Ian’s review of The Annotated Lolita > Likes and Comments
4992 likes · Like
I read it years and years ago too, in a huge anthology of his work, and I don't think I was ready for it. I have Pale Fire sitting here waiting for me, which I might bump up to top on my to read list.
I also read Ada a few years ago, pre-GR, too slowly and without much ardour.
It's funny books I read when younger have no appeal now, and ones I turned away from then really interest me...and I've read more Russian writers now...
I was much more tolerant of long books when I was young.
I am gearing up for a big Dostoyevsky re-read though.
There are also a number of books I want to re-read with GR eyes on.
I should do a list.
I am interested in your past aversions that now interest you.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I would put in that category.
Maybe I have been either lucky or generous in my assessments.
umm will have to make a list of past aversions, hard to say off the top of my head,: I think I used to stick with the known writers I loved & art, then there was the purely horror/sci fi phase, and for a long time the fact of having to read WW1 poetry at school put me off anything old period, spent a lot of time with medical, veterinary and natural sciences then suddenly I wanted to read all the classics again, fill in the gaps I'd missed & venture further into Europe and beyond.
I was thinking of books that you had read but done a 180 on.
I think I have seen the 1962 Kubrick film, but not the 1997 film.
I will re-read the book soon, because it deserves it and I want to explore some of the issues I have raised in posts on Ceridwen's eloquent review.
My review is a work-in-progress.
Basically, what I want to say is I felt sad for Humbert, despite the moral and legal grossness of what he did.
I believe that he was genuine in his love, even if we as outsiders think he was deluded.
His love was a fact, a reality in his life.
He is no cartoon figure, he is a genuine fully-fledged human character, albeit seriously flawed.
To not understand his flaws is to not understand our own potential for self-delusion or error.
While I believe that Humbert was genuine in his love, one problem is that he trapped Lolita within his own vision.
In a way, he loved her as a caterpillar, but was unable to accept the inevitability that she would grow (and want to grow) into a butterfly.
To continue his selfish love, he needed to preserve her as a caterpillar.
In the story, this just couldn't happen, nor can we expect it to happen in real life.
It would be interesting to see how people's views of the novel would have differed if they did grow into a mature adult love of each other, notwithstanding the immoral origin and foundation of the relationship.
Brian, Paul and I might be working towards a group reading, would you and anybody else be interested?
It's interesting that you mention nostalgia.
The Lolita affair is actually Humbert's attempt to re-live an earlier, similar affair with Annabel Lee.
Ian wrote: "It would be interesting to see whether men read it through the eyes of a male and therefore through Humbert's eyes."
Not every man is a pervert and pedophile while Humbert definitely is !
What Humbert Humbert experiences can not be qualified by either be love or be lust - the correct word is CRIME!
Excusing Humbert Humbert is on the level of attempting to excuse Jeffrey Dahmer - so the word "excuse" does not apply here ...
There is an interesting article about the maths problem Humbert poses with respect to their ages here:
http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/20...
Original Review:
I originally rated this five stars based on memories of a book read over 30 years ago.
It's interesting for me to see such diverse opinions, including negative or sceptical ones.
I would probably be more questioning of it now.
I would read it with different eyes.
It would be interesting to see whether men read it through the eyes of a male and therefore through Humbert's eyes.
Do (some) women read it through Lolita's eyes or Humbert's eyes or do they read it away from any particular character (and possibly feel even more alienated from it)?
As I already pointed out my POV - the eyes of a regular normal male and the eyes of Humbert see things in a totally different way.
Thanks, Alex.
Part of what I originally wanted to ask was: does a male "identify" with a male protagonist (no matter what criminal act they get up to, e.g., in a first person crime novel), whereas a woman would resist the temptation?
I didn't mean to suggest that the male reader had to agree with the character, just that temporarily they had to inhabit their skin.
It so unnatural it only causes disgust.
Nabokov tries to trivialize this crime by creating "sympathetic" character.
Another trick Nabokov is using to excuse Humbert and his likeness is by sneaking into the plot unbelievable ( in reality) "fact" that it is Lo who seduced Humbert and not vice verse. This is a very low trick with intent to manipulate the reader!
Thanks, Alex.
I don't think even Humbert tried to excuse his conduct by relying on Lolita's seduction of him.
He had already been grooming her for his trap for some time.
In the end, I don't think Nabokov or Humbert denied the horror of what Humbert had done.
Humbert had to travel into his own Heart of Darkness before he was astute enough to say, "The horror, the horror."
It's much easier to see the horror in someone else's conduct.
Sorry to barge in here, but Alex, if you're into Russian literature, feel free to add me. Couldn't check since your profile is private.
Thanks, Brian.
The bar will look a lot lower if you stand on my shoulders and jump.
I hope we can get some real diversity going.
Just throwing this out there. Do you think authors who grew up under a language other than English may have different abilities/capacities than native English speakers?
Off the bat, these two come to my mind:
1. Nabokov
2. Conrad
Both famous for their prose, what is it that positions them different from the rest?
These are great questions, CG, ones that have fascinated me for a long time as well.
Particularly applied to the two authors you mention. (Hence, my reference to Heart of Darkness.)
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the ability to speak and write in a number of different languages would give you a comparative insight into how different people and languages approached different issues or problems.
It can give you a real insight into the logic of a language when you have something concrete to compare it with.
This is one of the reasons why, internally within the English language, I have always been fascinated by the structure of Roget's Thesaurus, which shows incredible insight into how the English language approaches things from an organisational point of view.
If you had this level of insight into a number of languages, I think you would have a fantastic advantage as a raconteur, entertainer, comic, speaker and writer.
Paradoxically, it might give you not just a commanding seriousness of purpose, but a playfulness.
This is what made Nabokov so special, the element of play, well, word play.
It doesn't necessarily mean that if you can speak two languages, you will automatically be a better writer, but if you are the sort of person who values these things, it might.
And perhaps the converse might be true as well: if you were a native English speaker, learning a second language might help you to climb up onto the table at which Nabokov and Conrad played their games.
What do you think?
Well, I'm not sure about Polish, but Russian is filled with wordplay that simply cannot be effectively translated into English. So, a person who has fluency in both languages may be able to take a bit from both and add their own spin, where elements or inspirations from their native tongue's language can influence their wordplay in the other language they write in. Someone who only speaks one language would have a more narrow-minded approach to their writing, where they are restrained to the elements and rules of their one language, whereas someone with a background of two or more languages may have the experience and ability to look past such limitations and add their own unique blend to their work.
I haven't read Nabokov in Russian either - till 1981 (when I left Russia) - I don't even think he was openly published in USSR.
But, yes, the expressive "functionality" of the two languages is very different. In that sense Russian is "closer" to Roman languages - by richness of the emotional color and expressiveness.
English is great on another hand by ability to say a lot in a very laconic way - with lots of understatements. The epitome of such style (for me)is E. Hemingway, who is my favorite *contemporary* English language writer.
Russian style of writing is accustomed to use very long statements with the main sentence continuing into the chain of several sub-servant sentences.
English style prefers short separated from each other sentences. Russian (due to more complex grammar word construction rules) has more options in rhymed poetry.
I think languages reflect differences in a National Character of that nation, which developed the language.
B, this has all turned to mush in my head. Which part are you referring to?
>Ian Graye made a comment in the group
>Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov — What do we
>learn about the nature of "love"? topic
>"Brian/Paul, I agree that this ideal of
>the love object is broader than just
>hebephilia.
>Notice that hebephilia seems to want to
>preserve immortality for the youth.
>VN might be showing that only art can
>achieve immortality.
Mephistopheles: "All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green"
(Goethe, Faust)
All theory, dear friend, is gray, but all Graye, dear friend, is not necessarily just theory.
The point is that Nabokov beautifies and romanticizes pedophiles, thus sneaking in the idea of human normalcy in such actions and making pedophilia be more socially acceptable. Such Nabokov's intent is deeply immoral.
Typically, "novels about murderers and other criminals" don't have this aspect.
Even "murderers and other criminals" have the instinct that pedophilia is a monstrous activity - that is why they kill pedophiles in prisons.
That is the intuitive (and possibly subjective - but every reader is subjective anyway and that is the beauty of reading the literature) perception, which I got reading it.
There is the saying: "To understand means to forgive".
Nabokov wants the reader to understand motives and feelings of HH.
Literature mostly affects the reader emotionally and not through the logical analysis way of thinking. Literature in sublime ways creates the overall emotional impression of its content - pretty much the same way as painting does. That is what Nabokov understands and skilfully uses in order to manipulate the reaction of the reader. The literary skill is sometimes a dangerous weapon.
Alex wrote: "There is the saying: "To understand means to forgive".
Nabokov wants the reader to understand motives and feelings of HH..."
I agree that: "Nabokov wants the reader to understand motives and feelings of HH."
However, I'll suggest to you that the leap from understanding to forgiveness is purely your own reading.
"The point is that Nabokov beautifies and romanticizes pedophiles, thus sneaking in the idea of human normalcy in such actions and making pedophilia be more socially acceptable. Such Nabokov's intent is deeply immoral."
no he doesn't! humbert is gross and, by the midway point of the book, clearly losing his marbles.
the genius of the book, and where i strongly disagree with ian, is that humbert is totally an unreliable narrator. his "eloquent" defense of his desires (which you are attributing very wrongly to nabokov) are all a mask. as his narrative grows increasingly fevered during the road trip section, it becomes clear that humbert isn't the cool and collected individual he wants us to think he is, and that some part of him knows what he has done to corrupt the girl. i might misremember, but i don't think he ever actually admits blame for that, and in fact draws a distinct line between himself and the other pedophiles in the book.
calling nabakov a secret pedophile is like calling thomas harris a secret serial killer.
>However, I'll suggest to you that the leap from
>understanding to forgiveness is purely your own
>reading.
I trust sayings (and usually share the truth of those) - folk sayings are the treasure chest of the concentrated living experience and wisdom.
By the way - from where do you think Nabokov gained his own deep understanding of this type of pedophile
(the understanding, which Nabokov so eloquently passes on to his readers) - I don't believe he could derive it from bystander's observation position ?
>I am taking it more like Truman Capote's In Cold
>Blood, or Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment.
As I already said it in my review -
I firmly believe (using the same line of thought that the writer only writes about what is really dear to him) that Dostoevsky at some point of his life, when he was the member of the terrorist organization, was morally approving the idea of murdering a human being - as the method of executing justice and as a proof of concept that the "super-individual" (compare with Nietzsche), could do it when he feels that the victim deserved to be killed.
In fact, Dostoevsky, in his yearly life, belonged to the group of Russian terrorists, which were considering murdering individual as a legitimate way of political action.
i think that reading seriously undervalues nabokov's skill as a writer. even if he had some fascination with young girls, the book he wrote is anything but a defense of pedophilia. to think otherwise is not a "difference of interpretation," it is a serious misreading of the text.
i don't like telling people that their opinion of a book is wrong, but there is no defense for the argument that lolita promotes pedophilia if you actually look at what was written.
>i don't like telling people that their opinion of a
>book is wrong, but there is no defense for the
>argument that lolita promotes pedophilia if you
>actually look at what was written.
BTW, I am not asking any one here to defend my opinion, neither I expect to be judged upon expressing it - it is a free forum.
So what the "some fascination with young girls" is - in your opinion ?
Every reading is subjective - both by me and yours.
So I agree to disagree with your opinion as you disagree with my impression of this piece.
In his interview Nabokov playfully (but with the devilish smile on his face) suggests that the proof that he is not what HH is - is that HH makes mistakes in classifying butterflies, which he, Nabokov, would never made.
well, to be clear, i don't think nabokov has any prurient interest in children. my point was that it doesn't matter, because he is not his character. and also there is no evidence otherwise.
and no, i don't think all readings are subjective. i think you can be wrong about a book. i think missing that fact that humbert is clearly written as deranged, self-deluding and borderline insane, or not missing that but thinking that nabokov is somehow saying that his desires are ok anyway, is wrong. you can interpret all you want but you have to look at the words that are actually on the pages or your analysis is meaningless.
anyway.
Thank you for expressing your point of view.
Joel, re your message 39, I can live with either or both of the unreliability views.
What made me opt for reliable was:
H wrote it all in 56 days two years after all of the Lolita action took place.
He was frank enough about the road trip captivity to turn me away from sympathy for the devil.
He did admit blame and shame for what he did, especially in a beautiful scene (I think in the last chapter), where he describes the sounds of a crowd of school children, and he realises not only did he steal L's childhood from her, but he also separated her from the sounds of the crowd, of humanity and decency and normality.
He made her come away (on the road trip) and both deprived her and depraved her.
At the time of writing, he knew how selfish he had been and probably still was.
It's worth re-reading the last two chapters, which are what I have called the third act.
But even if we disagree, I think it's good that the two interpretations are on the internet, I'm not trying to make it a matter of being right or wrong.
My point was not about the accuracy of Nabokov's portrayal of pedophilia, which may be accurate or it might not. I have no expertise in this subject area. The point is, accurate or not, nothing suggest he wrote Lolita so that through empathy with Humbert Humbert, readers would then be forgiving of pedophiles.
Alex, you yourself may empathize, and find yourself in a forgiving mood. That is completely apart from Nabokov's intention. Don't conflate your feelings regarding a work with the author's intention.
"I don't believe he could derive it from bystander's observation position - it must be the "first hand" experience!"
And that begs the question, that if a writer can imagine a character and accurately depict a pedophile, and by your reasoning, he must therefore himself been something of a closet pedophile with first-hand experience (and not simply have an imagination and skill in depicting those imaginings in words)...
What does this mean about a person who can accurately ascertain whether a person is actually a pedophile solely from reading that writer's fiction? Why do you accurately know a writer is a pedophile based on his work? Why does HH resonate with you and therefore translate into the writer being a pedophile?
I think you are making unsupported leaps in logic based on your notions of how well you believe you know pedophiles.
Also, just because Dostoevski was an angry young man and attended meetings in which he heard and may have even agreed with extreme rhetoric advocating violence, and then later in life wrote a book exploring murder, in no way suggests Dostoevski murdered someone. Plenty of people have been angry young men or written out their imaginings and neither of these actions in themselves (or combined) is a crime.
well, i might agree with you there -- it has been a few years since i read it, but it makes sense that by the end of the narrative, there are cracks in the facade. as i said, his story becomes progressively more unhinged as he tells it. by the end, maybe he eventually does admit to us what he has done. but i think that might also be the first time he as admitted it to himself, and is in strong contrast to the flowery way he talks about his high-minded love earlier on. so maybe he is an unreliable narrator that ends up telling the truth in the end.
Otherwise prisons would be full of high school students convicted on the basis of their dream journals.
>Also, just because Dostoevski was an angry young
>man and attended meetings in which he heard and may
>have even agreed with extreme rhetoric advocating
>violence
First of all, Dear Evan, it looks to me that it is not known to you (may be I am wrong and you do know this) that at that time Dostoevsky was tried and convicted in court for terrorism. He was sentenced to death via hanging. He was pardoned at the last moment at the place of his execution.
So obviously the things were little bit more serious than you are portraying it.
Let us be exact and not twist my words - I did not say, BTW, that Dostoevsky really killed or participated in killing of anyone - but obviously his way of thinking then was "flirting" with such possibility.
>Alex, you yourself may empathize, and find yourself
>in a forgiving mood.
No I did not arrive to forgiving mood in spite of Nabokov's efforts
>Why does HH resonate with you ...
Dear Evan - you are totally confused re my points ... or you are intentionally twisting my words ?
HH DOES NOT RESONATE WITH ME in the sense you have so suggested - it is another idea of yours, which I did not express.
On contrary, not only I DO NOT empathize with HH but irregardless of reading that book - I was and am disgusted with the overall notion of pedophilia. I am regretting that Nabokov is not showing the same level of disgust with pedophilia as any normal person like me (and I hope you) have - and that is my point.
In my opinion Nabokov was a realist - does anyone disagree with that ?
Realist's writings are based on real experiences - not on fantasies. I personally would not write about pedophile (neither would you, Dear Evan - I sincerely hope) - because I do not know about pedophiles.
But Nabokov did write about pedophiles ... and that DOES begs the question - why Nabokov did so, what was his motivation and how he relates to pedophiles ?
Are we in the clear now, Dear Evan ?
I am just replying in kind to related postings. I know full well what was the meaning of using "Dear" in my posting. I will not address your reference to my English as condescending, Dear Brian.
I think his feelings on that score are pretty obvious, brian.
I speak to people in the way they deserve.
Joel wrote: "well, i might agree with you there -- it has been a few years since i read it, but it makes sense that by the end of the narrative, there are cracks in the facade. as i said, his story becomes prog..."
If it unhinges, i would argue that it rehinges by the end.
But he still says "my lolita", which suggests that he is still selfish and possessive, if only of his fantasy lolita as opposed to the real one who he depraved.
Sorry I'm interstate dealing with ash cloud flight disruption as a passenger and might respond intermittently.
Alex wrote: "I speak to people in the way they deserve."
In that case, I ask that you speak to us, them in the way you deserve.
You can make any substantive comment you want on this thread, but I don't want it to be a competition about who can shout their hatred of paedophilia the loudest.
I think we all hate it.
@Alex,
You got awfully defensive rather quickly. Worrying about possible insinuations and inferences concerning pedophilia based on your writings no doubt caused you to react this way. Of course I wouldn't insinuate, nor go even further to accuse you of such crime based on your writings on this thread, doing that would be sensationalistic and simple-minded. No actual offense or stigma was intended.
Alex wrote: ">First of all, Dear Evan, it looks to me that it is not known to you (may be I am wrong and you do know this) that at that time Dostoevsky was tried and convicted in court for terrorism. He was sentenced to death via hanging. He was pardoned at the last moment at the place of his execution.
So obviously the things were little bit more serious than you are portraying it."
Oh, sweetie. Bless your heart!
Dostoevsky was actually put in front of a firing squad, told he was going to die, mock executed, and then exiled to Siberia.
His crime was for being a part of a liberal intellectual group. This could have been been trumped up or rightly considered terrorism. But, again neither of these charges is murder.
"showing the same level of disgust with pedophilia as any normal person like me (and I hope you) have - and that is my point."
Normal, bless you again, dear heart.
"Realist's writings are based on real experiences - not on fantasies."
Fiction is fiction. Logical inferences cannot be drawn based on your own feelings regarding the work as you read it. They need to be substantiated with diary entries, interviews, correspondence, recordings, etc. To quote from Radiohead "Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."
Your subjective truth based on a reading of Lolita, and your "normal" moral compass pointing to disgust does not translate into sound inferences about the state of a writer's private life. You are speculating without proof and as you can see, accusations towards people you do not know, without proof, based solely on a single instance of writing, and a less than positive feeling, is unfair and irresponsible.
Sorry for irrelevance, but if you don't mind Ian, could you send me a friend request? You and I seem to have pretty similar reading interests. I can't send friend requests on Goodreads unless it's from the 'recommended friends' feature on the home-page. Might be not compatible with newest Firefox?
Capsguy wrote: "Sorry for irrelevance, but if you don't mind Ian, could you send me a friend request? ."
We're already friends.
back to top
message 1:
by
Velvetink
(new)
May 05, 2011 11:50AM
I read it years and years ago too, in a huge anthology of his work, and I don't think I was ready for it. I have Pale Fire sitting here waiting for me, which I might bump up to top on my to read list.
reply
|
flag
I also read Ada a few years ago, pre-GR, too slowly and without much ardour.
It's funny books I read when younger have no appeal now, and ones I turned away from then really interest me...and I've read more Russian writers now...
I was much more tolerant of long books when I was young.I am gearing up for a big Dostoyevsky re-read though.
There are also a number of books I want to re-read with GR eyes on.
I should do a list.
I am interested in your past aversions that now interest you.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I would put in that category.
Maybe I have been either lucky or generous in my assessments.
umm will have to make a list of past aversions, hard to say off the top of my head,: I think I used to stick with the known writers I loved & art, then there was the purely horror/sci fi phase, and for a long time the fact of having to read WW1 poetry at school put me off anything old period, spent a lot of time with medical, veterinary and natural sciences then suddenly I wanted to read all the classics again, fill in the gaps I'd missed & venture further into Europe and beyond.
I was thinking of books that you had read but done a 180 on.
I think I have seen the 1962 Kubrick film, but not the 1997 film.I will re-read the book soon, because it deserves it and I want to explore some of the issues I have raised in posts on Ceridwen's eloquent review.
My review is a work-in-progress.
Basically, what I want to say is I felt sad for Humbert, despite the moral and legal grossness of what he did.
I believe that he was genuine in his love, even if we as outsiders think he was deluded.
His love was a fact, a reality in his life.
He is no cartoon figure, he is a genuine fully-fledged human character, albeit seriously flawed.
To not understand his flaws is to not understand our own potential for self-delusion or error.
While I believe that Humbert was genuine in his love, one problem is that he trapped Lolita within his own vision.
In a way, he loved her as a caterpillar, but was unable to accept the inevitability that she would grow (and want to grow) into a butterfly.
To continue his selfish love, he needed to preserve her as a caterpillar.
In the story, this just couldn't happen, nor can we expect it to happen in real life.
It would be interesting to see how people's views of the novel would have differed if they did grow into a mature adult love of each other, notwithstanding the immoral origin and foundation of the relationship.
Brian, Paul and I might be working towards a group reading, would you and anybody else be interested?It's interesting that you mention nostalgia.
The Lolita affair is actually Humbert's attempt to re-live an earlier, similar affair with Annabel Lee.
Ian wrote: "It would be interesting to see whether men read it through the eyes of a male and therefore through Humbert's eyes."Not every man is a pervert and pedophile while Humbert definitely is !
What Humbert Humbert experiences can not be qualified by either be love or be lust - the correct word is CRIME!
Excusing Humbert Humbert is on the level of attempting to excuse Jeffrey Dahmer - so the word "excuse" does not apply here ...
There is an interesting article about the maths problem Humbert poses with respect to their ages here:http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/20...
Original Review:I originally rated this five stars based on memories of a book read over 30 years ago.
It's interesting for me to see such diverse opinions, including negative or sceptical ones.
I would probably be more questioning of it now.
I would read it with different eyes.
It would be interesting to see whether men read it through the eyes of a male and therefore through Humbert's eyes.
Do (some) women read it through Lolita's eyes or Humbert's eyes or do they read it away from any particular character (and possibly feel even more alienated from it)?
As I already pointed out my POV - the eyes of a regular normal male and the eyes of Humbert see things in a totally different way.
Thanks, Alex.Part of what I originally wanted to ask was: does a male "identify" with a male protagonist (no matter what criminal act they get up to, e.g., in a first person crime novel), whereas a woman would resist the temptation?
I didn't mean to suggest that the male reader had to agree with the character, just that temporarily they had to inhabit their skin.
It so unnatural it only causes disgust.Nabokov tries to trivialize this crime by creating "sympathetic" character.
Another trick Nabokov is using to excuse Humbert and his likeness is by sneaking into the plot unbelievable ( in reality) "fact" that it is Lo who seduced Humbert and not vice verse. This is a very low trick with intent to manipulate the reader!
Thanks, Alex.I don't think even Humbert tried to excuse his conduct by relying on Lolita's seduction of him.
He had already been grooming her for his trap for some time.
In the end, I don't think Nabokov or Humbert denied the horror of what Humbert had done.
Humbert had to travel into his own Heart of Darkness before he was astute enough to say, "The horror, the horror."
It's much easier to see the horror in someone else's conduct.
Sorry to barge in here, but Alex, if you're into Russian literature, feel free to add me. Couldn't check since your profile is private.
Thanks, Brian.The bar will look a lot lower if you stand on my shoulders and jump.
I hope we can get some real diversity going.
Just throwing this out there. Do you think authors who grew up under a language other than English may have different abilities/capacities than native English speakers?Off the bat, these two come to my mind:
1. Nabokov
2. Conrad
Both famous for their prose, what is it that positions them different from the rest?
These are great questions, CG, ones that have fascinated me for a long time as well.Particularly applied to the two authors you mention. (Hence, my reference to Heart of Darkness.)
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the ability to speak and write in a number of different languages would give you a comparative insight into how different people and languages approached different issues or problems.
It can give you a real insight into the logic of a language when you have something concrete to compare it with.
This is one of the reasons why, internally within the English language, I have always been fascinated by the structure of Roget's Thesaurus, which shows incredible insight into how the English language approaches things from an organisational point of view.
If you had this level of insight into a number of languages, I think you would have a fantastic advantage as a raconteur, entertainer, comic, speaker and writer.
Paradoxically, it might give you not just a commanding seriousness of purpose, but a playfulness.
This is what made Nabokov so special, the element of play, well, word play.
It doesn't necessarily mean that if you can speak two languages, you will automatically be a better writer, but if you are the sort of person who values these things, it might.
And perhaps the converse might be true as well: if you were a native English speaker, learning a second language might help you to climb up onto the table at which Nabokov and Conrad played their games.
What do you think?
Well, I'm not sure about Polish, but Russian is filled with wordplay that simply cannot be effectively translated into English. So, a person who has fluency in both languages may be able to take a bit from both and add their own spin, where elements or inspirations from their native tongue's language can influence their wordplay in the other language they write in. Someone who only speaks one language would have a more narrow-minded approach to their writing, where they are restrained to the elements and rules of their one language, whereas someone with a background of two or more languages may have the experience and ability to look past such limitations and add their own unique blend to their work.
I haven't read Nabokov in Russian either - till 1981 (when I left Russia) - I don't even think he was openly published in USSR.But, yes, the expressive "functionality" of the two languages is very different. In that sense Russian is "closer" to Roman languages - by richness of the emotional color and expressiveness.
English is great on another hand by ability to say a lot in a very laconic way - with lots of understatements. The epitome of such style (for me)is E. Hemingway, who is my favorite *contemporary* English language writer.
Russian style of writing is accustomed to use very long statements with the main sentence continuing into the chain of several sub-servant sentences.
English style prefers short separated from each other sentences. Russian (due to more complex grammar word construction rules) has more options in rhymed poetry.
I think languages reflect differences in a National Character of that nation, which developed the language.
B, this has all turned to mush in my head. Which part are you referring to?
>Ian Graye made a comment in the group>Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov — What do we
>learn about the nature of "love"? topic
>"Brian/Paul, I agree that this ideal of
>the love object is broader than just
>hebephilia.
>Notice that hebephilia seems to want to
>preserve immortality for the youth.
>VN might be showing that only art can
>achieve immortality.
Mephistopheles: "All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green"
(Goethe, Faust)
All theory, dear friend, is gray, but all Graye, dear friend, is not necessarily just theory.
The point is that Nabokov beautifies and romanticizes pedophiles, thus sneaking in the idea of human normalcy in such actions and making pedophilia be more socially acceptable. Such Nabokov's intent is deeply immoral.Typically, "novels about murderers and other criminals" don't have this aspect.
Even "murderers and other criminals" have the instinct that pedophilia is a monstrous activity - that is why they kill pedophiles in prisons.
That is the intuitive (and possibly subjective - but every reader is subjective anyway and that is the beauty of reading the literature) perception, which I got reading it.There is the saying: "To understand means to forgive".
Nabokov wants the reader to understand motives and feelings of HH.
Literature mostly affects the reader emotionally and not through the logical analysis way of thinking. Literature in sublime ways creates the overall emotional impression of its content - pretty much the same way as painting does. That is what Nabokov understands and skilfully uses in order to manipulate the reaction of the reader. The literary skill is sometimes a dangerous weapon.
Alex wrote: "There is the saying: "To understand means to forgive".Nabokov wants the reader to understand motives and feelings of HH..."
I agree that: "Nabokov wants the reader to understand motives and feelings of HH."
However, I'll suggest to you that the leap from understanding to forgiveness is purely your own reading.
"The point is that Nabokov beautifies and romanticizes pedophiles, thus sneaking in the idea of human normalcy in such actions and making pedophilia be more socially acceptable. Such Nabokov's intent is deeply immoral."no he doesn't! humbert is gross and, by the midway point of the book, clearly losing his marbles.
the genius of the book, and where i strongly disagree with ian, is that humbert is totally an unreliable narrator. his "eloquent" defense of his desires (which you are attributing very wrongly to nabokov) are all a mask. as his narrative grows increasingly fevered during the road trip section, it becomes clear that humbert isn't the cool and collected individual he wants us to think he is, and that some part of him knows what he has done to corrupt the girl. i might misremember, but i don't think he ever actually admits blame for that, and in fact draws a distinct line between himself and the other pedophiles in the book.
calling nabakov a secret pedophile is like calling thomas harris a secret serial killer.
>However, I'll suggest to you that the leap from >understanding to forgiveness is purely your own
>reading.
I trust sayings (and usually share the truth of those) - folk sayings are the treasure chest of the concentrated living experience and wisdom.
By the way - from where do you think Nabokov gained his own deep understanding of this type of pedophile
(the understanding, which Nabokov so eloquently passes on to his readers) - I don't believe he could derive it from bystander's observation position ?
>I am taking it more like Truman Capote's In Cold
>Blood, or Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment.
As I already said it in my review -
I firmly believe (using the same line of thought that the writer only writes about what is really dear to him) that Dostoevsky at some point of his life, when he was the member of the terrorist organization, was morally approving the idea of murdering a human being - as the method of executing justice and as a proof of concept that the "super-individual" (compare with Nietzsche), could do it when he feels that the victim deserved to be killed.
In fact, Dostoevsky, in his yearly life, belonged to the group of Russian terrorists, which were considering murdering individual as a legitimate way of political action.
i think that reading seriously undervalues nabokov's skill as a writer. even if he had some fascination with young girls, the book he wrote is anything but a defense of pedophilia. to think otherwise is not a "difference of interpretation," it is a serious misreading of the text.i don't like telling people that their opinion of a book is wrong, but there is no defense for the argument that lolita promotes pedophilia if you actually look at what was written.
>i don't like telling people that their opinion of a>book is wrong, but there is no defense for the
>argument that lolita promotes pedophilia if you
>actually look at what was written.
BTW, I am not asking any one here to defend my opinion, neither I expect to be judged upon expressing it - it is a free forum.
So what the "some fascination with young girls" is - in your opinion ?
Every reading is subjective - both by me and yours.
So I agree to disagree with your opinion as you disagree with my impression of this piece.
In his interview Nabokov playfully (but with the devilish smile on his face) suggests that the proof that he is not what HH is - is that HH makes mistakes in classifying butterflies, which he, Nabokov, would never made.
well, to be clear, i don't think nabokov has any prurient interest in children. my point was that it doesn't matter, because he is not his character. and also there is no evidence otherwise.and no, i don't think all readings are subjective. i think you can be wrong about a book. i think missing that fact that humbert is clearly written as deranged, self-deluding and borderline insane, or not missing that but thinking that nabokov is somehow saying that his desires are ok anyway, is wrong. you can interpret all you want but you have to look at the words that are actually on the pages or your analysis is meaningless.
anyway.
Thank you for expressing your point of view.
Joel, re your message 39, I can live with either or both of the unreliability views.What made me opt for reliable was:
H wrote it all in 56 days two years after all of the Lolita action took place.
He was frank enough about the road trip captivity to turn me away from sympathy for the devil.
He did admit blame and shame for what he did, especially in a beautiful scene (I think in the last chapter), where he describes the sounds of a crowd of school children, and he realises not only did he steal L's childhood from her, but he also separated her from the sounds of the crowd, of humanity and decency and normality.
He made her come away (on the road trip) and both deprived her and depraved her.
At the time of writing, he knew how selfish he had been and probably still was.
It's worth re-reading the last two chapters, which are what I have called the third act.
But even if we disagree, I think it's good that the two interpretations are on the internet, I'm not trying to make it a matter of being right or wrong.
My point was not about the accuracy of Nabokov's portrayal of pedophilia, which may be accurate or it might not. I have no expertise in this subject area. The point is, accurate or not, nothing suggest he wrote Lolita so that through empathy with Humbert Humbert, readers would then be forgiving of pedophiles. Alex, you yourself may empathize, and find yourself in a forgiving mood. That is completely apart from Nabokov's intention. Don't conflate your feelings regarding a work with the author's intention.
"I don't believe he could derive it from bystander's observation position - it must be the "first hand" experience!"
And that begs the question, that if a writer can imagine a character and accurately depict a pedophile, and by your reasoning, he must therefore himself been something of a closet pedophile with first-hand experience (and not simply have an imagination and skill in depicting those imaginings in words)...
What does this mean about a person who can accurately ascertain whether a person is actually a pedophile solely from reading that writer's fiction? Why do you accurately know a writer is a pedophile based on his work? Why does HH resonate with you and therefore translate into the writer being a pedophile?
I think you are making unsupported leaps in logic based on your notions of how well you believe you know pedophiles.
Also, just because Dostoevski was an angry young man and attended meetings in which he heard and may have even agreed with extreme rhetoric advocating violence, and then later in life wrote a book exploring murder, in no way suggests Dostoevski murdered someone. Plenty of people have been angry young men or written out their imaginings and neither of these actions in themselves (or combined) is a crime.
well, i might agree with you there -- it has been a few years since i read it, but it makes sense that by the end of the narrative, there are cracks in the facade. as i said, his story becomes progressively more unhinged as he tells it. by the end, maybe he eventually does admit to us what he has done. but i think that might also be the first time he as admitted it to himself, and is in strong contrast to the flowery way he talks about his high-minded love earlier on. so maybe he is an unreliable narrator that ends up telling the truth in the end.
Otherwise prisons would be full of high school students convicted on the basis of their dream journals.
>Also, just because Dostoevski was an angry young >man and attended meetings in which he heard and may
>have even agreed with extreme rhetoric advocating
>violence
First of all, Dear Evan, it looks to me that it is not known to you (may be I am wrong and you do know this) that at that time Dostoevsky was tried and convicted in court for terrorism. He was sentenced to death via hanging. He was pardoned at the last moment at the place of his execution.
So obviously the things were little bit more serious than you are portraying it.
Let us be exact and not twist my words - I did not say, BTW, that Dostoevsky really killed or participated in killing of anyone - but obviously his way of thinking then was "flirting" with such possibility.
>Alex, you yourself may empathize, and find yourself
>in a forgiving mood.
No I did not arrive to forgiving mood in spite of Nabokov's efforts
>Why does HH resonate with you ...
Dear Evan - you are totally confused re my points ... or you are intentionally twisting my words ?
HH DOES NOT RESONATE WITH ME in the sense you have so suggested - it is another idea of yours, which I did not express.
On contrary, not only I DO NOT empathize with HH but irregardless of reading that book - I was and am disgusted with the overall notion of pedophilia. I am regretting that Nabokov is not showing the same level of disgust with pedophilia as any normal person like me (and I hope you) have - and that is my point.
In my opinion Nabokov was a realist - does anyone disagree with that ?
Realist's writings are based on real experiences - not on fantasies. I personally would not write about pedophile (neither would you, Dear Evan - I sincerely hope) - because I do not know about pedophiles.
But Nabokov did write about pedophiles ... and that DOES begs the question - why Nabokov did so, what was his motivation and how he relates to pedophiles ?
Are we in the clear now, Dear Evan ?
I am just replying in kind to related postings. I know full well what was the meaning of using "Dear" in my posting. I will not address your reference to my English as condescending, Dear Brian.
I think his feelings on that score are pretty obvious, brian.
I speak to people in the way they deserve.
Joel wrote: "well, i might agree with you there -- it has been a few years since i read it, but it makes sense that by the end of the narrative, there are cracks in the facade. as i said, his story becomes prog..."If it unhinges, i would argue that it rehinges by the end.
But he still says "my lolita", which suggests that he is still selfish and possessive, if only of his fantasy lolita as opposed to the real one who he depraved.
Sorry I'm interstate dealing with ash cloud flight disruption as a passenger and might respond intermittently.
Alex wrote: "I speak to people in the way they deserve."In that case, I ask that you speak to us, them in the way you deserve.
You can make any substantive comment you want on this thread, but I don't want it to be a competition about who can shout their hatred of paedophilia the loudest.
I think we all hate it.
@Alex,You got awfully defensive rather quickly. Worrying about possible insinuations and inferences concerning pedophilia based on your writings no doubt caused you to react this way. Of course I wouldn't insinuate, nor go even further to accuse you of such crime based on your writings on this thread, doing that would be sensationalistic and simple-minded. No actual offense or stigma was intended.
Alex wrote: ">First of all, Dear Evan, it looks to me that it is not known to you (may be I am wrong and you do know this) that at that time Dostoevsky was tried and convicted in court for terrorism. He was sentenced to death via hanging. He was pardoned at the last moment at the place of his execution.
So obviously the things were little bit more serious than you are portraying it."
Oh, sweetie. Bless your heart!
Dostoevsky was actually put in front of a firing squad, told he was going to die, mock executed, and then exiled to Siberia.
His crime was for being a part of a liberal intellectual group. This could have been been trumped up or rightly considered terrorism. But, again neither of these charges is murder.
"showing the same level of disgust with pedophilia as any normal person like me (and I hope you) have - and that is my point."
Normal, bless you again, dear heart.
"Realist's writings are based on real experiences - not on fantasies."
Fiction is fiction. Logical inferences cannot be drawn based on your own feelings regarding the work as you read it. They need to be substantiated with diary entries, interviews, correspondence, recordings, etc. To quote from Radiohead "Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."
Your subjective truth based on a reading of Lolita, and your "normal" moral compass pointing to disgust does not translate into sound inferences about the state of a writer's private life. You are speculating without proof and as you can see, accusations towards people you do not know, without proof, based solely on a single instance of writing, and a less than positive feeling, is unfair and irresponsible.
Sorry for irrelevance, but if you don't mind Ian, could you send me a friend request? You and I seem to have pretty similar reading interests. I can't send friend requests on Goodreads unless it's from the 'recommended friends' feature on the home-page. Might be not compatible with newest Firefox?
Capsguy wrote: "Sorry for irrelevance, but if you don't mind Ian, could you send me a friend request? ."We're already friends.