8) In chapter 28 Humbert has a curious conversation with a man on the porch of the hotel:
"'Where the devil did you get her?'
'I beg your pardon?'
'I said: the weather is getting better.'
'Seems so.'
'Who’s the lassie?'
'My daughter.'
'You lie—she’s not.'
'I beg your pardon?'
'I said: July was hot. Where’s her mother?'
'Dead.'"
Do you think that Humbert was hearing things and misheard the guy or was the guy really accusing Humbert of something?
I think Humbert has a lot of paranoia, firstly because he's plotting disgusting things, but also in a mental illness sort of way. I don't think that man actually said anything accusatory, but Humbert's paranoid brain is primed to hear it the wrong way.
I initially suspected he was one of the people "in the know" and such ppl naturally understood each other. But upon further thought, Humpty is just hearing things.
There is something about this hotel, too. Everyone seems complicit.
"'Our double beds are really triple,' Potts cosily said tucking me and my kid in. ‘One crowded night we had three ladies and a child like yours sleep together. I believe one of the ladies was a disguised man [my static]. However— would there be a spare cot in 49, Mr Swine?"
This is how I feel! Everything Humbert describes, from the hotel to the way Dolores talks and acts with him, is suspect because he wants his audience to see his actions as unavoidable and encouraged by everyone around him. Like his hands were tied and he just had to give in, what else could we expect him to do? Gross!
This is a good point I hadn’t seen, but it made me take a second look. There is indeed some suggested complicity. After the quote above, H.H. thinks about the hotel clerks… “The two pink pigs were now among my best friends”. Even the name, “The Enchanted Hunters” suggests some ambiguity between the predatory hunter and the enchanted (by a nymphette?). I also find it intriguing that there is a religious convention and a flower show happening at the same time. I wonder is it is a commentary on religion (morality vs. hypocrisy of clergymen?) and the sexual symbolism of a flower.
> Even the name, “The Enchanted Hunters” suggests some ambiguity between the predatory hunter and the enchanted (by a nymphette?).
I was thinking the same thing.
> I also find it intriguing that there is a religious convention and a flower show happening at the same time. I wonder is it is a commentary on religion (morality vs. hypocrisy of clergymen?) and the sexual symbolism of a flower.
I feel I should have picked up on this but I didn't at all. I think you're absolutely right.
This is another one of those times where I am uncertain of the retelling of events. HH could be projecting his own paranoia on the man at the hotel's question. Did he really give him a hard time about Lo? Or did this exchange happen in his own head, perhaps through an exchanging of looks in the lobby?
My other theory is that this guy is one of those serial travelers who stays in many hotels for work. He may see many older men with questionable partners in his travels.
Same here. I just honestly don't know. I really feel he could be protecting his guilt but he's a narcissist so how much guilt does he really feel. It's so hard to tell.
This is the only scene of this book that I have enjoyed. The voice of the stranger sounded satirical, like someone (his conscience? The devil?) calling him out loud on his depraved behaviour, that he was so sure nobody could see. It reminded me a lot of some scenes in Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita.
>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 the rose sherbet.
It's so sad that such sick desires were so easily sated in the past. Between pederasty and royal harems. Powerful people could openly engorge in their disgusting vices. The progress of morality is the democratization of power. For millenia is was believed that women enjoyed their station as subservient second class citizens, that slaves adored their masters, that foreigners did not have the emotional depth as those you know. Over time, the treatment of each group improved as they gained more and more of a voice and the ability to speak on their issues rather than their perspective be defined by those above them. it makes me wonder, who lacks a voice today? Who is in torment today that society ignores until they one day gain the power to have a voice and state to all that they are suffering.
>As I made my way through a constellation of fixed people
in one corner of the lobby, there came a blinding flash and beaming Dr. Braddock, two orchidornamentalized matrons, the small girl in white, and presumably the bared teeth of Humbert
Humbert sidling between the bride like lassie and the enchanted cleric, were immortalized
insofar as the texture and print of small-town newspapers can be deemed immortal.
So he was caught and this family spoke to the papers that they had seen him once and he had the pervert smile.
>As I learned later from a helpful pharmaceutist, the purple pill did not even belong to the big and
noble family of barbiturates, and though it might have induced sleep in a neurotic who believed
it to be a potent drug, it was too mild a sedative to affect for any length of time a wary, albeit
weary, nymphet. Whether the Ramsdale doctor was a charlatan or a shrewd old rogue, does not,
and did not, really matter. What mattered, was that I had been deceived. When Lolita opened her
eyes again, I realized that whether or not the drug might work later in the night, the security I
had relied upon was a sham one.
Thank heavens
>The
gentle and dreamy regions though which I crept were the patrimonies of poets not crime‟s
prowling ground. Had I reached my goal, my ecstasy would have been all softness, a case of
internal combustion of which she would hardly have felt the heat, even if she were wide awake.
Does he actually think this is a justification? It's not rape if she felt nothing? I'll admit, it's unique.
>every morning,
oh my reader, the three children would take a short cut through the beautiful innocent forest
brimming with all the emblems of youth, dew, birdsongs, and at one point, among the luxuriant
undergrowth, Lo would be left as sentinel, while Barbara and the boy copulated behind a bush.
Where are these kids' parents? I suppose the lesson here is that wealthier parents need to spend more time with their young ones instead of working all the time.
>This was an orphan. This was a lone child,
Page 177an absolute waif, with whom a heavy-limbed, foul-smelling adult had had strenuous intercourse
three times that very morning. Whether or not the realization of a lifelong dream had surpassed
all expectation, it had, in a sense, overshot its mark and plunged into a nightmare.
The fact that he's fully self-aware makes this all the worse. This isn't an ancient Greek practicing the common act of pederasty or an Ottoman noble doing what culture and privilege expects. It's a man of the 20th century, one fully aware of the psychological ramifications of predating on a child, one who feels a pang of responsibility when the child enlightens him on her amorous escapades with friends. Yet upon all this, he still chooses this evil act. There's no "It was just the way back then", and don't give me crap about self control either, he could have left at any time, he could have not married Charlotte to get close to her, he made a series of decisions designed to get to this point here.
>“You chump, ” she said, sweetly smiling at me. “You revolting creature. I was a daisy-fresh girl,
and look what you‟ve done to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me. Oh, you
dirty, dirty old man.”
This feels like a line from a movie. Once again confirming my suspicions that she and her friends are merely copying what they read in novels and see in moving pictures.
>In the gay town of Lepingville I bought her four books of comics, a box of candy, a box of
sanitary pads,
Hear that my fellows. Even a disgusting, contemptuous, pedophile has no qualms buying female hygiene products, you have no excuse.
#Quotes of the week:
1)Charlotte interviewed me about my relations with God. I could have answered that on that score
my mind was open; I said, instead paying my tribute to a pious platitude that I believed in a
cosmic spirit
2)I recalled with a funny pang the frequency with which poor Charlotte used to introduce into
party chat such elegant tidbits as “when my daughter was out hiking last year with the Talbot
girl.”
3)Charlie, who had as much sex appeal as a raw carrot but sported a fascinating collection of
contraceptives which he used to fish out of a third nearby lake, a considerably larger and more
populous one, called Lake Climax,
#Puke Inducers of the week:
1)We are not sex fiends
We do not rape as good soldiers do. We are unhappy, mild, dog-eyed gentlemen, sufficiently
well integrated to control our urge in the presence of adults, but ready to give years and years of
life for one chance to touch a nymphet.
2) I could not
repress a shiver whenever I imagined my nudity hemmed in by mysterious statutes in the
merciless glare of the Common Law.
3) 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 once for all the perilous magic of nymphets.
4)The stipulation of the Roman law, according to which a girl may marry at twelve, was adopted
by the Church, and is still preserved, rather tacitly, in some of the United States. And fifteen is
lawful everywhere. There is nothing wrong, say both hemispheres, when a brute of forty, blessed
by the local priest and bloated with drink, sheds his sweat-drenched finery and thrusts himself up
to the hilt into his youthful bride.
5)he
resembled a little my Swiss uncle Gustave, also a great admirer of le dcouvert would have
experienced had he known that every nerve in me was still anointed and ringed with the feel of
her body the body of some immortal demon disguised as a female child.
6)But “in a wink, ” as the Germans say, the angelic line of conduct was
erased, and I overtook my prey (time moves ahead of our fancies), and she was my Lolita again
in fact, more of my Lolita than ever
For millenia is was believed that women enjoyed their station as subservient second class citizens, that slaves adored their masters, that foreigners did not have the emotional depth as those you know. Over time, the treatment of each group improved as they gained more and more of a voice and the ability to speak on their issues rather than their perspective be defined by those above them. it makes me wonder, who lacks a voice today? Who is in torment today that society ignores until they one day gain the power to have a voice and state to all that they are suffering.
this is put so wonderfully. thanks for sharing this, i copied and pasted it into my notes.
>Hear that my fellows. Even a disgusting, contemptuous, pedophile has no qualms buying female hygiene products, you have no excuse.
Not to make this even more disturbing, but I think the implication is that she's bleeding because of what he did to her.
> Who is in torment today that society ignores until they one day gain the power to have a voice and state to all that they are suffering.
I hate to be this person but I really believe animals need to be liberated. They have no voice but if they did they would let us know that hell exist and it is Earth.
> The gentle and dreamy regions though which I crept were the patrimonies of poets not crime‟s prowling ground. Had I reached my goal, my ecstasy would have been all softness, a case of internal combustion of which she would hardly have felt the heat, even if she were wide awake.
Dolores is not safe and he will try again and again.
> Where are these kids' parents? I suppose the lesson here is that wealthier parents need to spend more time with their young ones instead of working all the time.
I'm with you where is the supervisor for these kids?!
> Hear that my fellows. Even a disgusting, contemptuous, pedophile has no qualms buying female hygiene products, you have no excuse.
I remember my dad buying me some products way back in the day and his only question was "what the hell are wings and why do pads need them?"
There are way too many puke inducers in those novel.
> Does he actually think this is a justification? It's not rape if she felt nothing? I'll admit, it's unique.
Sadly, I've heard worse "justifications" for rape, such as "it wasn't rape because she was wet." Or "a woman's body will shutdown if she's being raped so you can't rape her". And my personal favorite "she was asking for it otherwise why was she wearing they."
Some men are truly disgusting.
>I hate to be this person
Don't be. Society needs to constantly ask itself questions about ethics. It's far too often an ignored topic in general discussions. While I'm not a vegan myself I feel society is genuinely terrified that vegans actually make a lot of good points and prefers to shut them out of conversation through mockery that actually let them present theur challenges to the current order. We should actually have these conversations and if it makes us uncomfortable then it shows that deep down a lot of us have qualms about the treatment of animals.
>a woman's body will shutdown if she's being raped
I remember that one. To think someone that disgusting could get into a government position is scary.
> Don't be. Society needs to constantly ask itself questions about ethics. It's far too often an ignored topic in general discussions. While I'm not a vegan myself I feel society is genuinely terrified that vegans actually make a lot of good points and prefers to shut them out of conversation through mockery that actually let them present theur challenges to the current order.
Thank you! I get really passionate about veganism but I'm not the best of debaters when it comes to defending my beliefs about it. I end up really frustrated and a lot of the times, I end up crying about it. Because of that I don't like to bring it up but I do feel the need to.
> To think someone that disgusting could get into a government position is scary.
It is and it's so disheartening.
It's like watching a car crash. Every sentence just makes him look worse, and I found myself having to re-read sections to confirm to myself that it really was that bad.
> and I found myself having to re-read sections to confirm to myself that it really was that bad.
Me too. I'm so shocked at some parts!! It's a grotesque horror novel for me.
This image that he paints about the rape. To me, it conveys the pain that she must have felt. My heart broke even more for poor Dolores when I read it and I haven't been able to shake that feeling.
"There would have been a fire opal dissolving within a ripple-ringed pool, a last throb, a last dab of color, stinging red, smearing pink, a sigh, a wincing child."
Another thing I wanted to discuss is the night leading to the rape. He seems to truly believe that he is a saint for not assaulting Dolores when she was asleep for fear that she would wake up. Like he is expecting to get a medal.
I hate this man so much. I hate this book so much.
I seriously wanted to puke after reading this. The guy is such a delusional moran to think that he can convince his audience that Dolores wanted any part in this.
The copy I got from the library is a hardcover Everyman's Library edition. The back cover has a bunch of quotes from reviews of the book. What struck me as weird is that all of the quotes make this sound like a comedy. Time Magazine calls it "intensely lyrical and wildly funny," Atlantic Monthly "one of the funniest serious novels I've ever read," etc.
There absolutely is humor in this book, don't get me wrong, but that's really, *really* not what I'd focus on if I were writing a review.
Odd. Perhaps "disturbingly preposterous" would be a better fit. The entire notion of Humbert attempting to persuade the reader of his innocence through his lyrical narrative is intended to be satirical, though.
> The entire notion of Humbert attempting to persuade the reader of his innocence through his lyrical narrative is intended to be satirical,
Very true but it's still not really laugh out loud funny. I don't understand the quote reviews either.
I've been thinking about it, and I'm guessing it was intentional. I mean, everyone knows that *Lolita* is a famously controversial book about a pedophile. No one is going to flip this book to the back cover because they want to find out what reviewers had to say about it. If you know literally anything about this book, you already know what the reviewers had to say.
So I guess they wanted to highlight an aspect of the book that it isn't famous for? I've definitely been surprised at how much humor is in this book. Or maybe they just didn't want to put anything potentially offensive or upsetting on the back cover, and this was the simplest way to do it.
I've seen reviews and analyses that call it a love story (!), a funny satire, and a metaphor that reflects how humanity pursues obsessions/passions. To me, I can't get past the disturbing details to see any of those things. I do hope that you're right and reviewers know we all come to the book aware of the topic and controversial content so they're trying to point out what we may not see... But I can't. It's too horrible for me to analyze it as a broad metaphor or as allegorical or something.
There's a couple more quotes that impacted me and I couldn't find them before:
"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 somebody I had just killed. "
I don't even have words to comment on it.
Later in the car, Dolores breaks the silence to say:
"‘Oh, a squashed squirrel,’ she said. ‘What a shame.’ "
I think she sees herself in that squirrel. And "what a shame", the way I read it, is a dettached way to observe it. An, "it is what it is" of sorts. A giving up on herself.
Also, I get shivers down my spine every time he calls her "pet".
That chapter made me sad. Here's Humbert describing what he thinks is the best day of his life but what about Dolores? The poor child has had the worse day of her life and will be traumatized for life because of it. He really is a disgusting human being.
I noticed Humbert addressing the jury as "gentlewomen" in these chapters. I found that really interesting, because supposedly a jury would be made up of men and women. I wonder if he feels that he would not have to appeal to the men of the jury, or if the jury really is made up of all women.
He does refer to the audience as gentlemen in earlier chapters. So I do believe the switch to gentlewomenis deliberate. I feel he is being manipulative.
In Ch. 30 Humbert describes his experience with Lolita like a mural of sorts, which ends with a depiction of a wincing child. That certainly seems to indicate that she is in pain. Following that she is very moody and sullen, and asks to go to a gas station so she can call her mother. A girl wanting her mother at this time seems to me that she doesn't feel safe.
Hard to get a solid read on her feelings given they're filtered through the corrupt lens of Humpty. She doesn't know what she's doing, just wants to act grown up without an understanding of what it entails. I think she's happy with whatever makes her feel she's older and sexy like the girls in the magazines.
Also no one is going to ever be happier with this than Humpty.
I totally agree. We are seeing what Humpty (god, can we all just call him that??) is telling us.
I've said this before, I think, but it bears repeating. Yes, children in their teens play at being older, play with their newfound attractiveness and new feelings. Our job as adults is to say no to them.
Towards the end of this section Lo becomes wrapped up in her celebrity magazines and deliberately ignores HH. I think her joking about telling the police is one of those jokes that's rooted in a degree of honesty; it wouldn't bother HH so much if it wasn't. She feels empowered by the notion that she has upper hand and could report him. These are signs that she's not going to be a subservient as perhaps he wants her to be.
True. But she's still young and he can easily manipulate her. All he has to do is threaten her with the prospect of being sent to a foster home where she'll no longer have her freedom or the pretty clothes he buys her.
That she understands he's committing a crime probably adds a sense of thrill to the situation. She's managed to one up the girl who introduced her to this by sleeping (getting violated) with a much older man. She'll definitely want to brag to her friends that she's done what they never could and got a road trip and fancy new clothes out of it.
It's much more.likely she tells her friends in a show of bragadociousness than the police.
> It's much more.likely she tells her friends in a show of bragadociousness than the police.
This is so sad because that's exalty how grooming works. I hate this.
> These are signs that she's not going to be a subservient as perhaps he wants her to be.
I completely agree. I think that these are the exact signs that Dolores is not happy about the situation at all. In fact, I think that Humbert is downplaying Dolores discomfort.
>Hard to get a solid read on her feelings given they're filtered through the corrupt lens of Humpty
I have started wondering if Dolores is actually expressing her discomfort more clearly in reality, but Humbert is filtering it all through his twisted perspective to make it seem like jokes. When she talks about incest, calls him a pedophile, says she'll tell the police, etc he presents it as funny and in jest/sarcasm like they're a team in this. But she could actually be arguing or questioning the situation or protesting and we'd never know because he has complete control over her and the narrative. Same with her flirting and initiating sex in the hotel room - she might have been "cooperating" to survive the situation and he wants us to see her as a willing participant instead of coerced into behaviors she didn't actually choose.
I think it is irrelevant. I have been thinking about his including this, as if to tell the reader, "look, children aren't as innocent as you think."
Regardless of whether or not she had sexual experiences at the camp, she is a child and he is an adult.
I agree that she didn't have a lover. I'm still not sure if she lost her virginity but I'm more inclined to believe she had not. I think she thought she had sex but was confused to what that meant. I'm going to copy and paste my comment from a different response to why I believe that:
I think that Dolores probably thought sex was just masturbating with clothes on. It would explain why she thought she knew what sex was and why at the end of chapter 29 she was confused sex with Humbert.
"While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine."
See I don't know if it is a lie or a misunderstanding, I think that Dolores probably thought sex was just masturbating with clothes on. It would explain why she thought she knew what sex was and why at the end of chapter 29 she was confused sex with Humbert.
"While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine."
Yes, and in a way, I'm glad. Her first experience of sex/intimacy was with people her own age, with no ulterior motives other than exploring their bodies.
I believe it. It's the way of the culture. Kids are exposed to raunchy behaviour at a young age and seek to emulate. Her mother also isn't the "talk and understand" type, so Dolores has neither outlet nor a person to vent to. Her influence is another spoiled rich girl who's following the mags and moving pictures because her dad's too busy to discipline her.
Finally, none of these kids are lovers. They're playmates going through the motions of something more.
I agree with all most of what you said especially becauseyou make great points. That being said this quote at the end of chapter 29 makes believe that was was indeed a virgin.
"While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine. Pride alone prevented her from giving up; for, in my strange predicament, I think Supreme stupidity and had her have her way- at least while I could still bear it."
7) Dolores knows that she has no where to go after learning her mother has died. If she did have someone else to turn to, do you think that she would have ran to Humbert that night at the hotel?
Depends on the person and how they treat her. She has more freedom with Humpty and that's more appealing at her age. The fancy clothing doesn't hurt either.
No, but none of this would happen if she had anywhere else to go.
She just lost her mother and she was just raped. He is the one hurting her, yet he is her only source of comfort.
He designed it that way.
I feel so sad that she goes back to him crying, to get some comfort in what would be a terrifying night for her, knowing that she would have to let him touch and rape her again.
I know! I keep putting it off, it's such an awful read.
I wanted to have an open mind. Wanted to give Nabokov the credit that a lot of people give him, but at this point I'm just reading it so that when I say it is an awful book and give it negative stars, I do it in a fully informed way rather than from some preconception that I had of the book.
> but at this point I'm just reading it so that when I say it is an awful book and give it negative stars, I do it in a fully informed way rather than from some preconception that I had of the book.
I respect that.
I don't know if she runs away immediately, but I think should would pretty quickly. Finding out her mother died probably brought her quickly back to reality that she's a child and doesn't really want to have an adult life yet. She's feeling hopelessly stuck.
Because then he would lose control over the situation. He doesn’t want other parties to be involved. Just him and Dolores against the world. And maybe he also wants Dolores to think that there’s no one left for her now except for him.
I agree it's an issue of control. I'm sure he knows she will know eventually, but he wants to be the one to tell her, when it's convenient for him, i.e. when he's already had his way with her.
> And maybe he also wants Dolores to think that there’s no one left for her now except for him.
This is exactly what he wants. He's manipulating the situation to fit his desires.
His record isn't clean, he's been institutionalized multiple times, and with him being an immigrant there may be some issues with how he entered the country. If I remember correctly he only came to the States because of an inheritance from his uncle, who expected him to take over his business, which may have been shady or not have a good-enough paper trail.
Agreeing with the other commenters about legal implications, but I think there's something else to it. Adopting her would place him in a father-like role, and ruin the image he has of her as his lover.
>Never had I thought that the rather ridiculous,
through rather handsome Mrs. Haze, with her blind faith in the wisdom of her church and book
club, her mannerisms of elocution, her harsh, cold, contemptuous attitude toward an adorable,
downy-armed child of twelve, could turn into such a touching, helpless creature as soon as I laid
my hands upon her which happened on the threshold of Lolita‟s room whither she tremulously
backed repeating “no, no, please no.”
The transformation improved her looks. Her smile that had been such a contrived thing,
thenceforth became the radiance of utter adoration a radiance having something soft and moist
about it,
He takes delight in her saying no? I'm already afraid for this woman. He seems to enjoy it when she exhibits childish tendencies and a lack of consent.
>She desired me to resuscitate all my loves so that she might
make me insult the m, and trample upon the m, and revoke them apostately and totally, thus
destroying my past.
She clearly has massive insecurity issues. It makes me wonder if she's suffered some heartbreak in the past. Did some schoolgirls humiliated her back in her high school days? And she's trying to exact revenge in effigy through the hopes that Humpty had said horrific things to his past mates? Is her issue with Dolorous that the girl exhibits the same magnetism towards men and obsession with youth culture that her highschool bullies did?
> Lolita, with an incestuous thrill, I had
grown to regard as my child
🤢🤢
>it occurred to me that a prolonged confinement, with a nice
Cesarean operation and other complications in a safe maternity ward sometime next spring,
would give me a chance to be alone with my Lolita for weeks, perhaps and gorge the limp
nymphet with sleeping pills.
It gets even worse on literally the next line. How much grossness can you pack into one person Nobokov?
>“Your Child‟s Personality” : aggressive, boisterous, critical, distrustful, impatient,
irritable, inquisitive, listless, negativistic (underlined twice) and obstinate. She had ignored the
thirty remaining adjectives, among which were cheerful, co-operative, energetic, and so forth. It
was really maddening.
Bad parenting really does lead to vulnerable children. I saw this documentary some time ago on predators and a lot of the select their targets by making a series of investigations and deductions beginning with the role of the parent in the child's life. Scantily clad youngsters are usually first to be studied, not because their bodies entice the predators, but because there's an implicit assumption that the parent either isn't present or doesn't care enough about what their child wears which both bode well for the white panel van.
> she would have turned as pale as a
woman of clouded glass and slowly replied: “ All right, whatever you add or retract, this is the
end.” And the end it would be.
I hate myself for kinda rooting for him to get Lo to stay. Not because I want the poor girl to be violated. When a story has a trajectory you wish for that trajectory to be fulfilled and for the obstacles in the way to be overcome. I want the story to proceed in the most interesting direction and that involves getting over the hurdle of Charlotte.
>The y were near enough to hear a distracted
bather thrashing about and bellowing for somebody to come and help him save his drowning
wife; and they were too far to distinguish (if they happened to look too soon) that the anything
but distracted swimmer was finishing to tread his wife underfoot. I was not yet at that stage; I
merely want to convey the ease of the act,
Between this and >!The Marriage Portrait!< We've had a lot of wife murdering in this sub recently.
>Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the majority of sex offenders that hanker for
some throbbing, sweet-moaning, physical but not necessarily coital, relation with a girl-child, are
innocuous, inadequate, passive, timid strangers who merely ask the community to allow them to
pursue their practically harmless, so-called aberrant behavior, their little hot wet private acts of
sexual deviation without the police and society cracking down upon the m.
If you know anything about "maps"(minor attracted persons), you'll see their inane arguments haven't changed. Not necessarily coital my ass.
>This little incident filled me with considerable elation. I told her quietly that it was a matter not
of asking forgiveness, but of changing one‟s ways;
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
>“The Haze woman, the big bitch, the old cat, the obnoxious mamma, the theold stupid Haze is
no longer your dupe. She has she has...”
My fair accuser stopped, swallowing her venom and her tears. Whatever Humbert Humbert said
or attempted to say is inessential. She went on:
“You‟re a monster. You‟re a detestable, abominable, criminal fraud. If you come near I‟ll
scream out the window. Get back”
Was reading his diary an invasion of privacy?
Yes.
Was it motivated by a desire to read lambasts of his previous paramours?
Absolutely.
Am I glad she did so?
100%
>“There‟s this man saying you‟ve been killed, Charlotte.”
But there was no Charlotte in the living room.
Let's take a moment to appreciate the sad life of Haze. The way she broached the topic of love with Humpty Pederasty speaks to a previous heartbreak. She tells him to leave immediately so she won't have to face him if he does not reciprocate her feelings. So it's likely she was humiliated publicly once during a summer of unrequited love. Her relationship with Dolorous might also tell us about her own upbringing. Was her mother abusive to her? Does Dolorous' beauty and will remind her too deeply of the girls at school who made fun of her when she was romantically humiliated? There's a lot of room for speculation and a foundation of heartbreak and abuse that holds her excessive devotion yet strong will. But we may never know.
>Three doctors and the Farlows presently arrived on the scene and took over. 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,
Is this shock or nonchalance? Everything we know of him so far says this is shock. He may not care for her but his monstrosity manifests in a different way than outright cruelty.
>, he offered to pay the funeral-home
expenses. He expected me to refuse his offer. With a drunken sob of gratitude I accepted it. This
took him aback.
🤣🤣🤣
>I thought I could
safely accept most of those January measurements: hip girth, twenty-nine inches; thigh girth (just
below the gluteal sulcus), seventeen; calf girth and neck circumference, eleven; chest
circumference, twenty-seven; upper arm girth, eight; waist, twenty-three; stature, fifty-seven
inches; weight, seventy-eight pounds; figure, linear; intelligence quotient, 121 ; vermiform
appendix present, thank God.
🤮🤮🤮
>all widower Humbert had
to do, wanted to do, or would do, was to give this wan-looking though sun-colored little
orphanau yeux battus (and even those plumbaceous umbrae under her eyes bore freckles) a
sound education, a healthy and happy girlhood, a clean home, nice girl-friends of her age among
whom (if the fates deigned to repay me) I might find, perhaps, a pretty little Magdlein for Herr
Doktor Humbert alone.
Started off so well only to end it with such a disgusting sentiment.
>“ I did not. Fact I‟ve been revoltingly unfaithful to you, but it does not matter one bit, because
you‟ve stopped caring for me, anyway. You drive much faster than my mummy, mister.”
She's such a child🤣🤣🤣. Reminds me of little sisters everywhere.
>“We have still quite a stretch, ” I said, “and I want to get there before dark. So be a good girl.”
“ Bad, bad girl, ” said Lo comfortably. “Juvenile delick went, but frank and fetching. That light
Page 140was red. I‟ve never seen such driving.”
Poor girl she's trying so hard to be an adult in all the wrong ways. That kiss is the sort of thing that makes people justify the violation of kids _"Oh she's mature for her age"_, "_Oh she's just fast like that_". Nonsense! They are children and have no clue what they're doing. With ~~Lolita~~ Dolorous (dammit he's trying to pull me into his twisted world) it's obviously the lack of a proper mother figure and the obsession with magazines that's created this milquetoast hypersexuality? (I don't know how else to describe it, it isn't egregious enough to be _hyper_sexuality, but just sexuality sounds like an orientation so that doesn't fit either and I'm most certainly not going to say nymphetishness). I think Nobokov is making a commentary on how the objectification of women by media and romance novels can lead to young girls developing the wrong priorities.
>“Say, wouldn‟t Mother be absolutely mad if she found out we were lovers?”
“ Good Lord, Lo, let us not talk that way.”
“ But we are lovers, aren‟t we?”
Jesus!!! Should have read one line further before making my statement. Yeah this is hypersexuality, which is often a trauma response to abuse especially in childhood. Now I'm wondering if something happened between Dolorous and an ex-lover of her mother's that Charlotte blames Dolly for instead of the man. We've seen the way she worshipped Humpty, she could be the type to let someone abuse her daughter just because she loves him. However she was also quick to the mark when she read the diary so maybe not.
>https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
I've always liked the saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day."
> Lolita, with an incestuous thrill, I had grown to regard as my child
This is why I didn't think Humbert would care if Dolores saw him as a father. So gross.
> He expected me to refuse his offer. With a drunken sob of gratitude I accepted it. This took him aback.
The poor guy. I laughed too but felt bad for him.
> With Lolita ~~Dolorous~~ (dammit he's trying to pull me into his twisted world)
I cannot stand calling her Lolita either.
> Yeah this is hypersexuality, which is often a trauma response to abuse especially in childhood.
Agreed! Another sign to me that Dolores is not comfortable with the situation at all.
>I cannot stand calling her Lolita either.
This is something I'm struggling with. I'm generally in the habit of calling characters whatever the narrator calls them. But I don't think I've ever encountered a situation where the narrator consistently calls a main character by a creepy nickname.
I might start calling her "Lo" since it feels like a decent compromise.
Very crafty, and he's been laying that seed for awhile now. He told the local newspaper journalist that him and Charlotte had met shortly before she was married. He doesn't ever come out and say it, he just plants little tidbits of evidence and let's people figure it out themselves.
She's not stupid, but she was lonely and I feel that Humbert would have likely found a way to gaslight. I don't know for sure but I do think it would have been possible.
No, but a pessimistic side of me wonders if this would have made things even worse for Lolita. I've heard of cases where a parent or step-parent sexually abuses a child, and the other parent actually gets jealous because they view the child as competition for their partner. We've already seen that Charlotte didn't seem to like her daughter (although how much of that is accurate and how much is distorted through Humbert's point of view, I don't know), but I don't think things would have turned out well even if she'd lived.
> the other parent actually gets jealous because they view the child as competition for their partner.
If anyone would be the type to be jealous, I feel it would definitely be Charlotte.
2) Humbert thinks fate played a part in Charlotte's death. What part do you think fate played and what does it say of Humbert to believe this? Humbert mentions fate again when picking up Dolores from camp. Why do you think he is so hung up on fate helping him?
I agree.
He really wants to be some guy in a greek tragedy who is being led by the whims of fate into some dreadful doom. When in reality he's just a bag of dicks.
Did Humbert really have no part in her death? I'm not so sure. The end of Ch. 23, while he is rambling about fate, he says something very curious that I think I missed initially.
"I could dimly distinguish my own vile contribution. Had I not been such a fool-or such an intuitive genius-to preserve that journal, fluids produced by vindictive anger and hot shame would not have blinded Charlotte in her dash to the mailbox."
To me, it seems like he purposefully led her to the locked up journal-he didn't try to hide the key very hard, it was there in plain sight, barely covered. Humbert is very observant and notices everyone's comings and going in the neighborhood, when cars come down the street, and that the neighbor's dog tends to run out. I think he wanted her to find the journal and run out.
I totally thought he might have had a hand in her death and rather than this being simplistic plot device it’s something up for interpretation. The conversation he had with his neighbor about the details of the accident sounded strange to me (I don’t remember exactly the wording or why it was weird). I was hoping that others were not convinced of his innocence on the matter and would love to hear everyone’s thoughts.
I never thought he'd kill her. The accident seemed incredibly convenient. I always assumed he'd nab Dolores and Haze would chase them around the country.
It really does seem convenient for the narrative. I'm okay with it though because Humbert thinks fate is on his side and it just adds to his creepy slimy character.
I thought so as well but I really liked that he added that "fate" had a part in it in Humbert's mind. It adds an another layer of creepy factor to Humbert for me.
I am also having a tough time discerning what her true feelings are given our unreliable narrator. The claim that she seduced him is a suspicious one. It seems like she was going through a period of self-exploration at summer camp and then was promptly picked up to learn that her mother died. Her actions are melodramatic and irrational because of the experiences she's had in the last few months. If she did act out sexually, it's a clear vie for attention and it's apparent that she doesn't understand the full consequences of it.
Absolutely. Its totally possible she acted out sexually, but she is still only 12 and has no understanding of the consequences of what she was doing. I think its probably mostly him wrongly reading into her words/ actions.
> If she did act out sexually, it's a clear vie for attention and it's apparent that she doesn't understand the full consequences of it.
I agree complete. She's too young to fully grasp what's going on.
I think all the signs are there that she is uncomfortable but they are hare to pick up on because our narrator is an unreliable one.
No, children cannot seduce grown ups. They can go through the motions they've seen on TV but the desire to have sex alone isn't consent, they simply aren't old enough to understand. It's the job of the adult to shut that shit down.
Even if she understands what she's doing, it doesn't make her a reasonable moral agent. There are levels of understanding. She may understand her desires, but not consequences.
I think Dolores may have a crush on Humbert, and may be emulating things she's seen in movies or magazines to act on that crush. She doesn't actually know what she's doing or the consequences of it. I also think Humbert is overplaying what she actually said/did to him. He wants us to think of her as an "immortal daemon disguised as a female child". If he can make Lolita seem like an active agent in their relationship, perhaps even something supernatural that he couldn't possibly fight against, then it takes some of the blame away from him.
No, fuck no.
She is a child. Think of her just having sex rather than anything else. Humpty attributes that to this fast age, but I think it's more likely that she acts the way she does because she has no sexual feelings. Adult lovers do all the extra bits and pieces because sex normally comes with affection and love. But this isn't love. It's obscene.
No, I don’t think so. She’s a 12 year old child and she doesn’t know what she’s doing. I think she’s a bit ‘attention seeking’ given her mother’s disdain for her. She knows what Humbert wanted and she also ‘desired’ his desire but it was not supposed to be acted upon.
8) In chapter 28 Humbert has a curious conversation with a man on the porch of the hotel: "'Where the devil did you get her?' 'I beg your pardon?' 'I said: the weather is getting better.' 'Seems so.' 'Who’s the lassie?' 'My daughter.' 'You lie—she’s not.' 'I beg your pardon?' 'I said: July was hot. Where’s her mother?' 'Dead.'" Do you think that Humbert was hearing things and misheard the guy or was the guy really accusing Humbert of something?
I think Humbert has a lot of paranoia, firstly because he's plotting disgusting things, but also in a mental illness sort of way. I don't think that man actually said anything accusatory, but Humbert's paranoid brain is primed to hear it the wrong way.
Especially because he was already keyed up.
I can totally buy this.
I initially suspected he was one of the people "in the know" and such ppl naturally understood each other. But upon further thought, Humpty is just hearing things.
If he has a conscience it's speaking to him.
There is something about this hotel, too. Everyone seems complicit. "'Our double beds are really triple,' Potts cosily said tucking me and my kid in. ‘One crowded night we had three ladies and a child like yours sleep together. I believe one of the ladies was a disguised man [my static]. However— would there be a spare cot in 49, Mr Swine?"
Yes, I agree, the hotel seems to be full of creeps. But I wonder how much of the narrative we can actually trust?
The unreliable narrative does make things hard to trust.
This is how I feel! Everything Humbert describes, from the hotel to the way Dolores talks and acts with him, is suspect because he wants his audience to see his actions as unavoidable and encouraged by everyone around him. Like his hands were tied and he just had to give in, what else could we expect him to do? Gross!
This is a good point I hadn’t seen, but it made me take a second look. There is indeed some suggested complicity. After the quote above, H.H. thinks about the hotel clerks… “The two pink pigs were now among my best friends”. Even the name, “The Enchanted Hunters” suggests some ambiguity between the predatory hunter and the enchanted (by a nymphette?). I also find it intriguing that there is a religious convention and a flower show happening at the same time. I wonder is it is a commentary on religion (morality vs. hypocrisy of clergymen?) and the sexual symbolism of a flower.
> Even the name, “The Enchanted Hunters” suggests some ambiguity between the predatory hunter and the enchanted (by a nymphette?). I was thinking the same thing. > I also find it intriguing that there is a religious convention and a flower show happening at the same time. I wonder is it is a commentary on religion (morality vs. hypocrisy of clergymen?) and the sexual symbolism of a flower. I feel I should have picked up on this but I didn't at all. I think you're absolutely right.
Yes! All the names in this book seem to have a lot of significance.
I didn't think about that. I'm going to have to revisit it.
I think it was just his own fear/excitement talking.
Agreed. That whole bit was really strange.
I agree.
This is another one of those times where I am uncertain of the retelling of events. HH could be projecting his own paranoia on the man at the hotel's question. Did he really give him a hard time about Lo? Or did this exchange happen in his own head, perhaps through an exchanging of looks in the lobby? My other theory is that this guy is one of those serial travelers who stays in many hotels for work. He may see many older men with questionable partners in his travels.
Same here. I just honestly don't know. I really feel he could be protecting his guilt but he's a narcissist so how much guilt does he really feel. It's so hard to tell.
Plot-wise, probably. Narratively, it adds to the theatrical voice of the narrator and a calming reassurance to the reader.
An attempt to reassure the readers. I feel like nothing can be said to reassure any of us.
Nabokov adds this to reassure that the character is indeed a criminal, not a hero, in the story, is what I meant. Just guessing.
Oh, I'm so silly. I can completely see that.
This is the only scene of this book that I have enjoyed. The voice of the stranger sounded satirical, like someone (his conscience? The devil?) calling him out loud on his depraved behaviour, that he was so sure nobody could see. It reminded me a lot of some scenes in Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita.
It did sound satirical which made it hard to decipher if it really happened.
I think its Humbert's very very very deep down guilty conscience playing tricks on him and making him hear things.
I get that feeling as well.
>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 the rose sherbet. It's so sad that such sick desires were so easily sated in the past. Between pederasty and royal harems. Powerful people could openly engorge in their disgusting vices. The progress of morality is the democratization of power. For millenia is was believed that women enjoyed their station as subservient second class citizens, that slaves adored their masters, that foreigners did not have the emotional depth as those you know. Over time, the treatment of each group improved as they gained more and more of a voice and the ability to speak on their issues rather than their perspective be defined by those above them. it makes me wonder, who lacks a voice today? Who is in torment today that society ignores until they one day gain the power to have a voice and state to all that they are suffering. >As I made my way through a constellation of fixed people in one corner of the lobby, there came a blinding flash and beaming Dr. Braddock, two orchidornamentalized matrons, the small girl in white, and presumably the bared teeth of Humbert Humbert sidling between the bride like lassie and the enchanted cleric, were immortalized insofar as the texture and print of small-town newspapers can be deemed immortal. So he was caught and this family spoke to the papers that they had seen him once and he had the pervert smile. >As I learned later from a helpful pharmaceutist, the purple pill did not even belong to the big and noble family of barbiturates, and though it might have induced sleep in a neurotic who believed it to be a potent drug, it was too mild a sedative to affect for any length of time a wary, albeit weary, nymphet. Whether the Ramsdale doctor was a charlatan or a shrewd old rogue, does not, and did not, really matter. What mattered, was that I had been deceived. When Lolita opened her eyes again, I realized that whether or not the drug might work later in the night, the security I had relied upon was a sham one. Thank heavens >The gentle and dreamy regions though which I crept were the patrimonies of poets not crime‟s prowling ground. Had I reached my goal, my ecstasy would have been all softness, a case of internal combustion of which she would hardly have felt the heat, even if she were wide awake. Does he actually think this is a justification? It's not rape if she felt nothing? I'll admit, it's unique. >every morning, oh my reader, the three children would take a short cut through the beautiful innocent forest brimming with all the emblems of youth, dew, birdsongs, and at one point, among the luxuriant undergrowth, Lo would be left as sentinel, while Barbara and the boy copulated behind a bush. Where are these kids' parents? I suppose the lesson here is that wealthier parents need to spend more time with their young ones instead of working all the time. >This was an orphan. This was a lone child, Page 177an absolute waif, with whom a heavy-limbed, foul-smelling adult had had strenuous intercourse three times that very morning. Whether or not the realization of a lifelong dream had surpassed all expectation, it had, in a sense, overshot its mark and plunged into a nightmare. The fact that he's fully self-aware makes this all the worse. This isn't an ancient Greek practicing the common act of pederasty or an Ottoman noble doing what culture and privilege expects. It's a man of the 20th century, one fully aware of the psychological ramifications of predating on a child, one who feels a pang of responsibility when the child enlightens him on her amorous escapades with friends. Yet upon all this, he still chooses this evil act. There's no "It was just the way back then", and don't give me crap about self control either, he could have left at any time, he could have not married Charlotte to get close to her, he made a series of decisions designed to get to this point here. >“You chump, ” she said, sweetly smiling at me. “You revolting creature. I was a daisy-fresh girl, and look what you‟ve done to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me. Oh, you dirty, dirty old man.” This feels like a line from a movie. Once again confirming my suspicions that she and her friends are merely copying what they read in novels and see in moving pictures. >In the gay town of Lepingville I bought her four books of comics, a box of candy, a box of sanitary pads, Hear that my fellows. Even a disgusting, contemptuous, pedophile has no qualms buying female hygiene products, you have no excuse. #Quotes of the week: 1)Charlotte interviewed me about my relations with God. I could have answered that on that score my mind was open; I said, instead paying my tribute to a pious platitude that I believed in a cosmic spirit 2)I recalled with a funny pang the frequency with which poor Charlotte used to introduce into party chat such elegant tidbits as “when my daughter was out hiking last year with the Talbot girl.” 3)Charlie, who had as much sex appeal as a raw carrot but sported a fascinating collection of contraceptives which he used to fish out of a third nearby lake, a considerably larger and more populous one, called Lake Climax, #Puke Inducers of the week: 1)We are not sex fiends We do not rape as good soldiers do. We are unhappy, mild, dog-eyed gentlemen, sufficiently well integrated to control our urge in the presence of adults, but ready to give years and years of life for one chance to touch a nymphet. 2) I could not repress a shiver whenever I imagined my nudity hemmed in by mysterious statutes in the merciless glare of the Common Law. 3) 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 once for all the perilous magic of nymphets. 4)The stipulation of the Roman law, according to which a girl may marry at twelve, was adopted by the Church, and is still preserved, rather tacitly, in some of the United States. And fifteen is lawful everywhere. There is nothing wrong, say both hemispheres, when a brute of forty, blessed by the local priest and bloated with drink, sheds his sweat-drenched finery and thrusts himself up to the hilt into his youthful bride. 5)he resembled a little my Swiss uncle Gustave, also a great admirer of le dcouvert would have experienced had he known that every nerve in me was still anointed and ringed with the feel of her body the body of some immortal demon disguised as a female child. 6)But “in a wink, ” as the Germans say, the angelic line of conduct was erased, and I overtook my prey (time moves ahead of our fancies), and she was my Lolita again in fact, more of my Lolita than ever
For millenia is was believed that women enjoyed their station as subservient second class citizens, that slaves adored their masters, that foreigners did not have the emotional depth as those you know. Over time, the treatment of each group improved as they gained more and more of a voice and the ability to speak on their issues rather than their perspective be defined by those above them. it makes me wonder, who lacks a voice today? Who is in torment today that society ignores until they one day gain the power to have a voice and state to all that they are suffering. this is put so wonderfully. thanks for sharing this, i copied and pasted it into my notes.
>Hear that my fellows. Even a disgusting, contemptuous, pedophile has no qualms buying female hygiene products, you have no excuse. Not to make this even more disturbing, but I think the implication is that she's bleeding because of what he did to her.
I. Do. Not. Want. To. Think. About. That😳
Yes, that's what I think too.
That's exactly what I assumed. :(
> Who is in torment today that society ignores until they one day gain the power to have a voice and state to all that they are suffering. I hate to be this person but I really believe animals need to be liberated. They have no voice but if they did they would let us know that hell exist and it is Earth. > The gentle and dreamy regions though which I crept were the patrimonies of poets not crime‟s prowling ground. Had I reached my goal, my ecstasy would have been all softness, a case of internal combustion of which she would hardly have felt the heat, even if she were wide awake. Dolores is not safe and he will try again and again. > Where are these kids' parents? I suppose the lesson here is that wealthier parents need to spend more time with their young ones instead of working all the time. I'm with you where is the supervisor for these kids?! > Hear that my fellows. Even a disgusting, contemptuous, pedophile has no qualms buying female hygiene products, you have no excuse. I remember my dad buying me some products way back in the day and his only question was "what the hell are wings and why do pads need them?" There are way too many puke inducers in those novel. > Does he actually think this is a justification? It's not rape if she felt nothing? I'll admit, it's unique. Sadly, I've heard worse "justifications" for rape, such as "it wasn't rape because she was wet." Or "a woman's body will shutdown if she's being raped so you can't rape her". And my personal favorite "she was asking for it otherwise why was she wearing they." Some men are truly disgusting.
>I hate to be this person Don't be. Society needs to constantly ask itself questions about ethics. It's far too often an ignored topic in general discussions. While I'm not a vegan myself I feel society is genuinely terrified that vegans actually make a lot of good points and prefers to shut them out of conversation through mockery that actually let them present theur challenges to the current order. We should actually have these conversations and if it makes us uncomfortable then it shows that deep down a lot of us have qualms about the treatment of animals. >a woman's body will shutdown if she's being raped I remember that one. To think someone that disgusting could get into a government position is scary.
> Don't be. Society needs to constantly ask itself questions about ethics. It's far too often an ignored topic in general discussions. While I'm not a vegan myself I feel society is genuinely terrified that vegans actually make a lot of good points and prefers to shut them out of conversation through mockery that actually let them present theur challenges to the current order. Thank you! I get really passionate about veganism but I'm not the best of debaters when it comes to defending my beliefs about it. I end up really frustrated and a lot of the times, I end up crying about it. Because of that I don't like to bring it up but I do feel the need to. > To think someone that disgusting could get into a government position is scary. It is and it's so disheartening.
“Ravenous bulk” - this almost made me gag outloud when I read it as a self discription of him nearing Lo.
Same here. So much of the book makes me sick.
Same!
12) Are there any important quotes you noticed, predictions you have or anything else you'd like to discuss?
It's like watching a car crash. Every sentence just makes him look worse, and I found myself having to re-read sections to confirm to myself that it really was that bad.
> and I found myself having to re-read sections to confirm to myself that it really was that bad. Me too. I'm so shocked at some parts!! It's a grotesque horror novel for me.
This image that he paints about the rape. To me, it conveys the pain that she must have felt. My heart broke even more for poor Dolores when I read it and I haven't been able to shake that feeling. "There would have been a fire opal dissolving within a ripple-ringed pool, a last throb, a last dab of color, stinging red, smearing pink, a sigh, a wincing child." Another thing I wanted to discuss is the night leading to the rape. He seems to truly believe that he is a saint for not assaulting Dolores when she was asleep for fear that she would wake up. Like he is expecting to get a medal. I hate this man so much. I hate this book so much.
I seriously wanted to puke after reading this. The guy is such a delusional moran to think that he can convince his audience that Dolores wanted any part in this.
And this is being told from his perspective! So, you know that means it's sugar-coated and it's still this bad.
Exactly!
Ugh, I didn't even think of that.
He really is completely vile, isn't he?
🤢
*passes bucket*
The copy I got from the library is a hardcover Everyman's Library edition. The back cover has a bunch of quotes from reviews of the book. What struck me as weird is that all of the quotes make this sound like a comedy. Time Magazine calls it "intensely lyrical and wildly funny," Atlantic Monthly "one of the funniest serious novels I've ever read," etc. There absolutely is humor in this book, don't get me wrong, but that's really, *really* not what I'd focus on if I were writing a review.
Odd. Perhaps "disturbingly preposterous" would be a better fit. The entire notion of Humbert attempting to persuade the reader of his innocence through his lyrical narrative is intended to be satirical, though.
> The entire notion of Humbert attempting to persuade the reader of his innocence through his lyrical narrative is intended to be satirical, Very true but it's still not really laugh out loud funny. I don't understand the quote reviews either.
Did they all get mixed up with another book with the same title?
Those reviews are really odd, my expectations would be totally different going into the book if I had have read those.
I've been thinking about it, and I'm guessing it was intentional. I mean, everyone knows that *Lolita* is a famously controversial book about a pedophile. No one is going to flip this book to the back cover because they want to find out what reviewers had to say about it. If you know literally anything about this book, you already know what the reviewers had to say. So I guess they wanted to highlight an aspect of the book that it isn't famous for? I've definitely been surprised at how much humor is in this book. Or maybe they just didn't want to put anything potentially offensive or upsetting on the back cover, and this was the simplest way to do it.
I've seen reviews and analyses that call it a love story (!), a funny satire, and a metaphor that reflects how humanity pursues obsessions/passions. To me, I can't get past the disturbing details to see any of those things. I do hope that you're right and reviewers know we all come to the book aware of the topic and controversial content so they're trying to point out what we may not see... But I can't. It's too horrible for me to analyze it as a broad metaphor or as allegorical or something.
I think they want to shift the focus of how creepy it really is, like you said there are some funny parts but it's not laugh out loud comedy.
There's a couple more quotes that impacted me and I couldn't find them before: "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 somebody I had just killed. " I don't even have words to comment on it. Later in the car, Dolores breaks the silence to say: "‘Oh, a squashed squirrel,’ she said. ‘What a shame.’ " I think she sees herself in that squirrel. And "what a shame", the way I read it, is a dettached way to observe it. An, "it is what it is" of sorts. A giving up on herself. Also, I get shivers down my spine every time he calls her "pet".
I can't remember the exact words, but the beginning of chapter thirty. I just...really, humbert? Really??
That chapter made me sad. Here's Humbert describing what he thinks is the best day of his life but what about Dolores? The poor child has had the worse day of her life and will be traumatized for life because of it. He really is a disgusting human being.
Agreed. And all the while he is sitting there going 'hee hee hee don't you guys steal her away from me now!'
I noticed Humbert addressing the jury as "gentlewomen" in these chapters. I found that really interesting, because supposedly a jury would be made up of men and women. I wonder if he feels that he would not have to appeal to the men of the jury, or if the jury really is made up of all women.
He does refer to the audience as gentlemen in earlier chapters. So I do believe the switch to gentlewomenis deliberate. I feel he is being manipulative.
Prediction: Humbert will burn in hell for eternity!
Oh he surely will.
11) Did you notice any signs that Dolores might not be as happy with the situation as Humbert?
In Ch. 30 Humbert describes his experience with Lolita like a mural of sorts, which ends with a depiction of a wincing child. That certainly seems to indicate that she is in pain. Following that she is very moody and sullen, and asks to go to a gas station so she can call her mother. A girl wanting her mother at this time seems to me that she doesn't feel safe.
*flails hands at basically everything*
I 100% agree. I don't know how Humbert has convinced himself that everything is okay.
I honestly think he doesn't care.
You're right. He's a narcissist and he doesn't.
I don't think he cares about convincing himself. He's more concerned about convincing the reader so he can feel justified in what he's doing.
Ugh manipulators are so gross.
Hard to get a solid read on her feelings given they're filtered through the corrupt lens of Humpty. She doesn't know what she's doing, just wants to act grown up without an understanding of what it entails. I think she's happy with whatever makes her feel she's older and sexy like the girls in the magazines. Also no one is going to ever be happier with this than Humpty.
I totally agree. We are seeing what Humpty (god, can we all just call him that??) is telling us. I've said this before, I think, but it bears repeating. Yes, children in their teens play at being older, play with their newfound attractiveness and new feelings. Our job as adults is to say no to them.
Agreed. We're supposed to protect children not take advantage of them.
Towards the end of this section Lo becomes wrapped up in her celebrity magazines and deliberately ignores HH. I think her joking about telling the police is one of those jokes that's rooted in a degree of honesty; it wouldn't bother HH so much if it wasn't. She feels empowered by the notion that she has upper hand and could report him. These are signs that she's not going to be a subservient as perhaps he wants her to be.
True. But she's still young and he can easily manipulate her. All he has to do is threaten her with the prospect of being sent to a foster home where she'll no longer have her freedom or the pretty clothes he buys her. That she understands he's committing a crime probably adds a sense of thrill to the situation. She's managed to one up the girl who introduced her to this by sleeping (getting violated) with a much older man. She'll definitely want to brag to her friends that she's done what they never could and got a road trip and fancy new clothes out of it. It's much more.likely she tells her friends in a show of bragadociousness than the police.
> It's much more.likely she tells her friends in a show of bragadociousness than the police. This is so sad because that's exalty how grooming works. I hate this.
> These are signs that she's not going to be a subservient as perhaps he wants her to be. I completely agree. I think that these are the exact signs that Dolores is not happy about the situation at all. In fact, I think that Humbert is downplaying Dolores discomfort.
I think your right about that but I also think the signs are there. I missed some but going back I did pick some up.
>Hard to get a solid read on her feelings given they're filtered through the corrupt lens of Humpty I have started wondering if Dolores is actually expressing her discomfort more clearly in reality, but Humbert is filtering it all through his twisted perspective to make it seem like jokes. When she talks about incest, calls him a pedophile, says she'll tell the police, etc he presents it as funny and in jest/sarcasm like they're a team in this. But she could actually be arguing or questioning the situation or protesting and we'd never know because he has complete control over her and the narrative. Same with her flirting and initiating sex in the hotel room - she might have been "cooperating" to survive the situation and he wants us to see her as a willing participant instead of coerced into behaviors she didn't actually choose.
It's assumed. It's hard to believe anything from his tale.
It is, I agree.
He has noted she is moody with him, so she is clearly not happy but he doesn't seem to care why.
He doesn't care and it's easy for him to ignore it because then he can ignore the problem.
He has noted she is moody with him, so she is clearly not happy but he doesn't seem to care why.
9) Do you believe that Dolores lost her virginity at camp? What do you think of Humbert saying that he's was not even her first lover?
I think it is irrelevant. I have been thinking about his including this, as if to tell the reader, "look, children aren't as innocent as you think." Regardless of whether or not she had sexual experiences at the camp, she is a child and he is an adult.
Yes!! 100% this is just an example of Humbert trying to shift the blame so he comes off as more innocent than guilty.
Well said!
yes!! i can’t stand him acting like she’s so permiscious and has ANY of the blame for his actions.
Agree, he is using it as a way to show she is not as innocent as what she seems.
Lost her virginity yes. Had a lover, no. That's something that has specific connotations, none of which are present in kids experimenting.
I agree that she didn't have a lover. I'm still not sure if she lost her virginity but I'm more inclined to believe she had not. I think she thought she had sex but was confused to what that meant. I'm going to copy and paste my comment from a different response to why I believe that: I think that Dolores probably thought sex was just masturbating with clothes on. It would explain why she thought she knew what sex was and why at the end of chapter 29 she was confused sex with Humbert. "While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine."
Oooh, interesting! I hadn't thought of that passage when I wrote my answer 🤔 I think you may be right.
I think I read this part twice so I didn't pick up on on initially, but I'm more sure now that she was a virgin.
👍🏻
I hadn't considered it was a lie but it very well might have been. Great question!
See I don't know if it is a lie or a misunderstanding, I think that Dolores probably thought sex was just masturbating with clothes on. It would explain why she thought she knew what sex was and why at the end of chapter 29 she was confused sex with Humbert. "While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine."
Good catch, you could be right there.
Yes, and in a way, I'm glad. Her first experience of sex/intimacy was with people her own age, with no ulterior motives other than exploring their bodies.
Oh my, this breaks my heart.
He could well just be lying and he is saying it trying to create empathy in the reader.
I'm 100% sure he's lying. I think Lolita had some experience but nothing further than kissing or rubbing up against the boy at camp.
No, I think she just said that to impress Humbert, and even if she did lose her virginity, that doesn't make Humbert's actions any less heinous.
I agree on both statements.
I believe it. It's the way of the culture. Kids are exposed to raunchy behaviour at a young age and seek to emulate. Her mother also isn't the "talk and understand" type, so Dolores has neither outlet nor a person to vent to. Her influence is another spoiled rich girl who's following the mags and moving pictures because her dad's too busy to discipline her. Finally, none of these kids are lovers. They're playmates going through the motions of something more.
I agree with all most of what you said especially becauseyou make great points. That being said this quote at the end of chapter 29 makes believe that was was indeed a virgin. "While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid's life and mine. Pride alone prevented her from giving up; for, in my strange predicament, I think Supreme stupidity and had her have her way- at least while I could still bear it."
7) Dolores knows that she has no where to go after learning her mother has died. If she did have someone else to turn to, do you think that she would have ran to Humbert that night at the hotel?
That bit at the end of chapter 33 made me rage. No, she had nowhere to go, you prick, and I bet you love it that way....
I really do hate him.
There are no words, are there?
Depends on the person and how they treat her. She has more freedom with Humpty and that's more appealing at her age. The fancy clothing doesn't hurt either.
The bastard is a master manipulator and groomer.
No, but none of this would happen if she had anywhere else to go. She just lost her mother and she was just raped. He is the one hurting her, yet he is her only source of comfort. He designed it that way. I feel so sad that she goes back to him crying, to get some comfort in what would be a terrifying night for her, knowing that she would have to let him touch and rape her again.
It's seriously a nightmare and because of that reads like a horror story to me.
I know! I keep putting it off, it's such an awful read. I wanted to have an open mind. Wanted to give Nabokov the credit that a lot of people give him, but at this point I'm just reading it so that when I say it is an awful book and give it negative stars, I do it in a fully informed way rather than from some preconception that I had of the book.
> but at this point I'm just reading it so that when I say it is an awful book and give it negative stars, I do it in a fully informed way rather than from some preconception that I had of the book. I respect that.
I don't know if she runs away immediately, but I think should would pretty quickly. Finding out her mother died probably brought her quickly back to reality that she's a child and doesn't really want to have an adult life yet. She's feeling hopelessly stuck.
Because in her mind she is hopelessly stuck. Poor soul. I really really hate Humbert.
That last line gave me chills
6) Why does Humbert worry about Dolores learning about her mother's death from an outside source?
Because then he would lose control over the situation. He doesn’t want other parties to be involved. Just him and Dolores against the world. And maybe he also wants Dolores to think that there’s no one left for her now except for him.
This! Totally this. Also an outside source might see what is happening, or be someone who Lo can talk to.
I agree it's an issue of control. I'm sure he knows she will know eventually, but he wants to be the one to tell her, when it's convenient for him, i.e. when he's already had his way with her.
Poor Dolores. I hope she survives him.
Yup, this is his narrative- both the one he shares with readers and the one he is conveying to Lo.
This is it, he wants to control the situation and for her to rely on him for support.
> And maybe he also wants Dolores to think that there’s no one left for her now except for him. This is exactly what he wants. He's manipulating the situation to fit his desires.
100 % agree.
1. He can't present it in the way most profitable to him. 2. He can't be there immediately to be a shoulder to cry on.
He wants her to think that he is the only one with all the answers. He wants to be the only person she can turn to.
5) Why do you believe Humbert is waiting so long to go through the legal process of adopting Dolores?
It's a process that comes with questions and invites the government into their lives. Something any pederast should fear unless their name is Epstein.
Agreed. HH doesn't want people to come around asking questions about his living arrangements.
As most have pointed out, he doesn't want to lose his control.
Yeah, I think this is the driving cause. He would be put under the microscope and he really doesn't want that.
Agreed.
Underrated comment.
His record isn't clean, he's been institutionalized multiple times, and with him being an immigrant there may be some issues with how he entered the country. If I remember correctly he only came to the States because of an inheritance from his uncle, who expected him to take over his business, which may have been shady or not have a good-enough paper trail.
I agree.
Agreeing with the other commenters about legal implications, but I think there's something else to it. Adopting her would place him in a father-like role, and ruin the image he has of her as his lover.
Something tells me he would still get a kick out of it. Ugh.
Formally adopting her changes the relationship, father/ daughter is much more taboo, maybe he doesn't want to cross that line until he has to?
I feel that he wouldn't care about crossing that line. He'd find a way to justify it to himself.
>Never had I thought that the rather ridiculous, through rather handsome Mrs. Haze, with her blind faith in the wisdom of her church and book club, her mannerisms of elocution, her harsh, cold, contemptuous attitude toward an adorable, downy-armed child of twelve, could turn into such a touching, helpless creature as soon as I laid my hands upon her which happened on the threshold of Lolita‟s room whither she tremulously backed repeating “no, no, please no.” The transformation improved her looks. Her smile that had been such a contrived thing, thenceforth became the radiance of utter adoration a radiance having something soft and moist about it, He takes delight in her saying no? I'm already afraid for this woman. He seems to enjoy it when she exhibits childish tendencies and a lack of consent. >She desired me to resuscitate all my loves so that she might make me insult the m, and trample upon the m, and revoke them apostately and totally, thus destroying my past. She clearly has massive insecurity issues. It makes me wonder if she's suffered some heartbreak in the past. Did some schoolgirls humiliated her back in her high school days? And she's trying to exact revenge in effigy through the hopes that Humpty had said horrific things to his past mates? Is her issue with Dolorous that the girl exhibits the same magnetism towards men and obsession with youth culture that her highschool bullies did? > Lolita, with an incestuous thrill, I had grown to regard as my child 🤢🤢 >it occurred to me that a prolonged confinement, with a nice Cesarean operation and other complications in a safe maternity ward sometime next spring, would give me a chance to be alone with my Lolita for weeks, perhaps and gorge the limp nymphet with sleeping pills. It gets even worse on literally the next line. How much grossness can you pack into one person Nobokov? >“Your Child‟s Personality” : aggressive, boisterous, critical, distrustful, impatient, irritable, inquisitive, listless, negativistic (underlined twice) and obstinate. She had ignored the thirty remaining adjectives, among which were cheerful, co-operative, energetic, and so forth. It was really maddening. Bad parenting really does lead to vulnerable children. I saw this documentary some time ago on predators and a lot of the select their targets by making a series of investigations and deductions beginning with the role of the parent in the child's life. Scantily clad youngsters are usually first to be studied, not because their bodies entice the predators, but because there's an implicit assumption that the parent either isn't present or doesn't care enough about what their child wears which both bode well for the white panel van. > she would have turned as pale as a woman of clouded glass and slowly replied: “ All right, whatever you add or retract, this is the end.” And the end it would be. I hate myself for kinda rooting for him to get Lo to stay. Not because I want the poor girl to be violated. When a story has a trajectory you wish for that trajectory to be fulfilled and for the obstacles in the way to be overcome. I want the story to proceed in the most interesting direction and that involves getting over the hurdle of Charlotte. >The y were near enough to hear a distracted bather thrashing about and bellowing for somebody to come and help him save his drowning wife; and they were too far to distinguish (if they happened to look too soon) that the anything but distracted swimmer was finishing to tread his wife underfoot. I was not yet at that stage; I merely want to convey the ease of the act, Between this and >!The Marriage Portrait!< We've had a lot of wife murdering in this sub recently. >Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the majority of sex offenders that hanker for some throbbing, sweet-moaning, physical but not necessarily coital, relation with a girl-child, are innocuous, inadequate, passive, timid strangers who merely ask the community to allow them to pursue their practically harmless, so-called aberrant behavior, their little hot wet private acts of sexual deviation without the police and society cracking down upon the m. If you know anything about "maps"(minor attracted persons), you'll see their inane arguments haven't changed. Not necessarily coital my ass. >This little incident filled me with considerable elation. I told her quietly that it was a matter not of asking forgiveness, but of changing one‟s ways; https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/ >“The Haze woman, the big bitch, the old cat, the obnoxious mamma, the theold stupid Haze is no longer your dupe. She has she has...” My fair accuser stopped, swallowing her venom and her tears. Whatever Humbert Humbert said or attempted to say is inessential. She went on: “You‟re a monster. You‟re a detestable, abominable, criminal fraud. If you come near I‟ll scream out the window. Get back” Was reading his diary an invasion of privacy? Yes. Was it motivated by a desire to read lambasts of his previous paramours? Absolutely. Am I glad she did so? 100% >“There‟s this man saying you‟ve been killed, Charlotte.” But there was no Charlotte in the living room. Let's take a moment to appreciate the sad life of Haze. The way she broached the topic of love with Humpty Pederasty speaks to a previous heartbreak. She tells him to leave immediately so she won't have to face him if he does not reciprocate her feelings. So it's likely she was humiliated publicly once during a summer of unrequited love. Her relationship with Dolorous might also tell us about her own upbringing. Was her mother abusive to her? Does Dolorous' beauty and will remind her too deeply of the girls at school who made fun of her when she was romantically humiliated? There's a lot of room for speculation and a foundation of heartbreak and abuse that holds her excessive devotion yet strong will. But we may never know. >Three doctors and the Farlows presently arrived on the scene and took over. 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, Is this shock or nonchalance? Everything we know of him so far says this is shock. He may not care for her but his monstrosity manifests in a different way than outright cruelty. >, he offered to pay the funeral-home expenses. He expected me to refuse his offer. With a drunken sob of gratitude I accepted it. This took him aback. 🤣🤣🤣 >I thought I could safely accept most of those January measurements: hip girth, twenty-nine inches; thigh girth (just below the gluteal sulcus), seventeen; calf girth and neck circumference, eleven; chest circumference, twenty-seven; upper arm girth, eight; waist, twenty-three; stature, fifty-seven inches; weight, seventy-eight pounds; figure, linear; intelligence quotient, 121 ; vermiform appendix present, thank God. 🤮🤮🤮 >all widower Humbert had to do, wanted to do, or would do, was to give this wan-looking though sun-colored little orphanau yeux battus (and even those plumbaceous umbrae under her eyes bore freckles) a sound education, a healthy and happy girlhood, a clean home, nice girl-friends of her age among whom (if the fates deigned to repay me) I might find, perhaps, a pretty little Magdlein for Herr Doktor Humbert alone. Started off so well only to end it with such a disgusting sentiment. >“ I did not. Fact I‟ve been revoltingly unfaithful to you, but it does not matter one bit, because you‟ve stopped caring for me, anyway. You drive much faster than my mummy, mister.” She's such a child🤣🤣🤣. Reminds me of little sisters everywhere. >“We have still quite a stretch, ” I said, “and I want to get there before dark. So be a good girl.” “ Bad, bad girl, ” said Lo comfortably. “Juvenile delick went, but frank and fetching. That light Page 140was red. I‟ve never seen such driving.” Poor girl she's trying so hard to be an adult in all the wrong ways. That kiss is the sort of thing that makes people justify the violation of kids _"Oh she's mature for her age"_, "_Oh she's just fast like that_". Nonsense! They are children and have no clue what they're doing. With ~~Lolita~~ Dolorous (dammit he's trying to pull me into his twisted world) it's obviously the lack of a proper mother figure and the obsession with magazines that's created this milquetoast hypersexuality? (I don't know how else to describe it, it isn't egregious enough to be _hyper_sexuality, but just sexuality sounds like an orientation so that doesn't fit either and I'm most certainly not going to say nymphetishness). I think Nobokov is making a commentary on how the objectification of women by media and romance novels can lead to young girls developing the wrong priorities. >“Say, wouldn‟t Mother be absolutely mad if she found out we were lovers?” “ Good Lord, Lo, let us not talk that way.” “ But we are lovers, aren‟t we?” Jesus!!! Should have read one line further before making my statement. Yeah this is hypersexuality, which is often a trauma response to abuse especially in childhood. Now I'm wondering if something happened between Dolorous and an ex-lover of her mother's that Charlotte blames Dolly for instead of the man. We've seen the way she worshipped Humpty, she could be the type to let someone abuse her daughter just because she loves him. However she was also quick to the mark when she read the diary so maybe not.
>https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/ I've always liked the saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day."
> Lolita, with an incestuous thrill, I had grown to regard as my child This is why I didn't think Humbert would care if Dolores saw him as a father. So gross. > He expected me to refuse his offer. With a drunken sob of gratitude I accepted it. This took him aback. The poor guy. I laughed too but felt bad for him. > With Lolita ~~Dolorous~~ (dammit he's trying to pull me into his twisted world) I cannot stand calling her Lolita either. > Yeah this is hypersexuality, which is often a trauma response to abuse especially in childhood. Agreed! Another sign to me that Dolores is not comfortable with the situation at all.
>I cannot stand calling her Lolita either. This is something I'm struggling with. I'm generally in the habit of calling characters whatever the narrator calls them. But I don't think I've ever encountered a situation where the narrator consistently calls a main character by a creepy nickname. I might start calling her "Lo" since it feels like a decent compromise.
That is fair. I feel like this book should have been read near Halloween, because it really is creepy.
4) What did you think of Humbert convincing the Farlows that he was Dolores's biological father?
Very crafty, and he's been laying that seed for awhile now. He told the local newspaper journalist that him and Charlotte had met shortly before she was married. He doesn't ever come out and say it, he just plants little tidbits of evidence and let's people figure it out themselves.
He seriously is a master manipulator and I hate him for it.
I hated that. You couldn't just let the poor woman rest; you had to smear her reputation. God, I hate that guy.
He's truly a monster.
A very sneaky and manipulative move, and there is noone to dispute him.
I can't say enough how much I despise his character.
3) Had Charlotte not passed, do you believe he could have convinced her that his journal was just a "novel"?
She's strong willed but also deeply lonely. Could go either way.
I'm with you on that.
She isn’t stupid and he used their names. I don’t think there’s any way you can spin the story.
Yeah, I think that Charlotte might have been superficially irritated with Lo, but at the end of the day, she is a mother.
She's not stupid, but she was lonely and I feel that Humbert would have likely found a way to gaslight. I don't know for sure but I do think it would have been possible.
He is a master manipulator, so who knows.
No, but a pessimistic side of me wonders if this would have made things even worse for Lolita. I've heard of cases where a parent or step-parent sexually abuses a child, and the other parent actually gets jealous because they view the child as competition for their partner. We've already seen that Charlotte didn't seem to like her daughter (although how much of that is accurate and how much is distorted through Humbert's point of view, I don't know), but I don't think things would have turned out well even if she'd lived.
> the other parent actually gets jealous because they view the child as competition for their partner. If anyone would be the type to be jealous, I feel it would definitely be Charlotte.
2) Humbert thinks fate played a part in Charlotte's death. What part do you think fate played and what does it say of Humbert to believe this? Humbert mentions fate again when picking up Dolores from camp. Why do you think he is so hung up on fate helping him?
He needs to believe there's a force out there that understands and responds to his sick desires. It takes away some of the blame.
I agree. He really wants to be some guy in a greek tragedy who is being led by the whims of fate into some dreadful doom. When in reality he's just a bag of dicks.
Precisely the reason I feel he's a narcissist.
It all makes sense now!
This, fate removes his responsibility for his actions.
Is an easy way for him to shift the blame.
It's exactly what a narcissist would do, which we know he is.
You don't have to take responsibility for your own actions if everything is the result of fate
Yep. It's a poor way of thinking.
1) Were you surprised by Charlotte's death? Were you surprised that it was a complete accident and that Humbert had no part in her death?
Did Humbert really have no part in her death? I'm not so sure. The end of Ch. 23, while he is rambling about fate, he says something very curious that I think I missed initially. "I could dimly distinguish my own vile contribution. Had I not been such a fool-or such an intuitive genius-to preserve that journal, fluids produced by vindictive anger and hot shame would not have blinded Charlotte in her dash to the mailbox." To me, it seems like he purposefully led her to the locked up journal-he didn't try to hide the key very hard, it was there in plain sight, barely covered. Humbert is very observant and notices everyone's comings and going in the neighborhood, when cars come down the street, and that the neighbor's dog tends to run out. I think he wanted her to find the journal and run out.
I totally thought he might have had a hand in her death and rather than this being simplistic plot device it’s something up for interpretation. The conversation he had with his neighbor about the details of the accident sounded strange to me (I don’t remember exactly the wording or why it was weird). I was hoping that others were not convinced of his innocence on the matter and would love to hear everyone’s thoughts.
Oh my god
I wasn't surprised that she died, but I was surprised that Humpty had nothing to do with it. I really was expecting him to have a hand in it.
Me too.
I never thought he'd kill her. The accident seemed incredibly convenient. I always assumed he'd nab Dolores and Haze would chase them around the country.
It really does seem convenient for the narrative. I'm okay with it though because Humbert thinks fate is on his side and it just adds to his creepy slimy character.
Interesting, I hadn't really thought it was anything but an accident, she ran into the road, its not like he pushed her.
I thought it was a rather simplistic device for Nabokov to take the novel where he wanted.
I thought so as well but I really liked that he added that "fate" had a part in it in Humbert's mind. It adds an another layer of creepy factor to Humbert for me.
10) Do you think Dolores was really capable of seducing Humbert? Do you think she really understood what her seduction meant?
I am also having a tough time discerning what her true feelings are given our unreliable narrator. The claim that she seduced him is a suspicious one. It seems like she was going through a period of self-exploration at summer camp and then was promptly picked up to learn that her mother died. Her actions are melodramatic and irrational because of the experiences she's had in the last few months. If she did act out sexually, it's a clear vie for attention and it's apparent that she doesn't understand the full consequences of it.
Absolutely. Its totally possible she acted out sexually, but she is still only 12 and has no understanding of the consequences of what she was doing. I think its probably mostly him wrongly reading into her words/ actions.
TOTAL. AGREEMENT.
> If she did act out sexually, it's a clear vie for attention and it's apparent that she doesn't understand the full consequences of it. I agree complete. She's too young to fully grasp what's going on. I think all the signs are there that she is uncomfortable but they are hare to pick up on because our narrator is an unreliable one.
No, children cannot seduce grown ups. They can go through the motions they've seen on TV but the desire to have sex alone isn't consent, they simply aren't old enough to understand. It's the job of the adult to shut that shit down. Even if she understands what she's doing, it doesn't make her a reasonable moral agent. There are levels of understanding. She may understand her desires, but not consequences.
I think Dolores may have a crush on Humbert, and may be emulating things she's seen in movies or magazines to act on that crush. She doesn't actually know what she's doing or the consequences of it. I also think Humbert is overplaying what she actually said/did to him. He wants us to think of her as an "immortal daemon disguised as a female child". If he can make Lolita seem like an active agent in their relationship, perhaps even something supernatural that he couldn't possibly fight against, then it takes some of the blame away from him.
NO
the only response needed imo
No, fuck no. She is a child. Think of her just having sex rather than anything else. Humpty attributes that to this fast age, but I think it's more likely that she acts the way she does because she has no sexual feelings. Adult lovers do all the extra bits and pieces because sex normally comes with affection and love. But this isn't love. It's obscene.
No, I don’t think so. She’s a 12 year old child and she doesn’t know what she’s doing. I think she’s a bit ‘attention seeking’ given her mother’s disdain for her. She knows what Humbert wanted and she also ‘desired’ his desire but it was not supposed to be acted upon.