Subject
Re: odd moment in Lolita? (fwd) (fwd)
From
Date
Body
------------------
It seems unlikely that Dolly Haze's use of the term "rape" constitutes
anything like a "throw-away line," and that for three reasons:
1) As Zoran Kuzmanovich (and others, no doubt) have noted, it's a good idea
to approach Nabokov's novels with the basic mindset that they contain no
accidents; nothing gets into his books that he didn't intend to be there.
(Could there be a more marvelously over-determined writer in the English
language than Nabokov? Humbert isn't the only writer given to bemoaning
his "horrible careful English" [Pt. Two, Ch. 29, p. 263 Library of
America].)
2) The instance in Pt. Two, Ch. 13 is not Dolly's first or probably last
use of the term. She initially launches it at Humbert in the car on the
morning after:
"'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.'"
(Pt. One, Ch. 32, p. 132 LoA)
Then, during the fateful row in Beardsley that precipitates their second
and final cross-country journey together, Humbert eschews direct quotation
in favor of unmistakable euphemism: "She said I had attempted to violate
her several times when I was her mother's roomer" (Pt. Two, Ch. 14, p. 192
LoA).
3) Humbert uses the term (in effect) twice in reference to himself. First,
during one of his harangues to intimidate his step-daughter: "The rapist
was Charlie Holmes; I am the therapist -- a matter of nice spacing in the
way of distinction" (Pt. Two, Ch. 1, p. 139 LoA). Humbert also concludes
his memoir by noting that, were he his own judge, he would "have given
Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the
charges" (Pt. Two, Ch. 36, p. 290 LoA).
This final instance of the term "rape" seems particularly important because
it suggests once again Humbert's crucial ability to use his memoir to
present his victims after the fact (not just Lolita, but Charlotte as well)
in ways that validate their independence of him and their comparative moral
authority. It has always seemed to me that Humbert's task as a writer is
not to exonerate himself of his crimes legally, but somehow to redeem them
in his own imagination, to offer artistic redress to those he took such
terrible advantage of (chiefly Dolores Haze, of course). Humbert's
unlikely ability to plumb the sordid depths of the nympholept's sins and
still to write about them with winning remorse and surprising humor makes
him an endlessly fascinating and instructive figure. Dr. Jekyll never
could integrate the hideous Hyde -- to their mutual ruin; Humbert, on the
other hand, harnesses the unruly, ravenous beast (as he so repeatedly
characterizes himself) and makes him give birth to rare artistic beauty.
The subtle connections to and incorporations of Lolita's perspective -- so
alien to his own, and yet so crucial to his project as a writer -- help
make the novel the tour-de-force it is.
On a different note, let me conclude by mentioning that many of my students
over the years (especially women students) have questioned the plausibility
of Lolita's speech as Humbert quotes it, and this line of questioning
almost inevitably leads someone to ask whether it isn't possible that
*everything* in the book constitutes the (mere, marvelous) product of
Humbert's diseased imagination. I've tried out various responses to this
question, but usually I end up falling back on a Nabokovian aphorism from
"On a Book Entitled *Lolita*" that seems potentially pertinent here too:
"'[R]eality' (one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes."
Brian Walter
------------------------------------------------
On Jul 6, 2004, at 11:53 PM, D. Barton Johnson wrote:
>>> refers to it as 'the
>> hotel
>>> where you raped me'. You almost have to wonder that HH isn't
>>> imagining
>>> these words, because they seem to reveal a strangely mature
>>> psychology,
>> and
>>> because most of the sexual action is referred o so tangentially.
>>> Just my
>>> cod-Freudian take on this. Any thoughts?
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
It seems unlikely that Dolly Haze's use of the term "rape" constitutes
anything like a "throw-away line," and that for three reasons:
1) As Zoran Kuzmanovich (and others, no doubt) have noted, it's a good idea
to approach Nabokov's novels with the basic mindset that they contain no
accidents; nothing gets into his books that he didn't intend to be there.
(Could there be a more marvelously over-determined writer in the English
language than Nabokov? Humbert isn't the only writer given to bemoaning
his "horrible careful English" [Pt. Two, Ch. 29, p. 263 Library of
America].)
2) The instance in Pt. Two, Ch. 13 is not Dolly's first or probably last
use of the term. She initially launches it at Humbert in the car on the
morning after:
"'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.'"
(Pt. One, Ch. 32, p. 132 LoA)
Then, during the fateful row in Beardsley that precipitates their second
and final cross-country journey together, Humbert eschews direct quotation
in favor of unmistakable euphemism: "She said I had attempted to violate
her several times when I was her mother's roomer" (Pt. Two, Ch. 14, p. 192
LoA).
3) Humbert uses the term (in effect) twice in reference to himself. First,
during one of his harangues to intimidate his step-daughter: "The rapist
was Charlie Holmes; I am the therapist -- a matter of nice spacing in the
way of distinction" (Pt. Two, Ch. 1, p. 139 LoA). Humbert also concludes
his memoir by noting that, were he his own judge, he would "have given
Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the
charges" (Pt. Two, Ch. 36, p. 290 LoA).
This final instance of the term "rape" seems particularly important because
it suggests once again Humbert's crucial ability to use his memoir to
present his victims after the fact (not just Lolita, but Charlotte as well)
in ways that validate their independence of him and their comparative moral
authority. It has always seemed to me that Humbert's task as a writer is
not to exonerate himself of his crimes legally, but somehow to redeem them
in his own imagination, to offer artistic redress to those he took such
terrible advantage of (chiefly Dolores Haze, of course). Humbert's
unlikely ability to plumb the sordid depths of the nympholept's sins and
still to write about them with winning remorse and surprising humor makes
him an endlessly fascinating and instructive figure. Dr. Jekyll never
could integrate the hideous Hyde -- to their mutual ruin; Humbert, on the
other hand, harnesses the unruly, ravenous beast (as he so repeatedly
characterizes himself) and makes him give birth to rare artistic beauty.
The subtle connections to and incorporations of Lolita's perspective -- so
alien to his own, and yet so crucial to his project as a writer -- help
make the novel the tour-de-force it is.
On a different note, let me conclude by mentioning that many of my students
over the years (especially women students) have questioned the plausibility
of Lolita's speech as Humbert quotes it, and this line of questioning
almost inevitably leads someone to ask whether it isn't possible that
*everything* in the book constitutes the (mere, marvelous) product of
Humbert's diseased imagination. I've tried out various responses to this
question, but usually I end up falling back on a Nabokovian aphorism from
"On a Book Entitled *Lolita*" that seems potentially pertinent here too:
"'[R]eality' (one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes."
Brian Walter
------------------------------------------------
On Jul 6, 2004, at 11:53 PM, D. Barton Johnson wrote:
>>> refers to it as 'the
>> hotel
>>> where you raped me'. You almost have to wonder that HH isn't
>>> imagining
>>> these words, because they seem to reveal a strangely mature
>>> psychology,
>> and
>>> because most of the sexual action is referred o so tangentially.
>>> Just my
>>> cod-Freudian take on this. Any thoughts?
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L