Third Eye Film Society ~ View topic

Author

Message

< The Third Eye Reading Room ~ Lolita

pedersencr

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:36 am

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 921 Location: New Orleans

Marj wrote:

Charlie, (darn, did it again!)

Just to clarify, are you saying Lolita was more a victim of circumstance, ie Bad parenting?

If so how would you describe Humbert's movtives? Obsession, love, lust or a combination of all of the above? Although I do have a problem equating love and obsession. No matter how sexy Calvin Klein would like obsession to appear.

Marj,
I have reread the thirty or so pages that describe Humbert's behavior in the Haze home after he arrives directly from psychiatric care and before Lolita goes off to camp. I'm still bleary eyed.

Re Victim: Lolita was directly the victim of Humbert, in my way of thinking, or of encountering Humbert to stretch it more broadly.

Re parenting: My view of Charlotte is less severe, now that Melody has corrected my error and pointed out that Charlotte was not present at the couch scene. She was not present either when Humbert was removing a speck from Lolita's eye with the tip of his tongue (!) Or at some other times of physical contact between Humbert and Lolita.

However, when Lolita is between them both, on the cushions heaped on the floor, and Humbert tells the tale of shooting a white bear, he goes on to say:
"I gestured in the merciful dark and took advantage of those invisible gestures of mine to touch her hand, her shoulder and a ballerina of wood which she played with and kept sticking into my lap, and finally when I had completely enmeshed my glowing darling in this weave of ethereal caresses, I dared stroke her leg along the gooseberry fuzz of her shin..."

In the car on the way to shopping, with Charlotte driving and all three in the front seat:
"My knuckles lay against the child's blue jeans ....Suddenly her hand slipped into mine and without our chaperon's seeing, I held and stroked, and squeezed that hot little paw, all the way to the store."

In both cases, Humbert says Charlotte can't/doesn't see what is going on, so one can form one's own opinion about how vigilant she should have been, or what she should have surmised. On other occasions Charlotte shoos Lolita away from Humbert, to keep her from bothering him. But she never ever divines that Humbert has designs on her daughter and that he is bothering her, until she reads his diary, leaves the house and is killed in the car accident. At that point the stage is set for the victimization of Lolita.

Re Humbeert: I think he is the complete sociopath, and not just a pedophile, in his dispassionate and unscrupulous criminal pursuit of his own desires, including plans for murdering Charlotte and actually killing Quilty. He suggests that he moved from obsessive lust to genuine love in the course of knowing Lolita, but I am very reluctant to let him off the hook that easily, even though the valley scene and the final paragraph are the most touching passages in the book for me. There are two thoughts I would like to add into the general discussion, however, that give me pause.

First of all, most vividly in the Lyne film, he says to Quilty, in the long poem: "Because you cheated me of my redemption ..... you have to die."

If he really had self awareness to think that by staying with Lolita and, say, taking care of her and loving, even marrying her, he was going to be saved from his perverse lust for nymphets and be absolved of his bad behavior toward her, then I can begin to see an argument for genuine anger at Quilty, sufficient to drive him to kill Quilty. If, if! Otherwise, I think it is a senseless killing motivated by pure sociopathic rage.

Second, I am bothered by a remark of Alfred Appel's in the Introduction that relates to the whole interpretation of the novel. Using the metaphor of a game between the author and the reader, Appel says:

"If one responds to the author's 'false scents' and 'specious lines of play' best effected by parody, and believes, say, that Humbert's confession is 'sincere' and that he exorcises his guilt.....then one has lost the game to the author."

So, question from moderator to forum:

If that is 'losing' the game, what is 'winning' the game? That potentially the entire book is a lie by a maniac and we can freely create whatever other reality we wish? If so, I like the reality that says Lolita was a poor innocent girl who objected to being exploited for sex and having her life denied to her, by both Humbert and Quilty, who finally escaped to find a gentle man whom she could love and would care for her.

Charles

pedersencr

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:44 am

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 921 Location: New Orleans

PS Marj,
Charlie is OK too Smile

Just not that one.
Charles

yambu

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:54 am

Joined: 23 May 2004 Posts: 6441 Location: SF Bay Area

[quote="Melody"]....Gotta disagree with you, Yambu. This passage describing their first time doesn't sound like a man who's turned off sexually in the least:.....

I can't find this quote of yours. I remember having read it, but if it describes their first time, then I am confused. But the very first time she grabbed his penis, he allowed himself to be the prey and her the predator, and he didn't like it. He describes her mechanical approach to the task, which would be typical for one so young. But the event smashed through any pretense of his that he had to drug her in order to protect her.

_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me?

jeremy

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:15 am

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6794 Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)

Quote:

Re Humbeert: I think he is the complete sociopath, and not just a pedophile, in his dispassionate and unscrupulous criminal pursuit of his own desires, including plans for murdering Charlotte and actually killing Quilty.

I think that proscribed desires that can never be sated in in the sense of being part of a full loving relationship, desires that have to repressed, desires that force those that possess them to divorce or hide a part of themselves, can make somebody a sociopath or at least cause them to adopt the characteristics of one.

_________________
I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it.

tirebiter

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:17 am

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 4011 Location: not far away

Trivia FunTime! A close reading of the book will give you Dolly's birthday. What is it?

Melody

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:22 am

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 2242 Location: TX

yambu wrote:

I can't find this quote of yours.

Yambu, it's Part One, Chapter 32, near the end, after they've checked out of The Enchanted Hunters and are on the road again.

yambu wrote:

But the event smashed through any pretense of his that he had to drug her in order to protect her.

But she WAS drugged! Just because she happened to be awake and grabbed him, even in a childish way, doesn't discount the fact he'd slipped her a sleeping pill. Is anyone, but especially a 12-year-old 90-pound kid, in her right mind after ingesting one?

_________________
My heart told my head: This time, no.

jeremy

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:31 am

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6794 Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)

Humbert may have actually believed or wanted to beleive that he drugged the girl for her own benefit. It is true in circumventing the use of force he made it easier for her. It is only a small step to thinking he drugged her for her benefit. Paedophiles can ascribe to some pretty dubious reasoning to justify their actions.

mitty

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:46 am

Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 1359 Location: Way Down Yonder.......

jeremy wrote:

The sense of the drugging I got was that he didn't even want Lolita to know that there had even been any sexual contact. So, in a sense it was protecting her, but even more so proctecting himself from the consequenses of his actions.

mitty

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:03 pm

Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 1359 Location: Way Down Yonder.......

"If that is 'losing' the game, what is 'winning' the game? That potentially the entire book is a lie by a maniac and we can freely create whatever other reality we wish? If so, I like the reality that says Lolita was a poor innocent girl who objected to being exploited for sex and having her life denied to her, by both Humbert and Quilty, who finally escaped to find a gentle man whom she could love and would care for her." Charles

I just cannot think of Lolita as a true innocent. She lustily jumped in with both feet. OK, thats Humbert's view. But realistically, what else do we have? I have to accept the book written as it is. If Humbert were truely lying thru his teeth, he would not refer to himself as a beast, monster, etc. He also admits terrorizing her as to the possibilites if they are caught. Jail for him, and juvenile detention for her or worse. At the end, as I previously quoted, Humbert said he'd have given himself 35 years in jail for rape. With which I heartily agree.

Regarding, Quilty, he was nothing but a cockroach, that I believe was worse than Humbert ever thought about being. Who knows how many young boys and girls he ruined. He should have been under the jail.

pedersencr

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:10 pm

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 921 Location: New Orleans

jeremy wrote:

Quote:

Jeremy,
So that being a pedophile is, in and of itself, sufficient to give rise to the other sociopathic behaviors?

I am just repeating what I think you said, to make sure I understood your post. If that is what you meant, I would have no reason to disagree with it.

I still think it leaves the other very large question of just which parts of his confession to believe and which not. And why? Apart from purely personal preference, that is.

Charles

jeremy

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 pm

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6794 Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)

Yes, that is what I said, being a paedophile, or rather, being a paedophile in a society that reviles that tendency, could lead to sociopathic behaviour. For this to be true, one would have to subscribe to the view that on some level sex is important in forming the central loving relationship in your life and that this relationship can only be fully consummated in the context of a community.

It was a theory I just threw in to the mix, I am happy to be disabused of it.

pedersencr

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:23 pm

Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 921 Location: New Orleans

mitty wrote:

"

I just cannot think of Lolita as a true innocent. She lustily jumped in with both feet. OK, thats Humbert's view. But realistically, what else do we have? I have to accept the book written as it is. If Humbert were truely lying thru his teeth, he would not refer to himself as a beast, monster, etc. He also admits terrorizing her as to the possibilites if they are caught. Jail for him, and juvenile detention for her or worse. At the end, as I previously quoted, Humbert said he'd have given himself 35 years in jail for rape. With which I heartily agree.

Regarding, Quilty, he was nothing but a cockroach, that I believe was worse than Humbert ever thought about being. Who knows how many young boys and girls he ruined. He should have been under the jail.

Mitty,
Let me take your points in reverse order.

re Quilty: Yes, he deserves much worse than simply being shot by Humbert.

re Humbert: I'm all in favor of 35 years for rape, plus another lifetime for murder. I have no interest in salvaging his reputation either.

re Humbert acknowledging he is a monster, etc, he might now recognize that to be so, if indeed he has come to a new self awareness as part of realizing how he had mistreated her (in the touching valley scene, for example).

re accepting the book as written, that is where the difficulty begins for me.

There are numerous occasions where Lolita says "Stop that," or "Oh no, not again" whiich, together with her nightly crying, indicate her objection to Humbert's unwelcome attentions and likely also to her imprisonment by him. On the other hand there is the glaring "I'm in a romantic mood tonight," which at least once clearly indicates the opposite attitude, and also no objection as he picks her up and leads her to bed. (It reminds me of the famous GWTW scene).

But, the whole "Are you sure you never did this?" word game, together with Humbert's declaration that "She seduced me!" smells to high Heaven to me, as we say. First of all, she did not seduce him even if the facts are exactly as stated IMO. He seduced her, albeit in a reverse sort of way (in a creative literary twist by Nabokov). So I take his statement to be false, and I think he knows it is a misrepresentation of a situation in which he succeeded completely in getting exactly what he wanted. Altogether he is at least arguing a technicality here, and I believe knowingly being deceptive. The which being the case, why should I believe whatever else he says about the episode, or any other episode? In the car the next day, she is exceedingly uncomfortable, and says she should report him for rape, which might actually be true in addition to being a taunt or, spare us, a jest.

so re Lolita: I wrestle with what to make of what Humbert says because some of it is so transparently self-serving, and because I have tremendous sympathy for her. Hers is the reputation I would rather salvage out of the whole bunch, rather than to just write her off with Humbert's description.

However, it seems clear to me that the answer will remain ambiguous to me, and arguable either way, for quite a while until I find or hear a breakthrough in interpreting the text. Meanwhile, Appel's observation sounds like backward progress in my understanding.

Do you think this Forum will settle it? Hm? Smile

Charles

yambu

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:57 pm

Joined: 23 May 2004 Posts: 6441 Location: SF Bay Area

Melody wrote:

But she WAS drugged!....

No she wasn't. He had slipped her that pill before 9:00pm when the restaurant closed. She was wide awake at 6:00 am, and by 6:15 they had done the deed. Besides, in the early part of Ch 29, he says he learned later that it was too mild a sedative.

_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me?

yambu

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:18 pm

Joined: 23 May 2004 Posts: 6441 Location: SF Bay Area

tirebiter wrote:

Trivia FunTime! A close reading of the book will give you Dolly's birthday. What is it?

Jan 1, '35. Gimme a hard one.

_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me?

mitty

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:56 pm

Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 1359 Location: Way Down Yonder.......

"In the car the next day, she is exceedingly uncomfortable, and says she should report him for rape, which might actually be true in addition to being a taunt or, spare us, a jest." Charles

Let me be clear, I
do not blame Lolita. She was a product (as we all are) of her upbringing, and losses (her father) at an early age (which would explain her attraction to older men), and then of course her treatment by Charlotte. And Charlotte's very sudden death. Anyone would be in shock, no matter how they appeared to cope.

But I got the impression that she was using above threats as leverage. There were unending opportunities for her to call the authorities. And if she was so mortified by his molesting, she would have done so. Even when she finally did run away from him, she jumped from the frying pan into a hotter frying pan. And BTW someone mentioned her finally finding someone (Richard) to love and care for her, let me just say this. Richard loved her, but she only put up with him for convenience sake.

And, look at the affair she had with Quilty during her tenure with Humbert. This was no wilting violet.

Actually, if blame must be apportioned, I give it to Charlotte. No, she was not there when Humbert apparently masterbated on the swing with Lolita. But she should have been. There is NO excuse for leaving a child alone with someone you hardly know.

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

View next topic View previous topic Page 5 of 36 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 34, 35, 36 Next Third Eye Film Society Forum Index ~ The Third Eye Reading Room

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