Passage on 166 - 167

In the last paragraph in section 3 of chapter 8, Nabokov talks about slides being projected onto a screen; as if in a science class room setting. They look like they are jelly because they are squashed, and to see the full detail they look disfigured. He then explains why they are wet; so they will seem bright. He likes the science of it all. But, one can tell how magnificent it is, even with just a naked eye, so says Nabokov. Hues of color shine through the class when it's not projected and someone is looking at it in between their thumb and finger. One can still see the greatness of the specimen, even when it isn't projected of magnified; it gives the specimen a different, more colorful look. This is all while he is young. To him, science is rather magical. When he is older he can see it even better under a microscope. It's a magic shaft is better for optimum study--can see it's full beauty. Since one can't see the full detail without a microscope, it's the link between what ones thinks it looks like and what it really looks like. He the big person becomes small as the small thing becomes large.

The Chase

"'You got a flat, mister'" (228), I said. Humbert pulled off the road, put the car in park and turned off the engine. I glanced at the side mirror and saw Quilty do the same 50 feet behind us. I felt at ease. Humbert clamored out of the driver's side to see the damage. He glanced at me. Out of the corner of my eye I saw him look for my gaze. I refused it. I felt him examine every curve of my body--piece by piece like he always did. Shivers ran down my spine. He almost touched me, but stopped. I tried not to move; when I squirmed, he had the power.

Humbert clamored out of the driver's side to see the damage. He looked at me again and saw my face strain. Sticking his hand in his right pocket, he marched toward Quilty. I jumped on my seat and saw Quilty smirk. Closer. I knew one would die and that would ruin the whole plan. Closer. I thought, perhaps, maybe Humbert should die, but I couldn't have that on my conscience. Closer. He loved me, I hated him; but, he couldn't die. Closer. I had to do something. Closer. I turned on the car and hoped I could get it to move. Closer. It started to roll, but Humbert didn't seem to notice. Closer. I honked. He stopped. I rolled. He ran.

He opened the car door and looked perplexed. "Are you okay, Lo?" I hated how he called me "Lo." I nodded my head. His face changed; he looked defeated. Quilty turned his car around and drove away. He knew I had won that round.

An Evening of Russian Poetry

Nabokov’s poetry is dense and full of fluid analogies. “An Evening of Russian Poetry” is all about his love for the Russian language—a love that is somewhat romanticized since he is no longer in Russia, but in the US. He writes the poem in English, which seems to suggest he wants the English readers to understand why Russian is so important to him. As English readers, most will never know Russian as he does, but those readers will see Russian as a harsh language.

Nabokov starts the poem off with saying everyone loves his or her native tongue, but sometimes the love of the language isn’t understood. “The subject chosen for tonight’s discussion is everywhere, though often incomplete” (158). His discussion seems to be toward children, for he addresses “Emmy,” “Cynthia” and “Joan,” which gives the poem a sort of lecture quality (something Nabokov did regularly); “project my name or any such-like phantom in Slavic characters upon the screen” (158). In the lecture, he seems to be giving a presentation to the three about the origin of Russian, what makes it unique and why it’s special to him.

Russian derives from Greek, giving it a simple quality; “reshaped the arrows, and the borrowed birds” (158). The words that make up Russian are round, so they flow together nicely and create beautiful literature. “Not only rainbows—every line is bent, and skulls and seeds and all good worlds are round, like Russian verse, like our colossal vowels” (158-9).

He twice brings up a child sleeping. He first talks about the sound: “most rivers use a kind of rapid Russian, and so do children talking in their sleep” (158). Russian has a harsh sound, but is still beautiful; one has to look closer to see the real attractiveness. When one looks at a river or a sleeping child murmuring there is a kind of beauty paired to it. Both also move without thought; for Nabokov, Russian is natural. He again brings up the child toward the end. When he thinks about Russia, he feels as if he is a kid again, dreaming in his sleep. “It came, that sudden shudder, a Russian something that I could inhale but could not see. Some rapid words were uttered—and then the child slept on, the door was shut” (162). Even while he sleeps, he still finds it all nostalgic. 

As a foreign language, Russian “could not rouse the limp iambus,” so it’s poetry could not be understood (159). But, as a known language, the poetry can’t be ignored. “It makes a very fascinating noise: it opens slowly, like a grayish rose in pedagogic [teaching] films of long ago” (159). And, like other languages, it has many homonyms, which creates wordplay (something Nabokov loves) and poetry. “Love automatically rhymes with blood, nature with liberty, sadness with distance, humane with everlasting, prince with mud, moon with a multitude of words, but sun and song and wind and life and death with none” (159). All of the words he chose in that passage are subjects Nabokov likes to write about, however, it seems surprising he didn’t add the word “game.” Nabokov finishes this section with a sadness that he is unable to speak and hear Russian anymore since he moved across the ocean; he now has to use a second, foreign language that he doesn’t think is as beautiful.

He then goes on to talk about his hatred for poets who make beauty banal by being too obvious with their words, or their Russian language. He likes to play games with his reader, and he especially like to make them dig deep for the meaning. Just as one has to find the beauty in Russian, one should have to find the beauty in poetry; it should be genuine and hidden.

Nabokov then says being a Russian poet is to be exiled and unneeded, even though all they want is greatness within literature. “We want the mole to be lynx or turn into a swallow by some sublime mutation of the soul. But to unneeded symbols consecrated, escorted by a vaguely infantile path for bare feet, our roads were always fated to lead into the silence of exile” (161). Nabokov was, however, a famous English writer.

For Nabokov, Russian will always be his elusive language; “the mystery remains intact” (162). He writes about Russian in a nostalgic way and seems to romanticize his love for the language. Since he wrote it in English, he is somewhat saying his readers will never know the beauty of the world because they speak English; if they knew Russian, they would be able to understand his analogies. 

Humbert's Limited View

     Throughout Lolita, there is a strong sense of the "unwritten psychoanalyst" character. Nabokov and Humbert talk about their hatred for psychology, but there are many instances when it feels as if Humbert is talking to a psychoanalyst. In some ways, this has to be done to understand characters; to understand characters deeply, as Nabokov seems to want, there has to be an understanding of the characters' thoughts, feelings, ideas, actions, etc. But, knowing that Nabokov is the type of writer who plays games with his reader, one has to wonder if it is one of his games or if he is just criticizing the American culture. It may be a mixture of both, but the critic seems to be more profound. As Mathew Winston writes in "Lolita and the Dangers of Fiction," the American culture can be summed up to "soap operas, psychoanalysis and cheap novelettes" (422). Nabokov strongly detests those things, but they are important elements that he brings into the book many times, thus the game Nabokov plays with the reader. When Humbert talks to the reader as if he or she is a psychoanalyst, Nabokov is actually scorning American culture. As Nabokov does this, he creates a false reality for Humbert, one that the reader knows isn't real, but Humbert does not. Winston addresses this by saying, "Humbert's casual remark about what we are inclined to do accurately describes a limitation of his own perceptions and a consequent tendency of his actions" (424). As Humbert progresses through the book, he becomes a monster and rather senile, but he always talks to the unwritten psychoanalyst to justify everything he does. He isn't a criminal, but a man with a skewed vision of love.

Manipulating Both H.H. and His Audience

In the article, "In Search of Aesthetic Bliss: A rereading of 'Lolita'," the author argues that there is a story within a story and Humbert made up his own reality, which was the book. The "fiction of reality" is something we've discussed a lot in class, but it seems like we have been missing something. We know Humbert isn't a reliable source, but this is mainly due to the fact that we know more than Humbert knows. It's the game Nabokov plays against his character and his reader--both are at his mercy for how the story goes. However, Nabokov seems to give Humbert the power of the story by re-writing his own story, where sometimes the story truly feels as if Humbert is writing it, instead of Nabokov. Nabokov seems to be giving him freedom, but he isn't. It's a complicated game, one that I still don't fully understand. Roth explains it as, "what Nabokov gives the reader is not reality, but a way of perceiving reality" (29). Nabokov does this for both the reader and Humbert. Both are given a story, and a reality, but the way both are viewing is by the manipulation of Nabokov. The game is much bigger than just the story, because Nabokov plays the game with perception. This is, of course, is something that happens when one reads anything, but not in the way Nabokov does it. He tricks the reader into thinking how he wants him or her to think. It's not a choice, other than choosing to read the book, but something that is forced on the reader.

The End

     Humbert's psychoanalysis of himself changes from being to end. He writes about himself more as if he is a monster, rather than a human. It's an interesting change, but rather dramatic. He becomes less analytic and more enraged with himself. 

     In chapters 18-20, it's easy to see he becomes rather judgmental of himself and starts to use psychological wording. It might be because he is writing this from memory rather then when it happened, but as soon as he and the reader understand he is about to lose Lolita, the way he writes about himself with pity and disgusted. It might be a ploy, but it might also be the way he really thinks about himself.  "In fact--said high-and-dry Humbert to floundering Humbert--it might be quite clever to prepare things--to transfer the weapon [his gun] from box to pocket--so as to be ready to take advantage of the spell of insanity when it does come" (229). He talks about insanity as if he knows and understands what insanity is; he self-diagnosis his illness. However, the reader knows he isn't insane, just a love-sick man who is will to protect the girl he loves by any means possible. Even though that sounds rather beautiful, the story is ugly. He does lose her, and becomes rather crazed.

     In chapters 27-29, he can hardly control his urges for the little nymphets, but he also finds Lolita. Humbert is uncontrollably in love with nymphets, but since he was able to be with one and really love her, his urges were bearable. "Since I sometimes won the race between my fancy and nature's reality, the deception was bearable" (264). Lolita rights Humbert a letter, just as a daughter would to a father, asking him for money (266). When she does this, he hopes in his beat up sedan and drives through the night to find her. When he does find her, he still argues that he loves her and begs for her to come back with him. "I looked and looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else" (277). When he realizes this, he begs her to come back with him, but she says no. At this point he makes the reader feel sorry for him. He tries to justify killing Quilty by how much he loved Lolita. 

      From chapter 33 to the end of the book, Humbert is set on killing Quilty. The scene around Humbert killing Quilty is rather dramatic, but it seems as if that's what Humbert wanted. he wanted it to be as dramatic for Quilty as it had been for Humbert to lose Lolita. He wanted Quilty to feel the pain of no longer having what he loved. Humbert was proud he killed Quilty and wanted everyone to know. "I may have lost contact with reality for a second or two--oh, nothing of the I-just-blacked-out sort that your common criminal enacts; on the contrary, I want to stress the fact that I was responsible for every shed drop of his bubbleblood; but a kind of momentary shift occurred as if I were in the connubial bedroom, and Charlotte were in the bedroom" (304). It obvious that Humbert wanted everyone to know he killed Quilty. He was proud of it because he finally took away what was most important to him as he had taken away the most important thing to Humbert: Lolita. 

     In looking at these few passages, one can see the shift in Humbert. He no longer wants to analyze himself, but all of his thoughts and feelings out. He acts like a man about to die in the last part, which would justify is actions. He still wants to be seen as a love to Lolita, but to the rest of the world, he wants to be seen as the monster who killed Quilty. 

Dogs

Enchanted hunting dogs. Nabokov once gave a lecture on the "equine theme" in Madame Bovary. Who or what is doglike in Lolita. Between dog and butterfly the dogs actually win (although butterflies and moths abound). Not only are there a lot of dogs or people that act like dogs - canine coincidence occurs at key crossroads in the book. Find seven examples to win.

     Throughout Lolita, there are many references to dogs and canines--some literal, so not. As the story progresses, the references become clearer and more descriptive of people. 

     For instance, he describes Lolita as a dog-like human when she wanted attention. "She would be, figuratively speaking, wagging her tiny tail, her whole behind in fact as little bitches do--while some grinning stranger accosted us and began a bright conversation" (164). Humbert hated when Lolita did such things because he wanted as little attention directed to them as possible. When she was being aggressive toward him, he wanted her to calm down, and he thought "down, poor beast, down" (141), just as one would say to their dog for jumping up on them; he started to see her as a nuisance.  Humbert also talks about petting her; of course, he means it in a sexual way, but it also refers someones relationship to a dog. "She would pick out in the book, while I petted her in the parked car in the silence of dusk-mellowed mysterious side-road" (146). One of the first dog references Humbert uses in relation to Lolita is directly related to his fear of her leaving him. "Lo, leaving the dog as she would leave me some day, rose from her haunches" (118). 

       Humbert talks about his canine teeth when he goes to the dentist to get information about Quilty. "The whole arrangement was a masterpiece of comfort, and my canines were in perfect health" (291). Humbert says Quilty uses the word "fetch" in reference to obtaining his glasses. "Let me fetch my reading glasses" (299). 

     My last example is a more literal reference to dogs. Humbert talks about Lolita and Dick's dog when he goes to see her. He doesn't really talk about pets, other than Lolita, in the book. "Woof, commented the dog perfunctorily... Woof, said the dog. A rush and a shuffle, and woosh-woof went the door" (269). 

Lolita's Clues for Goodbye

1. Do you know where your children are? Lolita is up to something and Humbert doesn't know what she's up to. Make a catalog of the signs that she is doing something behind her stepfather's back. To win, you must find at least seven.

1. A good example of Lolita playing games with Humbert is when she wanted to leave Beardsley and the School, when the school play was only about a week away. "'You are a funny creature, Lolita,' I said--or some such words. 'Naturally, I am overjoyed you gave up that absurd stage business. But what is curious is that you dropped the whole thing only a week before its natural climax'" (209). Humbert knows it's odd for Lolita to drop the play, that he very reluctantly let her be apart of, but he was too enthralled with her to notice it was the start of her departure from his presence. 

2. The next example isn't far from the beginning of their journey. "At the very beginning of, the Midwest lap of our journey, when she managed to convey some information to, or otherwise get into contact with, a person or persons unknown. We had stopped at a gas station, under the sign of Pegasus, and she had slipped out of her seat and escaped to the rear premise while the raised hood, under which I had bent to watch the mechanic's manipulations, hid her fro a moment from my sight" (211). Once again, he is suspicious  but he doesn't seem to know that she is having someone follow their movements to help her secede from him. 

3. Another good example is when he left her alone one morning and she had been out, but he didn't know why. Lolita gave Humbert a vague, but believable enough (to Humbert) excuse. "I plumped down my heavy paper bag and stood staring at the bare ankles of her sandaled feet, then at her silly face, then again at her sinful feet. 'You've been out,' I said (the sandals were filthy with gravel). 'I just got up,' she replied, and added upon intercepting my downward glance: 'Went out for a sec. Wanted to see if you were coming back.' ... What special suspicion could I have? None indeed..." (214). Here is it obvious, again, that Lolita is up to something, but Humbert isn't getting to clues. 

4. When Lolita was talking to men, Humbert was jealous. But he had noticed there was a convertible following them. He walked out of a gas station and saw the man talking to Lolita, and he started to become really suspicious--even to the point to hallucination (217). "I happened to glance through a side window, and saw a terrible thing. A broad-backed man, baldish, in an oatmeal coat and dark-brown trousers, was listening to Lo who was leaning out of the car and talking to him very rapidly, her hand with outspread fingers going up and down as it did when she was very serious and emphatic" (218). Now, it's obvious that they are being followed, but Humbert still doesn't take much precaution in protecting his "prey."

5. The next example is when Lolita was missing for about half an hour, and lied to Humbert about where she went. When he questioned her, she said she was with a friend getting a soda, but the more he asked about the girl, the more he realized she was lying. "'Good. Was it that place there?' [Humbert] 'Sure.' [Lolita]. 'Good, come on, we'll grill the soda jerk.' 'Wait a sec. Come to think it might have been further down--just around the corner.' 'Come on all the same. Go in please. Well, let's see.' (Opening a chained telephone book.) ' Dignified Funeral Service. No, not yet. Here we are: Druggiests-Retail. Hill Drug Store. Larkin's Pharmacy. And two more. that's all. Wace seems to have in the way of soda fountains--at least in the business section. Well, we will check them all.' 'Go to hell,' she said. 'Lo, rudeness will get you nowhere.' 'Okay,' she said. 'But you're not going to trap me. Okay, so we did not have a pop' (225). Now Humbert becomes very suspicious and jealous. He knows she is trying to contact someone, but he doesn't know why or who it is. He becomes even more controlling over her to the point of madness. He knows she detests him, but he won't let her go. 

6. Through the progression of these clues, it becomes more obvious that she is up to something. Especially when Humbert gets a flat fire, he starts to walk to the man in the convertible for help and Humbert's car begins to miraculously move. When he reaches the car. Lolita is in the drivers seat and says the car started to move and she saved it. "I looked back--and saw my own car gently creeping away. I could make out Lo ludicrously at the wheel and the engine was certainly running--though I remembered I had cut it but had not applied the emergency brake; and during the brief space of throb-time that it took me to reach the croaking machine which came to a standstill at last, it dawned upon me that during the last two years little Lo had had ample time to pick up the rudiments of driving. As I wrenched the door open, i was goddam sure she had started the car to prevent me from walking up to Trapp" (228-229). Humbert knows Lolita is to blame and it was a well calculated spur-of-the-moment idea on her part. 

7. The last clue Lolita gives to Humbert is right before she leaves. He is starting to realize she really doesn't want to be around him. Her comments are becoming harsher. She asks for her clothes when he tells her he wants to leave the town--instead of leaving with him, she leaves with another man. "'My Carmen,' I said (I used to call her that sometimes), 'we shall leave this raw sore town as soon as you get out of bed.' 'Incidentally, I want all my clothes,' said the gitanilla, humping up her knees and turning to another page. '... Because, really,' I continued, 'there is no point in staying here.' 'There is no point in staying anywhere,' said Lolita." 

Humbert said, "Better destroy everything than surrender her" (235). This passage shows that he was so scared and worried about losing her that he would rather everything fall apart. He didn't see the signs because he didn't want to see the signs. He knew she was tired of him, but he didn't care. All he wanted was Lolita--all of her to himself. 

The Nymphet Spell

During the last few chapters of the first part of Lolita, Humbert's voice and tone changes toward Lolita. He becomes less flowery and harsher, using meaning words. As I have said before, one things he now starts to do is blaming Lolita for everything he did to her. But, he says what he wanted wasn't sex with a nymphet, but something deeper, that only a nymphet could show him. Her beauty and charm seduce him to have sex with her, but he claims, which becomes part of his justification, that all he wanted was the magic of the nymphet.

"Pride alone prevented her from giving up; for, in my strange predicament, I feigned supreme stupidity and had her have her way--at least while I could still bear it. But really these are irrelevant matters; I am not concerned with so-called 'sex' at all. Anybody can imagine those elements of animality. A greater endeavor lures me on: to fix one for all the perilous magic of nymphets" (Lolita, 134). He now claims that his lover wanted him to pursue her, which he somewhat depict throughout his story. But, the reader has to keep in mind it's from his point of view, not hers. In Humbert's eyes, Lolita had full control over him. Everything he did was because of or for her. Except, he was hunting her for his sexual pleasures. He had to finally know the magic of being with a nymphet. If he could know what that was like, the mystery of everything would be over, and he would no longer need to pursue nymphets. In his mind, he thinks he and Lolita would be together forever and it wasn't because of the sex they would have, it was because of the attraction each had for each other.

Before their first sexual encounter, Humbert says something rather strange. "It would never do, would it, to have you fellows fall madly in love with my Lolita!" (Lolita, 134). This statement goes back to the idea that Lolita is his and he is now jealous of everyone. But, he is also saying he will save everyone reading the book from falling under he spell. Humbert is suggesting that Lolita is such a potent person, that even reading about her in a certain way would make the reader fall in love with her. This is an interesting strategy, considering the meaner and harsher language he starts to use while describing their further adventures.

Once again, the unwritten psychoanalyst character seems to pop up. While Humbert's describing all that happens from the time Charlotte dies to the end of the book, this unwritten character seems to be looming. Most of the story feels as if Humbert is trying to write is story to a psychoanalyst, rather than a jury, which could, and probably is, the game that Nabokov wants the reader to play. It's the character he hates, but always seems to bring back. The reader can at some points feel sorry for Humbert or pity him, at the very least. A human characteristic that can change the way a person views another. But, it seems it would be hard to completely get rid of this character, otherwise, the reader wouldn't be able to understand Humbert completely, especially while the two are having intercourse.

"More and more uncomfortable did Humbert feel. It was something quite special, that feeling: an oppressive hideous constraint as if I were sitting with the small ghost of someone I had just killed" (Lolita, 140).  It seems strange Humber would use such language of himself. He constantly talks about the need to maintain Lolita's purity by sleeping with her in the dark of night so she wouldn't know, but they'd just had sex together multiple times and both parties were wide awake. Even though he tried to maintain her innocence, he didn't and he felt guilty for it. However, this wasn't going to make him stop. He was still under the nymphet spell and nothing, he thought, could break it.

Humbert Turns to Prey

During the last part of the first half in Lolita, Humbert’s tone changes. He become the offender--a hunter after his prey. After Charlotte's death and before he finds out Lolita isn't as pure as he thought she was, he analyzes the cultural changes on the concept of "the child" humans have had throughout history, while fitting an inner battle of wanting to maintain Lolita's purity. "I was still firmly resolved to pursue my policy of sparing her purity by operating only in the stealth of night, only upon a completely anesthetized little nude" (Lolita, 124). By maintaining Lolita's purity, Humbert really wants to fulfill his needs without Lolita knowing (by use of drugs) he is going to harm her, while also accusing her evil to have sucked him into wanting her.  

While Humbert is trying to justify is actions, he talks about the cultural change of children's role in society. "We are not surrounded in our enlighted era by little slave flowers that can be casually plucked between business and bath as they used to be in the days of the Romans; and we do not, as dignified Orientals did in still more luxurious times, use tiny entertainers fore and aft between the mutton and rose sherbet" (Lolita, 124). The phrase "casually plucked" seems to stick out. Everything about what he has done thus far hasn't been casual, but very planned and thought out to ensure his ultimate satisfaction. He hasn't been worried about anyone but himself, and maintaining his ability to get close to his nymphet. Humbert is constantly under the impression that the way he sees things is right, which follows the individualistic thought that most westerners practice, and if this used to be acceptable, they should be acceptable now. People like him used to be culturally acceptable, so why shouldn't they be acceptable now. Now they are criminals, which seems unfair to him when he is so close to his, so called, prey. However, right after this, he talks about how little he knows of children. "Despite my having dabbled in psychiatry and social work, I really knew very little about children" (Lolita, 124). Lines down from him trying to justify his actions, he talks about how little he knows. From this point on, there are times Humbert seems to confuse his acts of justification with psychoanalytic jargon. But, it also goes with the constant battle in his head about what he is doing. He knows what he is doing now is wrong and it might hurt her, but it's what he wants. "The child therapist in me (a fake, as most of them are--but no matter) regurgitated neo-Freudian hash and conjured up a dreaming and exaggerating Dolly in the "latency" period of girlhood. Finally, the sensualist in me (a great and insane monster) had no objection to some depravity in his prey" (Lolita, 124). 

Finally, he tries to justify his actions by talking about how Annabel and Lolita were actually not the same in their innocence. Even though Humbert saw Annabel in Lolita, they were very different. Here, the unwritten bad psychoanalyst would say that Humbert was always looking for Annabel until he found something similar, which is why he was attracted to little girls and never satisfied with "older" women, and he was unsatisfied when Lolita wasn't just like Annabel; in turn, he constructed Lolita as best as he could to make her similar to Annabel. "I should have understood that Lolita had already proved to be something quite different from innocent Annabel, and that the nymphean evil breathing through every pore of that fey child" (Lolita, 125). Even though Humbert tried hard to be unaffected by Lolita's charm, he was sucked into her being. Somehow, his lust for her was because of how she was. He had an image of what he wanted in his prey, and she fit it rather well. Lolita in this passage turns into a figure of a demon and Humbert is her prey. The irony that runs through Nabokov's writing is most blatant in this passage. 

The real beauty

"I am ready to believe that the sensations I derived from natural fornication were much the same as those known to normal big males consorting with their normal big mates in that routine rhythm which shakes the world. The trouble was that those gentlemen had not, and I had, caught glimpses of an
incomparably more poignant bliss. The dimmest of my pollutive dreams was a thousand times more dazzling than all the adultery the most virile writer of genius or the most talented impotent might imagine. My world was split. I was aware of not one but two sexes, neither of which was mine; both would be termed female by the anatomist. But to me, through the prism of my senses, "they were as different as mist and mast." (Page 18)

Through most of my post, I have honed in on the idea of the psychoanalyst character who seems to constantly be in the novel. At some points, though, it seems as if Humbert is trying to psychoanalyze himself. Today in class we talk about the idea of hating something so much you really explore the idea. This may be an explanation to Nabokov's obsession of hating Freud, but I think there is more to it. I think by making fun of the psychodynamic therapy, Nabokov is making fun of the reader and making the character in a way that he thinks people will want to read. This novel is starting to feel like a detective novel, but a satirical one. The reader has to believe everything Humbert says to be true, but how do we know what he is saying to be true. Nabokov makes fun of a lot of things in the novel, like Poe's poem and Freud, so how do we know he is even telling us the truth about Humbert? However, I do think it's interesting how at some points Humbert turns into his own therapist and he starts to justify his actions to the jury. In the passage above, it seems to be a good example of this. 

"I am ready to believe that the sensations I derived from natural fornication were much the same as those known to normal big males consorting with their normal big mates in that routine rhythm which shakes the world." He starts out by saying the sex he has with nymphets is the same as two grown adults having sex together. "Routine rhythm which shakes the world" is a slight jab at the fact that people are over sexualized, even though he sexualizes Lolita. In some respects, he is also saying that all sex is the same, which seems to be an over justification. No sex is bad sex just seems like an excuse to have whatever type of sex you want to have, which makes him seem like his own therapist. He's had "normal" sex and it hasn't worked, but the sex he has with nymphets does work; it's essentially the same thing, right?

"The dimmest of my pollutive dreams was a thousand times more dazzling than all the adultery the most virile writer of genius or the most talented impotent might imagine" At times, Humbert has an inflated sense of self. He thinks that the way he does things and knows things is the right and best way. He now says that he knows the most fantastic way to have sex, and without having it the way he does, it is unimaginable. It's an odd way to think about sex and completely goes again his justification for wanting to have sex with nymphets. He says that "normal sex" is wrong because they don't know the real beauty of it, but others, the ones he is trying to convince, say his sex is wrong.   

"My world was split. I was aware of not one but two sexes, neither of which was mine; both would be termed female by the anatomist. But to me, through the prism of my senses, "they were as different as mist and mast." This sentence really pushes his justification. He says that he sees two different types of women: the old and the young, and he only wants the young. He's tried to the old, he keeps letting the reader know that, but he isn't satisfied with the experience. The are anatomically the same, but the way one makes him feel, which seems to be powerful, is the only one he wants. He needs the innocent to need him. When they need him he feels power, which is part of his sexual craving. Even though he is told it's socially wrong, he feels like it's what is right for him. He knows the real beauty. 

The Psychoanalyst

Throughout Lolita, there is an unexplained extra character: the satirical psychoanalysis. Sometimes, however, Humbert will relay his thoughts, feelings and experiences as if he had been talking to a psychoanalyst. As Nabokov says, and is explicitly shown throughout the introduction, Nabokov hates Freud and psychoanalytical explanations. So, one can only perceive that Nabokov is doing this in a sarcastic way. Nabokov is the type of author who wants to push his readers, as he plays “games” with them, but he will also make fun of something he doesn’t like in such a sly way that it makes the reader almost think he likes it. However, the reader has to know how to read his works to understand the games he is playing. In the following passages, it is easy to see that there is a “satirical psychoanalysis” character. It’s present, but humorous.

1. “The days of my youth, as I look back on them, seem to fly away from me in a flurry of pale repetitive scraps like those morning snow storms of used tissue paper that a train passenger sees whirling in the wake of the observation car. In my sanitary relations with women I was practical, ironical and brisk. While a college student, in London and Paris, paid ladies sufficed me. My studies were meticulous and intense, although no particularly fruitful. At first, I planned to take a degree in psychiatry and many manquè talents do; but I was even more manquè than that; a peculiar exhaustion, I am so oppressed, doctor, set in; and I switched to English literature, where so many frustrated poets end as pipe-smoking teachers in tweeds. Paris suited me. I discussed Soviet movies with expatriates. I sat with uranists in the Deux Magots. I published tortuous essays in obscure journals” (Lolita, 15).

In the first sentence, the character is present. Nabokov uses the opportunity to create an extremely vivid scene in place, while also making fun of the psychoanalyst. Based on how he describes the women his father involves himself with earlier in the novel, we know that Humbert doesn’t have a healthy view on women. When he was younger, women would cue over him all the time, which also spread into his adult life. He never really liked them, but did associate himself with them. As this passage progresses, it is easy to see the bad psychoanalyst; he even mentions he was thinking about studying psychiatry and did for a while. Psychology is present throughout the book linked to Humbert, but especially in the form of psychodynamic therapy.

“I leaf again and again through these miserable memories, and keep asking myself, was it then, in the glitter of that remote summer, that the rift in my life began; or was my excessive desire for that child only the first evidence of an inherent singularity? When I try to analyze my own cravings, motives, actions and so forth, I surrender to a sort of retrospective imagination, which feeds the analytic faculty with boundless alternatives, and which causes each visualized route to fork and re-fork without end in the maddeningly complex prospect of my past. I am convinced, however, that in a certain magic and fateful way Lolita began with Annabel” (Lolita, 12-13).

This passage seems to have the character bleeding through. The similarities that are placed between Lolita and Annabel make it easy to suggest that Lolita is taking the place of Annabel. Since Annabel died so suddenly and at such a young age, he got stuck in romanticizing about her. The bad psychoanalyst would say that Humbert lost his mother at young age, so he grew up without a real mother figure, which was replaced by his aunt, who was crazy. After dealing with the affects of these two women, the girl he falls in love with dies when she is fourteen. He is stuck in the mind of a child and still loves the romanticized idea of the fourteen-year-old Annabel, which directly leads to his obsessions with nymphets. The “magic” he refers to is the skewed vision he has pertaining to Annabel.

“I have reserve for the conclusion of my “Annabel” phase the account of our unsuccessful first tryst” (Lolita, 14).

Any time he has a misfortune, he brings his sorrows back to Annabel. He uses her as an excuse as to why he is the way he is. A psychoanalyst would eat this up, so speak, and the reader could construe this by thinking Nabokov wants to psychoanalyze Humbert. Humbert is a very complicated character, and my making a “satirical psychoanalyst” character; Nabokov made his job of showing the reader Humbert an easy one. By making fun of psychoanalyst, Nabokov made the reader understand Humbert deeply and in slightly humorous way. Nabokov never calls Humbert bad or good, but by having Humbert describe himself in the way he does, it makes the character and reader’s relationship stronger.

The Jury

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look a this tangle of thorns" (Lolita, Vldaimir Nabokov, pg 9).

As Nabokov finishes up the first chapter, he addresses the jury, his reader, for the first time formally. By calling the reader “the jury” he is addressing the fact that he is talking about something overly sensitive to many people and most will judge either him or his character—possibly both. It’s not the last time he will address his readership, but it is the start of the trend in the book. Any time an unconventional occurrence is about to happen, the reader is addressed as “the jury.” It’s a way to warn the reader, but as to make a point that the reader will make judgments on the character either fairly or unfairly. In calling his readers the jury, Nabokov is making his reader a character in the book; he is fully immersing the reader in the story. By making the reader a character, it brings the reader in more closely to the story. The readers aren’t just outsiders looking in; they are insiders watching what’s going on firsthand. It’s a nice trick that Nabokov uses to make the reader become closer to the story. When the reader is a character among a character they loathe or find disgusting, it’s much harder to distance oneself from the evil and sin.

By using the word “jury,” the Nabokov is presenting the character and his actions as something that has to be justified. Since the person the character loves is illegal and somewhat intangible, negative feelings and assumptions are made toward all of his actions to the girl.

“Exhibit number one” is the beginning to a rather psychoanalytic approach to justifying his actions. After this point he talks about why he is the way he is, in a way that one would talk to their therapist about their feelings--ironically, and somewhat satirically considering the fact that Nabokov openly hated Freud (fully talked about in the introduction of the book), the father of psychoanalysis.

“What the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied,” refers to the people who don’t understand his love; the real, passionate love he has. They are misinformed by the social assumptions put in place about men who like young girls. These men are assembled to be sick, but he disagrees. They are simple for the same reason that they are misinformed—they just don’t know. “Noble-winged seraphs” talks about the royalty these judgment people think they have. They think they are angelically royal in all they do, but they are jealous of the real love he has for Lo.

“Look at this tangle of thorns” is such a great introduction to the rest of the novel. It’s complicated. Thorns are viewed as destructive and ugly. But thorns hold roses, one of the most beautiful flowers. A tangle of ugly thorns protects the beauty that is true to Humbert; his love is beautiful, as is the object of his love.

To Freud or not to Freud

     John Ray Jr. is the character that’s supposed to make the novel feel less fictional and somehow give the book more validity. He supposedly edits the novel and is one of the first people to look at the novel, so he takes the novel and somewhat interprets the novel for his perspective. He is the cousin of the lawyer who is defending Humbert Humbert for his sex crimes, so he does have a slight bias toward him, but Humbert has died at this point so most of the personal information he gets is either from his cousin or the novel itself.  

     The way John Ray Jr. explains the way Humbert feels and lives makes him seem as much more of a bad person than Humbert describes himself. Humbert tries to justify what he says, sometimes coming off as rather disgusting, but he at least tries to validate his actions. “I am ready to believe that the sensations I derived from natural fornication were much the same as those known to normal big males consorting with their normal big mates in that routine rhythm which shakes the world” (18). However, John Ray says that he is still a sinner and a disgrace—making him ugly. “No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conductive to attractiveness” (5). While I was reading John Ray Jr., I couldn’t help but agree with him. It was easy to see his point of view and agree. But, I felt as if it was a bad place to put such a passage; I didn’t want that coming into the book. I wish I would have read chapters one through ten and then went back to read the Foreword. It somehow offset the book in a way that I didn’t want. It was most definitely strategically placed, but no one I wanted.

      The book takes on a sarcastic tone that seems different from “The Enchanter”. The characters keep explaining why they are the way they are, which isn’t a style Nabokov would generally use. However, it seems as if he is trying to draw in all types of readers to his novel—he wants to controversial while also maintaining a readership. One way he does this is by making the novel feel less of a fiction piece (talking about the trial, other people’s death, the moral and social issues with Humbert’s behavior). By making the book have a nonfiction feeling; the reader can bring in more feeling toward the character and the character’s actions. When the read feels like the character is doing something bad, it’s easier to feel hatred toward a real person (or someone who feels real) than a fiction person who isn’t actually committing the crime.

       In some ways Nabokov approaches this subject matter in a banal way, however, he does seem to do this in a rather satirical way. Nabokov writes in a way that seems to be making fun of other authors in the beginning of “Lolita.” So far, the story doesn’t seem as if it has an incredible different story line from a structured story of someone else. However, I think that something is going to happen to make a change. Nabokov always talks about the game he plays with his reader; it seems as if this maneuver is just a game he is playing. 

      While I was reading the first ten chapters of “Lolita,” I couldn’t help but think that Nabokov sounds like he is talking to Freud. While Humbert was talking about his feelings, it seemed as if Freud was psychoanalyzing him. In the first ten chapters, the reader (thinking from a Psychodynamic perspective) knew exactly why Humbert was the way he was. Freud would say that Humbert was stuck in the Phallic stage, due to his mother’s death at a young age and the first girl he loved died when she was fourteen. Since I know how Nabokov thinks of Frued, which is one of almost hatred, I can to think Nabokov is playing a game—almost a satirical game. I also felt this way about the way Cordelia was described in “The Enchanter,” but it seems to be even more obvious in the way that Humbert describes himself and the way he feels about his situation. He tries to justify his actions constantly, which is a huge aspect of Psychodynamic therapy.

      In reference to his vulgar undertones in the book, I can’t help but think it goes back to somehow spiting Freudian thought. The more vulgar and disturbing the character is, the more likely one will sympathize with him. And, it’s much easier to sympathize with a character when they feel real, which easily explains the foreword and its purpose. I feel that it’s much too hard to answer the why Nabokov is writing the way he is so soon in the book. While reading anything from Nabokov one has to be rather weary in what they take from him. He isn’t a writer who says everything, or maybe anything, just he way it is. It’s always a game—something the reader has to constantly keep in mind.

The idea.

After listening to other comments about Nabokov’s purpose and portrait of the main character in The Enchanter in class, I couldn’t help but constantly go back to the moment the books changes—the moment his wife (the girl’s mother) dies. From this scene on, the character seems to lose control over every aspect of the situation, even his actions toward the girl. When he hears about his wife’s death, he becomes angry, even though his ultimate goal has been made (48). When I first read that scene, I thought it was a rather odd reaction to have; but, as I re-visit the story, I see how it was the turning point to his losing his enchantment toward the girl. As the story progresses, he turns into a very awkward and clumsy character. Before he was awkward, but he could still seem somewhat sociable. After this scene, however, he becomes angry. He yells at the police when they think he is someone he is not (66). The way Nabokov rights the story, it almost seems as if he is going to be caught. Even though they have the wrong person, his speech to the police made him seem as if he is guilty. “Wait for some accusations, gentlemen, wait for somebody to lodge a little complaint!” (66). During this time as well, the little girl was rather cold to him; she wanted to sit next to the driver and refused to sit next to him (62). However, the point at which he seemed to be the angriest was when he thought she had locked him out of their room, even though he merely tried to open the wrong door (68). It seemed odd of him to be so angry with her and the other occupants when he was the one who had made the mistake in the first place.

He looses all control, though, when he violates the little girl. The wording Nabokov uses makes the reader cringe during the scene. The reader, like the character, pushes through the scene… “Onward, onward” (73). The reader wants him to stop, but he doesn’t. His movements aren’t smooth when he is with her, as he had envisioned they would be. He’s clumsy and ends up ruining his entire goal. As soon as his wife dies, the story changes. He is no longer pursuing a goal, but obtaining it. Once he started obtaining the goal, had to push to get it. It was almost as if he didn’t want it (even though he did), but he kept going because he felt like he had to do it. He also seemed as if he didn’t like how it was going—it was much different from what he envisioned it being. It was awkward and his body moved awkwardly along hers. Instead of being a moment he thought he would love and something he wanted; it ended up being a moment he didn’t quite like at all. He didn’t find her as beautiful as when he first saw her (58).

It was strange to see his progression go from something he really wanted, but constantly struggled with and tried to suppress, to something he didn’t want but felt as if he had to finish. He was her prey. He had been hunting her for so long. It was all he wanted, but everything he didn’t.

The Enchanter's Guilt

Throughout “The Enchanter” there was a strong sense of suppression and guilt (between both the characters and the reader) in a deeply eloquent text. Nabokov uses rich and vividly descriptive adjectives for every thought, sight or sound of the Enchanter, but he never labels that character as a pedophile, in contrast to each other character being given an adjective. In a way, it seems as if this tactic was to keep such a negative word out of the vocabulary of the book to ensure a deeper connection between that character and the reader. The reader almost feels sad for him when he first sees Cordelia after being parted for a long period of time and she doesn’t seem to be quite as beautiful to her as she had previously been (58). Even though his actions are seen as socially and morally wrong, he speaks about these infatuations in the most loving way. He even marries and cares for her mother to take ownership of her (29). Only in the end is there a great sense of guilt when he and Cordelia are naked as she sleeps (73). Nabokov makes the reader almost want it to work out between the two characters, but in the final scene the reader feels guilty for wanting The Enchanter to be able to love such a young and innocent child. As soon as Nabokov describes the girl’s small body as The Enchanter sees and feels her (70-71), pure disgust and guilt boil up inside the reader.

The sense of suppression was only felt in The Enchanter, himself. He describes his suppression as well as Nabokov. Even in the beginning he talks about his suppression, for he was “seeking justification for [his] guilt” (6). His desires made him awkward and he wasn’t very good at talking to people, but for some reason, people liked to talk to him. In the park, the knitter talked to him without him responding much (10).  He also felt as if he would get caught from his awkwardness. If he would have been a smooth fellow, he could have gotten Cordelia in his lap while they were in the park talking together and no one would have seen it as a strange thing (12).  He was so capable of suppressing his urges he knew when he had to run from his desire, especially when he was in the park (10). His suppression and guilt are the two driving forces that pull the story along. He tries not to fall in love with Cordelia, but it just sort of happens and there isn’t much he can do about it, except to be an influential person in her life. His suppression soon boils over when he, as he had planned, got her alone with him. After a long period of time, he had suppressed his urges enough and could finally do as he pleased with her. The final scene between the two is awkward and hard to read, but it’s one that must be read because the reader wants to know if he deflowers her and gets what he wants, or fails. He does get close to his goals, disgustingly close, but inevitably fails. Even the wording becomes awkward in this scene, especially when Nabokov describes his genitals as “his magic wand” (73). He could no longer suppress what he knew was wrong, so he ran away in guilt.

“The Enchanter” is beautifully written, but it comes with a strange guilt. It’s not something one would want to deal with or go through, so it’s uncomfortable. However, it’s a story of love, which is something most humans are drawn to read. In the end, one does feel disgustingly guilty about connecting with The Enchanter, but the end is somewhat satisfying.  

The Puzzle that is Nabokov

Nabokov strikes me as an author who lives in the world of his novels. He is capable of functioning within the world we all live in, but when I read about him he seems arrogant. I tend to not want to like him as a person, but then I almost feel sorry for him by the negative way he was portrayed in the biography. He talked about his flaws as the misfortune of his Russian heritage writing for English speaking readers, but it is only a flaw when he is asked if there is something he could improve upon; at any other time, he is happy of his heritage and he even admitted to enjoying his life in America. He was obviously, knowing his popularity, a great writer, but he seemed to live in a world that he was the center of. He thought other authors weren’t as good as him, even when most other people thought they were some of the best. He teased and made fun of people who were different from him, but saw nothing wrong with the way he was; at least that’s how he acted. His relationship with Wilson seemed competitive, but Nabokov was constantly looking for approval in Wilson, which never really happened. His inability to maintain stable relationships is perhaps why he was so meticulous in writing and being a self-taught lepidopterist. I think what he lacks with real people he puts into his characters. He is incapable with connecting with people unless he writes about them in some way or another. He romanticizes about anywhere he isn’t; he seems to never be satisfied. He talks about the 30s as if he would have been more popular and better liked if he had been successful then; if he had started out in America or speaking English first he may have been capable to connect to his readers more, so he believed. I think it was also this romantic notion he had about other times and places within those times that kept him slightly satisfied in his writing—he was able to bring any time or place he wanted to life, just as he wanted it. However, most of what we believe we know is based purely on the interpretation of a biographer, which brings in the element of bias. If my bias toward Nabokov is the same as the biographer then I may not notice the bias as much as I would toward a biographer who has a different bias. But a lot of what was said within the biography seems to be supported in the interview. Nabokov had to be so controlling he couldn’t just walk into an interview and talk about himself. He had to be in control of what questions he answered and those questions had to be answered exactly how he wanted, which bring me right back to the belief that he lived in a different world. Of course the biographer can do so much to capture the real Nabokov, but it seems like that is an impossible feat. Perhaps Nabokov turned himself into one of his characters or he turned the world into his own, which was why he had to write out the answers ahead of him to his interviews. But, I find it hard to believe that Nabokov was as cocky and arrogant as he seems when he writes beautiful and flowerily literature; if seems as if he finds the most joy in writing this careful, controlled way.