|
Author |
Message |
|
mitty |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:02 pm |
|
|
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Location: Way Down Yonder.......
|
I really think that this is one of those cases where everyone is to blame. I must be fair. But, if Charlotte had been the guardian she should have been, the opportunity would not have been there to begin with. That is why I mostly blame Charlotte. Humbert is a child molester --unfortunately for him with some (yeah, I know not too much) conscience. And Lolita is a horney kid that is way out of her depth. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:07 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
The irony to me is that, in this instance, the reader more likely than not wants the relationship to happen. We don't look at Lolita as a morality track ("look what happens when a young girl and a grown man have a sexual relationship"). We want this novel with this story, not only because without it there would be no novel, no story, but because in this instance the story is so interesting and, from the standpoint of fiction, so interesting. I don't think many readers see it as a crime being committed, despite the fact that society's laws, and ethics, say otherwise. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:35 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
mitty wrote: .....There were unending opportunities for her to call the authorities. And if she was so mortified by his molesting, she would have done so.... "....what happens if you complain to the police of my having kidnaped and raped you?....Okay, I go to jail, but what happens to you, my orphan? Well, you are luckier. You become a ward of the Department of Public Welfare - which I am afraid sounds a little bleak...." -Pt 2, Ch 1, about p.7. |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
Joe Vitus wrote:
We want this novel with this story, not only because without it there would be no novel, no story, but because in this instance the story is so interesting and, from the standpoint of fiction, so interesting. I don't think many readers see it as a crime being committed, despite the fact that society's laws, and ethics, say otherwise.
Hi Joe,
Glad to see your take which divorces it from being a morality tale, since a moral is very hard to find. As for wanting the story to happen, it would seem that Nabokov made a very nicely calculated decision, however he did it in his head, that this was a story waiting to be written and that he was the man to do it. I think one can see in the writing how carefully he crafted the story to stay just on the legal side of the line so that it could be published, even though many publishers still didn't want to to take the risk. Clearly, however, he succeeded very well.
However, for one of us at least, it is also true that the fact of a crime being committed, especially child molestation, cannot be entirely blinked away and tends to detract from full enjoyment of the novel. I find that I like Lolita enormously or really dislike it, depending on whether I'm looking at the writing style, the story line, or the individual characters. In the afterword, Nabokov (or Appel) has some choice dismissive words for people like me
I can hardly wait for other opinions,
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:53 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Ah, you're sure to catch it now, Joe. I wanted Bonnie and Clyde to go on robbing banks. A great movie, but light fare compared to this. The genius of this work is that we are fascinated by the crime that goes on and on; we are emotionally tugged away from our social mores when we want to "understand" and have pity for HH; we want to implicate where we can this rather shallow, difficult pre-teen; and we laugh at the wordplay, the social satire, and especially Humbert's constant self-parody. But interlaced, on practically every page, is our natural revulsion over these monstrous events, and heartbreak for the child victim. |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
mitty |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:23 pm |
|
|
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Location: Way Down Yonder.......
|
yambu wrote: Ah, you're sure to catch it now, Joe. I wanted Bonnie and Clyde to go on robbing banks. A great movie, but light fare compared to this. The genius of this work is that we are fascinated by the crime that goes on and on; we are emotionally tugged away from our social mores when we want to "understand" and have pity for HH; we want to implicate where we can this rather shallow, difficult pre-teen; and we laugh at the wordplay, the social satire, and especially Humbert's constant self-parody. But interlaced, on practically every page, is our natural revulsion over these monstrous events, and heartbreak for the child victim.
Yambu; I think you have put it very well. Throughout the book, I'd have/need to put it down (sensory overload), but was inevitably drawn back. I'd read about 3/4ths of it when I watched the later version movie. Then I finished the book and saw the 1962 version '62? or '60? So the images and impressions are kind of all floating about in the brain tissue. I think Mason's Humbert was more menacing, and Irons more helpless and bleakly sad. The trouble is one likes the actors, and some of that seems to rub off on the character. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
mitty |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:29 pm |
|
|
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Location: Way Down Yonder.......
|
yambu wrote: mitty wrote: .....There were unending opportunities for her to call the authorities. And if she was so mortified by his molesting, she would have done so.... "....what happens if you complain to the police of my having kidnaped and raped you?....Okay, I go to jail, but what happens to you, my orphan? Well, you are luckier. You become a ward of the Department of Public Welfare - which I am afraid sounds a little bleak...." -Pt 2, Ch 1, about p.7.
Yeah, so she goes off with a worse pedophile. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:59 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Yambu and Charles,
The thing is, I don't feel like a crime was committed by Humbert. This novel is simply too far away from reality for me to even consider such issues. Plus, and this is so important, the novel is a comedy. Black comedy to be sure, but comedy nonetheless. That alone moves it out of the realm of reality. Nabokov has created his own world, and I don't think he did any skirting-with-legality. I honestly don't think he considered the book unprintable as he was writing it, and was quite surprised by the reaction publishers had (one man actually burned the copy he received).
Granted, I don't like Humbert. Not because he has sex with a child, rather because he's such a snob and a wimp. But I think he really loved Lolita and played the fool for her. Notice that he never before or after is involved with a child, whatever his inclinations (though he does mention the delicious thrill of kids crawling over him on park benches: one of the funniest images in the book, to me). She's the image of his lost love, and he's driven to acts for/to her he would never consider with anyone else.
On another subject: has anyone elsed noticed the death-through-pregnancy stuff that runs through this book? Humbert's mother, his first wife, and Lolita all die giving birth. What's that about? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:12 am |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
[quote="Joe Vitus"]....The thing is, I don't feel like a crime was committed by Humbert. This novel is simply too far away from reality for me to even consider such issues. Plus, and this is so important, the novel is a comedy. Black comedy to be sure, but comedy nonetheless. That alone moves it out of the realm of reality. Nabokov has created his own world....
I categorically disagree strongly with everything above. This is not fantasm. You don't see a crime here?? How is it so far away from reality? Are there not pedophiles amongst us? Since when must comedy, especially black comedy, be out of the realm of reality? I thought comedy was anchored to the real. How is it not?
......Granted, I don't like Humbert. Not because he has sex with a child, rather because he's such a snob and a wimp......
This is like saying I don't like Hitler because he liked Wagner and I don't.
....On another subject: has anyone elsed noticed the death-through-pregnancy stuff that runs through this book? Humbert's mother, his first wife, and Lolita all die giving birth. What's that about?....
I had not noticed. My answer is that any possible progeny from such a monster must be aborted. |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
tirebiter |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:16 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4011
Location: not far away
|
Somebody brought up Lo's line, "I'm in a romantic mood tonight" as an example of her interest in sex or of her actively pursuing or seducing Humbert. I can't recall exactly when it occurs, but I thought it was clearly an attempt to manipulate Humbert into dropping his guard because she's preparing her "elopemtn" with Quilty. She's not seeking sex with Humbert because she wants it-- she's manipulating him.
That's not to say categorically that she always loathes sex. But as a 12 or 13-year-old child, I don't think consent legitimately comes into it... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
tirebiter |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:16 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4011
Location: not far away
|
"elopement"-- too early here.... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:27 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Yambo,
Sure there are pedophiles. There were also real knights in Britain. That doesn't make The Faerie Queen a work of realism. Humbert doesn't strongly resemble a real-life pedophile. I think the whole work is an allegory, and an exercise in word play. I don't think it is to be taken literally, at all. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:28 am |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Hey, Tire, how about credit for nailing your trivial trivia Q? |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:50 am |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Yambo,
Sure there are pedophiles. There were also real knights in Britain. That doesn't make The Faerie Queen a work of realism. Humbert doesn't strongly resemble a real-life pedophile. I think the whole work is an allegory, and an exercise in word play. I don't think it is to be taken literally, at all. You grossly underestimate this work. How is Humbert not a real-life pedophile? If he's an allegory, then what is he an allegory of? If this is just an exercise in wordplay, then I have been misinformed. |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
tirebiter |
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:45 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4011
Location: not far away
|
yambu: Congratulations! Your new powder-blue Buick LeSabre convertible will be arriving in your driveway later today. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|