NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 13:08, The Great Quail wrote:
> > As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert creates for
> > himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap of the
> > novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
> > everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a twisted
> > little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when reading
> > _Lolita_.
> 
> I think it is a mischaracterization to reduce Humbert to a "twisted little
> child molester." That's too simplistic: it's too easy to demonize him in
> that way. There is a genuine sexiness to "Lolita" -- and yes, I know you are
> seeing everything through Humbert's eyes -- that would not be there if
> Dolores Haze were, say, 7 years old. There's an erotic nexus between the
> two, even despite the fact that Lolita is underage and essentially being
> coerced. 
> 
> Part of the power of Humbert's obsession comes from the fact that it is
> fixed in a very queasy zone, where sexuality is developing and therefore
> open to ambiguity. No matter how well Nabokov wrote, reading about a
> "rationalized" fixation for a pre-pubescent child would be very different
> than reading Humbert's fixation with budding "nymphets." Does this mean I
> think it's healthy or all right? No, of course not. Humbert is still a
> terrible man, and of course his relationship with Lolita was abusive. But I
> do feel it to be different from child molestation.


Not sure what you're saying. Lolita and nymphets (in the Nabokovian
sense) ARE prepubescent, aren't they? They lose their attractiveness and
face early retirement from nymphet-dom once secondary sex
characteristics appear. 


As far as Lolita's complicity in the match up is concerned, though not
physically fully-sexual herself, she has mastered the fundamentals of
male sexuality. This can come well before puberty (or long after)

This doesn't excuse H. H. of course..

P.

>
> Regarding Kinbote's sexuality, I think there is nothing sexy at all about it
> -- and certainly not because he's gay. He is pathetic and self-involved,
> viewing men and boys as mere objects. As has been suggested here today, his
> pornography is the poem itself, his erotic thrill is insinuating himself
> deeper into Shade's life, attempting to merge with his art....
> 
> --Quail
>