tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post8314049987809167166..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: The enactment of moral experienceD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-16265263792278493442009-11-23T03:36:01.830-05:002009-11-23T03:36:01.830-05:00The next sentence of the rosegray segment in quest...The next sentence of the rosegray segment in question--“Mes fenêtres!”--signals the parody and self-parody that drives Lolita: an appropriate exclamation to a passage that strikes me as capturing Humbert’s artistic (and not altogether perverted) desires. While capturing the magic of nymphets sounds more like the work of a pervert, capturing the magic of “the great rosegray never-to-be-had” sounds more like the work of a poet. Of course Appel has a lot of great things to say about the part parody plays in Lolita. My point here is slightly different than his, and somewhat counter to yours. Parody and self-parody have a variety of specifically masterful effects throughout the novel, but an overall effect is that it draws attention to the fact that we are reading fiction. What’s more, an examination of the chronology reveals that Humbert began writing on September 22 (before II.28), which means either Nabokov fumbled the dates (unlikely) or that Humbert “neatly, but implausibly, settles the destinies of the three main characters with a reconciliatory visit to Dolores and revenge on Quilty” (Moore, 2002). In this sense, Humbert does not free himself through seeing Dolores as a person, but through the fictional creation of seeing Lolita as a person (literally, through art): Lolita remains “the great rosegray never-to-be-had,” which is why I do not dismiss that passage. Repentance is certainly a theme and driving force, but it serves without conflicting the theme of not being able to capture the past or the magic of nymphets (or “the meaning” of Lolita for that matter); the artistic response to this (as described on 264), strikes me as what is ultimately pertinent to Lolita’s immortality. <br /><br />This is my main point of contention: although Humbert’s realization of his effect on Dolores is integral to the transforming atonement of the novel (from compunction to remorse), this is not at odds with the artistic purpose presented in the rosegray passage on 264. In fact, this passage of the narrator’s intentions may be even more extensively relevant to the novel than your concentration on repentance: through a crooked mirror, what Humbert is describing is also the darkly reflected intentions of Nabokov, the pure puppeteer and noble butterfly catcher.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-81961036296570301992009-11-23T03:36:01.831-05:002009-11-23T03:36:01.831-05:00Your approach of showing how the art of Lolita is ...Your approach of showing how the art of Lolita is showcased by the reading experience as a whole is enjoyable: I too believe that Lolita is embedded with morality without actually enforcing a moral because a reader bears witness to how Humbert’s repentance suspends time in a transformative (butterfly-like) way. I assume you have read Appel’s commentary on Lolita since you are a teacher and since your page numbers match Appel’s annotated Lolita. I notice that, like Appel, you link the lines about “the perilous magic of nymphets” and the “great rosegray never-to-be-had,” but, unlike Appel, you seem to see the excerpts as equivalent statements. This suggests to me a difference in our opinions that I’d like to explore for the purposes of crystallization.<br /><br />Since you agree with critics such as Appel and Butler that butterfly-like patterning and transformations occur throughout the novel (and within Humbert’s mind and narrative), wouldn’t the rosegray excerpt be a transformed and more poetic reworking of “the perilous magic of nymphets” and the actual scene being referenced on page 20? Ultimately, I disagree with the following aspect of your argument: Lolita (Humbert’s created name for her) is a “vision” out of reach and does represent “the security of a situation where infinite perfections fill the gap between the little given and the great promised—the great rosegray never-to-be-had” (264). Dolores Haze is a person, a hero of sorts, but not a person the reader knows much about: what is reliably and unreliably related by Humbert necessarily blends in Lolita, but it cannot be said to represent Dolores Haze. Even, as you mention, when Humbert says “this Lolita” towards the end of the novel, although he momentarily breaks from his solipsism (transforming from lust to love), he is also providing a parody of Catullus that is sustained throughout the novel (“my Lesbia, that Lesbia”). I believe such parody is a reminder that Lolita is not a person, that she is a product of Humbert’s mind. A main source of the novel’s poignancy is that by the time Humbert is willing to leave “the boundaries” in his mind, “the mirror beaches and rosy rocks—of an enchanted island haunted by…nymphets,” by the time he emphasizes, as you put it, the young woman’s “thisness,” he is already far too distant from Dolores Haze (16). The distance is figurative and literal.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-39308938760396711812009-03-12T01:32:00.000-04:002009-03-12T01:32:00.000-04:00I was kinda surprised at the amount in our class o...I was kinda surprised at the amount in our class on Tuesday that couldn't forgive him. Maybe i was able to do it because i have seen the movie so many times and have had more time to brood over Humbert. (i just finished re-watching it for the first time after finishing the novel)<BR/><BR/>I think it is because HH starts as such an evil (in the begining) character and in the majority of the books read, movies scene, or stories heard, the evil characters are static and never change while Lolita introduces us to a seemingly evil person and forces us to sympathize, to an extent, with him as the protagonist.<BR/><BR/>I think it is that juxtaposition of and evil-protagonist at the beginning that automatically put of most of the people in class. <BR/><BR/>Although if given the time and thought i felt forgiveness for him and even some righteousness in his killing of Quilty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-88133513483006245292009-03-11T15:16:00.000-04:002009-03-11T15:16:00.000-04:00Case closed. Nice job. Thanks.As for your studen...Case closed. Nice job. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>As for your students, what does it matter whether they can forgive HH? True repentance and remorse is what it is. It may be in the business of seeking forgiveness, but forgiveness must come from an "other" (a Buberian 'Thou'), and that is never a given.<BR/><BR/>HH may be repentant and that may be purgative, transformational, cathartic, ...whatever. He may even be able to forgive himself. Good for him. Now he feels better and his soul has less pain. But we don't owe him forgiveness, even if we believe his repentance is sincere.<BR/><BR/>Notwithstanding, our inability or unwillingness to forgive should not detract from our appreciation of a great work of art. Whether we forgive or not, Lolita is a tremendous, complex novel, enacting, as you argue, something like true penance.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Jim H.Jim H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02088100982761595050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-24581276262650248212009-03-11T13:10:00.000-04:002009-03-11T13:10:00.000-04:00I do wish the book had ended one page sooner than ...<I>I do wish the book had ended one page sooner than it did. The final paragraph just grated on me so much. After everything Nabokov did gracefully through HH, forcefully intruding as he did comes as quite a shock.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I disagree, Chrees. The claim that art can provide a “refuge” where Lolita still lives and yet neither Humbert nor Quilty can damage her any further is quite moving and profound. It is only through art, by means of art’s magic, that H.H. can make Lolita “live in the minds of later generations,” can elevate her to immortality. Art achieves what merely saying “I’m sorry,” or even offering her four thousand bucks, cannot.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-10654947935097321252009-03-11T12:58:00.000-04:002009-03-11T12:58:00.000-04:00A wonderful summary—thanks for posting it. I defin...A wonderful summary—thanks for posting it. <BR/><BR/>I definitely agree that working to atonement or repentance is much more powerful than an apology (which would have come off as the current non-apology apologies of today—“sorry that you took offense…”). I do wish the book had ended one page sooner than it did. The final paragraph just grated on me so much. After everything Nabokov did gracefully through HH, forcefully intruding as he did comes as quite a shock. <BR/><BR/>There is an interesting balance going on in HH’s view of purity protection. He is able to rationalize his actions (even after the couch scene) with the “I didn’t do anything to her” excuse. It’s a wonderful addition because it highlights the monster underneath (and just above) the surface regardless of his moral posturing. What is acceptable to HH, to steal an analogy, follows the letter but not the spirit of the law (statutory or moral). When HH says Lolita seduced him, there is uncertainty given his believability to date and moral framework. As you point out, the remorse and feelings after the fact highlight his realization that regardless of who seduced who, he realizes the damage he has done. And continues to do.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13688525659034403580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-34454461442576936752009-03-11T08:39:00.000-04:002009-03-11T08:39:00.000-04:00Thanks so much. If you could do the same for numb...Thanks so much. If you could do the same for numbers 2 to 50 on your list you would have a helpful, little book on your hands.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04761991139839359541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-32873325642583433452009-03-11T08:18:00.000-04:002009-03-11T08:18:00.000-04:00I could not disagree more—on both scores.First, sa...I could not disagree more—on both scores.<BR/><BR/>First, saying “I’m sorry” has become so widespread and effortless in our culture that the most horrible of crimes are brushed away with a magic verbal formula unaccompanied by any true remorse. H.H.’s refusal, not to say “I’m sorry,” but not to take the easy way out is the self-imposed obligation to find a unique way of expressing his remorse. After all, his sin against Lolita was a unique evil done to a unique person.<BR/><BR/>Second, H.H. does not tell the lie that Lolita “wants it; she has it coming.” The truth is that she had a crush on him; she lost her virginity at Camp Q; and she tries to seduce H.H. the first time. “Juvenile delickwent,” she says, “but frank and fetching” (p. 113). She is “absolutely filthy in thought, word, and deed” (p. 114) and shows “not a trace of modesty” (p. 133). <I>But the point is that all this is entirely beside the point</I>.<BR/><BR/>H.H. had already announced the intention, “with the most fervent force and foresight, to protect the purity of that twelve-year-old child” (p. 63). And his moral intention is not set aside by her “bad” and “disgusting” behavior (Lolita’s words) at camp. Here is where the feminist slogans miss the mark. It is entirely possible for a twelve-year-old girl to set out to seduce a man in his thirties. The older has a moral obligation to the younger that is not set aside by the younger’s actions. (This is a moral precept; Nabokov will have nothing to do with such language.) If he yields to her, the man—if he has the moral sensitiveness of an H.H., even if he is a monster—will be left with a post-coital horror he cannot shake off. And that is closer to Nabokov’s moral vocabulary.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-38784267810536364012009-03-11T02:08:00.000-04:002009-03-11T02:08:00.000-04:00While I quite agree with you about horrible Humber...While I quite agree with you about horrible Humbert, I have to say that I'm heartened by the students' insistence upon apology as a principle that perhaps clouded their literary perceptiveness. In a thousand cases out of a thousand-and-one, saying "I'm sorry" is a moral act that's both difficult and necessary. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps unintentionally, you've awakened in me a sense that this novel can never be adapted for dramatic purposes without betraying Lolita's innocence. it is imnpossible to imagine an actress cast for the role who does not signal, however vaguely, "she wants it; she has it coming." Exactly the lie that Humbert knows that he's telling himself.R J Keefehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06925072280945666069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-15445131122638695652009-03-10T17:05:00.000-04:002009-03-10T17:05:00.000-04:00Thanks, Nige. A lot of my students—a clear majorit...Thanks, Nige. A lot of my students—a clear majority—declined to grant H.H. any forgiveness. They scowled at me in a confirmed and unmoving skepticism. <BR/><BR/>The thing that seemed to make them maddest is the thing I like best. H.H. never tries to dismiss his evil with a light and cost-free “I’m sorry.” I could not persuade them that H.H.’s self-refusal of that out was a testament to the depth of his true remorse.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-48161713886576192962009-03-10T14:16:00.000-04:002009-03-10T14:16:00.000-04:00Phew! A brilliant - and, to me, persuasive - accou...Phew! A brilliant - and, to me, persuasive - account of the true greatness and seriousness of Lolita (a much misunderstood book).Nigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13314891387515045404noreply@blogger.com