Dolores Haze
Humbert Humbert
Neither
Both Are Victims
Umm... What? I'm usually open to alternate interpretations, but when it comes to Lolita, I don't think there's much to interpret. Nabokov violently opposed didacticism. What's on the page is what's there. And besides, how could Humbert go to prison for murdering an aspect of himself?Originally Posted by PeterL
Sorry, but your interpretation just doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting your interpretation.
What makes you think that Humbert went to prison for murdering anyone? And why do you think that Nabokov opposed didacticism? Nabokov also claimed in the Epilogue that he hated symbolism, but he lied.Umm... What? I'm usually open to alternate interpretations, but when it comes to Lolita, I don't think there's much to interpret. Nabokov violently opposed didacticism. What's on the page is what's there. And besides, how could Humbert go to prison for murdering an aspect of himself?
Sorry, but your interpretation just doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting your interpretation.
Um, have you guys read the book?
Humbert starts out in a prison cell first of all, and is addressing the jury throughout the book. That's the first clue.
That's the way that Nabokov presented it, but why would anyone take it at face value? Is Humbert a reliable narrator?Um, have you guys read the book?
Humbert starts out in a prison cell first of all, and is addressing the jury throughout the book. That's the first clue.
Humbert? Reliable?
Nabokov was an aesthete, a great admirer of Poe and Poe's philosophy (Poe is the most referenced author in Lolita) and if Nabokov says he hated symbolism, then I'll believe him.
And did you read the foreword? It's narrated by someone other than Humbert Humbert and describes the situation: Humbert was awaiting trial for the murder of Quilty, but he died of a heart attack. After Lolita dies during childbirth, the qualifications for publishing the book set by Humbert himself are met and the book is published (after being edited by the narrator of the foreword).
Why? Lolita is a work of fiction. The technique of using unreliable narrators is quite ordinary and common. The framing of most novels usually sets the scene, but there is no actual particular reason why the introduction of a novel must be accepted at face value. I consider the introduction of Lolita to be fiction about fiction. We readers have no way of knowing whether Humbert is the narrator, or if another character dreamed up the story about Humbert and put it into his point of view.
Humbert? Reliable?
I would believe the assertion that Nabokov hated symbolism, if it weren't false from the internal evidence of his writing. The use of "Annabel Lee" and symbols clearly related to that poem show that Nabokov used symbolism, and there were many other symbols. Remember that Nabokov was an expert on the writings of James Joyce, especially Ulysses and consider the travel and various activities in Lolita. I consider the two novels to be quite similar in the use of moving around and referring to a wide variety of symbols.
If you wish to accept the narrator of the Epilogue (presented as Nabokov) has truthful, then do so; but I can see no reason to believe that that part of the book is anything except more fiction.
So, does anyone think Vladimir Nabokov was a ficitional person? How many levels of fictional framing is one willing to accept or declare before saying fiction ends there and [whatever] starts here? Does anyone even think I wrote this post? Or that I read the book? Or even know what a frame is?
Hmm... I think I have a different definition of "symbolism" than some. I found a webpage about symbolism in Lolita. It said Humbert Humbert referred to two (Italian, I believe) kings named Humbert who were both dethroned, which obviously parallels the novel's Humbert to some extent. I, however, wouldn't consider this symbolism. It's a reference to something else, and one must know of the two things to appreciate its value. Symbolism, to me, would be like the color red representing death (to use a cliche). So what you consider symbolism involving Poe and "Annabel Lee" I would call a literary allusion.
And while I wouldn't consider the afterward a complete fiction, I do believe there is some symbolism in Lolita, and Nabokov can't be as literalist as he claims to be.
I'm still interested in your interpretation. If Quilty is just some aspect of Humbert Humbert, I take it he didn't really exist, and Humbert didn't really kill him? If so, then what parts of the story do you believe actually did happen (in Humbert's world, of course), if any. It just seems to me that you're headed down a road where the entire novel could be seen as, like you already said, a dream. I prefer to take it at face value.
So would I, but as part of the allusion, there were the people who appeared from the sea. I would have to read that section again for the details, but I believe that was symbolic. I also believe that there was symbolism in the barbershop section, and other places. I believe that I wrote that I consider Lolita to be very similar to Ulysses, which is solid symbolism.
OK, take it at face value. I should reread it (it's been a couple of years), but had a strong feeling from early on that there was something fishy about it. His use of "Annabel Lee" made me wonder how serious the novel was, because that poem is beautiful, silly verse. Perhaps I am too cynical, but the actual narrative doesn't ring true, unless I read it as allegorical. And in Palefire there is a mention of John Shade's "Cup of Hebe" in proximity to Hurricane Lolita tearing up the East Coast. Lolita was a symbol of young, immature women. A cup is a symbol for women, and Hebe was the Greek goddess of youth. I don't think that Lolita is very good purely at face value, but, if one sees it as an arrangement of symbols, it is great.And while I wouldn't consider the afterward a complete fiction, I do believe there is some symbolism in Lolita, and Nabokov can't be as literalist as he claims to be.
I'm still interested in your interpretation. If Quilty is just some aspect of Humbert Humbert, I take it he didn't really exist, and Humbert didn't really kill him? If so, then what parts of the story do you believe actually did happen (in Humbert's world, of course), if any. It just seems to me that you're headed down a road where the entire novel could be seen as, like you already said, a dream. I prefer to take it at face value.
Fictional framing is fiction. It is dangerous to expect that anything that characters or narrators do or say in a work of fiction is not fictional.
I hardly know what to say other than "Yes."
Extrapolate all the way out to..how do we know we are real, how do we know we are not a character in either someone else's dream or imagination. How do we know we are not the same difference as a microbe in a pitre dish in some scientists laboratory. The line has to be drawn by common sense, which is not too common.
I prefer to discuss the book as written, not as it might have been written, as the latter frequently leads to an elevated discussion that wanders all over the landscape without any necessity for participants having read the book or even checking back with it occasionally for corroborating detail. For myself I prefer book discussion to philosophizing.
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.
Reply With Quote
