Lolita

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 :)

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 :D

Quote:

---

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?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sami

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".

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sami

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XC

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

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.

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.

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 :D
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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:

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).