Subject
Re: Lolita in the Enchanted Hunters (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Susan Elizabeth Sweeney <ssweeney@holycross.edu>
Once again I've managed to stir up a hornet's nest! Please forgive me if
you find this debate tiresome.
Some of the textual support I find is that Humbert took his stepdaughter
from Camp Q (without even telling her that her mother was dead!), brought
her to a prearranged hotel, and drugged her so that he could molest her in
her sleep (not knowing, of course, that the pills were placebos). Humbert
is guilty of attempted rape as well as statutory rape, incest, and,
eventually, transporting a minor across state lines for immoral purposes
(the Mann Act that he so gleefully mocks). Indeed, in my reading of
LOLITA, Humbert's guilt is necessary for his redemption at the novel's
end. However, I will cheerfully acknowledge to Jason and others that
Nabokov has made the whole matter as morally ambiguous and rhetorically
unreliable as possible. That's part of the novel's brilliance.
Susan Elizabeth Sweeney
Associate Professor of English
Holy Cross College
<<< Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu> 1/15 8:48p >>>
From: Jason Mical <unasoda@hotmail.com>
HH and Lolita are both victims of each other's manipulations, if HH's
version of the facts is at any level believable. H allows himself to be
attracted to nymphets, for whatever reason - the love of a girl who died
long ago, it seems. His nymphets, in addition to having "fey grace" and
"elusive, shifty, soul-shattering, insidious charm," are "unconscious
[themselves] of [their] fantastic power." Lolita possesses these
characteristics but is very much conscious of them, and uses them against
HH. Somehow she senses his insane desire (probably not a difficult task)
and proceeds to manipulate him; even before her mother's death and the night
in the cabin, she plays H off against her mother, knowing he will vouch for
her in discussions, and so forth.
It is true that her mother's death left Lolita with little choice, but I
don't see any textual support that H would have left her at the Emerald
Lodge, or done anything sexually to her without her reciprocating his desire
in some manner before the act. H is not a rapist, although he is legally
guilty of that act. I would be disappointed in Nabokov if the issue of rape
in _Lolita_ were so simplistic. HH had sex with a minor, which by law is
statatory rape (at least today; I have no idea about such laws in the late
1950s, although I assume they existed then as well). HH may be a rapist by
law, but, psychologically, Lolita is the rapist at the Emerald Lodge.
Rape is about one thing: power. Granted, we have only HH's narrative to
rely on, but if we take him at his word (and I'm afraid, at least for this
situation, we must) AND compare Lolita's previous history of manipulation,
as well as factor in her sexual exploits at camp, Lolita was the one in
power at the Emerald Lodge. Although he may have been a willing
participant, Lolita was the one in control of the situation, the one in a
position of power. She dominated HH fully at the Lodge for the first time,
and discovering her complete influence over him, was able to do so again
when she wanted spending money or transportation to a rendezvous with
Quilty.
This isn't to say that her domination of HH had no psychological side
effects; that much is obvious from her situation at the end of the novel as
well as her actions prior to the second road trip. Does any of this let HH
off the hook? NO - he is a child molester and a madman, but rarely are
crimes between people who have known each other for an extended period of
time simple, black-and-white, good-and-evil issues. On some level, Lolita
is as much a criminal as HH.
Jason Mical
Drury University
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Once again I've managed to stir up a hornet's nest! Please forgive me if
you find this debate tiresome.
Some of the textual support I find is that Humbert took his stepdaughter
from Camp Q (without even telling her that her mother was dead!), brought
her to a prearranged hotel, and drugged her so that he could molest her in
her sleep (not knowing, of course, that the pills were placebos). Humbert
is guilty of attempted rape as well as statutory rape, incest, and,
eventually, transporting a minor across state lines for immoral purposes
(the Mann Act that he so gleefully mocks). Indeed, in my reading of
LOLITA, Humbert's guilt is necessary for his redemption at the novel's
end. However, I will cheerfully acknowledge to Jason and others that
Nabokov has made the whole matter as morally ambiguous and rhetorically
unreliable as possible. That's part of the novel's brilliance.
Susan Elizabeth Sweeney
Associate Professor of English
Holy Cross College
<<< Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu> 1/15 8:48p >>>
From: Jason Mical <unasoda@hotmail.com>
HH and Lolita are both victims of each other's manipulations, if HH's
version of the facts is at any level believable. H allows himself to be
attracted to nymphets, for whatever reason - the love of a girl who died
long ago, it seems. His nymphets, in addition to having "fey grace" and
"elusive, shifty, soul-shattering, insidious charm," are "unconscious
[themselves] of [their] fantastic power." Lolita possesses these
characteristics but is very much conscious of them, and uses them against
HH. Somehow she senses his insane desire (probably not a difficult task)
and proceeds to manipulate him; even before her mother's death and the night
in the cabin, she plays H off against her mother, knowing he will vouch for
her in discussions, and so forth.
It is true that her mother's death left Lolita with little choice, but I
don't see any textual support that H would have left her at the Emerald
Lodge, or done anything sexually to her without her reciprocating his desire
in some manner before the act. H is not a rapist, although he is legally
guilty of that act. I would be disappointed in Nabokov if the issue of rape
in _Lolita_ were so simplistic. HH had sex with a minor, which by law is
statatory rape (at least today; I have no idea about such laws in the late
1950s, although I assume they existed then as well). HH may be a rapist by
law, but, psychologically, Lolita is the rapist at the Emerald Lodge.
Rape is about one thing: power. Granted, we have only HH's narrative to
rely on, but if we take him at his word (and I'm afraid, at least for this
situation, we must) AND compare Lolita's previous history of manipulation,
as well as factor in her sexual exploits at camp, Lolita was the one in
power at the Emerald Lodge. Although he may have been a willing
participant, Lolita was the one in control of the situation, the one in a
position of power. She dominated HH fully at the Lodge for the first time,
and discovering her complete influence over him, was able to do so again
when she wanted spending money or transportation to a rendezvous with
Quilty.
This isn't to say that her domination of HH had no psychological side
effects; that much is obvious from her situation at the end of the novel as
well as her actions prior to the second road trip. Does any of this let HH
off the hook? NO - he is a child molester and a madman, but rarely are
crimes between people who have known each other for an extended period of
time simple, black-and-white, good-and-evil issues. On some level, Lolita
is as much a criminal as HH.
Jason Mical
Drury University
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com