Lolita

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Fowles' The Collector. Great novel:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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. :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

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.