First off, is this a true story. I think I missed that. I would like to say that his writing style is HORRIBLE. I do not like it one bit, but the events and the fact that he is letting his ID come out makes me want to read on regardless of his writing style. What also really bothers me is that a lot of his dialogues or expressions are in French. I do not speak or read French; this is similar to All the Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy. Is the French taking away from the story like Sergio and Eliza and others have suggested with Spanish? I personally think it does. I would love to know what and why he is saying these phrases so I can understand why they are significant. This gives insight to other characters, like when he is talking about the works he is publishing he calls is a “Histoire abregee de la poesie anglaise” (18). This detracts from the reading because I have no idea what is going on. Yes it is true that this is one of those pieces where there are cognates but there are others that loose me and the meaning of the story all together. Can I also note on how creepy the narrator is. He waits in areas of the house and tries to locate Lolita by just sitting there, “Is Lo in her room? … Just heard the toilet paper cylinder make its staccato sound as it is turned” (51). The fact that he is so compulsive shows how desperate he is, but why? What motivates him to be so attached instead of just liking Lolita?
I disagree with you Gina, the writing style of the book matches the message of the book. The writing style is hard to follow doesn't make sense or has inaccurate facts, but that matches the mind of the main character. Humbert is deranged, and so is writing style-- its twisted an weird, yet at times humorous.
I do agree with you though when it comes to Humbert's Id. He does indeed let it run rampant. What he is doing, feeling, etc he knows is wrong. As said on page 17, "While my body knew what it craved for, my mind rejected my body's every plea" (Nabokov). Its obvious that Humbert knows he is in the wrong, but he can't help it-- I can't wait to see what happens when eventually Lolita and Humbert get together.
So I officially decided to join in on Lolita guys. I am not too sure how far ahead in the book you all are but I read. I definitely hear what Gina is saying, and it is something I have always said myself. I realize that being in the midst of another language can feel kind of awkward and you feel misplaced which distracts you from the reading. Nonetheless though, I hear Rachel out. His style is as I have heard many say lately is "stream of conscience". I personally prefer this type of writing mainly because I feel connected with the main character at all times. One thing that I wanted to bring up is: fighting urges. Rachel got the quote right on the dot for me. When is it okay to reserve or fight your urges and then act on them at other times? Is it possible that when you’re young you are more likely to act on urge and as you get older you are less likely, or vice versa? Well I will be in touch with you guys in school to get the reading schedule from someone. For now, I am enjoying the book, hope you all are too.
I think the stream of conscience is what is messing you up Gina and I agree that it is hard to get used to. We have always read books that have a more cut and dry approach to writing styles. I agree with Danah that you feel more connected to the character by using this writing style and that the author is very smart for doing this. This is a book about a pedophile. The ONLY way a normal person would ever be able to understand his thoughts and connect with him is by having the writing style that basically is spewing anything and everything out of his brain.
On to the actual story, I don't want to give too much away and spoil it for Danah, but what I realizes is that this novel is making me question what is acceptable in society. To summarize one of Humbert's quotes-- he talks about how some child in history was married and had copulated with an older man-- similar to what he would like to do with Lolita. It made wonder if Humbert really was a creep or someone born in the wrong time period. Is he wrong with trying to be someone who is younger than himself, where a century ago it would have been permissible? In other words, what make something wrong and if society changes its mind do citizens have to agree with it.
Hey! 1) Reading your post made me think of a really good idea and then I forgot it. I am going o try and remeber it and will post tomorrow. 2) And I agree about the reading style, you just know I have a hard time as it is… but you are right it is smart of the writer to use this type of style that does not make sense. But before that happens, I agree Rachel. Reading this book makes me wonder as well who dictates what is acceptable. As you said, Rachel, how was it established that dating younger women or men is not okay? Why did this standard change, it is the same with slavery. I am not saying it is right, but what I am suggesting is who made it ok for people to think themselves higher than another race? Why do we have these laws or standards, is it because every Id is differnet and if we let them run free it will cause anarchy? But then again there are others like Humbert who like "guileless limbs" (60) and "the beauty of [a] dimpled [young adolecent] body" (61). I mean can we all be classified as races based on our Id? Is that how we are suppose to be living, by identify who has a simillar Id like how we identify those of a simillar religion and race?
Okay, So I am just going to take this back a few steps. We all understand and realize that the stream of conscience writing style, all though not preferred by all, is accepted and understood. Now what I want to talk about is this BIG double standard that we have going on right now. Isn't it just a little funny that we have the young girl as the nymphomaniac and not the older man? I mean all though I like Humbert as a character, I would really like and almost need to know what is going on in this girls head the whole time. I do not mean to continuously steal Rachel's quotes but they apply to what I am bringing up. Humbert says “the beauty of [a] dimpled [young adolescent] body" (61). This makes him seem like the pervert, the nymphomaniac, when he has simply fallen subject to a girls desires and fantasies. I remember when I first bought the book, some old man in the store said to me "Ohhhhhh that is such a controversial book. Are you sure you are ready for that?” In my head, I was like this old man is crazy, what in the world could be so bad about an old man preying on a little girl? I hear it on the news all the time, what’s the difference if I read it? The difference is, I WAS TRICKED!!! This little girl is the drive to the story and she gets so little criticism, only Humbert, the male. Let me stop ranting, but I would just like to say that there should be a Lolita pt. 2. It should be called.... Lolitatita.
Danah I completely agree. In the story it is clear that Humabrt is clearly manipulating Lolita. He says so explicitly to the reader when he was “rubbing all this in” her face telling her that if he was arrested, she would be placed in foster homes where she wouldn’t get expensive clothes or he threatened to make her his student and teach her boring French (153). He had no shame in trying to make her believe that her life would be nothing without him. However how much of this is Lo’s fault? Lo secretly told him when she picked him up at camp that they “are lovers” (116) and that he mother would flip out when she finds out that they are sleeping in the same room and would be driven to “divorce” Humbert and “strangle” Lo (121). She has instigated a lot of what is going on in the book, she initiates sex between them the first night they were together, “’You mean,’ she persisted, now kneeling above me, ‘you never did it when you were a kid’” (135). Lo was the reason why Humbert touched her, she is just as guilty as he is. Or is she? Is this the result of a traumatized child? But then this raises the question, what in fact traumatized her? She has not found out that her mom is dead until later, she went to camp, and she held Humberts hand before this. How is this traumatizing, how is it not her equally her fault? Personally I think that Lo is just as much to blame as Humbert, but how can we as a society hold a minor accountable for their actions? This is why they are minors, should we change society’s rules because clearly children are able to make their own decisions without the help of adults. (I do not believe this but that is the message I am getting from the book.)
I agree with you Gina, Lolita is the instigator, yet as a child she cannot be treated like one. There is a phrase that goes 'Don't treat me like a kid and punish me like an adult.' And in Lolita's case, if they were to be caught she would be treated and punished like a child, even though she was doing adult activities. Moreover Lolita and Humbert are both consenting the only problem, is that she isn't an adult.
Anyway, I think this book is controversial because it is so taboo. Almost every page is littered with sexual terms, meaning, or activities. Sex is driving this novel, even in its most perverse nature. I think that is interesting that in the second paragraph of chapter 31, Humbert talks about how in different parts society what he was doing is perfectly okay. He talks about different parts of Cincinnati and Chicago where this is allowed. I think he knows what he is doing wrong by society's standards, but not moral standards. Because society changes, who is to say he is right or wrong?
What I think is so funny is that Humbert addresses us readers as "the jury". It is almost as if Humbert is trying to convince us or himself that he is innocent. That everything he is doing is in no form wrong. Like Rachel said, it is such a controversial book and the biggest theme and question is how do you decipher right from wrong? If they do get caught or found out, Lolita will be punished as a child and Humbert as a perverse man. I don't entirely understand how this is so taboo, because honestly this is a situation that happens more often than people presume. Both an older man engaging and an older woman engaging in a younger partner. I do understand how years could keep them apart from a maturity aspect but obviously people are attracted to one another for a reason. whether it be as the Freudian theory states, you know just to reproduce. Or lust comes over them. It happens and society needs to accept that and stop acting so taboo about it.
Hey everyone I am sorry it took me so long to post for last week; I’ve been so busy with babysitting and other school work. I will be on time this week!! Danah, I am so glad you mentioned what I had said about the text from our discussion! The specific quote I was referring to was on the first page when he is basically giving an open statement; he clearly says “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the serphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied” (11). Although this quote is nonsense he is actually speaking to a jury. He specifically says, “My lawyer has suggested I give a clear, frank account of the itinerary we followed…” (155). this is also supported by the quote where he explains that before he got caught he was actually doing pretty well with Lo (I cannot find the page/quote and it is driving me crazy.) Which would make you wonder just how they got caught? But one may question actually how Lo and he are actually doing. He wants to shelter Lo, wants to be with her all the time, he even uses binoculars to watch her and her friends while they are at school (181). I feel as if there is a juxtaposition between their age and actually how far they travel. Their age keeps growing; the difference becomes more distinct physically as well. But in addition to this the farther they travel around the United States, the more they grow apart. Humbert wants to keep his little girl, but Lo is too sheltered, is unable to live the life she wants. For such reasons she becomes more uncontrollable and unbearable. They grow further and further apart as they age unlike those who grow old together who love and cherish each other. There a a lot of literary devices, they are very cleverly hidden.
My question is what will Humbert do when Lolita grows up? Does he love her, or only her at a certain age? Does that go for all relationships? Do people love more during a certain age? In Lolita, it seems Humbert's fascination with Lolita is due to her age. If the relationship continues as is, Humbert might stop seeing Lolita as attractive.
I say this because I believe somewhere, Humbert must care for Lolita. When she was sick, on page 239, we was clearly worried for her. I want to believe that he cares for her on a deeper level than just pedophilic lust.
Last Post: What a crazy ending!! Humbert killed Clare Quilty, got caught in the most ironic way, and found Lolita. Its so interesting (and kind of satisfying to know) that Humbert really loved Lolita. Not her age or her nymphet ways, but her. Although both of them dies, I feel like there was some sort of closure at the end of the book.
Humbert good or bad, was a man definitely worth reading about-- the same goes for Lolita. I don't feel like I could call them moral or amoral, but they certainly made for an interesting read. All in all it was a good book.
I agree with Rachel about the closure at the end of the book. However I wanted to bring up a passage that stuck out to me while reading but had forgotten to bring it up! Humbert was describing his relationship with Lo as something "soiled, torn, dead" (187). This was before any of the drama Rachel mentioned above, it is clear that the narrator was foreshadowing. But it is also interesting how the narrator felt that his love with Lolita was dying, it can also be inferred that it was Lolita's fault. Yes he loved her like Rachel mentioned but it was a one way street. But this is strange considering that when Humbert let her have a party and he chummed around with her friend Lo, she sent her away (193). It is clear that Lo was jealous of Mona, but there is a difference between wanting a life with Humbert and liking the attention. Which raises the question is it ok to lead on someone? The author clearly says no, but how can you tell when you are blinded by love like Humbert?
Hey Everyone!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's Gina.
First off, is this a true story. I think I missed that. I would like to say that his writing style is HORRIBLE. I do not like it one bit, but the events and the fact that he is letting his ID come out makes me want to read on regardless of his writing style. What also really bothers me is that a lot of his dialogues or expressions are in French. I do not speak or read French; this is similar to All the Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy. Is the French taking away from the story like Sergio and Eliza and others have suggested with Spanish? I personally think it does. I would love to know what and why he is saying these phrases so I can understand why they are significant. This gives insight to other characters, like when he is talking about the works he is publishing he calls is a “Histoire abregee de la poesie anglaise” (18). This detracts from the reading because I have no idea what is going on. Yes it is true that this is one of those pieces where there are cognates but there are others that loose me and the meaning of the story all together.
Can I also note on how creepy the narrator is. He waits in areas of the house and tries to locate Lolita by just sitting there, “Is Lo in her room? … Just heard the toilet paper cylinder make its staccato sound as it is turned” (51). The fact that he is so compulsive shows how desperate he is, but why? What motivates him to be so attached instead of just liking Lolita?
I disagree with you Gina, the writing style of the book matches the message of the book. The writing style is hard to follow doesn't make sense or has inaccurate facts, but that matches the mind of the main character. Humbert is deranged, and so is writing style-- its twisted an weird, yet at times humorous.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you though when it comes to Humbert's Id. He does indeed let it run rampant. What he is doing, feeling, etc he knows is wrong. As said on page 17, "While my body knew what it craved for, my mind rejected my body's every plea" (Nabokov). Its obvious that Humbert knows he is in the wrong, but he can't help it-- I can't wait to see what happens when eventually Lolita and Humbert get together.
So I officially decided to join in on Lolita guys. I am not too sure how far ahead in the book you all are but I read. I definitely hear what Gina is saying, and it is something I have always said myself. I realize that being in the midst of another language can feel kind of awkward and you feel misplaced which distracts you from the reading. Nonetheless though, I hear Rachel out. His style is as I have heard many say lately is "stream of conscience". I personally prefer this type of writing mainly because I feel connected with the main character at all times. One thing that I wanted to bring up is: fighting urges. Rachel got the quote right on the dot for me. When is it okay to reserve or fight your urges and then act on them at other times? Is it possible that when you’re young you are more likely to act on urge and as you get older you are less likely, or vice versa? Well I will be in touch with you guys in school to get the reading schedule from someone. For now, I am enjoying the book, hope you all are too.
ReplyDeleteI think the stream of conscience is what is messing you up Gina and I agree that it is hard to get used to. We have always read books that have a more cut and dry approach to writing styles. I agree with Danah that you feel more connected to the character by using this writing style and that the author is very smart for doing this. This is a book about a pedophile. The ONLY way a normal person would ever be able to understand his thoughts and connect with him is by having the writing style that basically is spewing anything and everything out of his brain.
ReplyDeleteOn to the actual story, I don't want to give too much away and spoil it for Danah, but what I realizes is that this novel is making me question what is acceptable in society. To summarize one of Humbert's quotes-- he talks about how some child in history was married and had copulated with an older man-- similar to what he would like to do with Lolita. It made wonder if Humbert really was a creep or someone born in the wrong time period. Is he wrong with trying to be someone who is younger than himself, where a century ago it would have been permissible? In other words, what make something wrong and if society changes its mind do citizens have to agree with it.
Hey!
ReplyDelete1) Reading your post made me think of a really good idea and then I forgot it. I am going o try and remeber it and will post tomorrow.
2) And I agree about the reading style, you just know I have a hard time as it is… but you are right it is smart of the writer to use this type of style that does not make sense.
But before that happens, I agree Rachel. Reading this book makes me wonder as well who dictates what is acceptable. As you said, Rachel, how was it established that dating younger women or men is not okay? Why did this standard change, it is the same with slavery. I am not saying it is right, but what I am suggesting is who made it ok for people to think themselves higher than another race? Why do we have these laws or standards, is it because every Id is differnet and if we let them run free it will cause anarchy? But then again there are others like Humbert who like "guileless limbs" (60) and "the beauty of [a] dimpled [young adolecent] body" (61). I mean can we all be classified as races based on our Id? Is that how we are suppose to be living, by identify who has a simillar Id like how we identify those of a simillar religion and race?
Okay, So I am just going to take this back a few steps. We all understand and realize that the stream of conscience writing style, all though not preferred by all, is accepted and understood. Now what I want to talk about is this BIG double standard that we have going on right now. Isn't it just a little funny that we have the young girl as the nymphomaniac and not the older man? I mean all though I like Humbert as a character, I would really like and almost need to know what is going on in this girls head the whole time. I do not mean to continuously steal Rachel's quotes but they apply to what I am bringing up. Humbert says “the beauty of [a] dimpled [young adolescent] body" (61). This makes him seem like the pervert, the nymphomaniac, when he has simply fallen subject to a girls desires and fantasies. I remember when I first bought the book, some old man in the store said to me "Ohhhhhh that is such a controversial book. Are you sure you are ready for that?” In my head, I was like this old man is crazy, what in the world could be so bad about an old man preying on a little girl? I hear it on the news all the time, what’s the difference if I read it? The difference is, I WAS TRICKED!!! This little girl is the drive to the story and she gets so little criticism, only Humbert, the male. Let me stop ranting, but I would just like to say that there should be a Lolita pt. 2. It should be called.... Lolitatita.
ReplyDeleteDanah I completely agree. In the story it is clear that Humabrt is clearly manipulating Lolita. He says so explicitly to the reader when he was “rubbing all this in” her face telling her that if he was arrested, she would be placed in foster homes where she wouldn’t get expensive clothes or he threatened to make her his student and teach her boring French (153). He had no shame in trying to make her believe that her life would be nothing without him. However how much of this is Lo’s fault?
ReplyDeleteLo secretly told him when she picked him up at camp that they “are lovers” (116) and that he mother would flip out when she finds out that they are sleeping in the same room and would be driven to “divorce” Humbert and “strangle” Lo (121). She has instigated a lot of what is going on in the book, she initiates sex between them the first night they were together, “’You mean,’ she persisted, now kneeling above me, ‘you never did it when you were a kid’” (135). Lo was the reason why Humbert touched her, she is just as guilty as he is. Or is she? Is this the result of a traumatized child? But then this raises the question, what in fact traumatized her? She has not found out that her mom is dead until later, she went to camp, and she held Humberts hand before this. How is this traumatizing, how is it not her equally her fault?
Personally I think that Lo is just as much to blame as Humbert, but how can we as a society hold a minor accountable for their actions? This is why they are minors, should we change society’s rules because clearly children are able to make their own decisions without the help of adults. (I do not believe this but that is the message I am getting from the book.)
I agree with you Gina, Lolita is the instigator, yet as a child she cannot be treated like one. There is a phrase that goes 'Don't treat me like a kid and punish me like an adult.' And in Lolita's case, if they were to be caught she would be treated and punished like a child, even though she was doing adult activities. Moreover Lolita and Humbert are both consenting the only problem, is that she isn't an adult.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think this book is controversial because it is so taboo. Almost every page is littered with sexual terms, meaning, or activities. Sex is driving this novel, even in its most perverse nature. I think that is interesting that in the second paragraph of chapter 31, Humbert talks about how in different parts society what he was doing is perfectly okay. He talks about different parts of Cincinnati and Chicago where this is allowed. I think he knows what he is doing wrong by society's standards, but not moral standards. Because society changes, who is to say he is right or wrong?
What I think is so funny is that Humbert addresses us readers as "the jury". It is almost as if Humbert is trying to convince us or himself that he is innocent. That everything he is doing is in no form wrong. Like Rachel said, it is such a controversial book and the biggest theme and question is how do you decipher right from wrong? If they do get caught or found out, Lolita will be punished as a child and Humbert as a perverse man. I don't entirely understand how this is so taboo, because honestly this is a situation that happens more often than people presume. Both an older man engaging and an older woman engaging in a younger partner. I do understand how years could keep them apart from a maturity aspect but obviously people are attracted to one another for a reason. whether it be as the Freudian theory states, you know just to reproduce. Or lust comes over them. It happens and society needs to accept that and stop acting so taboo about it.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone I am sorry it took me so long to post for last week; I’ve been so busy with babysitting and other school work. I will be on time this week!!
ReplyDeleteDanah, I am so glad you mentioned what I had said about the text from our discussion! The specific quote I was referring to was on the first page when he is basically giving an open statement; he clearly says “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the serphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied” (11). Although this quote is nonsense he is actually speaking to a jury. He specifically says, “My lawyer has suggested I give a clear, frank account of the itinerary we followed…” (155). this is also supported by the quote where he explains that before he got caught he was actually doing pretty well with Lo (I cannot find the page/quote and it is driving me crazy.) Which would make you wonder just how they got caught?
But one may question actually how Lo and he are actually doing. He wants to shelter Lo, wants to be with her all the time, he even uses binoculars to watch her and her friends while they are at school (181). I feel as if there is a juxtaposition between their age and actually how far they travel. Their age keeps growing; the difference becomes more distinct physically as well. But in addition to this the farther they travel around the United States, the more they grow apart. Humbert wants to keep his little girl, but Lo is too sheltered, is unable to live the life she wants. For such reasons she becomes more uncontrollable and unbearable. They grow further and further apart as they age unlike those who grow old together who love and cherish each other. There a a lot of literary devices, they are very cleverly hidden.
My question is what will Humbert do when Lolita grows up? Does he love her, or only her at a certain age? Does that go for all relationships? Do people love more during a certain age? In Lolita, it seems Humbert's fascination with Lolita is due to her age. If the relationship continues as is, Humbert might stop seeing Lolita as attractive.
ReplyDeleteI say this because I believe somewhere, Humbert must care for Lolita. When she was sick, on page 239, we was clearly worried for her. I want to believe that he cares for her on a deeper level than just pedophilic lust.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteThis is my good-bye. I'm officially switching to Olive Kitterage. Hope the book ends well. Im certain I will finish it one day. Enjoy!
Danah
Last Post: What a crazy ending!! Humbert killed Clare Quilty, got caught in the most ironic way, and found Lolita. Its so interesting (and kind of satisfying to know) that Humbert really loved Lolita. Not her age or her nymphet ways, but her. Although both of them dies, I feel like there was some sort of closure at the end of the book.
ReplyDeleteHumbert good or bad, was a man definitely worth reading about-- the same goes for Lolita. I don't feel like I could call them moral or amoral, but they certainly made for an interesting read. All in all it was a good book.
I agree with Rachel about the closure at the end of the book. However I wanted to bring up a passage that stuck out to me while reading but had forgotten to bring it up! Humbert was describing his relationship with Lo as something "soiled, torn, dead" (187). This was before any of the drama Rachel mentioned above, it is clear that the narrator was foreshadowing. But it is also interesting how the narrator felt that his love with Lolita was dying, it can also be inferred that it was Lolita's fault. Yes he loved her like Rachel mentioned but it was a one way street. But this is strange considering that when Humbert let her have a party and he chummed around with her friend Lo, she sent her away (193). It is clear that Lo was jealous of Mona, but there is a difference between wanting a life with Humbert and liking the attention. Which raises the question is it ok to lead on someone? The author clearly says no, but how can you tell when you are blinded by love like Humbert?
ReplyDelete