So, I've finished Lolita and discussed my thoughts on the book as a whole regarding its meaning and my takeaways. However, I still haven't given my conclusive opinion. Was it worth the read?
To give you some background, I had one major goal for myself going into AP Literature and Composition: to read as many types of books as possible. Whether it was on my own time or not, I wanted to cover all of the bases. I figure the more topics I cover, the more likely I am to avoid being floored by a Question 3 prompt that has nothing to do with any of the books I've read this year. But, despite my attempts to collect all of the classics, I have maybe only read three—Lolita being one of them.
Even still, between those three and the ones in class, I have covered a fairly broad range of topics: race, coming-of-age, freedom, the use of religion, gender, society, etc. This is one of the reasons I chose Lolita out of the stack for this assignment—it brings something new to the table.
If given a question about guilt, criminality, first-person narration, murder, manipulation, love, or by some miracle, pedophilia, Lolita has me covered. I've been pretty repetitive in my discussion of how unique of a novel it is throughout my blog posts, and I stand by it. No other novel that I can think of has a plot like Lolita's or is written in quite the same brilliant way.
Which leads me to my next point—it's a memorable novel. Unlike The Catcher in the Rye, which I read on a whim and barely remember (I just had to Google the name of it to check if there was a "the" in the title), I feel as though I couldn't possibly forget this story. In general, twisted tales stick with you.
With that being said, the disturbing subject matter could very well be grounds for this book not being taught in an AP class. For an assignment like this, I think it works extremely well. The kids who are interested have the opportunity to read it as their homework instead of in addition to it, while the kids who don't aren't obligated to. The length of the novel meant that the pace was reasonable but not wasteful of our time this year. Plus, since this work is all done out of class and not in it, we are able to read Macbeth at the same time.
I personally think this was a really great book to read for this course in particular. It was definitely of merit, it had countless layers to it, and it’s the kind of book where I would read it again and find all kinds of new details and connections that I missed this time around. Though I maybe wouldn’t recommend it for classes across the country, I think our class this year would’ve done a nice job discussing the book even if we had read it in class.
With that, thank you for reading my blog posts if you’ve been keeping up, and I encourage you to pick Lolita up if you haven’t already.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Friday, February 22, 2019
Quarter 4
The book is finally complete! I have been wondering how it could possibly come to some resolution, and now we have reached it. After embarking on a second road-trip led mostly by Lolita, Humbert starts to become suspicious that they are being followed. He soon brings Lolita to a hospital after she becomes ill, but when he returns, she is gone. Humbert goes on a two-year journey to find her and the man who took her (while seeing a woman named Rita on the side). Eventually Humbert receives a letter from Lolita and finds out she is pregnant, married, and in need of money. He finds her and gives her $4,000 after she tells him she does not want to be with him. Then, he tracks down her kidnapper (who is not her husband) and shoots him, which lands him in jail where he is writing the memoir.
So, what moral could possibly be drawn from a story about pedophilia, murder, kidnapping, incest, and rape? To answer this question, I reread the foreward, written by the fictional editor and publisher John Ray Jr., Ph.D.. He believes it is important to publish the book as a warning to all who read it for two reasons. The first is that, according to him, "had our demented diarist gone [...] to a competent psychopathologist, there would have been no disaster" (5). He claims that this tragedy was preventable and should serve as an example for that reason.
Secondly, he writes that "these are not only vivid characters in a unique story: they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils. 'Lolita' should make all of us [...] apply ourselves with still greater vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation and a safer world" (6). This is his ultimate understanding of the work. He views it as a tragic tale that should be used to create change in the world, to protect children and prevent these horrendous crimes in the future.
I agree with this as a major takeaway from the book. To me, the most important element of how the novel was constructed is the first-person narration. This is one of the most unique novels I've ever read for that reason--it feels like reading a criminal's diary. You get to follow him as he describes his analysis of what made him that way, how he feels about the characters, his journey with the guilt of his crimes, what he believes the events of the story to be, and ultimately how he feels when it's all over with. You actually experience the manipulation, the justification, and the lies he tells. After reading this book, I feel as though I have a much better understanding of individuals who suffer from pedophilia, and how they go about committing their crimes.
Another major component to the story--and probably the main reason why some characters were so easily manipulated by Humbert--is that love serves to blind characters in the novel. One of the most interesting and ironic elements to me was the dynamic between Humbert manipulating others and being manipulated himself. In Part One, he manages to manipulate Charlotte in order to get close to Lolita. When she tells him to either stay because he loves her or leave because he doesn't, he ends up marrying her to convince her of his love--all to stay near Lolita. She seems not to notice his infatuation for her daughter, mostly because she is so deeply in love with him. It isn't until she opens his chest of confessional diary entries that she finally sees and accepts that he has manipulated her. After opening it, she likely doesn't love him anymore, so when he tries to convince her that "the notes [she] found were mere fragments of a novel," she "neither [answers] nor [turns]" (96). She cannot see she is being manipulated until she falls out of love with him.
Though Humbert is the manipulator in his relationship with Charlotte (and proud of it), the roles become reversed with Lolita. This is why I find the idea of "The Enchanted Hunters" so brilliant. When Lolita and Humbert first spend the night together, they stay in a hotel called "The Enchanted Hunters," which also happens to be the name of the play that Lolita participates in later in the novel. Humbert is infatuated with Lolita--she is the enchantress--and Humbert is pursuing her--he is the hunter. When this name is first brought up, the word "enchanted" seemed fairly innocent, as Humbert always talked about Lolita's beauty. She has not yet become very manipulative towards him at this point, so her role as the enchantress seems to be unintentional.
However, once she begins attending school in Beardsley and participating in the play, "The Enchanted Hunters," the meaning of the term changes. Though he notices things that are unusual, such as the fact that she stashes money away, she still has control over him. When she asks him to go upstairs with her after a large fight ending in her demands to pick the locations of their next road trip, he confesses that he has the ability "of shedding torrents of tears throughout the other tempest," or that she brought him to tears (207). She has become enchanting in a much more intentional way than before, as though she enchants her hunter to manipulate him into letting her go.
She is successful in escaping him in the end, as she leaves the hospital without his knowledge with Clare Quilty. Perhaps if Humbert had not been so blinded by his love for her, he would not only have noticed the unusual behavior, but seen through her manipulation and prevented her escape.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Lolita, as it taught me a lot about manipulation and how it is carried out. It is how people like Humbert commit their crimes, but in some cases it is also how they eventually lose the battle. It is easy to see people like Charlotte in the story and in real-life cases (not just with criminals) and wonder how they could have been so easily played, but a lot of it has to do with their relationship to the manipulator. If you love someone, you don't want to believe that they have done something wrong, particularly in this case since Charlotte realizing Humbert's manipulation meant coming to terms with the fact that her love was always unrequited.
I took away a lot of lessons from this novel, mostly pertaining to the mind of a criminal, and I'm really glad I read it for that reason. I hope those who read along had an equally good experience, and I look forward to reading about their takeaways from this brilliant novel.
So, what moral could possibly be drawn from a story about pedophilia, murder, kidnapping, incest, and rape? To answer this question, I reread the foreward, written by the fictional editor and publisher John Ray Jr., Ph.D.. He believes it is important to publish the book as a warning to all who read it for two reasons. The first is that, according to him, "had our demented diarist gone [...] to a competent psychopathologist, there would have been no disaster" (5). He claims that this tragedy was preventable and should serve as an example for that reason.
Secondly, he writes that "these are not only vivid characters in a unique story: they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils. 'Lolita' should make all of us [...] apply ourselves with still greater vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation and a safer world" (6). This is his ultimate understanding of the work. He views it as a tragic tale that should be used to create change in the world, to protect children and prevent these horrendous crimes in the future.
I agree with this as a major takeaway from the book. To me, the most important element of how the novel was constructed is the first-person narration. This is one of the most unique novels I've ever read for that reason--it feels like reading a criminal's diary. You get to follow him as he describes his analysis of what made him that way, how he feels about the characters, his journey with the guilt of his crimes, what he believes the events of the story to be, and ultimately how he feels when it's all over with. You actually experience the manipulation, the justification, and the lies he tells. After reading this book, I feel as though I have a much better understanding of individuals who suffer from pedophilia, and how they go about committing their crimes.
Another major component to the story--and probably the main reason why some characters were so easily manipulated by Humbert--is that love serves to blind characters in the novel. One of the most interesting and ironic elements to me was the dynamic between Humbert manipulating others and being manipulated himself. In Part One, he manages to manipulate Charlotte in order to get close to Lolita. When she tells him to either stay because he loves her or leave because he doesn't, he ends up marrying her to convince her of his love--all to stay near Lolita. She seems not to notice his infatuation for her daughter, mostly because she is so deeply in love with him. It isn't until she opens his chest of confessional diary entries that she finally sees and accepts that he has manipulated her. After opening it, she likely doesn't love him anymore, so when he tries to convince her that "the notes [she] found were mere fragments of a novel," she "neither [answers] nor [turns]" (96). She cannot see she is being manipulated until she falls out of love with him.
Though Humbert is the manipulator in his relationship with Charlotte (and proud of it), the roles become reversed with Lolita. This is why I find the idea of "The Enchanted Hunters" so brilliant. When Lolita and Humbert first spend the night together, they stay in a hotel called "The Enchanted Hunters," which also happens to be the name of the play that Lolita participates in later in the novel. Humbert is infatuated with Lolita--she is the enchantress--and Humbert is pursuing her--he is the hunter. When this name is first brought up, the word "enchanted" seemed fairly innocent, as Humbert always talked about Lolita's beauty. She has not yet become very manipulative towards him at this point, so her role as the enchantress seems to be unintentional.
However, once she begins attending school in Beardsley and participating in the play, "The Enchanted Hunters," the meaning of the term changes. Though he notices things that are unusual, such as the fact that she stashes money away, she still has control over him. When she asks him to go upstairs with her after a large fight ending in her demands to pick the locations of their next road trip, he confesses that he has the ability "of shedding torrents of tears throughout the other tempest," or that she brought him to tears (207). She has become enchanting in a much more intentional way than before, as though she enchants her hunter to manipulate him into letting her go.
She is successful in escaping him in the end, as she leaves the hospital without his knowledge with Clare Quilty. Perhaps if Humbert had not been so blinded by his love for her, he would not only have noticed the unusual behavior, but seen through her manipulation and prevented her escape.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Lolita, as it taught me a lot about manipulation and how it is carried out. It is how people like Humbert commit their crimes, but in some cases it is also how they eventually lose the battle. It is easy to see people like Charlotte in the story and in real-life cases (not just with criminals) and wonder how they could have been so easily played, but a lot of it has to do with their relationship to the manipulator. If you love someone, you don't want to believe that they have done something wrong, particularly in this case since Charlotte realizing Humbert's manipulation meant coming to terms with the fact that her love was always unrequited.
I took away a lot of lessons from this novel, mostly pertaining to the mind of a criminal, and I'm really glad I read it for that reason. I hope those who read along had an equally good experience, and I look forward to reading about their takeaways from this brilliant novel.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Quarter 3
This week's post will be a bit different than the other two; rather than focusing on a particular aspect of the novel, I would like to dedicate my entire post to something I have alluded to in the previous posts but have not gone in depth about. The more I read this novel, the more similarities I find between Humbert Humbert, the narrator, and Bob Berchtold of Abducted in Plain Sight. For those who did not read my other posts, Abducted in Plain Sight is a must-see documentary that follows the story of a pedophile who manipulated one family beyond belief in order to get to the young girl whom he loved, Jan. Though I will be spoiling some parts soon, you should still go watch it. Every minute of this documentary is insane, trust me.
Let's start with the obvious--they're both tales about pedophiles. Humbert and Bob are about middle-aged at the time of the events, and they both have become infatuated with young girls, Lolita and Jan. The young girls have at least one living family member whom they live with at the time that the story takes place.
Now, before anything actually illegal happens, the two men admire the girls from afar. They both have ways of preserving their admiration for the children in private--Humbert has his journal, and Bob takes photographs of Jan. While they admire from a distance, they grow close to the families of the girls. Humbert doesn't make much of an effort to get in Charlotte's good graces (Lolita's mom) at this stage, but Bob becomes very good friends with Jan's parents. He comes over frequently and attempts for his family and Jan's family to become extremely close.
Soon, it becomes too inconvenient to deal with the families, though for different reasons. Both Bob and Humbert view the parents of the girls as roadblocks and have for most of the story. Bob works around the parents for a long time, probably because it's not a fictional story and he can't control the outcome, so he has to be much more careful. He manipulates them in numerous ways: convincing them to let him sleep in Jan's bed as part of his "therapy" and creating situations which he could use as blackmail against them (i.e. getting them both to cheat on each other with him), all the while building an extreme sense of trust.
Humbert's plan is equally as extreme in that he marries Charlotte and convinces her that her love for him is reciprocated only so he can stay close to Lolita. However, throughout Lolita, Humbert typically acts in response to events rather than scheming them up himself. In this case, Charlotte writes him a letter professing her love in which she tells him unless he loves her back, he should "at once, pack and leave" (67). Therefore, he only has two options: marry her or never see Lolita again. In this way, Bob is the far more devious pedophile, creating his plot from scratch, whereas Humbert makes his up as he goes along.
The next stage of the stories is eliminating the parents. Charlotte tells Humbert that Lolita will go "straight from camp to a good boarding school with strict discipline and some sound religious training. And then--Beardsley College" (83). Once again, the threat of Lolita being taken from him over Charlotte's decisions makes him feel as though the only option is to kill her. But, before he does, she is killed in an accident.
Bob, being far more intelligent, has a more elaborate plan. He convinces Jan's mom to let him take her horseback riding one afternoon, then kidnaps her and drugs her. In this way, he has her all to himself even if the parents are not completely out of the picture. Even if they tried to get involved, he could blackmail them with the adultery they both committed.
Next, in order to convince the girls to give in to their desires, they must manipulate them. Humbert's plan is not well thought out and is fairly unsuccessful long-term, though he calls it a "marvel of primitive art" (106). He decides to "tell Lolita her mother was about to undergo a major operation at an invented hospital, and then keep moving with [her] from inn to inn while her mother got better and better and finally died" (106). So yeah, not great. His plan is foiled after she asks a very reasonable question: "Can I call my mom?" Apparently he didn't think of that one.
The only true threat he ever makes in regards to her attempting to leave him is when he claims she will be "analyzed and institutionalized" and end up in a "juvenile detention home" (151). Though this works on Lolita at first, it is not an effective plan long-term. Like the previous plot, she will realize at some point that she can escape without this consequence.
Bob on the other hand comes up with one of the most brilliant yet unsettling plan I have ever heard. He drugs Jan, straps her to a bed in his RV, and plays a tape on his recorder that he created in which he informs her she has been abducted by aliens, her father is not her real father, her real father is an alien, she is half-alien, and in order to save the planet, she must have a child with the chosen male before she turns 16. As a half-awake drugged 12-year-old, I don't blame her for believing this. Obviously, Bob is the chosen male, and given that she trusts him like her father, she explained that she was relieved it was him. The most successful piece of this lie is that she is instructed not to speak about it to anyone or have any contact with other males, or else her sister will go blind or her father will die. With that, she needed no more convincing.
As far as actually making the children have intercourse with them, Humbert claims he doesn't need to do much of anything. According to him, Lolita was the seductress the first time. However, she becomes more opposed to it as the book progresses, and he resorts to paying her. She really has no concrete reason to go along with Humbert's wishes besides the power dynamic which is subject to change as she grows older and more independent.
These two methods of manipulation have extremely different outcomes. For Jan, she wholeheartedly believed in the alien backstory until the age of 16, save a few brief moments of questioning. To be fair, she was 12 when she was convinced of this while drugged and reinforced by a grown man whom she trusted. She never told a soul about it until after she realized the world didn't end despite her childlessness. In fact, she believed it so strongly that her plan for her 16th birthday was to buy a gun, ask her sister if she was willing to take over the mission, and if she wasn't, she would kill her and then kill herself. Bob was obviously extremely good at manipulating her.
Humbert, on the other hand, isn't quite the mastermind he believes himself to be. In this section, we're already seeing Lolita gain more and more control of the situation, not submitting nearly as often as she supposedly used to. Though Humbert claims Lolita seduced him the first time, Lolita later asks him, "What was the name of that hotel [...] where you raped me?" (202). She becomes increasingly more interested in other boys and men, which makes Humbert paranoid of losing her, fearing "that she might accumulate sufficient cash to run away" (185). Lolita, unlike Jan, seems as though she is trying to manipulate Humbert, plotting a scheme of her own to escape him.
As you can tell, these two stories have quite a bit in common.My first takeaway in this analysis is this: Bob's crafty manipulation did not keep Jan forever, so I have no reason to believe Humbert will be any more successful in keeping Lolita. We are already seeing hints that she will eventually escape his grasp, and I predict it will come to fruition in the last quarter (being as that's the only other place it could happen).
Second, the fact that there are this many parallels between this fictional pedophile and a real-life pedophile proves either one of two things: Nabokov is a good enough writer that he can accurately portray a pedophile, or he is one.
In conclusion, I am still suspicious of Nabokov, and I want everyone to go watch Abducted in Plain Sight. Thank you for reading.
Let's start with the obvious--they're both tales about pedophiles. Humbert and Bob are about middle-aged at the time of the events, and they both have become infatuated with young girls, Lolita and Jan. The young girls have at least one living family member whom they live with at the time that the story takes place.
Now, before anything actually illegal happens, the two men admire the girls from afar. They both have ways of preserving their admiration for the children in private--Humbert has his journal, and Bob takes photographs of Jan. While they admire from a distance, they grow close to the families of the girls. Humbert doesn't make much of an effort to get in Charlotte's good graces (Lolita's mom) at this stage, but Bob becomes very good friends with Jan's parents. He comes over frequently and attempts for his family and Jan's family to become extremely close.
Soon, it becomes too inconvenient to deal with the families, though for different reasons. Both Bob and Humbert view the parents of the girls as roadblocks and have for most of the story. Bob works around the parents for a long time, probably because it's not a fictional story and he can't control the outcome, so he has to be much more careful. He manipulates them in numerous ways: convincing them to let him sleep in Jan's bed as part of his "therapy" and creating situations which he could use as blackmail against them (i.e. getting them both to cheat on each other with him), all the while building an extreme sense of trust.
Humbert's plan is equally as extreme in that he marries Charlotte and convinces her that her love for him is reciprocated only so he can stay close to Lolita. However, throughout Lolita, Humbert typically acts in response to events rather than scheming them up himself. In this case, Charlotte writes him a letter professing her love in which she tells him unless he loves her back, he should "at once, pack and leave" (67). Therefore, he only has two options: marry her or never see Lolita again. In this way, Bob is the far more devious pedophile, creating his plot from scratch, whereas Humbert makes his up as he goes along.
The next stage of the stories is eliminating the parents. Charlotte tells Humbert that Lolita will go "straight from camp to a good boarding school with strict discipline and some sound religious training. And then--Beardsley College" (83). Once again, the threat of Lolita being taken from him over Charlotte's decisions makes him feel as though the only option is to kill her. But, before he does, she is killed in an accident.
Bob, being far more intelligent, has a more elaborate plan. He convinces Jan's mom to let him take her horseback riding one afternoon, then kidnaps her and drugs her. In this way, he has her all to himself even if the parents are not completely out of the picture. Even if they tried to get involved, he could blackmail them with the adultery they both committed.
Next, in order to convince the girls to give in to their desires, they must manipulate them. Humbert's plan is not well thought out and is fairly unsuccessful long-term, though he calls it a "marvel of primitive art" (106). He decides to "tell Lolita her mother was about to undergo a major operation at an invented hospital, and then keep moving with [her] from inn to inn while her mother got better and better and finally died" (106). So yeah, not great. His plan is foiled after she asks a very reasonable question: "Can I call my mom?" Apparently he didn't think of that one.
The only true threat he ever makes in regards to her attempting to leave him is when he claims she will be "analyzed and institutionalized" and end up in a "juvenile detention home" (151). Though this works on Lolita at first, it is not an effective plan long-term. Like the previous plot, she will realize at some point that she can escape without this consequence.
Bob on the other hand comes up with one of the most brilliant yet unsettling plan I have ever heard. He drugs Jan, straps her to a bed in his RV, and plays a tape on his recorder that he created in which he informs her she has been abducted by aliens, her father is not her real father, her real father is an alien, she is half-alien, and in order to save the planet, she must have a child with the chosen male before she turns 16. As a half-awake drugged 12-year-old, I don't blame her for believing this. Obviously, Bob is the chosen male, and given that she trusts him like her father, she explained that she was relieved it was him. The most successful piece of this lie is that she is instructed not to speak about it to anyone or have any contact with other males, or else her sister will go blind or her father will die. With that, she needed no more convincing.
As far as actually making the children have intercourse with them, Humbert claims he doesn't need to do much of anything. According to him, Lolita was the seductress the first time. However, she becomes more opposed to it as the book progresses, and he resorts to paying her. She really has no concrete reason to go along with Humbert's wishes besides the power dynamic which is subject to change as she grows older and more independent.
These two methods of manipulation have extremely different outcomes. For Jan, she wholeheartedly believed in the alien backstory until the age of 16, save a few brief moments of questioning. To be fair, she was 12 when she was convinced of this while drugged and reinforced by a grown man whom she trusted. She never told a soul about it until after she realized the world didn't end despite her childlessness. In fact, she believed it so strongly that her plan for her 16th birthday was to buy a gun, ask her sister if she was willing to take over the mission, and if she wasn't, she would kill her and then kill herself. Bob was obviously extremely good at manipulating her.
Humbert, on the other hand, isn't quite the mastermind he believes himself to be. In this section, we're already seeing Lolita gain more and more control of the situation, not submitting nearly as often as she supposedly used to. Though Humbert claims Lolita seduced him the first time, Lolita later asks him, "What was the name of that hotel [...] where you raped me?" (202). She becomes increasingly more interested in other boys and men, which makes Humbert paranoid of losing her, fearing "that she might accumulate sufficient cash to run away" (185). Lolita, unlike Jan, seems as though she is trying to manipulate Humbert, plotting a scheme of her own to escape him.
As you can tell, these two stories have quite a bit in common.My first takeaway in this analysis is this: Bob's crafty manipulation did not keep Jan forever, so I have no reason to believe Humbert will be any more successful in keeping Lolita. We are already seeing hints that she will eventually escape his grasp, and I predict it will come to fruition in the last quarter (being as that's the only other place it could happen).
Second, the fact that there are this many parallels between this fictional pedophile and a real-life pedophile proves either one of two things: Nabokov is a good enough writer that he can accurately portray a pedophile, or he is one.
In conclusion, I am still suspicious of Nabokov, and I want everyone to go watch Abducted in Plain Sight. Thank you for reading.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Quarter 2
We're halfway through Lolita! 154 pages, to be exact, and a whole lot has gone down since my last post. If you were already uncomfortable with the secret climax scene, you may want to skip this summary. Since then, Humbert has plotted to kill his wife by drowning her, but fate saved him the trouble, and she was run over right after she found his stash of journals and letters in which he confesses everything. She knew about his obsession with Lolita, his dislike for her, and the fact that he only married her to get close to her daughter. With her gone, Humbert was free to essentially kidnap Lolita, drug her, and claim she seduced him (sounds pretty similar to Abducted in Plain Sight if you ask me). Now, they're travelling the country while having a secret affair. Like I said, quite uncomfortable material to read.
To preface this post, something I really love about Nabokov's style is the carefully chosen details. There is one line in particular that stood out to me. Humbert writes, "Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with!" (32). It probably isn't as significant as I think it is, but to me, this line confirms that Humbert carefully chooses everything he says in the novel. Each detail has been considered and added with purpose behind it. Since reading this, I have kept it in the back of my mind.
One of the things I wanted to talk about last time but didn't want to spoil was the foreshadowing of Charlotte's death. Admittedly, the copy I am reading is the annotated version, and I occasionally learn about plot details before I reach them. I have since stopped reading most of the notes for this reason and only use them to translate the occasional French phrase (which I am hopeless to translate on my own). Long story short, the first time Humbert hinted at the death of his wife-to-be, I read all about it in the notes. Therefore, I have known about it this whole time and have been able to pick out the plethora of other references to it.
The original mention of the accident was all the way back in chapter 10 of part one, when Humbert writes, "Speaking of sharp turns: we almost ran over a meddlesome suburban dog (one of those who lie in wait for cars) as we swerved into Lawn Street" (36). Though this one is not particularly obvious, and there's no chance I would've noticed it on my own, they get progressively more blatant as the scene approaches.
He has thoughts of killing her far before the incident, writing, "I did not plan to marry poor Charlotte in order to eliminate her in some vulgar, gruesome and dangerous manner [...] but a delicately allied, pharmacopoeial thought did tinkle in my [...] brain," (71). These mentions of his plotting plants the idea of her death far before it actually happens. Two pages later he also says, "the fool dog of the prosperous junk dealer next door ran after a blue car--not Charlotte's" (73). By now, there as a clear connection between death, the dog, and Charlotte.
From then on he is no longer subtle, stating "a bad accident is to happen quite soon" (79). Because of Humbert's discussions about murderous thoughts, it would be easy to assume he would have played a direct role in her death. He nearly does at the lake but finds himself unable and foreshadows the real cause of her death once more: "Oh, my poor Charlotte, do not hate me in your eternal heaven among an eternal alchemy of asphalt and rubber and metal and stone--but thank God, not water, not water!" (88). So, her death will come by pavement, not water.
It's interesting--Humbert takes credit for Charlotte's death as though he orchestrated it, essentially stating, "had I not been [...] such an intuitive genius," she never would have died. Yet simultaneously, he shifts the blame off of himself throughout the novel for his crimes, placing it on fate and his victims. He continues, saying that even if he had played a role by his intuitive genius, "nothing still might have happened, had not precise fate" taken control (103).
This is the other aspect of the style I find so captivating. Given the frame of the novel, Humbert frequently references the "ladies and gentlemen of the jury," as though it is a persuasive piece of work designed to clear his name. Therefore, the scenes are constructed in a way that anytime he commits a crime, he addresses the jury and attempts to shift the blame. Perhaps the best illustrative example of this is when Humbert and Lolita first engage in intercourse, and before even stating that it happened, he addresses the jury, then describes how "it was she who seduced [him]" (132).
The effect of these techniques is fascinating. As a reader, I fall prey to his manipulative nature and persuasive style. I don't want to like him, but as disturbing as his crimes sound and are, I don't find it as hard to read as I thought I might. He is so good at shifting blame and painting a picture in which he is both incredibly intelligent in creating and carrying out a master plan to fulfill his desires and also not entirely responsible for any of it. After all, it was fate who killed Charlotte and Lolita who seduced him.
This brings in the question of how much we can trust our narrator. In this case, Humbert is a manipulative, intelligent, and detail-oriented character who is actively trying throughout the novel to clear his name. Therefore, I have no reason to believe he deserves anything less than complete blame for the events of the novel. I don't believe that Lolita seduced him, and I think he exaggerates her willingness to participate in the affair. Additionally, I do not believe he had a direct role in Charlotte's death, but I fully believe he would have if the accident hadn't occurred. However, I also know this is a fictional story and no one actually died or seduced anyone else.
If the goal of the novel is to enlighten the reader about the manipulative, persuasive nature of pedophiles and criminals, I would say it's incredibly successful, and a lot of that success comes from the style of writing. I genuinely find this novel fascinating and cannot wait to read the next quarter. Thanks for reading, and I hope you'll tune in next week!
To preface this post, something I really love about Nabokov's style is the carefully chosen details. There is one line in particular that stood out to me. Humbert writes, "Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with!" (32). It probably isn't as significant as I think it is, but to me, this line confirms that Humbert carefully chooses everything he says in the novel. Each detail has been considered and added with purpose behind it. Since reading this, I have kept it in the back of my mind.
One of the things I wanted to talk about last time but didn't want to spoil was the foreshadowing of Charlotte's death. Admittedly, the copy I am reading is the annotated version, and I occasionally learn about plot details before I reach them. I have since stopped reading most of the notes for this reason and only use them to translate the occasional French phrase (which I am hopeless to translate on my own). Long story short, the first time Humbert hinted at the death of his wife-to-be, I read all about it in the notes. Therefore, I have known about it this whole time and have been able to pick out the plethora of other references to it.
The original mention of the accident was all the way back in chapter 10 of part one, when Humbert writes, "Speaking of sharp turns: we almost ran over a meddlesome suburban dog (one of those who lie in wait for cars) as we swerved into Lawn Street" (36). Though this one is not particularly obvious, and there's no chance I would've noticed it on my own, they get progressively more blatant as the scene approaches.
He has thoughts of killing her far before the incident, writing, "I did not plan to marry poor Charlotte in order to eliminate her in some vulgar, gruesome and dangerous manner [...] but a delicately allied, pharmacopoeial thought did tinkle in my [...] brain," (71). These mentions of his plotting plants the idea of her death far before it actually happens. Two pages later he also says, "the fool dog of the prosperous junk dealer next door ran after a blue car--not Charlotte's" (73). By now, there as a clear connection between death, the dog, and Charlotte.
From then on he is no longer subtle, stating "a bad accident is to happen quite soon" (79). Because of Humbert's discussions about murderous thoughts, it would be easy to assume he would have played a direct role in her death. He nearly does at the lake but finds himself unable and foreshadows the real cause of her death once more: "Oh, my poor Charlotte, do not hate me in your eternal heaven among an eternal alchemy of asphalt and rubber and metal and stone--but thank God, not water, not water!" (88). So, her death will come by pavement, not water.
It's interesting--Humbert takes credit for Charlotte's death as though he orchestrated it, essentially stating, "had I not been [...] such an intuitive genius," she never would have died. Yet simultaneously, he shifts the blame off of himself throughout the novel for his crimes, placing it on fate and his victims. He continues, saying that even if he had played a role by his intuitive genius, "nothing still might have happened, had not precise fate" taken control (103).
This is the other aspect of the style I find so captivating. Given the frame of the novel, Humbert frequently references the "ladies and gentlemen of the jury," as though it is a persuasive piece of work designed to clear his name. Therefore, the scenes are constructed in a way that anytime he commits a crime, he addresses the jury and attempts to shift the blame. Perhaps the best illustrative example of this is when Humbert and Lolita first engage in intercourse, and before even stating that it happened, he addresses the jury, then describes how "it was she who seduced [him]" (132).
The effect of these techniques is fascinating. As a reader, I fall prey to his manipulative nature and persuasive style. I don't want to like him, but as disturbing as his crimes sound and are, I don't find it as hard to read as I thought I might. He is so good at shifting blame and painting a picture in which he is both incredibly intelligent in creating and carrying out a master plan to fulfill his desires and also not entirely responsible for any of it. After all, it was fate who killed Charlotte and Lolita who seduced him.
This brings in the question of how much we can trust our narrator. In this case, Humbert is a manipulative, intelligent, and detail-oriented character who is actively trying throughout the novel to clear his name. Therefore, I have no reason to believe he deserves anything less than complete blame for the events of the novel. I don't believe that Lolita seduced him, and I think he exaggerates her willingness to participate in the affair. Additionally, I do not believe he had a direct role in Charlotte's death, but I fully believe he would have if the accident hadn't occurred. However, I also know this is a fictional story and no one actually died or seduced anyone else.
If the goal of the novel is to enlighten the reader about the manipulative, persuasive nature of pedophiles and criminals, I would say it's incredibly successful, and a lot of that success comes from the style of writing. I genuinely find this novel fascinating and cannot wait to read the next quarter. Thanks for reading, and I hope you'll tune in next week!
Friday, February 1, 2019
Quarter 1
Since this is the first post of the blog, here is the brief summary of my goals: I will be reading Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov over the course of the month, and blogging once I reach the quarter checkpoints. 317 total pages works out to be about 79 pages per entry, which is exactly where I'm at.
For those who won't be reading along with me, our main character is Humbert Humbert, and he is a pedophile. The story is framed as a manuscript about Humbert's life, which has been sent to John Ray Jr. to be published posthumously as Humbert has died in prison. So far in his memoir, he has failed in his adolescent romance with Annabel, developed an obsession with young girls (whom he calls "nymphets"), married and divorced an adultress named Valeria, and ultimately ended up in the Haze household. Here we are introduced to the two other main characters: Mrs. Charlotte Haze and her daughter, Dolores Haze, whom Humbert calls Lolita. She is his newest nymphet.
Given that the novel is framed as a memoir, the only true way that characters are described is through Humbert's view of them. The one exception of this is the way that Nabokov characterizes Humbert himself through his narration of the tale. I find him to be an incredibly interesting and complex character, who frequently contradicts his view of himself. On one hand, he gives the reader a sense of his arrogance in that he believes he "could obtain at the snap of [his] fingers any adult female" of his choosing and he has "all the characteristics which [...] start the responses stirring in a little girl: clean-cut jaw, muscular hand, deep sonorous voice, broad shoulder" (25, 43).
On the other hand, when he is around Lolita, this perfect, manly persona begins to dissipate. All of a sudden, he becomes "lanky, big-boned, wooly-chested Humbert Humbert, with thick black eyebrows and a queer accent" (44). He almost confesses to the reader, "Despite my manly looks, I am horribly timid" (53). In this way, Nabokov paints the picture that Humbert is conflicted with how he views himself, both wanting to be Lolita's secret fantasy and not living up to it.
He also complicates the reader's view of his mental state. He is critical of his ex-wife's lover in how she is his "child-wife," and he speaks to her "as if she were absent, and also as if she were a kind of little ward that was in the act of being transferred," though Humbert himself is in love with an actual child and views her as an object to conquer (28). He briefly mentions his stay at a sanatorium but plays the visit off as though he was the one outsmarting the psychiatrists, finding "an endless source of robust enjoyment in trifling with [them]" (34). He also creates multiple personas, referring to himself in the third person while suggesting that "a brave Humbert would have played with [Lolita] most disgustingly," almost disappointed in himself for not molesting her (53). His frequent third-person narrative almost suggests that he does not view his true self as responsible for his crimes. It is fairly unclear to me what he truly thinks of himself--whether he is critical of his own actions or views them as wrong or immoral.
But yet again, there is a contradiction in that he does not want to ruin Lolita's innocence, stating, "I intended, with the most fervent force and foresight, to protect the purity of that twelve-year-old child" (63). Through the details that are included and the lenses through which Humbert views himself, he is simultaneously arrogant, timid, and hypocritical. He is willing to admit he received treatment but not that he needed it, and that he wanted to molest Lolita but insists he does not to ruin her innocence. Like I said, quite the complex character.
Since the book is a first-person narrative, our only sense of the other characters is through Humbert's eyes. Therefore, Lolita is characterized by his relationship with her. It is quite obvious how Humbert feels about Lolita, embarking on flowery, lengthy tangents about her youthful beauty every time she is near. He frequently refers to her as "my Lolita," always possessive of her as though she is something to be conquered. One of the most striking images Humbert depicts of her is through the analogy of his spider web. He describes how his "web is spread all over the house," and as he listens for Lolita, he "gently [tugs] on the silk," hoping to catch his "beautiful warm-colored prey" (49). The image is haunting but overwhelmingly impactful. Humbert views her as innocent prey, helpless to his attempts to catch her. But this view is not demeaning, Humbert seemingly worships the girl, describing her on nearly every page.
In contrast, Humbert views Mrs. Haze as an obstacle and characterizes her as such. He often avoids even using her name, referring to her as "the lady," "[Lolita's] mother," "Haze," "our chaperone," and "landlady.'' He evidently does not care much about her at all given that he assigned her daughter a loving nickname which he calls her out of adoration, and he barely even refers to Mrs. Haze by name at all. It is also incredibly interesting to me how the scenes are constructed, in that they mostly follow a similar pattern. Any time Humbert becomes close to Lolita, they are interrupted by Mrs. Haze. She tells Lolita to go to bed when he begins to touch her back, she speaks to them as his hand reaches Lolita's thigh in the car, and she calls Lolita after Humbert's first sexual experience involving her. Humbert acknowledges this, writing, "for almost three weeks I had been interrupted in all my pathetic machinations. The agent of these interruptions was usually the Haze woman" (56). Since Mrs. Haze is a roadblock in his path to Lolita, she must be eliminated.
This is the aspect of the story that was the eeriest to me. It just so happens that immediately prior to reading this book, I watched the Netflix documentary Abducted in Plain Sight, which is about a real-life pedophile case. Bob Berchtold, the abductor, was obsessed with a young girl named Jan and viewed her parents as being in the way of his attempts to get to her. The language used in the two stories is shockingly similar, so much so that I continue to question whether Vladimir Nabokov is a pedophile himself. His ability to portray one is certainly convincing. If you don't want to sit through a 317-page book, Abducted in Plain Sight is a great alternative that certainly gets the point about pedophilia across.
I'd like to thank anyone who was willing to make it this far in this blog post. Seeing as it was the first one, I had quite a few thoughts to get out. Check in next week for my thoughts on the complete first half!
For those who won't be reading along with me, our main character is Humbert Humbert, and he is a pedophile. The story is framed as a manuscript about Humbert's life, which has been sent to John Ray Jr. to be published posthumously as Humbert has died in prison. So far in his memoir, he has failed in his adolescent romance with Annabel, developed an obsession with young girls (whom he calls "nymphets"), married and divorced an adultress named Valeria, and ultimately ended up in the Haze household. Here we are introduced to the two other main characters: Mrs. Charlotte Haze and her daughter, Dolores Haze, whom Humbert calls Lolita. She is his newest nymphet.
Given that the novel is framed as a memoir, the only true way that characters are described is through Humbert's view of them. The one exception of this is the way that Nabokov characterizes Humbert himself through his narration of the tale. I find him to be an incredibly interesting and complex character, who frequently contradicts his view of himself. On one hand, he gives the reader a sense of his arrogance in that he believes he "could obtain at the snap of [his] fingers any adult female" of his choosing and he has "all the characteristics which [...] start the responses stirring in a little girl: clean-cut jaw, muscular hand, deep sonorous voice, broad shoulder" (25, 43).
On the other hand, when he is around Lolita, this perfect, manly persona begins to dissipate. All of a sudden, he becomes "lanky, big-boned, wooly-chested Humbert Humbert, with thick black eyebrows and a queer accent" (44). He almost confesses to the reader, "Despite my manly looks, I am horribly timid" (53). In this way, Nabokov paints the picture that Humbert is conflicted with how he views himself, both wanting to be Lolita's secret fantasy and not living up to it.
He also complicates the reader's view of his mental state. He is critical of his ex-wife's lover in how she is his "child-wife," and he speaks to her "as if she were absent, and also as if she were a kind of little ward that was in the act of being transferred," though Humbert himself is in love with an actual child and views her as an object to conquer (28). He briefly mentions his stay at a sanatorium but plays the visit off as though he was the one outsmarting the psychiatrists, finding "an endless source of robust enjoyment in trifling with [them]" (34). He also creates multiple personas, referring to himself in the third person while suggesting that "a brave Humbert would have played with [Lolita] most disgustingly," almost disappointed in himself for not molesting her (53). His frequent third-person narrative almost suggests that he does not view his true self as responsible for his crimes. It is fairly unclear to me what he truly thinks of himself--whether he is critical of his own actions or views them as wrong or immoral.
But yet again, there is a contradiction in that he does not want to ruin Lolita's innocence, stating, "I intended, with the most fervent force and foresight, to protect the purity of that twelve-year-old child" (63). Through the details that are included and the lenses through which Humbert views himself, he is simultaneously arrogant, timid, and hypocritical. He is willing to admit he received treatment but not that he needed it, and that he wanted to molest Lolita but insists he does not to ruin her innocence. Like I said, quite the complex character.
Since the book is a first-person narrative, our only sense of the other characters is through Humbert's eyes. Therefore, Lolita is characterized by his relationship with her. It is quite obvious how Humbert feels about Lolita, embarking on flowery, lengthy tangents about her youthful beauty every time she is near. He frequently refers to her as "my Lolita," always possessive of her as though she is something to be conquered. One of the most striking images Humbert depicts of her is through the analogy of his spider web. He describes how his "web is spread all over the house," and as he listens for Lolita, he "gently [tugs] on the silk," hoping to catch his "beautiful warm-colored prey" (49). The image is haunting but overwhelmingly impactful. Humbert views her as innocent prey, helpless to his attempts to catch her. But this view is not demeaning, Humbert seemingly worships the girl, describing her on nearly every page.
In contrast, Humbert views Mrs. Haze as an obstacle and characterizes her as such. He often avoids even using her name, referring to her as "the lady," "[Lolita's] mother," "Haze," "our chaperone," and "landlady.'' He evidently does not care much about her at all given that he assigned her daughter a loving nickname which he calls her out of adoration, and he barely even refers to Mrs. Haze by name at all. It is also incredibly interesting to me how the scenes are constructed, in that they mostly follow a similar pattern. Any time Humbert becomes close to Lolita, they are interrupted by Mrs. Haze. She tells Lolita to go to bed when he begins to touch her back, she speaks to them as his hand reaches Lolita's thigh in the car, and she calls Lolita after Humbert's first sexual experience involving her. Humbert acknowledges this, writing, "for almost three weeks I had been interrupted in all my pathetic machinations. The agent of these interruptions was usually the Haze woman" (56). Since Mrs. Haze is a roadblock in his path to Lolita, she must be eliminated.
This is the aspect of the story that was the eeriest to me. It just so happens that immediately prior to reading this book, I watched the Netflix documentary Abducted in Plain Sight, which is about a real-life pedophile case. Bob Berchtold, the abductor, was obsessed with a young girl named Jan and viewed her parents as being in the way of his attempts to get to her. The language used in the two stories is shockingly similar, so much so that I continue to question whether Vladimir Nabokov is a pedophile himself. His ability to portray one is certainly convincing. If you don't want to sit through a 317-page book, Abducted in Plain Sight is a great alternative that certainly gets the point about pedophilia across.
I'd like to thank anyone who was willing to make it this far in this blog post. Seeing as it was the first one, I had quite a few thoughts to get out. Check in next week for my thoughts on the complete first half!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)