NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita

[Jasper Fidget]

Fair enough; I didn't mean to suggest HH is *only* a twisted little child
molester; t'would be a disservice to both novel and novelist.  But I cannot
imagine that he is *not* a child molester.  Lolita is twelve years old, and
I don't see that as so different from seven when it comes to the lust of a
middle-aged man or the uncomfortable identification with that lust on the
part of the reader.  I believe it is justifiable to demonize him for that,
whatever else he may be, and certainly that a reader might identify with him
to a degree does not therefore excuse him for his behavior (and so it's to
that reader's chagrin that HH has put him in parallel).  Whether the reader
wishes to cast that lust into pejorative terms is largely a matter of
semantics.

I find HH every bit as solipsistic as Kinbote though; Lolita is not a person
to him any more than Hazel is to Kinbote, and both characters suffer from
the malaise of being trapped in time, prisoners of their past whether real
or imaginary, and of the elaborate constructions of their own minds that
don't have any room for people other than themselves.  For all the games
they play and all the tricks they pull to exalt their private worlds, HH is
finally and ultimately a scoundrel, and Kinbote is... well, that remains to
be decided.	

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of The Great Quail
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:08 PM
> To: The Whole Sick Crew
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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