Lolita

[Annie Ozone]

This is a thread, continuing discussion from here -> fyemarmadillo.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=literatrure&action=display&thread=29&page=7

[casey]

I think you put it to bed with your last post, honestly. I've read Lolita many times and not any time recently, and one thing that always stuck out in my mind is how Humbert had this particular brand of girl that he would choose, the "nymphet", as you said earlier, the girls just barely coming to terms with their femininity and sexuality.

Ugh. Your last post just totally hit everything on the mark, so I have little to say. But I'm in total agreement. But in reference to andy on the other thread commenting on the style being "showy" and how that writing style somehow blurs the lines between victim and criminal, I certainly don't think so. First and foremost I think it is significant to consider (and lets not begin an "is the author dead" thing) that English is not Nabokov's first or even second language, and he has expressed that he is somewhat insecure about his English. He just has a unique socialization to the language, which I think influences and perhaps automatically elevates his style. He also purposefully, I think, wanted Humbert to be articulate and worldly, just to further challenge readers in assessing their moral compass - NOT blur the line between victim and predator. For the protagonist to present such a detailed and elegantly written personal journal only helps his cause - and further challenges readers to see through him! I don't really think the rape issue falls under the "political correctness" umbrella here. The fact that Humbert is so calculated and obsessed and invested months of what was obviously torturous time with Lo's mother, who disgusted him from the beginning, solely to sexually victimize Lo - well, I think that early plot structure separates prey and predator pretty clearly.

[onlyaworkingtitle]

The entire novel comes into context when viewed as a dramatic monologue -- everything that's said is in the carefully-crafted voice of Humbert Humbert, an over-educated academic with an inflated ego. Of course his speaking style and diction is "elevated" -- H.H. is something of a pretentious ass, as seen in his interactions with every other adult in the novel. Also, we are gifted here with an unreliable narrator; everything that is said must be taken with a salt-lick (as opposed to the regular grain), but at the same time we must accept what is written as Humbert's truth. He wouldn't lie in his own diary, and so in order to fully analyze the text the reader needs to take the uncomfortable step into Humbert's shoes.

Humbert is aware of what is "politically correct" -- he knows, intellectually, that sleeping with your 12-year-old step-daughter is something of a faux pas -- yet, in his mind, he is unable to resist her "charms." Could he, in reality, have kept himself from committing statutory rape? We'd hope so. According to his journal, however -- not only what he says, but the tortured tone in which he says it -- he couldn't. The journal (aka novel) which he considers confessional may, in fact, be the tool with which he rationalizes his crimes: if he is attracted to young girls, it is because they are nymphets; if he slept with a young girl, it is because he could not help himself; if he plays the part of predator in their relationship, it is only because his heart feels preyed upon. The truth is irrelevant -- as a journal, the novel tells us only Humbert's side of the story, but none of the story itself.

But what was the heart of your original debate? Nabokov's incentives in writing the novel? My counter-question: Why do any of us write anything? Is it so hard to believe he simply had a story to tell? I know if I had a story of this magnitude in me, I'd not hesitate to write it.

[meh]

I have not been keeping up with this thread as I have not read Lolita, but it has been mentioned in some of my classes so I know roughly what it is about. I found this funny, and thought some of you guys might enjoy it:

imgfave.com/view/1418359

[Annie Ozone]

I have no idea what was at the heart of the original debate? It kind of just happened, though I think there was a lot of authorial intent vs. cultural interpretation. But! I read this in either the forward or afterward, but I read it before I read the novel, and it's colored my reading of Lolita ever since:

(AUGH going to Wikipedia for quotes GIVE ME MY BOOK BACK, FRIEND WHO BORROWED IT wait you're in fucking Athens NEVER AGAIN there are people debating it on the internet, is why!)

Nabokov wrote that "the initial shiver of inspiration [for Lolita] was somehow prompted by a newspaper story about an ape in the Jardin des Plantes who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature's cage."

So, I see a lot of Lolita through the theme of entrapment--mostly, originally, Lo herself, but I've come to see how it applies to HH, Charlotte, and maybe even Quilty.

Also, re: English: Nabokov, like most Russian aristocrats of his time, grew up with French as his first language, and Russian and English close behind; IIRC, his family was actually a little unusual for teaching their children Russian at such a young age--most aristocrats spoke exclusively in French for their childhood years and learned other languages in school. He is very confident in English, but only as written--if you watch any interviews with him (yes! they are on youtube! WATCH THEM), he speaks slowly, and carefully, with an accent. His lectures are brilliant, but they were all written out beforehand. If you've ever read Pnin, that character was kind of a partial send-off of himself, with the accent and malapropisms and misunderstandings (I believe Pnin himself pops up in Lolita, at the beach in a Hawaiian shirt, and no, I'm not kidding). You're right about Nabokov's unique approach to the language, casey, and it is significant that HH is also an aristocratic, educated emigre, but I just wanted to clarify that Nabokov wasn't insecure about English as it's written, but as it's spoken. (I took a class on Nabokov, which is why I'm fangirling so hard and going on about him when I should be talking about Lolita.)

I feel like this post isn't very coherent, but here it is anyway.

[casey]

None of my Lolita/Nabokov posts are coherent because I always have a lot to say and respond to and no main point. As long as we're on the same page. I'm also totally on the Nabokov fangirl wagon, it's all goood! The foundation for my idea about his "insecurity" (probably not the most effective word) is from his Paris Review interview, which I'm sure you've read.

INTERVIEWER
Do you feel you have any conspicuous or secret flaw as a writer?
NABOKOV
The absence of a natural vocabulary. An odd thing to confess, but true. Of the two instruments in my possession, one—my native tongue—I can no longer use, and this not only because I lack a Russian audience, but also because the excitement of verbal adventure in the Russian medium has faded away gradually after I turned to English in 1940. My English, this second instrument I have always had, is however a stiffish, artificial thing, which may be all right for describing a sunset or an insect, but which cannot conceal poverty of syntax and paucity of domestic diction when I need the shortest road between warehouse and shop. An old Rolls-Royce is not always preferable to a plain jeep.

So yeah, I guess you're right. Insecure in practical use of English, speaking on the fly. That interview also has a part about his lectures and how he would write them out and wanted to just tape his lectures and not actually show up for them, haha. "Insecure" may not be the word, but certainly more conscious of his unique socialization to the language. Reviewing this interview and I'm sure watching those youtube interviews really refreshes me on a lot of the Lolita ideas we were talking about too. He pretty much tells us his point of view. I just want to wrap myself up in some of the things that come out of his mouth(/pen) and cuddle with them forever.

[Annie Ozone]

Coherence is for the beta readers, darling, obviously.

"Insecure" may not be the word, but certainly more conscious of his unique socialization to the language.

Aha! Exactly, yes, part of why Nabokov is so great is because English is sort of this unfamiliar tool, and he has to be very precise with it to say what he wants, and because he is so precise he can make nuance and embellishments where native speakers aren't entirely familiar seeing it, which makes it more delightful to the reader. My metaphors, they are mixed!

I was pretty sure about what you meant earlier, don't worry. I really just wanted to clarify to the general public about Nabokov's English because Lolita gets a lot of flack in the "Great American Novel" debate because he's not a native speaker. Sorry, but Nabokov could kill Fitzgerald with his brain, the end. (For some reason it's always Nabokov v. Fitzgerald, always. I have no idea why this is.)

Nabokov is so great to fangirl! Butterflies! Chess! VERA! (I would watch a biopic about her every day, twice on Sundays, if there was one.)

I was going to, you know, actually talk about Lolita in this post, but my real life don't even care about my need for literary discussion.

[KatjevanLoon]

Jun 17, 2011 18:03:27 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

Sorry, but Nabokov could kill Fitzgerald with his brain, the end.

I've never read Lolita but your posts make me feel that I must.

[Annie Ozone]

Holy crow, katje, you totally, totally should. It is gorgeous and emotionally disturbing and brilliant, and it makes you think and wonder and dream, and there are so many levels to it...honestly, it's never the same book twice. Go, read, and discuss as you go along!

Lolita: there are so many angles and planes, it's like an Escher painting in words, precise and impossible. It's a takeoff of detective stories, it's a tale of imprisonment, it's a love story, it's a hate story, it's a love letter to the English language, it's a road trip through America, it's about making the reader active, it's about making the reader uncomfortable, it's about both, it's sensationalist, it's understated, it's just a story, it's so much more...

Let's talk about it!

[hitzelc]

I'm eager to finish this beauty just so I can join in, or at least read some of the other posts.

I will be back, friends.

[onlyaworkingtitle]

Jun 17, 2011 18:03:27 GMT -5 Annie Ozone said:

Sorry, but Nabokov could kill Fitzgerald with his brain, the end.

YES. AGREEMENT.

Also: Best comparison ever.