New Post
Search
HelpRe: Just to make you all know...
in reply to a message by queenv
Lolita is a vapid character. That doesn't mean Humbert's rape of her is excusable by any means, but as I was reading the book I thought I would never have been friends with Lolita myself when I was twelve. She was shallow and boring and obsessed with trends. Not likable.
"And by the way, dearie, your punctuation sucks canal water!"
-The Ghost of Vivian Vance
"And by the way, dearie, your punctuation sucks canal water!"
-The Ghost of Vivian Vance
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
they were both ridiculous caricatures
Lolita was the flaky brat and Humbert was the puffed-up literary snob who thought he was some kind of genius. Neither one of them were sympathetic or likable characters. Characters don't necessarily have to be likable, they should just be interesting enough that you want to find out what happens to them.
I hated the book "Lolita" because it was so pretentious and annoying, but it is accurate in that not all people in real life are sympathetic or likable.
Lolita was the flaky brat and Humbert was the puffed-up literary snob who thought he was some kind of genius. Neither one of them were sympathetic or likable characters. Characters don't necessarily have to be likable, they should just be interesting enough that you want to find out what happens to them.
I hated the book "Lolita" because it was so pretentious and annoying, but it is accurate in that not all people in real life are sympathetic or likable.
1
I hated Lolita too.
And some of the literature I like is considered pretentious!
But you're right about it - characters don't have to be likable.
And some of the literature I like is considered pretentious!
But you're right about it - characters don't have to be likable.
This message was edited 7/30/2016, 6:02 PM
1
I thought Humbert was very interesting.
I didn't see him as a puffed-up, literary snob, I saw him as a pathetic predator who performed a ton of mental gymnastics to convince himself that his actions were justified, or at least not that bad. The book puts you inside the mind of a pedophile rapist, and it's not a pretty place to be. It made me uncomfortable, but it left a hell of an impression. I thought it was a very good book.
I didn't see him as a puffed-up, literary snob, I saw him as a pathetic predator who performed a ton of mental gymnastics to convince himself that his actions were justified, or at least not that bad. The book puts you inside the mind of a pedophile rapist, and it's not a pretty place to be. It made me uncomfortable, but it left a hell of an impression. I thought it was a very good book.
1
It's an excellent book, and it's worthwhile to discuss literature even though the events depicted never really happened.
1
Exactly. I wouldn't have liked her when I was twelve, either. I'm sure that Nabokov made her that way on purpose, precisely to evoke reactions like mine. I know intellectually that Humbert was wrong and perverted and that Lolita was a victim, yet because he genuinely loved her, and because he was an intelligent and sensitive man, and because she was the way she was, on an emotional level I feel sorry for him and dislike her. I'm sure that Nabokov wanted to evoke these conflicting feelings in most readers, and not have it be a black-and-white, simple good vs. evil story.
1
How could he genuinely love her? Isn't she just an image for him to project some weird fantasy onto? No point in feeling sorry for him. Whatever drew him to her was something he was repressing in himself. People's attractions are there for a reason, they're part of who they are.
1
Initially, she was an image for him to project a fantasy onto. But I think he really loved her because even after she grew out of the age with which he'd always been obsessed, and began doing things that normal adult women do which had always revolted him, such as wearing make-up, he still wanted her and he still went crazy when she left him.
Even after he found her as a 17-year-old, aged far beyond the pre-pubescence which had initially attracted him, heavily pregnant and married, he wanted her back. And his final words to her, again when she had reached a point in which she would have strongly repulsed him physically if not for his love, have always stayed with me, and I think that they speak strongly of love: "Be true to your Dick. Do not let other fellows touch you. I hope you will love your baby. I hope it will be a boy. That husband of yours, I hope, will always treat you well, because otherwise my specter shall come out of him, like black smoke, like a demented giant, and pull him apart nerve by nerve. ...I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.”
I'm surprised that both you and RDZNL think he didn't really love her. That was the strongest thing that came through to me. But as they say, YMMV.
Even after he found her as a 17-year-old, aged far beyond the pre-pubescence which had initially attracted him, heavily pregnant and married, he wanted her back. And his final words to her, again when she had reached a point in which she would have strongly repulsed him physically if not for his love, have always stayed with me, and I think that they speak strongly of love: "Be true to your Dick. Do not let other fellows touch you. I hope you will love your baby. I hope it will be a boy. That husband of yours, I hope, will always treat you well, because otherwise my specter shall come out of him, like black smoke, like a demented giant, and pull him apart nerve by nerve. ...I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.”
I'm surprised that both you and RDZNL think he didn't really love her. That was the strongest thing that came through to me. But as they say, YMMV.
This message was edited 7/30/2016, 7:37 PM
1
Of course you are supposed to identify with Humbert and understand him, but that isn't the whole point. The point IMO was for you to reflect critically on how you could be seduced into apologizing for immoral behavior. It was to make you (general reader) curious to figure out -- what is it about the way you think and feel, and about the story, that made you so available to relate to a character whose behavior was so selfish, self-absorbed, and self-destructive?
It's all too easy to just accept the narrator's cleverly self-serving descriptions, and fail to give Lolita's character credit for being a human being, always existing for herself, independent of his desire. There is no love in that speech you are quoting - it's madness. If we take that to be love, then we can rationalize most any amount of depravity for the sake of desire. I think the book shows us how hideous desire can be, and demands that we think about when and how it becomes immoral and insane.
It's all too easy to just accept the narrator's cleverly self-serving descriptions, and fail to give Lolita's character credit for being a human being, always existing for herself, independent of his desire. There is no love in that speech you are quoting - it's madness. If we take that to be love, then we can rationalize most any amount of depravity for the sake of desire. I think the book shows us how hideous desire can be, and demands that we think about when and how it becomes immoral and insane.
This message was edited 7/31/2016, 11:25 PM
1
I read that Nabokov used Lolita to show how America was swallowed by empty consumerism in late 40's/early 50's. How a lot of people were shell-shocked from WWII, and just wanted to settle down in a house with a white picket fence and buy nice things. Lolita is driven by consumerism; she reads every magazine and believes every ad she sees and not just because she is so young. She is very much a product of that time.
I don't think Humbert would know HOW to love someone, so you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree, there. Of course he is going to have an excuse for every one of his actions, but he is an incredibly unreliable narrator. I know there was a book written from Lolita's point of view, but I have only skimmed it. It might be worth reading, even though Nabokov wasn't the author.
I don't think Humbert would know HOW to love someone, so you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree, there. Of course he is going to have an excuse for every one of his actions, but he is an incredibly unreliable narrator. I know there was a book written from Lolita's point of view, but I have only skimmed it. It might be worth reading, even though Nabokov wasn't the author.
1
Yeah, it is funny how depending something it is written it can make the most vile thing sound good and moral, and vise versa!
This message was edited 7/30/2016, 2:03 PM
1