough and adds other pieces to it that I will not discuss here. I am just wondering if his quote is part of that arsenal of preempted counter attacks.

I would love to hear views and if any articles or books address this, I would love any references to them.

I don't think Nabokov took such a militant approach as you portray it in preempting the criticism for his theme. The book itself is how he tests the acceptability of taboo in art. What's amazing is that he showed that you can write a book narrated by a pedophile and have it a success. He pushed the boundaries of what can be published in his time. Of course, it wasn't published in the U.S. for a while after, if I remember correctly - it was published in Paris and other parts of Europe instead. So really it only initially tested the climate of France, but enough bootleg copies probably arrived in America to draw some conclusions about the American audiences as well. I imagine that, to the contrary of how you see it, the essay was written lazily; the hard work was in the book, not the essay; the essay only exists, as you say, to "make it more palatable." The inspiration for the essay came from the publisher, not Nabokov, so I doubt Nabokov thought too much about it.

I think a better exploration for you to undertake would be in seeing how the book itself flies in the face of social conventions, and how Nabokov goes about it in a way that would make it a success. Which characters does he punish? What conclusions can you draw from this? Fate is in the hands of the writer, not the narrator, and one can draw conclusions about the writer's morals from what occurs in the plot.

P.S.: Be nice.

[rbaird2001]

The book was published by a French publisher but was distributed in the U.S. at about the same time. It was written in English and distributed to audiences in both sides of the pond at about the same time. It became a near instant hit in the U.S. at the time of its distribution.

The suggestion of the essay came from the publisher but is total Nabokov inspiration and he uses it to frame the book. That by itself is an interesting study in censorship for some other time.

As to the book flying in the faces of social convention, that's a study in modernism and modernist art and I wanted to explore other elements. Personally, the whole defy convention is so trodden over and so overused by today's pursuers of art that the defiance of convention is just about the only thing that they do pursue. Modernism has as a result decayed into extremism by those who see counter-convention as the highest goal of art and ignore other elements. They insult Nabokov in this way.

The suggestion that the final fate of the characters (all dying) is a tale of the moral is exactly what Nabokov is seeking to avoid. It is the reason for some of the statements in the essay and the foreword. There is meaning in this, but not a moral meaning. That is the puzzle of Lolita; a tale without a moral meaning on a subject about which morality cannot be dismissed.

My only interest as OP is to explore his association with other themes not nearly as challening. I have no doubts as to his view of the tale a a moral tale. To gain a moral message is exactly what he doesn't want.

[ktm5124]

Forget the morality aspect; think about the plot as a certain dish served to the public. Would it have been edible had Nabokov allowed H.H. and Dolores to thrive as a couple? Do you think the liberal public could have accepted a H.H. who doesn't get caught in the end?

[rbaird2001]

Forget the morality aspect; think about the plot as a certain dish served to the public. Would it have been edible had Nabokov allowed H.H. and Dolores to thrive as a couple? Do you think the liberal public could have accepted a H.H. who doesn't get caught in the end?

Neither of the deaths fulfills the notion of a balance that is suggested. The mention of both is done in the foreword, both are done as afterthoughts. Delores is not readily apparent as the name change of Delores is not immediately connected to the forward. HH's death is already known before the story starts, there is no vengence in the deaths.

One could even suggest that Delores was penitent, perhaps even redeemed at the end of the novel.

I am amused, though. There is an irony here; I am asked to forget the morality aspect. But the alternative idea suggested that the deaths were based on a need for justice, that is the morality aspect. Their deaths being needed in the public's view is the morality aspect that Nabokov rejects. Death as poetic justice does not exist in this novel. Nabokov insures that. Poetic justice is just another moral element and it is dismissed. The suggestion shows just how hard it is to not see this tale as a moral tale.

Look at all the deaths: HH's mention of his mother's death, Mona, Lolita's schoofriend, who little brother dies, The Kasbeam Barber's son, Charlotte Haze's son who died in childbirth, HH, Mrs. Schiller who, if you are really paying attention, is Lolita; all of them are presented in a dismissive almost parenthetic statement. None of them are given any weight to their loss.

Only two deaths are given anything more. Charlotte's death is of course given with more detail and furthers the plot, but even this death is given more of a comic tone than a tragic one. Quilty's death is given a dramatic element but it also comes with a comic element in the dialogue. Quilty's death is acutally somewhat unjust. HH goes to kill the man who defiled his Delores. It is a madman trying to kill the evil in himself but has not the ability to see himself as evil. Beyond this, Death is never treated with any sense of impact on the lives of the characters. By the time our two main characters die, the story is already over. There is no sense of justice in these deaths.

What is there is the loss of childhood. Children are dying in this book at all different places. The loss of children physically and the loss of Lolita's youth definitely have parallels. The dismissal of the deaths of the children is used to show how little HH notices what he is actually doing to Lolita. It's part of the evidence that he is not the sympathetic character he portrays himself to be.

[mona amon]

**Spoilers**

But does HH portray himself as a sympathetic character? I don't think he does. The picture he gives of himself is of one driven to do something which he knows is wrong, but which he cannot help.

He murders Quilty for stealing Dolores from him, not for being evil.

There is some line at the end where he expresses regret about Dolores having missed out on her childhood, but that was the part which seemed the most contrived to me.


One could even suggest that Delores was penitent, perhaps even redeemed at the end of the novel.

What does Dolores have to be penitent or remorseful about? The narrator never portrays her as anything but a victim, though his story is about his love for her, not about the way he victimized her.


I am amused, though. There is an irony here; I am asked to forget the morality aspect. But the alternative idea suggested that the deaths were based on a need for justice, that is the morality aspect. Their deaths being needed in the public's view is the morality aspect that Nabokov rejects. Death as poetic justice does not exist in this novel. Nabokov insures that. Poetic justice is just another moral element and it is dismissed. The suggestion shows just how hard it is to not see this tale as a moral tale.

It's impossible not to form moral judgements about what HH does, but I can't see it as a moral tale. What is the moral? It's important that everyone dies for aesthetic reasons, because this story is a tragedy, rather than for moral reasons.