A different Point of View

[PeterL]

I was thinking about interesting books that haven't been written, and the idea of Lolita written from the point of view of Dolores Haze could be great. Does anyone else think so?

[Emil Miller]

I was thinking about interesting books that haven't been written, and the idea of Lolita written from the point of view of Dolores Haze could be great. Does anyone else think so?

It would be interesting but hardly an adult reference to the events portrayed in the book.

[PeterL]

It would be interesting but hardly an adult reference to the events portrayed in the book.

Au contraire, actually it would be very much "an adult reference to the events portrayed in the book", because I would have her tell the story in retrospect, as a memoir written now. She would be in her 70's, and her perspective would be interesting at this distance.

[Emil Miller]

Au contraire, actually it would be very much "an adult reference to the events portrayed in the book", because I would have her tell the story in retrospect, as a memoir written now. She would be in her 70's, and her perspective would be interesting at this distance.

This would be difficult when one considers that Lolita died in childbirth at the age of 17.

[PeterL]

This would be difficult when one considers that Lolita died in childbirth at the age of 17.

That is very easy to get around, very easy. Lolita died, because she definitely stopped being a Lolita, a child; she became a woman. As far as Humbert was concerned, she was dead.

[cafolini]

That is very easy to get around, very easy. Lolita died, because she definitely stopped being a Lolita, a child; she became a woman. As far as Humbert was concerned, she was dead.

In the comical contexts you fellows are discussing, you can get around anything whatsoever. "Ay Lola, Lolita, Lola. Contigo quiero acabar."

[cacian]

That is very easy to get around, very easy. Lolita died, because she definitely stopped being a Lolita, a child; she became a woman. As far as Humbert was concerned, she was dead.

Interesting so you are saying is that Lolita would in fact be aware of her childhood until she met Humbert and then she lost it all.
I am guessing that would be a hard one to score because when does a child draw the line between an adult and a child?
How do they know they are no longer a child?
I think for me I would have had it the other wat Humber realising what a pervert he had became and decided he was not worth living thus liberating Lolita.
Justice would have served its cause.

[PeterL]

Interesting so you are saying is that Lolita would in fact be aware of her childhood until she met Humbert and then she lost it all.

No, Humbert was interested in children, and he was not interested in adult women. Whether he was conscious of that is not completely clear, but that is how he acted.

Most children are aware that they are children, rather than being adults; the differences are all around them.


I am guessing that would be a hard one to score because when does a child draw the line between an adult and a child?
How do they know they are no longer a child?

The line comes at different places for different people. Humbert drew the line at childbirth. I think that Dolores drew it somewhat earlier.


I think for me I would have had it the other wat Humber realising what a pervert he had became and decided he was not worth living thus liberating Lolita.

I think that Humbert realized that he was a pervert from quite early on, but he didn't really face it.


Justice would have served its cause.

What would be justice in this case?

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of her memoirs. I don't know if I could write it, but it might be worth a try.

[cacian]

No, Humbert was interested in children, and he was not interested in adult women. Whether he was conscious of that is not completely clear, but that is how he acted.
I am not sure whether the word 'interested' does him justice.
He was more into children you mean for a different reason of that of a normal adult person.
He must have been aware of something he certainly knew the difference between and child and adult person. That is awarness enough.

Most children are aware that they are children, rather than being adults; the differences are all around them.
I somehow do not agree. I am a teacher and have children of my own and I know that children are not aware of any difference between an adult and a child. They could not because they are not adults yet to know the difference.
In order to know the difference between the two you have to have been both obviously.


The line comes at different places for different people. Humbert drew the line at childbirth. I think that Dolores drew it somewhat earlier.
Humbert did not drew the line. He did not understand where he was at and so decided that childbirth would become the line he would draw.
His real issues are not with drawing the line but with a child having another child. This kind brought him back closer to the truth. I am guessing his issue is with someone havign a child kind of disturbing to him because it might have reminded him of his parents childhood something not quite right somwhere along these lines.
Dolores would not have drawn the line because she would have understood the risk of unprotected sex and would acted appropriately in order not to fall pregnatn. That is what an adult have protection and not get pregnant.


I think that Humbert realized that he was a pervert from quite early on, but he didn't really face it.



What would be justice in this case?

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of her memoirs. I don't know if I could write it, but it might be worth a try.
Justice would be that Dolores would walk away before getting pregnant because she had found someone else a friend form her childhood the same age as her with whom she gets on well with and with whom she would confide.

[PeterL]

I am not sure whether the word 'interested' does him justice.
He was more into children you mean for a different reason of that of a normal adult person.
He must have been aware of something he certainly knew the difference between and child and adult person. That is awarness enough.

I don't think that there is any doubt that he ralized the difference. The Quilty pieces are all about him feeling guilty.


I somehow do not agree. I am a teacher and have children of my own and I know that children are not aware of any difference between an adult and a child. They could not because they are not adults yet to know the difference.
In order to know the difference between the two you have to have been both obviously.

It has been a few years, but I clearly remember knowing that I was not an adult, and there was a time when I know longer felt that way; although the end point was not something that I recognised at the exact time. I was not an adultwhen I was eight, but I knew very well that I was not an adult.


Humbert did not drew the line. He did not understand where he was at and so decided that childbirth would become the line he would draw.
His real issues are not with drawing the line but with a child having another child. This kind brought him back closer to the truth. I am guessing his issue is with someone havign a child kind of disturbing to him because it might have reminded him of his parents childhood something not quite right somwhere along these lines.

I disagree with your interretation on this. I think that Humbert knew the difference, but he didn't draw a specific line. The line became clear to him when he saw her after she had taken off with the guy who got her pregnant.


Dolores would not have drawn the line because she would have understood the risk of unprotected sex and would acted appropriately in order not to fall pregnatn. That is what an adult have protection and not get pregnant.

I think that Dolores knew the difference.


Justice would be that Dolores would walk away before getting pregnant because she had found someone else a friend form her childhood the same age as her with whom she gets on well with and with whom she would confide.

ANd that was the giuy who got her pregnant.

The more i think about this, the more I think it would be a good sequel.

[Emil Miller]

As far as Humbert was concerned, she was dead.


Then why did Humbert pursue her and beg her to go away with him even though she was married and pregnant ?

[PeterL]

Then why did Humbert pursue her and beg her to go away with him even though she was married and pregnant ?

He pursued her before she gave birth, not after.

[Emil Miller]

He pursued her before she gave birth, not after.

Well considering she was dead and he was in prison, it's hardly surprising.

[PeterL]

Well considering she was dead and he was in prison, it's hardly surprising.

I suppose that you also believe that, as Xladimir wrote in the aAfterword, that there was no symbolism.

[mona amon]

PeterL I think it's an excellent idea if you're able to pull it off. But I think you ought to allow her her death at 17 because it's such an important part of her tragedy. Indeed it's what makes it a tragedy, both in the Shakespearean sense of all the main characters dying in the end, as well as the fact that she never had a chance to get her life back after what Humbert did to her.

You can get around it by using her ghost or something - dunno - I've just started reading Tristram Shandy and here he is describing his own conception, at least that's what I think he's doing. :D I'm sure there are ways to get around the problem.

[PeterL]

PeterL I think it's an excellent idea if you're able to pull it off. But I think you ought to allow her her death at 17 because it's such an important part of her tragedy. Indeed it's what makes it a tragedy, both in the Shakespearean sense of all the main characters dying in the end, as well as the fact that she never had a chance to get her life back after what Humbert did to her.

I see no need for her to have died at 17 years of age. One of the more ineresting things about Lolita is that it is Humbert's words, as if it was told to Nabokov who then put it together. We readers don't get anything else, and there are goo reasons for believing that lage parts of Humbert's narrative is composed of lies. There is nothing between the covers of that book that can be accepted, including the Introduction and the author's Afterword.

The Introduction is perhaps more fictional than the rest, because it purports to be the truth about what happened in the end to the characters. As a carefully xynical reader, I see no reason to accept any of it. There is no reason for Humbert to have been arrested, unless Dolores accused him, so there was no reason for him to have been in jail. With that thrown out, there is no reason to think that he died in jail, because he wasn't there. Have you read The Great Impostiror seen the movie? The character did exist, but he disappeared shortly after being interviewed. The author investigated the claims and included those that could be backed up. I regard Humbert as a similar sort of characterBut while he done criminal acts, there was no way to connect him without Dolores' testimony.

I'm not going to write the whole thing here, but I think that you should get the idea.

[Summer M]

I'd like to see Catch-22 through the eyes of Milo Minderbinder. But then, I've just had six shots of Scotch, so things may seem different tomorrow.

[mona amon]

I see no need for her to have died at 17 years of age. One of the more ineresting things about Lolita is that it is Humbert's words, as if it was told to Nabokov who then put it together. We readers don't get anything else, and there are goo reasons for believing that lage parts of Humbert's narrative is composed of lies. There is nothing between the covers of that book that can be accepted, including the Introduction and the author's Afterword.

The Introduction is perhaps more fictional than the rest, because it purports to be the truth about what happened in the end to the characters. As a carefully xynical reader, I see no reason to accept any of it. There is no reason for Humbert to have been arrested, unless Dolores accused him, so there was no reason for him to have been in jail. With that thrown out, there is no reason to think that he died in jail, because he wasn't there. Have you read The Great Impostiror seen the movie? The character did exist, but he disappeared shortly after being interviewed. The author investigated the claims and included those that could be backed up. I regard Humbert as a similar sort of characterBut while he done criminal acts, there was no way to connect him without Dolores' testimony.

I'm not going to write the whole thing here, but I think that you should get the idea.

I've not read/seen the Great Imposter but I think I know what you mean - something like American Psycho or the Black Swan where you have no idea whether what you see really happened, or only happened in the protagonists' minds.

**SPOILERS**for Lolita ahead -

(Axtually, this thread already contains a spoiler. I thought Dolores death was mentioned in the foreword itself, and so it is, but under the name of Mrs Richard F Schiller.)

The foreword of Lolita is clearly written by some character other than HH, and the afterword by Nabokov in his own voice, Just as the poem in Pale Fire was written by John Shade. Of course you can doubt every single thing, but that's the easy way out. It's more fun to try and figure out which parts are true, and which are not, isn't it?

Humbert is in jail not because of his abduction of Dolores, which, as you say, no one knew about, but because of his murder of Quilty.

[kelby_lake]

There are a few books that are from Lolita's POV. I think two of them are written in a diary-style format and Steve Martin published a story on Lolita's life at 50.

Personally, though I think it would be interesting, the novel would lose some of its magic by explaining what really happened. It is not Dolores Haze that interests us but Lolita, Humbert's version of her.

Has anyone seen the two films of Lolita (the Kubrick one and one by Adrian Lyne)? What do you think?

[Emil Miller]

Has anyone seen the two films of Lolita (the Kubrick one and one by Adrian Lyne)? What do you think?

I have seen both and, although the Adrian Lyne version is closer to the period, I think the Kubrick version is better directed and acted. As I've mentioned before on this subject, Lyne's Lolita is more childlike and from that standpoint more convincing, but the precociousness's of Kubrick's is better portrayed even though Sue Lyon is too knowing for the part. I suppose that, given that Kubrick was obliged to upgrade her age to 15, it was inevitable that would happen.
The time gap between the two versions enabled Lyne to portray Lolita as being closer to that of the girl's age in the book but overall it still doesn't come off.

[kelby_lake]

The Kubrick Lolita is a bit long and I'm not too sure about Peter Sellers. However I think the Lyne version misses out the comedy.

[Emil Miller]

The Kubrick Lolita is a bit long and I'm not too sure about Peter Sellers. However I think the Lyne version misses out the comedy.

I agree that Peter Sellers multi-roles are questionable and the film is on the long side but then again so is the book which could, in my view, have had some of the repetitive travelling sequences removed.
I don't recall any comedy in the Lyne film but I'm not sure whether its omission is a good thing or not.
Whether Kubrick would have made a better job of it had he been allowed to film it in the USA is another question that arises in respect of the film but I think that he did remarkably well given the circumstances.

[PeterL]

There are a few books that are from Lolita's POV. I think two of them are written in a diary-style format and Steve Martin published a story on Lolita's life at 50.

I'll have to look for them.


Personally, though I think it would be interesting, the novel would lose some of its magic by explaining what really happened. It is not Dolores Haze that interests us but Lolita, Humbert's version of her.

I started wondering about it while I was reading Lolita. Humbert qwas clearly not reliable, so what was really happening.


I've not read/seen the Great Imposter but I think I know what you mean - something like American Psycho or the Black Swan where you have no idea whether what you see really happened, or only happened in the protagonists' minds.

It's more detailed than that.The actual sstory is very interesting, bt not all of the details ever came otu, because the whole story was never told by Demara. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Impostor

**SPOILERS**for Lolita ahead -


(Axtually, this thread already contains a spoiler. I thought Dolores death was mentioned in the foreword itself, and so it is, but under the name of Mrs Richard F Schiller.)

The foreword of Lolita is clearly written by some character other than HH, and the afterword by Nabokov in his own voice, Just as the poem in Pale Fire was written by John Shade. Of course you can doubt every single thing, but that's the easy way out. It's more fun to try and figure out which parts are true, and which are not, isn't it?

Humbert is in jail not because of his abduction of Dolores, which, as you say, no one knew about, but because of his murder of Quilty.

The foreword is as reliable as the bulk of Pale Fire, not at all. After reading the book and reconsidering the foreword, I am confident that it is unclear who wrote the foreword (exceot that Nabokov did). It almost certainly had to have been written by Humbert, because no one else knew enough, and there was no murder of Quilty, because Quilty was a figment of Humbert's imagination.

The more I think about it, the more my book idea makes sense.