Anthony: I do agree that H-H’s attitude cannot be described “simply as remorse.” Or “simply” as anything for that matter! I was quoting the confused reviewer who, misreading H-H’s “shame” completely, bemoans the fact that Evison’s William shows no remorse at all, as if a writer having the gall to “borrow from Lolita” must also endow his characters with VN’s moral subtleties. Apart from calling the young victim Lulu, there’s nothing much of the Lolita plot, and, as David Powelstock’s percipient posting declared, much more, given the ages/activities of the siblings Will/Lulu, of the “Ada-incest” theme. A reviewer with Nabokovian pretentions might well have explored any parallels between Van’s and Will’s shame or lack of.
I like VN’s non-Dantean notion of an evening’s parole for Humbert-in-Hell each year. Was this earned by the monster’s odd moments of regret? If so, VN has resolved one of my paradoxes: the sincerity of H-H’s confession! God, I’m told by those who know Her, sees through phony remorse.
skb
On 08/08/2008 15:37, "Anthony Stadlen" <STADLEN@AOL.COM> wrote:
In a message dated 08/08/2008 14:22:40 GMT Standard Time, skb@BOOTLE.BIZ writes:
Evison is slated as "derivative" at one stage, yet blamed later in the review because Will shows none of H-H's remorse.
Nabokov is much too subtle, and also too morally straightforward, a writer for Humbert's attitude to be described simply as "remorse". Nabokov (in "Strong Opinions" merely grants him one evening's parole a year from Hell. Somebody truly remorseful would not have gone on to murder Quilty on the grounds that Quilty did not recognise Humbert's essential inner innocence! I have often commented on the moral bankruptcy of much of the discussion by literary people of what are quite simple, but in no way simplistic, moral issues.
Anthony Stadlen