Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov - Thesis Discussion

[rawrcay]

Hi, I chose to read Lolita for my senior research paper. I am currently in AP lit, but I don't feel all that "AP" material. I really enjoyed the book and the controversy of Lolita is very interesting. While doing a general research of the novel, it was interesting to learn of the conflicting views. Although, I am not sure if talking of Lolita's morality will suffice for a good thesis for my paper. We are supposed to explore literary theory. Literary theory is a very weak point for me, therefore I am looking for help from a simple discussion of opinions of the book, opinions of theories present, etc. At the moment I am leaning towards exploring the psychological aspects present in the novel since Humbert uses satire to degrade the industry. Yet, I have absolutely no background in psychology and that will end up being very difficult for me.

So please, discuss!

[JBI]

I'm sure there have been plenty of Ph.D. papers written on this novel. It surely can withstand a simple AP.

As for Psychological, Nabakov was very against many aspects of psychoanalytic study (Freud et. al) and spends much of the novel satirizing American obsession with, what was then, and still is, a magazine psychology driven society (Dolores' magazines, Charlotte's magazines, etc.). Perhaps though, you would be better off looking into empiricism.

[kelby_lake]

you could look at how humbert humbert manipulates us to believe things using words, maybe.

[JCamilo]

The unreliable narrator that HH is, the manipulation of space (it is a "travel" book) compared with time (Lolita gets old), The doppleganger, the use of previous literature as reference, How, overall Nabokov is a bit of Joyce with a bit of Borges... but overall as JBI points, Nabokov despised Freud and Lolita can easily seen as a mockery to the actual self-help books that are born from easy and flat use of freud and other psychologists by the society in their search for happiness (as note, Kafka and Borges also disliked freudianism and psychoanalyses), so HH lies, no doctor can get it, because he lies as a fine manipulator of language - Nakobov point: Doctors, you are all dumb, because I am a master of language I can trick you all to believe in any disease, in any freudian slip, anything.

[Scheherazade]

You might find this thread useful, rawrcay:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ghlight=lolita

[PeterL]

An interesting thesis would be something about the symbolism in the novel and the lies in the epilogue.

[Kafka's Crow]

The lyricism of style keeps on reminding me of James Joyce. Joyce has many styles but he is at his best when he adopts the lyrical manner , specially in The Portrait where Stephen makes up his mind to 'to live, to fall, to err, to recreate life out of life..." or in Shem the Penman in Finnegans Wake. Such lyricism appears again and again in Ulysses, specially the passages involving Stephen. The sheer poetry, the inspired style, the attention to the sound of words, these are all very, very Joycean things and Nabokov does this throughout his book in a very sustained manner. Try working on his style.

[Kafka's Crow]

I'm sure there have been plenty of Ph.D. papers written on this novel. It surely can withstand a simple AP.

As for Psychological, Nabakov was very against many aspects of psychoanalytic study (Freud et. al) and spends much of the novel satirizing American obsession with, what was then, and still is, a magazine psychology driven society (Dolores' magazines, Charlotte's magazines, etc.). Perhaps though, you would be better off looking into empiricism.

I find Humbert railing against everything here, psychology, education systems, family, decency, taboos,etc. All manner of authority and organisation is thoroughly despised by the protagonist.

[tscherff]

what i have always found fascinating is why a book about a murdering pedophile could ever be recieved with such acclaim. Does the nature of the art have nothing to do with its perceived quality? Is it different today than it was a century ago?
that would be an interesting thesis to look at.

[JCamilo]

The book is barelly about a murdering pedophile. The book is about literature mostly.
And of course, a Natural stylish writer like Nabokov raises his books to the level of art for art sake,even if not.
The difference is obivous - Nabakov created the image of pedophile and young victim that we have today. Nabakov wrote about a dude who believed to be free to have sex when the sexual revolution of the 50 and 60 was starting. Nabakov irony about the psychology is very interesting when we know the marketed dominated by the cheap easy literature of self-help and disguised fiction products.

[JBI]

Depends how you read the book. Many people agree with the narrator that she seduced and took advantage of him, but others think that is just Nabokov being clever, and playing off his unreliable narrator.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

[
QUOTE]The doppleganger, the use of previous literature as reference, How, overall Nabokov is a bit of Joyce with a bit of Borges... [/QUOTE]

I can't see how Nabokov is a "bit of Borges and Joyce"-Nabokov claimed that he had no literary influences, apart from Bely, and he only began reading Joyce a few years prior to writing Lolita. Borges wasn't famous enough to influence Nabokov when he wrote Lolita, besides Nabokov ridiculed claims by literary critics who claimed he was influenced by Borges in Ada. Yes, Nabokov admired both writers, but you are confusing 'influence' with admiration, and in terms of style and content Nabokov doesn't resemble either; Nabokov is Nabokov.

what i have always found fascinating is why a book about a murdering pedophile could ever be recieved with such acclaim. Does the nature of the art have nothing to do with its perceived quality? Is it different today than it was a century ago?

Reducing novels to their plot alone is a somewhat glib way of judging literature.

It all depends on where you are talking about "a century ago". Lolita was widely condemned in both America and Britain prior to and following its publication, many thought it was a form of glorified pornography, many thought it was morally bankrupt, many though Humbert was Nabokov, though what they all had in common was that they were either clumsy readers or viewed life and literature via a morally myopic prism.

I don't think it would have been published anywhere a century ago, except, perhaps, France, at it was in the 1950's. France was, after all, home to a host of controversial writers in the late 19th and early 20th century-Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Huysmans, Zola, Flaubert, Gide.

The best thing to write about in your thesis would be the idea of the 'unreliable narrator'-that is the main "theme" of the book, if there is indeed any. All you need to do is read the text closely, as I am sure you have done.

[PeterL]

[

I can't see how Nabokov is a "bit of Borges and Joyce"-Nabokov claimed that he had no literary influences, apart from Bely, and he only began reading Joyce a few years prior to writing Lolita. Borges wasn't famous enough to influence Nabokov when he wrote Lolita, besides Nabokov ridiculed claims by literary critics who claimed he was influenced by Borges in Ada. Yes, Nabokov admired both writers, but you are confusing 'influence' with admiration, and in terms of style and content Nabokov doesn't resemble either; Nabokov is Nabokov.

You should have realized that Nabokov was not completely truthful such comments, I don't know when he started reading Joyce, but he taught Joyce for many years at Ithaca. They also met on a number of occasions and some of the conversations were recorded. I'm not well enough acquainted with Borges to say whether there is any similarity, but Lolita shares many characteristics with Ulysses, including mythical references, symbolism, travel, and internal dialogue.

[tscherff]

"The book is barelly about a murdering pedophile. The book is about literature mostly.
And of course, a Natural stylish writer like Nabokov raises his books to the level of art for art sake,even if not.
The difference is obivous - Nabakov created the image of pedophile and young victim that we have today."


interesting.
i agree that nabakov created the image of the pedophile and young victim we see today. that is the problem. the pedophile is not evil. he is simply satisfying a need. the victim is not harmed by humbert, but saved by him.

does anyone truly believe that? are the victims unharmed and the perpetrators just fulfilling their needs of the 60's sexual revolution?
is this art? if humbert moved in next to you and you had children, would you think it art for art sake?

where does art end and immorality begin?
does this book tell us more about our "intellectualism" than we care to know?

[JCamilo]

[
QUOTE]The doppleganger, the use of previous literature as reference, How, overall Nabokov is a bit of Joyce with a bit of Borges...

I can't see how Nabokov is a "bit of Borges and Joyce"-Nabokov claimed that he had no literary influences, apart from Bely, and he only began reading Joyce a few years prior to writing Lolita. Borges wasn't famous enough to influence Nabokov when he wrote Lolita, besides Nabokov ridiculed claims by literary critics who claimed he was influenced by Borges in Ada. Yes, Nabokov admired both writers, but you are confusing 'influence' with admiration, and in terms of style and content Nabokov doesn't resemble either; Nabokov is Nabokov. [/quote]

No romance writer, much less someone with the intelectual level of Nabakov was unaware of Joyce after the 40's. As Inderjit pointed, Nabakov knew about Joyce very well.
As Borges, Nabakov greatly admired him to the point he claimed once to share a mental link with Borges. Nabakov certainly knew Borges.
And Nabakov is lying as anyone who knows the amount of literary jokes he plays in Lolita (HH is an intelectual after all that loves quoting Shakespeare) and the Doppleganger joke that have relations to Poe.
Outside Lolita: Nabakov shared with Joyce the long narratives, the language games, the modern romance play with time/space. With Borges he shared the love for scandinavian literature, the rationalism, the false texts games. Pale fire for example, a history about a fake author giving the narrative that include the analyses of a lost epic that Nabakov created himself for the work ? Smells like a certain Quinn. Those are similarities that he share, but the basic is: You said influence, I said he is a bit of Joyce with a bit of Borges, which means sharing traits. Which is rather obvious that is not just influence since they wrote at sometime (in borges and Nabakov case). Joyce is a problem that all romance writers had to deal in the XX century, so he is an influence. Borges is mostly likely a case of similar "breading".