This final section of Lolita was very enlightening as to many of the themes of the novel as a whole. Although these themes are clearly relevant throughout the entire book (hence it being a theme), they become abundantly clear in this conclusion to a disturbing yet thought provoking novel.
Throughout the book Humbert mostly gives justifications for his actions towards Lolita, but in this last section we begin to see more regret and guilt than he gives away in previous sections. Although there are still parts that he refuses to feel remorse about, one of them being killing Clare Quilty, he seems to regret ruining Lolita's supposed innocence and childhood.
He realizes that Dick (Lolita's husband) doesn't mistreat Lolita the way that he did which he feels greatly ashamed of. He states, "[Dick] was a lamb...his fingernails were black and broken, but the phalanges, the whole carpus, strong shapely wrist were far, far finer than mine: I have hurt too much too many bodies with my twisted poor hands to be proud of them" (pg 274).
He also states, "Nothing could make my Lolita forget the foul lust I had inflicted upon her" and "Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac" (pg 283). This shows that although he does seem to take some responsibility for his actions, he still is unable to fully acknowledge his role in things. This makes us question whether he is truly regretful or if he's simply manipulating people.
At the end of the novel, he states, "When I started writing Lolita...I thought I would use these notes in toto at my trial, to save not my head of course, but my soul" (pg 308). This answers many of the questions that I had throughout reading the novel as to what Humbert's purpose was in writing it. After this sentence he describes that he wrote it to be a tribute to him and Lolita's story.
As I inquired many times throughout the book as to Humbert's true purpose in writing this, I thought that Humbert was either truly oblivious to the depravity of his actions and believed his justifications, he was manipulating readers (or jury members) into seeing him in a more positive light, or that he was trying to justify his actions to himself. As I read this last section, I began to believe the last option more than the others.
Clearly, this could be his intended purpose and he's truly a psychopathic monster trying to garner empathy from readers. Although I certainly see this as a likely possibility, I found that his constant switching of narration and placing blame on "a maniac" for depriving Lolita of his childhood rather than taking responsibility himself makes it seems as though he is simply unable to face all that he's done.
I see this entire piece of writing somewhat as his own long-winded justification for his actions against Lolita to himself, not just readers. It seems as though this novel is meant to be him grappling with his past mistakes and regrets.
This raises many questions for me that I think Nabakov intends. One of the main ones is when are horrendous acts forgivable? Despite everything awful Humbert does, I still feel empathy for him somehow. However, that empathy in my opinion does not excuse his actions. Regardless of any justifications he has for why he raped Lolita and killed Clare Quilty, he is still guilty in my point of view.
This leads to a major theme which is the murkiness of what is wrong and right. If Humbert is on trial for statutory rape and murder, he is clearly guilty and must be convicted. However, does this negate all of his reasons for doing so? Does his troubled past with Annabel or his supposed undying love for Lolita justify these atrocious acts; does it make them any more forgivable?
This gets even more complicated when I considered how my feelings for Clare Quilty and Humbert differ. They both raped Lolita and did horrible things, yet I find myself viewing Quilty so much more negatively than Humbert because of how much (supposedly) Humbert loves Lolita.
He states, "I loved her more than anything...I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another's child...even if those eyes of hers would fade to myopic fish, and her nipples swell and crack, and her lovely young velvety delicate be tainted and torn, even then I would go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of your dear wan face...my Lolita" (pg 277-278).
He emphasizes his love for her greatly in this section and shows deep regret (although this again could be persuasion/justification), which complicates my understanding of his actions. Conversely, Quilty doesn't even remember who Lolita was at first, and expresses no remorse over their relationship and in fact seems to do it to many other people. When he dies, none of the people around him are not upset at all, showing how awful of a person he was.
However, just because Humbert claims to have loved Lolita deeply, does this mean that he is somehow more absolved of guilt than Quilty? Ironically Humbert kills Quilty for mistreating Lolita, and yet the two are more similar than Humbert realizes. The main difference that Humbert sees is that he truly loved her, but does that justify his actions?
This brings up another major theme in the novel which, as cheesy as it sounds, is the power of love. If we believe Humbert's story, his love for Lolita is supposedly the driving force behind all of his actions. As shown by the sheer amount of space he dedicates in his novel to his time with Lolita compared to everything else, she is the only thing that gives his life any meaning. She becomes all that he is, and all that he builds his life around.
This also ties to the theme of love versus lust. Humbert realizes that because he was so swept up in his lust for Lolita, he missed out on the type of person she truly was. He states, "it struck me...that I simply did not know a thing about my darling's mind and that quite possibly...there was in her a garden and a twilight, and a palace gate-dim and adorable which happened to be lucidly and absolutely forbidden to me, in my polluted rags and miserable convulsions" (pg 284).
The final major theme/takeaway from this novel that I got was the power of art/writing in rendering people immortal. Humbert says at the end, "while the blood still throbs through my writing hand, you are still as much as a part of blessed matter as I am...[and] you [will] live in the minds of later generations" (pg 309). His final sentence is, "And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita" (pg 309).
This wonderfully ties the entire novel together and shows how writing can allow a person or idea to transcend death through the minds and hearts of others. I've always found that concept fascinating, and it seems as though Humbert feels like he is somehow doing penance for all the wrong he has done to Lolita by at least giving her this final gift.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this novel. It left me with many takeaways, and more questions than answers. This novel left me with the conflict between right and wrong, justice and justification, morality and ambiguity, love and lust, empathy and absolvement, and so many other things. Although disturbing, this novel was highly thought provoking.
These conflicts are present in many places throughout the world, whether it's in politics, history, literature, or many other areas. I suppose that the main takeaway I had from the book as that it is not as simple as right and wrong, or black and white. Instead, we must learn to see the countless shades of grey.
Monday, March 4, 2019
Friday, February 22, 2019
Why AP?
In this final section of Lolita, we finally see what crime Humbert commits and get some, albeit very minimal, closure to the conflict that ensued during the novel.
To summarize as briefly as possible, Lolita escapes Humbert with a man named Clare Quilty who is also a pervert and asks her to do "crazy...filthy things" (pg 277). Humbert doesn't know this is going on, however, and searches for Lolita until he gives up and finds comfort by being with a woman named Rita until he receives a letter from Lolita asking for money. Like most other relationships and events in Humbert's life that don't have Lolita in them, this part is described very briefly, showing how unimportant it, and Rita, was to him.
Lolita sends Humbert a letter three years after escaping him saying that she's pregnant and married and asks for money to pay off some debt. Humbert then tracks her and her husband down and most likely intends on killing her husband until he meets him and feels, "No grudge. Funny--no grudge at all, nothing except grief and nausea" (pg 274).
After talking with Lolita and asking her to explain all that happened after she escaped, he realizes how awfully he treated her and how he robbed her of her childhood and feels greatly ashamed. He imagines her saying, "you merely broke my life" (pg 279). He realizes that his lust for her deprived her of a childhood and that despite his extensive love for her, she never loved him back.
Despite her older appearance and even pregnant stomach, he realizes that he still loves her as much as he did when she was a young girl. He realizes that he never got to love the real person beneath the body he was so lustful towards and that he didn't love her for who she really was as a person.
After realizing this and understanding that Lolita will never come live with him despite all his begging, he leaves to go track down Clare Quilty for mistreating Lolita (which is somewhat ironic but leads to a big theme) and ends up shooting and killing him and ultimately being arrested for driving through red lights and on the wrong side of the road as he leaves his house.
There is much revealed in this section about themes and conclusions that we come to about Humbert, but I will leave all of that until the next blog post. I planned instead to discuss why this book is of merit for an AP literature class.
Simply put, this is the most beautifully written book I have ever read. I simply enjoyed reading it and was inspired and in awe of Nabokov's exquisite writing. The only other author that I think I enjoyed as much regarding how well the writing itself was is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
It's hard to even explain why the writing in this novel is so good to someone who hasn't read it before; I think it's something that people just have to experience firsthand. Regardless, I will say that despite the disturbing nature of the plot and topics written about, I am glad that I read it and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Probably the main reason that this book is so renowned and influential is because of the admirable writing. Otherwise, no one would want to read about the awful topics presented in the novel. The beautiful prose of the novel is what makes it so interesting to read, and the writing techniques, style, and devices employed are arguably unrivaled by any other authors.
In addition to just being captivating, insanely well-written, and accessible to analyze, the novel is certainly challenging enough for an AP level course. Not only are there many hidden insights and understandings embedded in the novel that require a keen eye to understand, but the vocabulary is simply incredible.
Just to give an example for those who didn't read the novel, on one page that I picked at random in the section I was reading, Nabokov uses the words, "sinuous", "amnesic", "peevishly", "gyrations", "splendid", "benevolent", "perceptual", "venture", "culmination", "arbor", "vegetated", "indecorously", "grenadine", "throes", "autumnal", and "purloined".
I won't even pretend that I know what most of those words mean nor that I looked up most of the words in this book, although I'd love to say that I did. One must have a strong vocabulary in order to read this book or at least be able to decipher what Nabokov means through context. It's extremely difficult prose and it takes an astute reader to understand it.
In addition to the vocabulary, the style of the book is extremely difficult because it is very complex. With shifting passage of time, long, drawn out sentences with very little dialogue, and complex ideas and themes, it is not something that you can read without thinking hard about.
It also takes a mature audience to not be disturbed or react immaturely to the content in the novel, which is part of why I would not add it to the curriculum of this course as some may not be capable of handling it. I often struggled with the disturbing nature of the plot and it even made me nauseous at many times.
Despite this, I would recommend the book strongly. I think that in addition to the beautiful writing of Vladimir Nabokov, the points and moral questions it raises are fascinating. For those looking for a challenging read with important philosophical questions and interesting construction of a novel, I would definitely recommend this book, just maybe not as a required read for the whole class.
To summarize as briefly as possible, Lolita escapes Humbert with a man named Clare Quilty who is also a pervert and asks her to do "crazy...filthy things" (pg 277). Humbert doesn't know this is going on, however, and searches for Lolita until he gives up and finds comfort by being with a woman named Rita until he receives a letter from Lolita asking for money. Like most other relationships and events in Humbert's life that don't have Lolita in them, this part is described very briefly, showing how unimportant it, and Rita, was to him.
Lolita sends Humbert a letter three years after escaping him saying that she's pregnant and married and asks for money to pay off some debt. Humbert then tracks her and her husband down and most likely intends on killing her husband until he meets him and feels, "No grudge. Funny--no grudge at all, nothing except grief and nausea" (pg 274).
After talking with Lolita and asking her to explain all that happened after she escaped, he realizes how awfully he treated her and how he robbed her of her childhood and feels greatly ashamed. He imagines her saying, "you merely broke my life" (pg 279). He realizes that his lust for her deprived her of a childhood and that despite his extensive love for her, she never loved him back.
Despite her older appearance and even pregnant stomach, he realizes that he still loves her as much as he did when she was a young girl. He realizes that he never got to love the real person beneath the body he was so lustful towards and that he didn't love her for who she really was as a person.
After realizing this and understanding that Lolita will never come live with him despite all his begging, he leaves to go track down Clare Quilty for mistreating Lolita (which is somewhat ironic but leads to a big theme) and ends up shooting and killing him and ultimately being arrested for driving through red lights and on the wrong side of the road as he leaves his house.
There is much revealed in this section about themes and conclusions that we come to about Humbert, but I will leave all of that until the next blog post. I planned instead to discuss why this book is of merit for an AP literature class.
Simply put, this is the most beautifully written book I have ever read. I simply enjoyed reading it and was inspired and in awe of Nabokov's exquisite writing. The only other author that I think I enjoyed as much regarding how well the writing itself was is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
It's hard to even explain why the writing in this novel is so good to someone who hasn't read it before; I think it's something that people just have to experience firsthand. Regardless, I will say that despite the disturbing nature of the plot and topics written about, I am glad that I read it and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Probably the main reason that this book is so renowned and influential is because of the admirable writing. Otherwise, no one would want to read about the awful topics presented in the novel. The beautiful prose of the novel is what makes it so interesting to read, and the writing techniques, style, and devices employed are arguably unrivaled by any other authors.
In addition to just being captivating, insanely well-written, and accessible to analyze, the novel is certainly challenging enough for an AP level course. Not only are there many hidden insights and understandings embedded in the novel that require a keen eye to understand, but the vocabulary is simply incredible.
Just to give an example for those who didn't read the novel, on one page that I picked at random in the section I was reading, Nabokov uses the words, "sinuous", "amnesic", "peevishly", "gyrations", "splendid", "benevolent", "perceptual", "venture", "culmination", "arbor", "vegetated", "indecorously", "grenadine", "throes", "autumnal", and "purloined".
I won't even pretend that I know what most of those words mean nor that I looked up most of the words in this book, although I'd love to say that I did. One must have a strong vocabulary in order to read this book or at least be able to decipher what Nabokov means through context. It's extremely difficult prose and it takes an astute reader to understand it.
In addition to the vocabulary, the style of the book is extremely difficult because it is very complex. With shifting passage of time, long, drawn out sentences with very little dialogue, and complex ideas and themes, it is not something that you can read without thinking hard about.
It also takes a mature audience to not be disturbed or react immaturely to the content in the novel, which is part of why I would not add it to the curriculum of this course as some may not be capable of handling it. I often struggled with the disturbing nature of the plot and it even made me nauseous at many times.
Despite this, I would recommend the book strongly. I think that in addition to the beautiful writing of Vladimir Nabokov, the points and moral questions it raises are fascinating. For those looking for a challenging read with important philosophical questions and interesting construction of a novel, I would definitely recommend this book, just maybe not as a required read for the whole class.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Section 3
A lot happens in the third section that I read of Lolita. This section starts out describing Humbert and Lolita's continued travelling and eventual settling down on 14 Thayer Street. Humbert enrolls Lolita at an all girls school that acts more as a finishing program than a true education. Despite Humbert's opposition to this initially, he enrolls Lolita and they buy a house where they live together.
Throughout this section, Humbert becomes increasingly paranoid that Lolita will escape him due to her newfound friends, teachers, and relationships she builds with the people at her school. She starts wanting to do typical adolescent activities such as going to parties, hanging out with boys her age, and participating in the school play. Clearly, Humbert opposes this not only because it shows signs of her inevitable maturation, but also because he fears that she may escape his grasp.
Additionally, he begins to pay Lolita an allowance and eventually she manipulates his lust by requesting that he pay her for each sexual favor she does. He does so, saying ironically that he does not wish her to do these things "by force" (pg 184). He states, "What I feared most was...that she might accumulate sufficient cash to run away" (pg 185).
He even calls his controlling nature over Lolita's life his "regime" and vows to never let her talk to boys or go to parties (pg 186). This struggle with her maturation is also shown by his addressing Lolita as "Dolores" instead of her childhood nickname, Lo, as he used to call her (pg 205). He fears her escape but also her graduation from "nymphancy" as she ages. This is clear when he sees her on the phone and is reminded of a prostitute he once visited and when he says that she should diet so that her thighs don't become too large.
This control and paranoia over Lolita and her subsequent rebellion ironically mirror a somewhat typical father-daughter relationship or parent-child relationship in general in which the child wants to be independent but the parent hopes to have them stay young and innocent forever. Nabokov ironically comments on this disturbing relationship between Lolita and Humbert by tying in the normal behaviors of parents and children.
Humbert's paranoia only grows throughout the section as Lolita matures further, and after they leave the school and decide to travel again, he sees her talking to another man multiple times and thinks that he is following them as they travel. He believes that she has a "diabolical glow" and states, "wildly, I pursued...her infidelity" but never finds concrete evidence (pg 214-215).
In these chapters, he almost paints himself as someone driven insane by loving someone who is cheating on them, stating things like "Oh, I am quite sure it was not a delusion" to make it seem as though he's questioning his sanity. He even states, "It occurred to me that if I were really losing my mind, I might end by murdering somebody. In fact...it might be quite clever to prepare things--to transfer the weapon from box to pocket--so as to be ready to take advantage of the spell of insanity when it does come" (pg 229).
Nabokov also uses the school play that Lolita longs to be a part of, "The Enchanted Hunters" as a metaphor for Humbert and Lolita. The play describes a young farmer's daughter who hypnotizes and entrances hunters into falling in love with her. The hunters often think that they imagine her because of her supposed magic. To make this metaphor even more clear, disturbing, and ironic, the play involves dancing nymphs.
Humbert describes his understanding of the play as "mirage and reality merg[ing] into love" (pg 201). While also accounting for the fact that Humbert often describes himself with words involving monsters and Lolita as his prey, it is clear that Lolita represents the farmer's daughter who manipulates and entrances the hunters (Humbert) until they no longer know what reality is. This shows Humbert's twisted view of his relationship with Lolita and how he sees her manipulating him, not the other way around.
Through Humbert's narration, he clearly is trying to portray himself as a victim to Lolita's manipulation and deceit as she supposedly corroborates with another man. He aims to acquire empathy from his audience and show how she drove him to insanity, similar to the farmer's daughter in the play.
However, as we consider how persuasive and manipulative Humbert can be, and account for the fact that he's supposedly defending himself against a crime, we can see that he is intentionally leading us to this conclusion leading up to his crime. His supposed insanity because of Lolita may act as a good defense to a judge.
This persistent description of himself as paranoid and driven mad with desire and love presents itself throughout the entire section, and arguably, the entire novel. It's almost as though the piece of writing was written in the hopes to portray Humbert as a victim of his own perverse nature, the law and societal norms, and Lolita herself.
Additionally, by shifting the view of the events in this section to Lolita's perspective, we may see her desperately trying to escape an extremely toxic and abusive relationship rather than being manipulative or unfaithful. Her supposed infidelity may be the actions of a girl seeking help to escape abuse, and the man following them could be someone trying to help her.
Humbert's continuous manipulation of the events that transpire is both interesting and disturbing at the same time. I look forward to seeing how this novel ends and what Humbert's actual crime was in addition to his long-winded justification for it.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Style
For this week, I read until the end of part one and a little bit beyond in Lolita. A lot happened in this section; Charlotte, Lolita's mom, died and afterwards, Humbert diabolically manipulated Lolita into having sex with him while whisking her away from a camp and travelling to various inns to hide their affair. By exploiting Lolita's fears of being an orphan/being a ward of the state and preying on her disturbing affection for him, Humbert successfully keeps Lolita in his grasp and continues to rape her throughout the duration of their travels. So, clearly, it was a disturbing section to read.
What I hoped to focus on in this post is the style of Vladimir Nabokov's writing and how it influences our views of characters, the plot, and the purpose of the novel as a whole. It may be helpful to start at how the novel is organized as a whole. Lolita has first person narration (for the most part) and follows self described "Humbert Humbert" through his deviant sexual escapades and perverse experiences. He recounts his entire life, focusing mostly on his time with Lolita, as though he is telling a story to the readers.
Initially I thought that the novel could be seen as a diary or journal of sorts due to the first person narration and how the speaker, Humbert, usually addresses readers directly. However, he often, particularly in this section, references a jury. Therefore it can be concluded that this novel is supposed to be viewed as some argument to a jury to prove the innocence of Humbert for an unknown crime (although it can be reasonably assumed that it's either murder or rape).
Depending on what he's saying, Humbert will typically address readers and jury members while telling his story. He will say things like, "Frigid gentlewomen of the jury!", "Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover", or "Gentlewomen of the jury! Bear with me! Allow me to take just a tiny bit of your precious time!" (pg 132, 135, 128). This addressing of supposed jury members throughout the novel makes it seem as though he is actually testifying in front of a jury, and the language that Nabokov uses makes it sound as though this is either a verbal encounter or a severely informal journal of sorts meant for a jury to find.
Humbert not only addresses a figurative jury, but sometimes he also just addresses "readers". When he is trying to figure out what to call Lolita's relation to him when he enters inns, he says, "What a comic, clumsy, wavering Prince Charming I was! How readers will laugh at me when I tell them the trouble I had with the wording of my telegram!" (pg 109). He not only addresses them in this manner, but often he tries to persuade the readers (or jury members) directly. When he's about to describe having sex with Lolita, he says, "I have to tread carefully. I have to speak in a whisper. Oh you, veteran crime reporter, you grave old usher, you once popular policeman...It would never do, would it, to have you fellows fall madly in love with my Lolita!" (pg 134). These types of correspondences with the readers are very common throughout the novel and show Humbert's persuasion and purpose.
This interaction with readers goes beyond just addressing them; sometimes he'll say things like "At this point I should explain..." and "I have no reason to dwell..." (pg 98,99). By having the speaker directly reference the reader and write as though he is actually verbally telling this story, real readers of the actual novel get the sense that they are being told a long story. However, if readers pay attention, they also get the understanding that Humbert is defending himself against a crime readers are initially ignorant to. This leads to the understanding that the speaker is actually trying to persuade the readers, and his recollection of events is heavily biased, and even more alarming considering his sociopathic tendencies.
The actual purpose of this novel from the Speaker's fictional perspective becomes even more obscure when Humbert is waiting to see Lolita at camp. In one entire chapter, all he says is "This daily headache in the opaque air of this tombal jail is disturbing, but I must persevere. Have written more than a hundred pages and not got anywhere yet. My calendar is getting confused. That must have been around August 15, 1947. Don't think I can go on. Heart, head-- everything. Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita. Repeat till the page is full, printer (pg 109).
This complicates our understanding of what this writing actually is because he writes down "repeat until the page is full, printer". Initially I thought that he may have been writing this novel in jail, or perhaps he was actually giving a testimony to a grand jury. However, this line makes it seem as though he has access to a printer which undermines my initial thoughts. The purpose of the fictional text in this novel is still unclear, and hopefully will present itself farther in the novel.
This quote is also a prime example of how Nabokov uses the length of sentences and the way that a passage is written to further readers' understanding of characters, plot, or themes. In this case, we can clearly see Humbert's fickle grip on reality and how his desire to see and be with Lolita is so strong that it seems as though he is disoriented, dispassionate about writing in this (diary?), and unmotivated to continue it. We get this through his uncomplicated and simple words and sentences compared to the profound academic jargon in other sections of the novel. We also see this based on the fact that the sentences and the paragraph itself are much shorter than the sentences around it.
For example, when he actually sees Lolita, he states, "She was thinner and taller, and for a second it seemed to me her face was less pretty than the mental imprint I had cherished for more than a month: her cheeks looked hollowed and too much lentigo camouflaged her rosy rustic features; and that first impression (a very narrow human interval between two tiger heartbeats) carried the clear implication that all widower Humbert had to do, wanted to do, or would do, was to give this wan looking though sun-colored little orphan aux yeus battus (and even those plumbaceous umbrae under her eyes bore freckles) a sound education, a healthy and happy girlhood, a clean home, nice girl-friends of her age among whom (if the fates deigned to repay me) I might find, perhaps, a pretty little Magdlein for Herr Doktor Humbert alone" (pg 111).
Clearly, we can see how passionate and involved he is when writing about Lolita through the extended sentence that he uses which is longer than the entire paragraph devoted to his struggle in not seeing her. The sentences in the first quote are choppy, short, and simple in stark contrast to this lengthy, intuitive, and complex sentence about his reaction to Lolita. In this way, Nabokov clearly shows us tone, meaning, and characterization through his sentence and paragraph structure.
Another interesting part of Nabokov's style is the speaker's switching from first person narration to third person at various points in the novel. Often Humbert will say "I" and describe things through first person narration, but occasionally he will switch to calling himself "Humbert Humbert" or "Poor Humbert", etc. and describe himself as another person altogether. This switch of narration often occurs when he's describing something particularly abhorrent.
When Humbert describes how Charlotte found his diary where he expressed his love and infatuation with her daughter (Lolita), he states, "Whatever Humbert Humbert said, or attempted to say, is inessential." (pg 96). After describing how Charlotte reacts, he says, "Again, whatever H.H. murmured may be omitted, I think". He then switches back to first person when he says, "reader, I did..." only one sentence after. He also does this after Charlotte gets run over by a car by describing, "The widower, a man of exceptional self control, neither wept nor raved..." (pg 98). He continues describing what he did after she died completely in third person, showing how he almost removes himself from situations that are cause distress or shame.
At one point he even acknowledges this shift when he's describing how attractive he is and states, "Of course, such announcements made in the first person may sound ridiculous" (pg 104). This shift often appears to be when Humbert thinks of something he did or is reacting to as shameful, even though he doesn't admit that he thinks that when he's describing it. This shift in narration may hint at a bit of shame on Humbert's part for his actions and his unwillingness or inability to acknowledge them. We only get this sense of shame from Humbert through the sentence structure regarding these certain things, and often it's the only thing that may indicate that he felt any emotion at all towards the events that transpired.
Additionally, word choice is a very huge stylistic thing for Nabokov. Overall, the author employs one of the most prolific and impressive vocabularies I have ever read. Additionally, as mentioned before, the speaker will often use words before he says a name to describe what Humbert's attitude towards that person or himself is, for example, saying "Impatient Humbert!" (pg 118). He not only uses words to convey meaning in front of names, but he also uses them in many other situations.
Nabokov also has Humbert use certain words to show how sociopathic and dispassionate he is towards things that he should have a different reaction towards. For example, when he talks about Charlotte's death, he says, "Charlotte had just been eliminated" (pg 101). When describing his fear that Lolita would be afraid of him after Charlotte died, he says, "Lo...might...show some foolish distrust in me...and gone would be the magic prize at the very instant of triumph" (pg 102). He also calls Charlotte's death his "liberation" (pg 108). These specific words of describing Charlotte's death as a "triumph", "Liberation", and her being "eliminated" show how little he feels or cares at all for Charlotte and what happened to her, indicating his psychopathy.
Another example of when Nabokov uses word choice interestingly is when Humbert describes wanting to have sex with Lolita after learning about her summer, stating, "the sensualist in me (a great and insane monster) had no objection to some depravity in his prey" (pg 124). This gives an interesting window into how Humbert views himself and shows that he knows to some extent that his actions are wrong, or at least he's trying to persuade readers of that. These are just two examples of how Nabokov uses word choice, but this technique is extremely common and important throughout the novel.
Although there are many other stylistic elements one could analyze in Lolita, these devices/techniques were the most prominent and influential in my opinion. Nabokov also uses allusions, metaphors, and many other techniques in his writing to establish meaning. The sophisticated prose of this novel is honestly the best part about it, and what keeps me engaged and interested even as the novel digresses into even more disturbing content. If the novel was not well written, and the devices and techniques employed not completely remarkable, people would never read this novel about a twisted, depraved pervert who rapes a twelve year old.
Ultimately the reason that this novel was so successful and renowned was because of it's amazing writing, largely in part due to the devices Nabokov uses. I am conflicted in my feelings towards finishing the novel because on one hand I am eager to read more of the captivating writing style of Nabokov, but I am also hesitant to continue because of the awful and disturbing story that the novel follows. Hopefully the next few sections won't have as many disconcerting events or it may be difficult to continue.
What I hoped to focus on in this post is the style of Vladimir Nabokov's writing and how it influences our views of characters, the plot, and the purpose of the novel as a whole. It may be helpful to start at how the novel is organized as a whole. Lolita has first person narration (for the most part) and follows self described "Humbert Humbert" through his deviant sexual escapades and perverse experiences. He recounts his entire life, focusing mostly on his time with Lolita, as though he is telling a story to the readers.
Initially I thought that the novel could be seen as a diary or journal of sorts due to the first person narration and how the speaker, Humbert, usually addresses readers directly. However, he often, particularly in this section, references a jury. Therefore it can be concluded that this novel is supposed to be viewed as some argument to a jury to prove the innocence of Humbert for an unknown crime (although it can be reasonably assumed that it's either murder or rape).
Depending on what he's saying, Humbert will typically address readers and jury members while telling his story. He will say things like, "Frigid gentlewomen of the jury!", "Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover", or "Gentlewomen of the jury! Bear with me! Allow me to take just a tiny bit of your precious time!" (pg 132, 135, 128). This addressing of supposed jury members throughout the novel makes it seem as though he is actually testifying in front of a jury, and the language that Nabokov uses makes it sound as though this is either a verbal encounter or a severely informal journal of sorts meant for a jury to find.
Humbert not only addresses a figurative jury, but sometimes he also just addresses "readers". When he is trying to figure out what to call Lolita's relation to him when he enters inns, he says, "What a comic, clumsy, wavering Prince Charming I was! How readers will laugh at me when I tell them the trouble I had with the wording of my telegram!" (pg 109). He not only addresses them in this manner, but often he tries to persuade the readers (or jury members) directly. When he's about to describe having sex with Lolita, he says, "I have to tread carefully. I have to speak in a whisper. Oh you, veteran crime reporter, you grave old usher, you once popular policeman...It would never do, would it, to have you fellows fall madly in love with my Lolita!" (pg 134). These types of correspondences with the readers are very common throughout the novel and show Humbert's persuasion and purpose.
This interaction with readers goes beyond just addressing them; sometimes he'll say things like "At this point I should explain..." and "I have no reason to dwell..." (pg 98,99). By having the speaker directly reference the reader and write as though he is actually verbally telling this story, real readers of the actual novel get the sense that they are being told a long story. However, if readers pay attention, they also get the understanding that Humbert is defending himself against a crime readers are initially ignorant to. This leads to the understanding that the speaker is actually trying to persuade the readers, and his recollection of events is heavily biased, and even more alarming considering his sociopathic tendencies.
The actual purpose of this novel from the Speaker's fictional perspective becomes even more obscure when Humbert is waiting to see Lolita at camp. In one entire chapter, all he says is "This daily headache in the opaque air of this tombal jail is disturbing, but I must persevere. Have written more than a hundred pages and not got anywhere yet. My calendar is getting confused. That must have been around August 15, 1947. Don't think I can go on. Heart, head-- everything. Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita, Lolita. Repeat till the page is full, printer (pg 109).
This complicates our understanding of what this writing actually is because he writes down "repeat until the page is full, printer". Initially I thought that he may have been writing this novel in jail, or perhaps he was actually giving a testimony to a grand jury. However, this line makes it seem as though he has access to a printer which undermines my initial thoughts. The purpose of the fictional text in this novel is still unclear, and hopefully will present itself farther in the novel.
This quote is also a prime example of how Nabokov uses the length of sentences and the way that a passage is written to further readers' understanding of characters, plot, or themes. In this case, we can clearly see Humbert's fickle grip on reality and how his desire to see and be with Lolita is so strong that it seems as though he is disoriented, dispassionate about writing in this (diary?), and unmotivated to continue it. We get this through his uncomplicated and simple words and sentences compared to the profound academic jargon in other sections of the novel. We also see this based on the fact that the sentences and the paragraph itself are much shorter than the sentences around it.
For example, when he actually sees Lolita, he states, "She was thinner and taller, and for a second it seemed to me her face was less pretty than the mental imprint I had cherished for more than a month: her cheeks looked hollowed and too much lentigo camouflaged her rosy rustic features; and that first impression (a very narrow human interval between two tiger heartbeats) carried the clear implication that all widower Humbert had to do, wanted to do, or would do, was to give this wan looking though sun-colored little orphan aux yeus battus (and even those plumbaceous umbrae under her eyes bore freckles) a sound education, a healthy and happy girlhood, a clean home, nice girl-friends of her age among whom (if the fates deigned to repay me) I might find, perhaps, a pretty little Magdlein for Herr Doktor Humbert alone" (pg 111).
Clearly, we can see how passionate and involved he is when writing about Lolita through the extended sentence that he uses which is longer than the entire paragraph devoted to his struggle in not seeing her. The sentences in the first quote are choppy, short, and simple in stark contrast to this lengthy, intuitive, and complex sentence about his reaction to Lolita. In this way, Nabokov clearly shows us tone, meaning, and characterization through his sentence and paragraph structure.
Another interesting part of Nabokov's style is the speaker's switching from first person narration to third person at various points in the novel. Often Humbert will say "I" and describe things through first person narration, but occasionally he will switch to calling himself "Humbert Humbert" or "Poor Humbert", etc. and describe himself as another person altogether. This switch of narration often occurs when he's describing something particularly abhorrent.
When Humbert describes how Charlotte found his diary where he expressed his love and infatuation with her daughter (Lolita), he states, "Whatever Humbert Humbert said, or attempted to say, is inessential." (pg 96). After describing how Charlotte reacts, he says, "Again, whatever H.H. murmured may be omitted, I think". He then switches back to first person when he says, "reader, I did..." only one sentence after. He also does this after Charlotte gets run over by a car by describing, "The widower, a man of exceptional self control, neither wept nor raved..." (pg 98). He continues describing what he did after she died completely in third person, showing how he almost removes himself from situations that are cause distress or shame.
At one point he even acknowledges this shift when he's describing how attractive he is and states, "Of course, such announcements made in the first person may sound ridiculous" (pg 104). This shift often appears to be when Humbert thinks of something he did or is reacting to as shameful, even though he doesn't admit that he thinks that when he's describing it. This shift in narration may hint at a bit of shame on Humbert's part for his actions and his unwillingness or inability to acknowledge them. We only get this sense of shame from Humbert through the sentence structure regarding these certain things, and often it's the only thing that may indicate that he felt any emotion at all towards the events that transpired.
Additionally, word choice is a very huge stylistic thing for Nabokov. Overall, the author employs one of the most prolific and impressive vocabularies I have ever read. Additionally, as mentioned before, the speaker will often use words before he says a name to describe what Humbert's attitude towards that person or himself is, for example, saying "Impatient Humbert!" (pg 118). He not only uses words to convey meaning in front of names, but he also uses them in many other situations.
Nabokov also has Humbert use certain words to show how sociopathic and dispassionate he is towards things that he should have a different reaction towards. For example, when he talks about Charlotte's death, he says, "Charlotte had just been eliminated" (pg 101). When describing his fear that Lolita would be afraid of him after Charlotte died, he says, "Lo...might...show some foolish distrust in me...and gone would be the magic prize at the very instant of triumph" (pg 102). He also calls Charlotte's death his "liberation" (pg 108). These specific words of describing Charlotte's death as a "triumph", "Liberation", and her being "eliminated" show how little he feels or cares at all for Charlotte and what happened to her, indicating his psychopathy.
Another example of when Nabokov uses word choice interestingly is when Humbert describes wanting to have sex with Lolita after learning about her summer, stating, "the sensualist in me (a great and insane monster) had no objection to some depravity in his prey" (pg 124). This gives an interesting window into how Humbert views himself and shows that he knows to some extent that his actions are wrong, or at least he's trying to persuade readers of that. These are just two examples of how Nabokov uses word choice, but this technique is extremely common and important throughout the novel.
Although there are many other stylistic elements one could analyze in Lolita, these devices/techniques were the most prominent and influential in my opinion. Nabokov also uses allusions, metaphors, and many other techniques in his writing to establish meaning. The sophisticated prose of this novel is honestly the best part about it, and what keeps me engaged and interested even as the novel digresses into even more disturbing content. If the novel was not well written, and the devices and techniques employed not completely remarkable, people would never read this novel about a twisted, depraved pervert who rapes a twelve year old.
Ultimately the reason that this novel was so successful and renowned was because of it's amazing writing, largely in part due to the devices Nabokov uses. I am conflicted in my feelings towards finishing the novel because on one hand I am eager to read more of the captivating writing style of Nabokov, but I am also hesitant to continue because of the awful and disturbing story that the novel follows. Hopefully the next few sections won't have as many disconcerting events or it may be difficult to continue.
Friday, February 1, 2019
Characters
After reading the first section of the novel, Lolita, it is clear that characters are a huge portion of the novel and contribute largely to the understanding of the book. The primary character, "Humbert Humbert", is the one largely in the limelight. He is a clear pedophile with arguably psychopathic tendencies. All of our understandings of other characters, settings, and events come through his first person narration, and due to that our lens through which we see the events of the novel is largely skewed. This becomes poignantly clear as the novel progresses, and our faith in the narrator is largely dependent on his effortless persuasion in remarking on the details of his life.
To give some background, the novel starts out with Humbert recollecting on his past. He tells tales of a happy childhood in which he was raised by his father and his aunt since his mother died in childbirth, and was admired by many guests in the hotel that his father ran. He then explains a romance that he had at the age of thirteen with a girl named Annabel who died a few months later due to typhus.
Annabel, although only understood through Humbert's recollection of the past, is a very important character in the novel because of how her death affects Humbert. Arguably his sexual attraction towards her and his feelings of overwhelming love are where his perversion originated, or so he claims.
He explains that this traumatic event led to his inevitable perversion towards young girls when he states, "We loved each other with a premature love, marked by a fierceness that so often destroys adult lives. I was a strong lad and survived, but the poison was in the wound, and the wound remained ever open, and soon I found myself maturing amid a civilization which allows a man of twenty-five to court a girl of seventeen but not a girl of twelve" (pg 18). He claims that this incident led to his failed sexual and romantic escapades with older women and his constant desire for younger girls.
When describing Annabel, he states, "I remember her features far less distinctly than I did a few years ago, before I knew Lolita." In this way, he creates an almost before and after; his time with Annabel and then his time with Lolita. Even in his description of decades going by, these two girls become the central focus of all his emotions. All other events that happened in his life between his love affair at thirteen and his obsession with Lolita at age 37 are only brushed upon and these two people and events seem as though they're the only important moments of his life and all else described seems almost irrelevant.
After being introduced to Annabel, we are introduced to a few other characters who seem like they should have a lot larger part in the novel but are seemingly irrelevant to Humbert. He describes a long series of "one-sided diminutive romances" that are largely meaningless to him (pg 20). Besides various characters like a prostitute he services and some other minor people, we find out that in a desperate attempt to ward off his perversion for younger girls, Humbert marries a woman named Valeria.
He states, "I decided to marry for my own safety...[It] might help me, if not to purge myself of my degrading and dangerous desires, at least to keep them under pacific control", which shows how lacking of real emotions this relationship was (pg 24). He only marries her because of "the imitation she gave of a little girl" (pg 25). His descriptions of his time with her are surprisingly short, showing how little he cared or valued his time with her.
The next characters we meet are Lolita herself and her mother, Charlotte Haze. When Humbert moves to America, he stays with this family. We get very little description of Charlotte and when we do, she is described almost as a nuisance in the way of Humbert's obsession with her daughter. The lack of meaningful description about her until Humbert decides to marry her in order to stay with Lolita shows how largely irrelevant to the novel she is besides being an inconvenience for him.
Lolita, however is clearly described in detail as the title may indicate. However, everything about her is viewed through the lens of Humbert's lust. We grow to know very little about Lolita as an individual besides that she likes comic books, is defiant towards her mother, and has a growing interest in Humbert himself. There is very little dialogue with her (or any characters really) and most of what is described about her are her physical appearances regarding her youth and supposed attractiveness.
At one point he describes, "Thus I had delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream...What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita-- perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness-- indeed, no life of her own" (pg 62). This shows how his love for Lolita transcends the girl herself and comes to represent something new entirely.
He furthers this idea when he states, "I knew that I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew that she would not be forever Lolita. She would be thirteen on January 1. In two years or so she would cease being a nymphet and would turn into a "young girl" and then, into a "college girl"-- that horror of horrors. The word "forever" referred only to my own passion, to the eternal Lolita as reflected in my blood" (pg 65).
Therefore, Lolita herself is really not portrayed in this novel very thoroughly and doesn't really matter to Humbert. If he truly loved her, he may describe her in ways that encompassed her essence, or her interests, but instead the description of her is really only about his sexual attraction. His twisted "love" of her is evident by how little he describes anything worthwhile of her and more of his lustful desire towards her various physical traits.
This lack of worthwhile description of Lolita, or any other characters shows Humbert's egotistical and self centered view of the world and the people in it. All characters are only briefly mentioned, their dialogue lacking, and our understanding of them as individuals very limited to only the scope of how they interfere with Humbert's life. This leads to my understanding of the main character, Humbert, and clearly shows his sociopathic nature in addition to his pedophilia.
As readers, we are purposefully conflicted as to our opinions of Humbert. Through his pitiful description of his heartbreak over Annabel and his supposed resistance to his pedophilic nature, we begin to empathize with his plight. Although clearly disgusted by his perverse nature, readers find themselves oddly sympathizing with Humbert and liking him as a character.
Through his beautiful crafting of his story and his love for "nymphets", or young girls, particularly Lolita, we begin to see his internal struggle in regards to his sexual desires. He persuasively describes himself (often in third person) as pitiful and a character to empathize with. When describing his own pedophilia, he states, "Humbert Humbert tried to be good. Really and truly, he did. He had the utmost respect for children, with their purity and vulnerability...But how his heart beat when, among the innocent throng, he espied a demon child (or nymphet)...Humbert was perfectly capable of intercourse with Eve, but it was Lilith he longed for" (pg 20).
He describes himself pityingly, stating things like "All of which goes to show how dreadfully stupid poor Humbert always was in matters of sex" (pg 25). And therefore, readers begin to sympathize with him as well. There is this constant conflict of clear opposition to Humbert's perverse nature and actions and a strange, reluctant sense pity for him as well. As he describes, he seems to know that what he is doing is wrong but feels that he has no way to change it, which makes readers empathetic towards his predicament.
What complicates this tension between the reader and the main character even further is when one considers how persuasive he can be due to his sociopathic nature. Although he does not express this as openly or learnedly as his pedophilia, we get glimpses into his psychopathy at various points throughout the novel. Unlike his perversion, he is completely unapologetic for it.
The first glimpse we get into this side of his character is when he ponders murdering his wife, Valeria after he finds out about her affair despite his lack of affection or love towards her. His reaction towards this affair is very strange, and he states, "A mounting fury was suffocating me-- not because I had any particular fondness for...Mme Humbert, but because matters of legal and illegal conjunction were for me alone to decide, and here she was, Valeria, the comedy wife, brazenly preparing to dispose of in her own way of my comfort and fate" (pg 28).
He feels a deep betrayal from her affair but not because he loved her in any manner, but because she disrupted his life. After this interaction, he ponders killing her, but since her lover never leaves her alone, he does not get the chance. His reasons behind being upset about the affair and his ultimate reasons for not killing her are severely pragmatic, to the point where it is concerning.
His lack of emotional depth or morality in this scene is in stark contrast to his description of himself when he describes how he knows that pedophilia is wrong. He is markedly unashamed of using his wife to abate his disturbed sexual nature nor his desire to murder her after she has an affair. This shows that there may be another side to Humbert than this curiously pitiful man who simply cannot control his deviant desires.
In addition to this, he states at one point, "If I ever commit a serious murder... mark the "if", the urge should be something more than the kind of thing that happened to me with Valeria..." (pg 47). This shows that he would have no qualms about murder if he had a proper urge to do so. This most likely alludes to the beginning of the novel which states that Humbert is on trial, although it does not say for what. One can reasonably conclude that it is because of his obsession with young girls, but this may foreshadow a different reason.
We also see his sociopathic tendencies after he is institutionalized for a "bout of insanity" (pg 34). He states, "I discovered that there was an endless source of robust enjoyment in trifling with psychiatrists: cunningly leading them on; never letting them see that you know all the tricks of the trade; inventing elaborate dreams, pure classics in style....teasing them with fake "primal scenes"; and never allowing them the slightest glimpse of one's real sexual predicament. By bribing a nurse I won access to some files and discovered, with glee, cards calling me "potentially homosexual" and "totally impotent". The sport was so excellent..." (pg 34).
Here, we clearly see his lack of emotion and his capacity for charm and persuasion, all tendencies of sociopaths. This, to me, adds another layer to our view of the character and the work as a whole. Because this whole novel is written through Humbert's understandings of events and is treated almost as a diary of sorts, all of our opinions and understandings of what he did are through his viewpoints. Due to the aforementioned understandings we have of him, it is clear that he is very persuasive and may be persuading the readers themselves to see his story from his charming perspective.
The novel starts off as a defense to a jury for a certain crime, and yet Humbert treats it almost as though it is a journal in certain parts of the book. This begs many questions about Humbert's purpose in writing the novel and to what extent the readers are swayed by his charm and persuasion. Although readers condemn the abhorrent actions of Humbert towards little girls and particularly Lolita, we are conflicted because we also pity him at the same time.
This leads to the question of not only what the speaker, Humbert, intends for a purpose of writing this supposed letter to a jury or diary entry (which is unclear at this point), but also as to what the author intends. Does he mean for this to portray Humbert in a more positive light and give a humanistic perspective towards pedophilia like I initially thought, or does he purposefully include those details about Humbert's lack of emotion or morality to show how charming and persuasive he is so that readers may see that they are being manipulated as well?
Regardless, Humbert's character is clearly complex and the readers' interpretations of it are even more so. Seemingly all other characters are somewhat irrelevant in the novel as his character takes precedence over any themes and messages from the book, somewhat because of his egotistical and limited perception of events that he recites. The characterization of Humbert is at the forefront of the novel, and with it, the book derives most of its meaning.
I look forward to reading even more about Humbert's disturbing eccentricities and justifications for them. I am curious about what he intends for his readers to believe about him since he addresses them largely throughout the novel, but also what the author intends for readers to understand through his creation of this novel. The complexities and tensions that the readers feel towards Humbert are what makes the book so interesting and thought provoking, and his character leads to many more questions than it does answers.
To give some background, the novel starts out with Humbert recollecting on his past. He tells tales of a happy childhood in which he was raised by his father and his aunt since his mother died in childbirth, and was admired by many guests in the hotel that his father ran. He then explains a romance that he had at the age of thirteen with a girl named Annabel who died a few months later due to typhus.
Annabel, although only understood through Humbert's recollection of the past, is a very important character in the novel because of how her death affects Humbert. Arguably his sexual attraction towards her and his feelings of overwhelming love are where his perversion originated, or so he claims.
He explains that this traumatic event led to his inevitable perversion towards young girls when he states, "We loved each other with a premature love, marked by a fierceness that so often destroys adult lives. I was a strong lad and survived, but the poison was in the wound, and the wound remained ever open, and soon I found myself maturing amid a civilization which allows a man of twenty-five to court a girl of seventeen but not a girl of twelve" (pg 18). He claims that this incident led to his failed sexual and romantic escapades with older women and his constant desire for younger girls.
When describing Annabel, he states, "I remember her features far less distinctly than I did a few years ago, before I knew Lolita." In this way, he creates an almost before and after; his time with Annabel and then his time with Lolita. Even in his description of decades going by, these two girls become the central focus of all his emotions. All other events that happened in his life between his love affair at thirteen and his obsession with Lolita at age 37 are only brushed upon and these two people and events seem as though they're the only important moments of his life and all else described seems almost irrelevant.
After being introduced to Annabel, we are introduced to a few other characters who seem like they should have a lot larger part in the novel but are seemingly irrelevant to Humbert. He describes a long series of "one-sided diminutive romances" that are largely meaningless to him (pg 20). Besides various characters like a prostitute he services and some other minor people, we find out that in a desperate attempt to ward off his perversion for younger girls, Humbert marries a woman named Valeria.
He states, "I decided to marry for my own safety...[It] might help me, if not to purge myself of my degrading and dangerous desires, at least to keep them under pacific control", which shows how lacking of real emotions this relationship was (pg 24). He only marries her because of "the imitation she gave of a little girl" (pg 25). His descriptions of his time with her are surprisingly short, showing how little he cared or valued his time with her.
The next characters we meet are Lolita herself and her mother, Charlotte Haze. When Humbert moves to America, he stays with this family. We get very little description of Charlotte and when we do, she is described almost as a nuisance in the way of Humbert's obsession with her daughter. The lack of meaningful description about her until Humbert decides to marry her in order to stay with Lolita shows how largely irrelevant to the novel she is besides being an inconvenience for him.
Lolita, however is clearly described in detail as the title may indicate. However, everything about her is viewed through the lens of Humbert's lust. We grow to know very little about Lolita as an individual besides that she likes comic books, is defiant towards her mother, and has a growing interest in Humbert himself. There is very little dialogue with her (or any characters really) and most of what is described about her are her physical appearances regarding her youth and supposed attractiveness.
At one point he describes, "Thus I had delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream...What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita-- perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness-- indeed, no life of her own" (pg 62). This shows how his love for Lolita transcends the girl herself and comes to represent something new entirely.
He furthers this idea when he states, "I knew that I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew that she would not be forever Lolita. She would be thirteen on January 1. In two years or so she would cease being a nymphet and would turn into a "young girl" and then, into a "college girl"-- that horror of horrors. The word "forever" referred only to my own passion, to the eternal Lolita as reflected in my blood" (pg 65).
Therefore, Lolita herself is really not portrayed in this novel very thoroughly and doesn't really matter to Humbert. If he truly loved her, he may describe her in ways that encompassed her essence, or her interests, but instead the description of her is really only about his sexual attraction. His twisted "love" of her is evident by how little he describes anything worthwhile of her and more of his lustful desire towards her various physical traits.
This lack of worthwhile description of Lolita, or any other characters shows Humbert's egotistical and self centered view of the world and the people in it. All characters are only briefly mentioned, their dialogue lacking, and our understanding of them as individuals very limited to only the scope of how they interfere with Humbert's life. This leads to my understanding of the main character, Humbert, and clearly shows his sociopathic nature in addition to his pedophilia.
As readers, we are purposefully conflicted as to our opinions of Humbert. Through his pitiful description of his heartbreak over Annabel and his supposed resistance to his pedophilic nature, we begin to empathize with his plight. Although clearly disgusted by his perverse nature, readers find themselves oddly sympathizing with Humbert and liking him as a character.
Through his beautiful crafting of his story and his love for "nymphets", or young girls, particularly Lolita, we begin to see his internal struggle in regards to his sexual desires. He persuasively describes himself (often in third person) as pitiful and a character to empathize with. When describing his own pedophilia, he states, "Humbert Humbert tried to be good. Really and truly, he did. He had the utmost respect for children, with their purity and vulnerability...But how his heart beat when, among the innocent throng, he espied a demon child (or nymphet)...Humbert was perfectly capable of intercourse with Eve, but it was Lilith he longed for" (pg 20).
He describes himself pityingly, stating things like "All of which goes to show how dreadfully stupid poor Humbert always was in matters of sex" (pg 25). And therefore, readers begin to sympathize with him as well. There is this constant conflict of clear opposition to Humbert's perverse nature and actions and a strange, reluctant sense pity for him as well. As he describes, he seems to know that what he is doing is wrong but feels that he has no way to change it, which makes readers empathetic towards his predicament.
What complicates this tension between the reader and the main character even further is when one considers how persuasive he can be due to his sociopathic nature. Although he does not express this as openly or learnedly as his pedophilia, we get glimpses into his psychopathy at various points throughout the novel. Unlike his perversion, he is completely unapologetic for it.
The first glimpse we get into this side of his character is when he ponders murdering his wife, Valeria after he finds out about her affair despite his lack of affection or love towards her. His reaction towards this affair is very strange, and he states, "A mounting fury was suffocating me-- not because I had any particular fondness for...Mme Humbert, but because matters of legal and illegal conjunction were for me alone to decide, and here she was, Valeria, the comedy wife, brazenly preparing to dispose of in her own way of my comfort and fate" (pg 28).
He feels a deep betrayal from her affair but not because he loved her in any manner, but because she disrupted his life. After this interaction, he ponders killing her, but since her lover never leaves her alone, he does not get the chance. His reasons behind being upset about the affair and his ultimate reasons for not killing her are severely pragmatic, to the point where it is concerning.
His lack of emotional depth or morality in this scene is in stark contrast to his description of himself when he describes how he knows that pedophilia is wrong. He is markedly unashamed of using his wife to abate his disturbed sexual nature nor his desire to murder her after she has an affair. This shows that there may be another side to Humbert than this curiously pitiful man who simply cannot control his deviant desires.
In addition to this, he states at one point, "If I ever commit a serious murder... mark the "if", the urge should be something more than the kind of thing that happened to me with Valeria..." (pg 47). This shows that he would have no qualms about murder if he had a proper urge to do so. This most likely alludes to the beginning of the novel which states that Humbert is on trial, although it does not say for what. One can reasonably conclude that it is because of his obsession with young girls, but this may foreshadow a different reason.
We also see his sociopathic tendencies after he is institutionalized for a "bout of insanity" (pg 34). He states, "I discovered that there was an endless source of robust enjoyment in trifling with psychiatrists: cunningly leading them on; never letting them see that you know all the tricks of the trade; inventing elaborate dreams, pure classics in style....teasing them with fake "primal scenes"; and never allowing them the slightest glimpse of one's real sexual predicament. By bribing a nurse I won access to some files and discovered, with glee, cards calling me "potentially homosexual" and "totally impotent". The sport was so excellent..." (pg 34).
Here, we clearly see his lack of emotion and his capacity for charm and persuasion, all tendencies of sociopaths. This, to me, adds another layer to our view of the character and the work as a whole. Because this whole novel is written through Humbert's understandings of events and is treated almost as a diary of sorts, all of our opinions and understandings of what he did are through his viewpoints. Due to the aforementioned understandings we have of him, it is clear that he is very persuasive and may be persuading the readers themselves to see his story from his charming perspective.
The novel starts off as a defense to a jury for a certain crime, and yet Humbert treats it almost as though it is a journal in certain parts of the book. This begs many questions about Humbert's purpose in writing the novel and to what extent the readers are swayed by his charm and persuasion. Although readers condemn the abhorrent actions of Humbert towards little girls and particularly Lolita, we are conflicted because we also pity him at the same time.
This leads to the question of not only what the speaker, Humbert, intends for a purpose of writing this supposed letter to a jury or diary entry (which is unclear at this point), but also as to what the author intends. Does he mean for this to portray Humbert in a more positive light and give a humanistic perspective towards pedophilia like I initially thought, or does he purposefully include those details about Humbert's lack of emotion or morality to show how charming and persuasive he is so that readers may see that they are being manipulated as well?
Regardless, Humbert's character is clearly complex and the readers' interpretations of it are even more so. Seemingly all other characters are somewhat irrelevant in the novel as his character takes precedence over any themes and messages from the book, somewhat because of his egotistical and limited perception of events that he recites. The characterization of Humbert is at the forefront of the novel, and with it, the book derives most of its meaning.
I look forward to reading even more about Humbert's disturbing eccentricities and justifications for them. I am curious about what he intends for his readers to believe about him since he addresses them largely throughout the novel, but also what the author intends for readers to understand through his creation of this novel. The complexities and tensions that the readers feel towards Humbert are what makes the book so interesting and thought provoking, and his character leads to many more questions than it does answers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)