Nabokov and Trilling discuss Lolita

This may be old news for some, but I've only started to explore what's available at YouTube and CSPAN Video. Here is a two parter of Vladimir Nabokov and Lionel Trilling discussing Lolita on the Canadian television show "Close Up".

Part 1



Part 2

Lolita summary

Notes written by Nabokov about finishing Lolita
Picture source

"I have only words to play with!"
That one quote continues to stick with me as my favorite line of the book as well as representative of so much within it. In the same declaration, Humbert Humbert bemoans the fact that he does not have Lolita to "play with," as well as alluding to the theme within the book that words are inadequate in so many situations (despite the seductiveness of his words).

I've been rather hard on the book, mainly because the parodies and puzzles within the book promise so much. Do they live up to those promises? Or to paraphrase comments I made in the discussion posts, does it rise above the gimicks? I think the book will easily survive multiple readings, revealing something new each time. Looking back on passages in order to write about them, I found additional things each time. And yet...there are things I felt undermined the work. Maybe fatally, maybe not. I don't know if I'll read the book again, but I do see the appeal and desire to do so.

Some additional links not included in the above, courtesy of Zembla:

Martin Amis on Lolita

Some reading group questions that are above the usual level of published questions.

An alternative study guide that looks good at first glance.

A comparison of the two film versions

Resources:

Nabokov and Lolita resources

Book version

Nabokov and Lionel Trilling discuss Lolita

Discussion:

Part One: Chapter 1 - 17

Part One: Chapters 18 - 33

Part Two

1962 movie (Stanley Kubrick)

Picture source

Lolita discussion: Lolita (1962 movie)

Picture source at FilmPosters.com

Unfortunately I had to watch the movie in fits and starts over several days, but hopefully I won’t bungle any of the facts of the movie. There is a good overview and recap of the film at American Movie Classic’s filmsite.org.

Two Views of Lolita, both of which are higher on it than I am, are at The Kubrick Site. Both views include good points on moments or props that may be too subtle to catch when they happen. Also provided is a summary of Nabokov’s involvement with the movie.

Not expecting the movie to be entirely faithful to the book meant that I wasn’t disappointed when things strayed from the text. The structure is completely different. At the beginning of the book you know that Humbert has murdered someone but the victim is not identified until near the end. The film starts with the murder, which actually works well for movies—the remainder is a set-up for the viewer to unravel. The ping-pong game between Quilty and Humbert can be seen as symbolic of their struggle for Lolita, and there are other nice additions that work well such as Humbert shooting Quilty through a painting of a young girl (hinting at the abuse to follow).

Some other additions work well. Charlotte and Humbert playing chess is a great addition, with special emphasis on how the knight moves particularly appropriate. I liked the scene of Humbert between Charlotte and Lolita at the drive-in (viewing a Frankenstein movie was a nice touch) vying for Humbert’s attention. Humbert thinks of using his gun on Charlotte, which works as a nice revision to his plan to drown her. Humbert painting Lo’s toenails adds a nice touch since Kubrick was restricted by how much interaction he could show.

However there were some changes that I couldn’t understand the reasoning. One of the best parts of the book is the uncertain gender of Quilty to Humbert—the movie has Charlotte specifically talk about Clare as “he”. Other additions are head-scratchers to me as well. Why introduce Charlotte’s nephritis (by John and Jean Farlow)? Maybe to provide an excuse for her fake sickness, but it does nothing. The intimation that Quilty had been intimate with Charlotte years ago replaces the hints that Humbert dropped in the book that Charlotte and he had been lovers—the latter provides a great cover for Humbert, both sympathetically and practically. Some visual touches work well, like Quilty reading the comics section of a newspaper so that Humbert won’t see him, evoking many touches within the book.

All these and other divergences or changes I could have overlooked but for two things. In the book, Humbert plans, schemes, and dreams of seducing Lolita. So much groundwork and preparation is detailed, like the sleeping pills. Those incidences provide tension and comedy in the book but they seem to be totally missing in the movie. Everything that happens after Charlotte’s death should be magnified because of what went on before. The second item that annoyed me to no end was the music. I found myself turning down the volume often so I didn’t have to listen to it.

James Mason is solid as Humbert. Not quite the “movie star good looks” I envisioned, but who knows if the book’s Humbert was truthful. Many of Mason’s mannerisms reflected inner turmoil and distraction: I loved his “I – yi – yi – yi” stammer. Sue Lyon was solid as Lolita. Obviously older than the character in the book and so a little less innocent looking, but the suggestive way she drinks a coke through a straw or eats potato chips out of the bag are very erotic. The eroticism of Lolita was minimal, though, which is appropriate—the sensual torture of Humbert when around her was mostly in his head. The sexual innuendos and tension are also shown in other ways, such as the feeling that John and Jean Farlow are swingers (or whatever the appropriate term is…or maybe I was reading too much into it). Shelley Winters is great as Charlotte. She got on my nerves quickly, even with minor things, and she reeked of desperation. Unlike the music, the annoyance was part and parcel of the character.

Peter Sellers as Quilty eludes what I expected. I hated the manner he employed when talking to Humbert, either on the porch of The Enchanted Hunters inn or over the phone just before Lolita escapes. The wonderful dialogue in the book at the inn would have lent itself beautifully to the film, leaving the viewer to wonder “what did he really say”. Instead you get nervous, irritating patter. The scene with Quilty playing the school psychologist seemed unnecessary with all the other times he was around Lolita, even though it was consistent with trying to relax Humbert’s grip on her. The bad German accent in addition to the patter simply irritated me (which is probably the point). During the movie, even though Sellers plays the role well, I kept asking myself “Is he Quilty?” Again, I don’t mind divergence from the source if it adds something, but this change seemed to actually diminish Quilty.

The revelation to Humbert that Lolita had left with Quilty is a moving scene, but not enough to hang the end of the movie. I think it would have been more effective to start the movie with the three-year interlude, having Humbert voiceover (looking for his love and the man that wronged him) while looking for Lolita. Then you have somewhere to go after the revelation other than a fadeout. But that’s not the movie or ending we get. This is a film that falls between the criticism and praise it has received, yet I still have a feeling of disappointment given the names involved. Given the source, even though I was somewhat dissatisfied with the book, I don’t think the film took enough advantage with the wealth of material available.

Picture source at FilmPosters.com

Lolita discussion: Part One, Chapters 18 - 33

This cartoon originally appeared in The New York Times Book Review on September 14, 1958.
The caption reads, "Go get your own copy of 'Lolita.'"
Picture source

The book developed slowly, with many interruptions and asides. It had taken me some forty years to invent Russia and Western Europe, and now I was faced by the task of inventing America. The obtaining of such local ingredients as would allow me to inject a modicum of average “reality” (one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes) into the brew of individual fancy, proved at fifty a much more difficult process than it had been in the Europe of my youth when receptiveness and retention were at their automatic best. Other books intervened. Once or twice I was on the point of burning the unfinished draft and had carried my Juanita Dark as far as the shadow of the leaning incinerator on the innocent lawn, which I was stopped by the thought that the ghost of the destroyed book would haunt my files for the rest of my life.
From “On a Book Entitled Lolita”—Nabokov wrote this to be included with excerpts of the book appearing in the 1957 edition of The Anchor Review and it is now usually included as an Afterword to the book.

I liked the above quote for several reasons, including for the idea that Nabokov thought his books invented (reflected and defined? Or something more?) locales, as well as the prospect of a ghost haunting him. Fear of ghosts plays a role in Lolita, particularly Humbert Humbert’s recently deceased wife Charlotte. A major focus of the book is on death. It starts in Dr. Ray’s forward and continues throughout the book. Usually the deaths are merely relayed to the reader and not depicted, Charlotte’s accident a notable (near-)exception. The ghosts and deaths can be literal or figurative, sometimes intertwined when HH notes (shortly after his night with Lolita in The Enchanted Hunters) that he felt “an oppressive hideous constraint as if I were sitting with the small ghost of somebody I had just killed.” He had, of course, destroyed Lo’s… “innocence” isn’t the right word, even though I see that used regularly. She was already sexually experienced, as HH takes great pains to note, but it was as an adolescent, exploring “grown-up” things. HH destroys what remains of Lo’s childhood while making her completely dependent on him. He compounds the callous treatment with his brutal way of revealing her mother’s death. Of course she had “absolutely nowhere else to go.” Any ethical doubts and fears he experiences appear too little and too late.

Nabokov provides a fascinating study of Humbert’s psychology. HH’s approach in writing the manuscript as an appeal to an imaginative jury will necessarily slant things in his favor. Several times HH swears he is telling the complete truth, yet in his narrative he makes it clear that facts are not important in certain situations (in this section, even simple things like society columns and previous lovers). The seduction of the reader is never quite consummated since Humbert continues to drop discordant rationalizations. Asking “the community to allow them [pedophiles] 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 them” is a sure way not to sway the jury. His appeal for the reader to “Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me”, while true of all fictional characters, is his appeal to get inside his head—understand what he is feeling and hopefully sympathize with his plight. HH asks for this because, as he notes, “I have only words to play with!” The inadequacy of words is explored as HH visits the accident scene where his wife was killed—the flash of impression, then sense is made (but still impaired) in ordering words to attempt to describe events. If HH can get the reader/jury to become enamored or sexually aroused in his descriptions, he will win their compassion and acceptance.

Not to pick on him, but it makes me wonder if I’m reading the same book as Lionel Trilling:

Lolita is about love. Perhaps I shall be better understood if I put the statement in this form: Lolita is not about sex, but about love. Almost every page sets forth some explicit erotic emotion or some overt erotic action and still it is not about sex. It is about love. …

(W)e find ourselves the more shocked when we realize that, in the course of reading the novel, we have come virtually to condone the violation it presents. …(W)e have been seduced into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting.

Ummmm, no. Nabokov never pulls the veil completely up to obscure the action underneath Humbert’s passionate appeal. Despite the excuses and rationalizations, the dysfunction in HH’s mind comes to the foreground time and again in dealing with this “deamon disguised as a female child.” If there is love, it is a stilted, dysfunctional emotion that HH believes is love. He declares his feelings for Lo are more than just physical, yet all he can think about during their drive the morning after The Enchanted Hunters is having sex with her again. HH constantly buys her things, the only way he can show affection toward her outside of sex. There are moments that lead you to believe HH might actually have true feelings for Lolita: his obsession with her ‘purity’ for example—he was relieved to see she still had her appendix, therefore not scarred. And yet his “feelings” are not diminished when he finds out about her camp experience. That budding promise of depth to his feelings (beyond sex) is quickly dashed with his cruelty toward her.

All of which is not to say reading the book isn’t enjoyable. The nature of the narration, abounding in puzzles and displaced hints, invites a second reading (or more) to catch the meaning and depth of the writing. Once again, I’ll recommend this book needs to be heard (read it aloud if an audiobook isn’t available). But I keep coming back to the question I had in the previous post on the book: does it rise above being a parody? Do I want to read it again for something more than just solving the puzzles? Part One was a promising start.

Lolita discussion: Part One, Chapters 1 – 17

Picture source

So Humbert the Cubus schemed and dreamed—and the red sun of desire and decision (the two things that create a live world) rose higher and higher, while upon a succession of balconies a succession of libertines, sparkling glass in hand, toasted the bliss of past and future nights. Then, figuratively speaking, I shattered the glass and boldly imagined (for I was drunk on those visions by then and underrated the gentleness of my nature) how eventually I might blackmail—no, that is too strong a word—mauvemail big Haze into letting me consort with little Haze by gently threatening the poor doting Big Dove with desertion if she tried to bar me from playing with my legal stepdaughter. In a word, before such an Amazing Offer, before such a vastness and variety of vistas, I was as helpless as Adam at the preview of early oriental history, mirage in his apple orchard.
From Part One, Chapter 17

Delicious. Lolita is a joy to read…to hear… while the subject matter is disturbing. The narrator’s seductive language pulls the reader into his world, deeper into his mind. Which is clearly the intent. Humbert Humbert, the narrator (HH), shapes his tale as a justification of his actions. HH addresses his imagined jury so the reader knows that things will be skewed in his favor even as he claims perfect memory and impartial presentation. His claim at times that “the artist in me” takes “the upper hand over the gentleman” fails on several counts—while not a gentleman, the artist characterization raises doubt as to how truthful is his portrayal of events. Compounding the reliability question is Dr. Ray’s Forward to the book. The reader can feel twice removed from what actually happened, even if the doctor’s claim that only a few names have been changed. A seed of doubt as to other changes have been planted with the doctor’s wish to make the book both a classic and a cautionary tale.

While the techniques used by Nabokov are fun to read, do they really advance the story? Or to put it another way, Nabokov parodies many things but does the book rise above simple parody? Is there substance beyond the puzzles? It is too early for me to make a judgment since I know hints are being left for future events. Many of the devices seem to be used simply for their own sake. But then that is part of the appeal. Trying to figure out all of the puzzles presented is part of the overall game, including which ones are relevant and which ones are meant to misdirect. In the course of a few pages I noted Nabokov’s use of the following motifs, techniques, devices, etc.:

• Literary references (Poe is a major one—fitting given the crime novel aspect of the book)
• Time and memory (Proust is explicitly mentioned)
• Metamorphoses (many things developing: Lolita, butterfly references, etc.)
• Coincidence (fate plays a major role)
• The number 3 (and other numbers will reappear, like 342)
• The inadequacy of words (“I only have words to play with!”)
• Anagrams
• Contrasts (black/white, light/shade)
• Wordplay (see opening quote for some fun examples)
• Unreliability of narrator (bouts of insanity are confessed)
• Unreliability of experts (psychiatry is a favorite target)

Again, this is just a sample from a few pages. HH also uses different styles of presenting the information such as inserting journal entries (accurately recalled, allegedly, since the original was destroyed—did I mention a reliability factor?) or lists to push the story along. The self-confession is a particularly effective method for this story. HH constantly paints himself as a predator, apparently not skimping on details that paint himself in a bad light in order to add believability. He draws the reader into his confidence, but his self-justifications jolt back to reality—this is a very sick person.

This section covers up to the point where HH is given an ultimatum by Charlotte Haze—marry me or move out of the house. The reader sees Humbert’s dysfunction develop (mature isn’t quite the right word). The pleasure in reading this so far (to me) has been in the techniques, not the story. There are several devices and motifs that are enjoyable to watch unfolding. A major pattern involves the numerous use of doubles. Annabel has a double in Dolores. HH’s 'love' for Dolores has its double or mimicry in her mother’s 'love' of HH. Even the words have double meaning or evoke other meanings. Words frequently call forth Dolores’ name (dolor, dolorous) or the last name of Haze “chosen” for the book by Dr. Ray (hazy is an often-used descriptor). With all the doubles or echoes in the book, I don’t find it coincidental that the object of his “affection” has more than one name.

I’m about two months removed from having read this so this discussion will be brief, but I’ll add a couple of other notes. In HH’s defense, he likes to paint himself the victim…whether it is a victim of “arbitrary” rules (it is OK to court a 16 year old girl but not one of 12), of coincidence (which pile up fast), or even of Dolores herself. HH claims his actions are chaste since he has taken nothing from her or done nothing to her, alerting the reader that he is too far gone in his reveries to consider why his actions aren’t OK. Little details lend richness and additional meanings to scenes, Dolores eating an apple during the famous couch scene (Chapter 13) for example. There is an innocence lost during the incident, but the fruit does not yield understanding (or the ability to differentiate between good and evil) for HH.

Hopefully I’ll be able to find some time to finish the book and write up the discussions so I can fully concentrate on Shakespeare and Spenser. I didn’t intend to get stuck in the 16th century, but that's where McFate is taking me...

Lolita discussion: book version

Vladimir Nabokov and his wife, Véra, 1966
Picture source

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

(The opening lines of Lolita)

A note on the version I’m reading. I received The Annotated Lolita: Revised and Updatedfor Christmas (although don't be surprised by the looks you get in public when reading it). The book is an elaborate game between Nabokov and the reader, so knowing too much about the book in advance may spoil some of the fun of discovering and uncovering what is going on behind the text. If you’re the type that would lose some pleasure from having too much revealed in advance, you might want to use a different version of the book. Even if you skip the introduction, the notes may reveal too much. In addition, don’t read any of my discussion posts until you've read the book—I never announce “spoiler ahead” since I’m discussing my thoughts about a work...I figure it goes without saying.

If you plan only one reading of the book and want to “get” as much as possible, then this version is definitely for you. Whichever version you choose, I also highly recommend the audio book as read by Jeremy Irons. A true delight. His reading helps reveal things not always apparent on the page. Irons masterfully voices the playful text to the max. It’s a little pricey (well, to me), but hopefully your library carries it. Again, very highly recommended.

And with that out of the way, I’ll actually get to the work as soon as the new job allows…

Lolita online resources

The Olympia Press’ cover of Lolita
Picture source
There are many informative sites dedicated to Nabokov and Lolita, but unfortunately many of the links I tried at these sites no longer exist. Hopefully the following links will stick around for a while.

Vladimir Nabokov

Wikipedia entry for Vladimir Nabokov

The gateway to an extended interview at The Paris Review (which can be found here--large .pdf file)

"Poshlust," or in a better transliteration Postlost, has many nuances, and evidently I have not described them clearly enough in my little book on Gogol, if you think one can ask anybody if he is tempted by poshlost. Corny trash, vulgar clichés, Philistinism in all its phases, imitations of imitations, bogus profundities, crude, moronic, and dishonest pseudo-literature--these are obvious examples. ... Poshlost speaks in such concepts as "America is no better than Russia" or "We all share in Germany's guilt." The flowers of poshblost bloom in such phrases and terms as "the moment of truth," "charisma," "existential" (used seriously), "dialogue" (as applied to political talks between nations), and "vocabulary" (as applied to a dauber). Listing in one breath Auschwitz, Hiroshima, and Vietnam is seditious poshlost. Belonging to a very select club (which sports one Jewish name--that of the treasurer) is genteel poshlost.

(See this extended entry on poshlost)

Zembla, the Nabokov resource from Penn State University. A treasure-trove of information.

The New York Public Library’s exhibition on the occasion of the centennial of the writer’s birth. Here is the related seminar on Nabokov and his work.

“Nabokov’s Butterflies”, an article in The Atlantic, along with links to some of his works published in the magazine

Nabokov A – Z

Essays on some of Nabokov’s short stories by Roy Johnson. “It is the purpose of this study to trace the development of his skill in the creation of short fictions through the whole of his fifty published stories, and in particular to examine his manipulation of traditional narrative modes.”

A review of a biography on his wife Véra.

The Nabokov Museum in St. Petersburg

Discussing Nabokov at Slate by James Wood.
I’m not very far into Lolita but I can understand the reservations Wood mentions. I find myself (so far) closer to Wood than Danilo Kis, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

I'm inclined to find fault with Nabokov, while cherishing him for all his lusters, and to come to a position somewhere between Rorty's veneration of Nabokov as a moral sage, always pressing his case against "cruelty," and the Yugoslav writer Danilo Kis' unfair complaint (in his essay "Nabokov, or Nostalgia") that Nabokov's is "a magnificent complex, and sterile art." I feel, paradoxically, that Nabokov is neither wholly humane nor wholly sterile.

Marissa’s blog entry on Nabokov living in Oregon

Nabokov’s 1964 interview in Playboy (the interviewer is Alvin Toffler). Unfortunately there no graphics. Check out the Interviews section at this post for more interviews.

The Cinematography of Nabokov's Creative Vision by Leigh Kimmel. An additional essay by Leigh: Nabokov as Translator.

An NPR piece on the fate of Nabokov’s unfinished manuscript. Additional Nabokov stories are linked at the end of the article. Another article on the (currently) unfinished, unpublished story.

Update April 23, 2009: The Nabokov Assignment looks at the short stories in The Stories of Vladimir Nabokov, adding comments, excerpts, biography, or anything else that came to mind while reading each story.


Lolita

Lolita’s Wikipedia entry

The exhibition case at Cornell University regarding the 50th anniversary of Lolita

The Lolita Effect at the Zembla site—many articles on the book

Lolita, U.S.A.—a geographical tour of the book’s trips. Also, a chronology of the book is provided.

The many covers of Lolita. Love the font that screams "I'm from the '70s!"

Random House’s reading group guide for the book. The questions are a cut above the usual for reading group sites.

A class wiki on Lolita from The University of Texas at Dallas

Update:Academic Earth has three lectures on Lolita and Nabokov. I haven't listened to them so I can't comment, but the overviews look promising.
(Feb. 26, 2009)

Update:D. G. Myers, at A Commonplace Blog, has a wonderful post regarding The enactment of moral experience in Lolita.
(Mar. 11, 2009)

Update:Chris Lott posted on Lolita at 62 as well as noting the passing of Alfred Appel, Jr. (who compiled The Annotated Lolita).
Thanks to Chris and William for steering me to these links.
(May 12, 2009)