InNoReMo 2008: Lolita, Pt. 2, Ch.s 27-36

The weird thing about this last bit is that Humbert, who has always stressed that he was not in love with Lolita as a person, but rather with the ideal nymphet he had created in his mind (see an earlier installment) now professes to really, really have loved her – even as he met the practically grown Lolita, glasses, big belly and all. One could come up with a number of theories explaining that oddity, here comes my favourite.

First of all let’s keep in mind that the memoir is written after Humbert has killed Quilty because the latter tried to seduce Lolita, if that’s what you want to call it. Humbert’s jealousy need not be based on love; rather, jealousy has a lot to do with wanting to possess; in this case it’s about having exclusive access to Lolita’s sexuality.

After Humbert has killed Quilty, his mind has to come up with an explanation for his deeds and falls for the popular stereotype that jealousy means love – and extreme jealousy, as indicated by murder, means a love supreme.

(Social Science Aside: This is a nice parallel to a problem you can run into when you try to relate attitudes and behaviour using subjects’ self-reports. If the respondent reports a certain attitude towards an attitude object and behaviour in line with that attitude, the standard interpretation is that the attitude guided the behaviour – but an alternative possiblility is that the respondend inferred the attitude from past behaviour. ((This problem isn’t wholly circumvented by studying behaviour which occurs after attitudes have been measured because past behaviour is usually the best predictor of future behaviour.)))

An obvious alternative theory is that Humbert doesn’t fool himself, but is trying to fool judge and jury. That theory’s too boring for my liking.

Favourite passage

I have left out the main characteristic of the famous Lolita smile, namely: while the tender, nectared, dimpled brightness played, it was never directed at the stranger in the room but hung in its own remote softness over chance objects – and this is what was happening now: while fat Avis sidled up to her papa, Lolita gently beamed at a fruit knife that she fingered on the edge of the table, whereon she leanded, many miles away from me. Suddenly, as Avis clung to her father’s neck and ear while, with a casual arm, the man enveloped his lumpy and large offspring, I saw Lolita’s smile lose all its light and becoe a frozen little shadow of itself, and the fruit knife slípped off the table and struck her with its silver hadle a freak blow on the ankle which made her gasp, and crouch head forward – and then, jumping on one leg, her face awful with the preparatory grimace which children hold till the tears gush, she was gone – to be follwoed at once and consoled in the kitchen by Avis, who had such a wonderful fat pink dad, and a small chubby brother, and a brand-new baby sister, and a home, and two grinning dogs, and Lolita had nothing.

And that’s it, folks...

Probably one of the coolest things that can happen to an author is that his novel’s name becomes inextricably linked with the phenomenon treated in that novel, and Lolita is the only example I can think of. A google search yields 31.000.000 hits for Lolita, 1.470.000 for Lolita porn, 149.000 for Lolita nabokov and 147.000 for Lolita nabokov -porn. It is probably not too much of a stretch to say that many, maybe even most, people who google Lolita don’t even know why – a different kind of obliteration by incorporation, if you like.

All in all, I enjoyed it very much, though not quite as much as the first time around (8.5/10) – the most likely reason for which I already gave here. With the exception of Pnin, which is reasonably entertaining, I have read none of Nabokov’s other work. Yet. Expect a review of Pale Fire on this blog within the next half year.

InNoReMo 2008: Lolita, Pt. 2, Ch.s 20-26

A-ha! Why, I might have asked myself all along, does the narrator call himself Humbert Humbert, a penname of his own choosing as we are informed in the foreword? There it is:

To the hospital in general I apologized with a flourish that almost bowled me over, adding however that I was not on particularly good terms with the rest of the Humbert clan. To myself I whispered that I still had my gun, and was still a free man – free to trace the fugitive, free to destroy my brother.

In other words, the narrator compartmentalizes his personality: There is Humbert the lover of “nymphets” (“the fugitive”) and Humbert the cultured gentleman (“my brother”). In that context, the statement that he is “not on particularly good terms with the rest of the Humbert clan” takes on a second meaning: The two Humberts are, unsurprisingly, in conflict with each other.

I really should have thought of that before.

More generally, I think this would be a great novel to read in school (at around pupils’ age eighteen). It is neither too easy nor too hard to interpret, a balance not found that often. Also, it’s not too long and it has sex and crime in it. What a shame that the subject matter might get the teacher in trouble with the parents.

Favourite Passage

“Lo! Lola! Lolita!” I hear myself crying from a doorway into the sun, with the acoustics of time, domed time, endowing my call and its telltale hoarseness with a wealth of anxiety, passion and pain that really it would have been instrumental in wrenching open the zipper of her nylon shroud had she been dead. Lolita!

InNoReMo 2008: Lolita, Pt. 2, Ch.s 6-19

Roughly between chapters 2 and 9 of the second part, the novel reaches its nadir (so far) and I have little to say about that bit. There is a general problem with writing that Nabokov has to deal with here: It is very hard to convey the impression that a protagonist’s life is uneventful, even boring, without boring the reader. Nabokov does a very good job – I did not find those bits of the novel boring – but in my view, those chapters are the weakest so far and it is a good thing that he gets Humbert and Lolita back on the road, throwing in a few full-blown conflicts for good measure.

Favourite Passages

I now warn the reader not to mock me and my mental daze. It is easy for him and me to decipher now a past destiny; but a destiny in the making is, believe me, not one of those honest mystery stories where all you have to do is keep an eye on the clues. In my youth I once read a French detective tale where the clues were actually in italics; but that is not McFate’s way – even if one does learn to recognize certain obscure indications.

Indeed. From the 1930s onwards psychologists have shown that humans’ memories of what happened tend to be overly coherent; we tend to transform the sometimes rather chaotic succession of events into a well-rounded narrative in which most elements make sense.* It is hence unsurprising that we wonder how we could be so stupid as not to see it coming. I think the mistake often does not lie with the former self who had to deal with multiple bits of information in real-time; rather, the mistake lies with the later self who, knowing the outcome, has constructed a coherent narrative in the light of which early signs seem obvious. It is easy to see all the clues if you already know who the murderer is.

Speaking of murderers, another great bit:

It occured to me that if I were really losing my mind, I might end by murdereing somebody. In fact – said high-and-dry Humbert to floundering Humbert – 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.

Almost certain to be quoted in the next pop-neurology book that deals with ambivalence. Assuming those neurotypes read novelists other than Proust.

*Researchers who work with data based on quantitative interviews speak of “hindsight bias”, which is sort of a ragbag term for the fact that information given by respondents about events past may not be particularly accurate. Other researchers conduct less structured qualitative interviews asking open-ended questions and letting interviewees answer as they wish, thus gaining more depth of information. As far as I know, there is little awareness in these circles of the problem mentioned. This is particularly regrettable given that the latter group of researchers sometimes asks respondents about pretty much all of their life.

InNoReMo 2008: Lolita, Part Two, Ch.s 1-5

Chapter 1 completely changed the way I view the book. I disagree with Matthew Baldwin's interpretation that at the start of part two "the book becomes a satirical incitement [indictment?] of Americana and our rampant consumer culture" - at least that's not the heart of it in my view. Rather, I now see Lolita not as a book about pedophelia, obsession or some such thing; it is a caricature of the stereotypical Bad Marriage.

Bad Marriage: He puts up with her less-than impressive mind because she is much younger and hence attractive to him sexually; accordingly he wants sex much more often than she does which she trades for money/consumer goods. She knows that if she leaves him her life will be even less attractive, not least of all in financial terms. (Note that in the 1940s/50s (a) men tended to be more educated and, (b) have a much higher earning potential than their wives and accordingly (c) divorce was very unattractive for wives in financial terms.)

Humbert and Lolita: He detests her intellect and tastes but stays with her because he she is dramatically younger than he is and he is obsessed with her as a sex object; accordingly it is almost exclusively he who initiates sex which she grants because he fulfills her extremely consumerist desires; as a supplemental strategy he very openly describes the very unattractive life she would lead if she left him. (We've already been told he will later switch to outright payments.)

I'm not aware of the term "caricature" being in wide use in literary criticizm, but just like someone drawing a caricature will exaggerate bodily features that stand out anyway (making big noses even bigger, etc.), Nabokov exaggerates the features of a Bad Marriage.

Favourite passage

Now and then, in the vastness of those plains, huge trees would advance toward us to cluster self-consciously by the roadside and provide a bit of humanitarian shade above a picnic table, with sun flecks, flattened paper cups, samaras and discarded ice-cream sticks littering the brown ground. A great user of roadside facilities, my unfastidious Lo would be charmed by toilet signs - Guys-Gals, John-Jane, Jack-Jill and even Buck's-Doe's; while, lost in an artist's dream, I would stare at the honest brightness of the gasoline paraphernalia against the splendid green of oaks or a distant hill scrambling out - scarred but still untamed - from the wilderness of agriculture that was trying to swallow it.

"[...] gasoline paraphernalia [...] green of oaks [...] agriculture [...]" - symbolism or not? You decide.

InNoReMo 2008: Lolita, Part 1, Ch.s 23-33

With Charlotte Haze out of the way, things now really get going. Charlotte's death in combination with Lolita's still being in the summer camp leaves Humbert alone for a few pages' time and gives the reader the opportunity to observe how, despite his obsession, he cooly plans Lolita's seduction. In the end, it turns out that it is Lolita's seduction indeed in the sense that she is the one who initiates intercourse (if we are to trust Humbert's version of what happened, that is). That's a nice parallel to what we observed earlier: Humbert planned killing Charlotte but just couldn't do it - and then his problem is resolved by others. Same with sex with Lolita - one might guess that it would never have happened if it hadn't been for her initiative.

When reading the hotel scenes I thought that hotels are underused (though by no means unheard of) as literary settings. I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with parts of them being almost completely private, while others are almost completely public, and it only takes a few seconds to get from one sphere to the other. The same geographical-social structure can not usually be found in regular houses.

Interestingly, when Humbert finally reaches his aim, he tells precious little about the act itself (so far). A few possible reasons:

1. Nabokov didn't want to push his luck.

2. The experience is so intense that Humbert can't find words for it.

3. Humbert experiences sex with Lolita as quasi-holy and doesn't want to represent it in any clarity for the same reason that Muslims are not supposed to produce or own pictures of Allah.

4. The act itself is not that interesting to Humbert; it's about imposing his will, reaching his aim, or some such thing. Seems unlikely in the context of the novel.

5. Despite his despicable obsession, Humbert comes across as a well-mannered, restrained person. (Remember that we were promised no dirty words in the foreword.) Maybe one doesn't talk about these things in his circles.

Or maybe there are more graphic descriptions coming up - I really don't remember - and all of the above is void.

Favourite passage

The widower, a man of exceptional self-control, neither wept nor raved. He staggered a bit, that he did; but he opened his mouth only to impart such information or issue such directions as were strictly necessary in connection with the identification, examination and disposal of a dead woman, the top of her head a porridge of bone, brains, bronze hair and blood. The sun was still a blinding red when he was put to bed in Dolly's room by his two friends, gentle John and dewy-eyed Jean; who, to be near, retired to the Humberts' bedroom for the night; which, for all I know, they may not have spent as innocently as the solemnity of the occasion required.

Favourite expressions

I'm fairly sure these were not coined by Nabokov, but they are not that widely in use:

"varicolored" (130 000 google hits vs. 3 240 000 for "multicolored")

"lake-scapes" (less-than-six numbers for various spellings vs. 161 000 000 for "landscape")

InNoReMo 2008; Lolita, Pt. 1, Ch.s 14-22

In my experience, many of the "classic" novels of centuries past, and especially the 19th, aren't actually that classic. One problem is that they're too long - not too long in the sense of "I don't like books that are longer than 700 pages" sense but in the "There are too many sentences, even whole chapters in this novel I could have done without" sense. Even Moby-Dick, which is a cracker, could be better if the right 25% were cut out. 19th century writers tended to put everything that is part of the story in; it is not untypical of novels to start with the hero's birth and tell us about the pattern of the carpet the father was looking at while the birth took place. At a lecture I once attended the speaker said that that had something to do with 19th century people seeing the world as "a closed system". I had no idea what he meant.

What could they have done better? A look at Lolita helps answering the question. Apart from the subject matter it is a pretty conventional novel, (almost) starting with the narrator's childhood and going pretty chronologically from there. There are bits of information that, in and by themselves, are not that interesting, such as Humbert Humbert getting married to Charlotte Haze. How does Nabokov solve these problems? Simple:

a) Keep uninteresting passages short. This may sound trivial, but no one ever seems to have told Dickens.

b) Have the readers look forward to learning how things happened. Right off the bat we learn that not only Humbert has died in legal captivity, but also that his deeds were truly despicable. This is followed very soon by Humbert's confession that he has an obsession for "nymphets". Throughout the book there is foreshadowing of the "I didn't know then I'd become a killer" type (but in a more elegant style). Also, ch. 13, which gives us a taste of things to come, is just in the right place in the book to keep the reader going.

c) Write stylistically better than almost everyone else.

O.k., c) is pretty hard, but a) and b) is standard creative writing stuff nowadays. To anyone who says that nonlinear storytelling simply hadn't been invented by the 19th century, I say: Tristram Shandy.

A completely different point: Humbert leads us to believe that he will kill Charlotte Haze, then we learn about how he just can't - and then she gets killed in an accident. I'm fairly sure I've seen the same device used in a movie, but why isn't it used more often? I think it's rather lovely.

Favourite passage

I'm in a bit of an awkward situation here because I keep raving on about what a great stylist Nabokov is, but the passages I am quoting are at best very good (so far). Thing is, you need to read at least a page to get into the flow; the book's not made for taking a few sentences out of context. Having said that:

Thus I had delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream; and still Lolita was safe - and I was safe. 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 consicousness - indeed, no life of her own.

Assignment: "What Humbert says in the second sentence about his relationship with Lolita is true to an extent with regards to more normal relationships between lovers." Discuss!

Favourite expressions

"the business in hand" ("I cannot swear that certain motions pertaining to the business in hand - if I may coin an expression - had not drifted across my mind before.")

"mental tiptoe" ("Then, with all possible caution, on mental tiptoe so to speak, I conjured up Charlotte as a possible mate.")

"mauvemail" (" ... how eventually I might blackmail - no, that is too strong a word - mauvemail big Haze into letting me consort with little Haze ... ") The obvious choice would have been "greymail". But mauvemail? I mean, hey!

Click on the icon in the top right corner to read all of initiator Matthew Baldwin's entries so far.

Announcement, Coupled with a Little Theory

Ich unterhalte mich lieber mit Fremden
als mit 1/2 guten Freunden.
Denn da kann ich sagen, was ich will
ohne daß ich Konsequenzen fürchten muß

(I prefer talking to strangers
to talking with semi-good friends
Because then I can say what I like
without having to fear consequences)

Tomte, "Pflügen"

Before I started the blog, I decided to do it anonymously because I wanted to be able to write stuff that might hurt my career if I wrote under my real name. I don't think that I have actually written anything like that so far. There is another aspect to this, however.

Through blogging, and reading blogs, and commenting there, I have made what you might call "Internet acquaintances". The bit from Tomte quoted above contains what I think is a correct psychological insight: You can tell strangers stuff that might offend them or that you find personal because, well, they're strangers, and what do you care about their opinion? You can tell friends, because, well, they're your friends, and even if they disagree with you or think that you've done something awful, or you tell them something of a very personal nature, they're going to stick with you and you are comfortable telling them - that's almost the definition of friends. With acquaintances it's different: They're neither close nor distant enough to let them know everything.

This little social psychology theory is my way of saying that there won't be any new posts before next week's Wednesday, and blogging will be light for a fortnight after that because I'll be in the hospital, but I'm not going to tell you why. This, among other things, means that I'll fall behind Lolita-wise, but I almost promise that I'll eventually cover the book in full. (I hope to read some of it in the hospital.)

I hope that in the meantime you, my Internet acquaintances (you know who you are), will keep up the good work at your own blogs. "See" you soon.

InNoReMo 2008: Lolita, Part One, Foreword and Chapters 1-13

The book starts out with a foreword pretending that what we're going to read is a real memoir. This device was quite common in the early days of the novel but then fell out of fashion. (The only recent novel I can think of that has this is Eco's The Name of the Rose.) I rather like it.

I used to dislike this whole bit about Annabelle and how that had led Humbert to desiring young girls - I believe (but am willing to be corrected on this one) that the explanation of those preferences isn't quite as easy in real life. However, in Humbert we have a textbook example of an unreliable narrator. I now like to think that he's simply making this whole Annabelle business up to make himself look better in front of judge and jury, despite (or especially because?) he is explicitly denying it.

As correctly pointed out by Humbert, in other societies relationships between adult men and pubescent girls is nothing out of the ordinary. Actual pedophelia - a preference for preadolescents - is a bit of a mystery, given that it conveys an adaptive disadvantage. This is not the case with a preference for adolescent girls. It is hence a bit surprising that such a preference seems so rare. I guess it tells you something about the power of social norms.

Favourite passage

I'll be unoriginal and go for the first paragraph of chapter 1:

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate, to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.

Favourite expression: "standard-brained"

Co-Blogging NaNoReMo 2008: Lolita

Matthew Baldwin has an annual feature at his blog called National Novel Reading Month. The idea is that he reads a novel considered a classic, blogs about it (in installments) and readers read along and either comment on his site or post their ideas on their own blog. I will do the latter.

This time around it's Lolita. I've already read it, but only once. This is surprising because the first time around I instantly considered it a masterpiece - so this is a welcome occasion to do it again. Being an I-narration, it contains possibly the most elegant prose in English I've ever read, which nicely contrasts with the despicability of the narrator. It is short and accessible. It is better than the movie.

In other words, this is an invitation to go along. You should be able to get the book in most public and university libraries. However, this announcement is a bit late; Matthew's first installment is due today. Which means that I have some catching up to do, as will you if you choose to participate. If you think the schedule's too tight for you, read the book anyway; it's a treat.

I hope to have my first installment online by Sunday and I'd be delighted to read your views either here, at Matthew's site or on your own blog.

I guess this makes this InNoReMo.