Since everyone should be close to finishing the first part and onto the second, I'll go ahead and ask the question I asked a few pages back: What would the book be without the second part? Would it be better/worse? Nabokov could have easily ended the novel after part one but decided not to. It's probably something to keep in mind as you read part two since you will see an interesting shift in pacing and in the characters as well. I'll post my thoughts on this later so as to avoid any spoilers.
There hasn't been much discussion in the last few days, so I would like to ask: how far into the novel is everyone? According to the schedule, we should be into part 2 by now. I'll go ahead and post my thoughts on portions of part 2. If you haven't read that far into part 2, then don't read the next part of my post as there may be some spoilers. I definitely felt that there was a change from part 1 to part 2. Part 2 confirms that Lolita likes to flirt. But one can look at this from two points of view. Humbert bribes her with small gifts in order to keep her interest. Lolita willingly agrees to do favors for him in exchange for this gift, so who's at fault here? Even though this is a crime, I would say that this is a victim-less crime. Humbert wants something, he pays for it, and Lolita does the favor and receives payment. Having said this, I don't feel Humbert is as bad a person as some people think. Lolita is in part responsible for their relationship despite her age. Earlier I posed the question about how the novel would change if part 2 had been omitted. I think part 2 is necessary in order to fully grasp the intentions of Lolita and Humbert. Humbert once again tries to draw our attention away from their relationship by describing in depth the scenery, the motels, etc. Part 2 also makes this a more convincing love story in that Humbert experiences paranoia and jealousy much like any other lover would. I think part 2 plays a very important role in making us sympathize a little with Humbert since Lolita seems a lot more promiscuous in the second half of the novel.
Not to be off-topic here, but does anyone else appreciate the irony that there is an expectation for everyone to read Lolita synchronously, even though Nabokov had an absolute disdain for any sort of group activity? Carry on, sorry.
I'm still with you and some way in part 2, I'll be back to discuss it, along with whether the read would be 'better' with or without that second part.
OK, part 2. In any discussion about whether the novel would be 'better' with or without part 2, I'd have to start by defining 'better' in context. Sure, part 2 is a change of pace. With that in mind, it could be seen as a bathetic conclusion to Humbert's obsession. Thus, it could be said to be better without if the reader purely wishes a surface-level love story where the protagonist's wishes are fulfilled. However, as part 2 introduces the points you raise above, a decline in Humbert's mental health and a shift in focus from his wishing to possess Lolita carnally to his trying to keep a hold of her at all, it could not be said to be better in terms of character development and realism. Away from discussion on whether an abridged version may be better, I'm interested in your discussion on this being a victim-less crime, because I'm not sure I agree. We learn that Lolita is no pure angel in part 1, bit can hardly be blaimed at that stage for encouraging Humbert's advances. As she awakens sexually to her surroundings she learns of the power she holds as a consequence and manipulates Humbert a little in the process. This manipulation is ramped up as she prostitutes herself to him in part 2, but I could not say this is victim-less circumstance, or that Lolita is more than the slenderist bit responsible for this relationship. Humbert, despite his protestations to the contrary, is keeping Lolita captive, possibly against her wishes (she has nowhere else to go) and he is keeping her for his own carnal gain. This is fairly dispicable behaviour, though agreed 100% the way he presents the situation, the anecdotes he supports his arguments with etc, are all very persuasive with regards the audience. He is preparing a defence with this novel. He asks the reader to be impartial but is wholly impartial himself. His word games continue, his various pseudonyms suggest deeply dark undertones in his words and his latter-chapter musings on murder and replacing the ageing Lolita with a child of his and her making present a distrubed individual with whom it is very difficult to empathise. Yet, we do. This is the power of writing. Distance yourself from this remarkable book and place the actions in a real-life, current-day context, and I do think that Humbert 'is as bad a person as some people think'. Oh, ready conclusion, I await the final quarter with impatience.
Thanks for your input, Gannon. I still believe this is a victim-less crime. In part 2, it is clear that Humbert is getting sexual favors in return for small gifts. This can be viewed as an act of prostitution. Prostitution, IMO, is a victim-crime. Lolita holds back if he doesn't buy her gifts or take her to museums. Of course, in this case, the "prostitute" is a child but I'm ignoring child sex laws here and focusing only on the act itself. She is just as guilty as Humbert because we can clearly see that she is a very promiscuous character. She is just as likely to have sex with any other man. I do agree that Humbert is holding her captive, but I would argue that this is more out of jealousy than anything else. He can be viewed as a jealous lover. He does let her play with her friends, but they are mostly girls of her age. I want to add a little more, but it involves a spoiler so I'll wait to say it after everyone's done. Bottom line is that I truly believe Humbert is as helpless and he is guilty and that Lolita is deserving of some of the blame.
This is increasingly true but I would question why. Her sexual awakening would likely have taken a more usual trajectory without the influence of Humbert. As such, at her age, we would not expect this behaviour of her. Whilst we can remove her age from certain discussions, i.e. does she lead him on etc, what we cannot due is remove it entirely. The Lolita of part 2 is created because of the Humbert of part 1.
OK, I am now done with the novel, and I forward to discussing the ending (though I will wait, of course, until our schedule allows it.) I have read through these four pages of discussion and one observation that really struck my interest was the repetition of John Ray, Jr.'s name (this being JR, Jr.), astutely pointed out by thirdwind. I personally don't think you can run too far with it, but even at the distance you can take it I find it hilarious. This book -- rather, this text -- has been handled and passed along by laywers and academics and men with fancy titles: from Humbert Humbert, the old-Europe intellectual, to Clarence Choate Clark, Esq., to John Ray, Jr., PhD, winner of the Poling Prize. It's been handled by old men with titles and degrees and admirable intellects, and yet all these male bright minds who have brought the text under their reading lamp have pretty much no idea what to make of it. There is something terribly pathetic and impotent about all of these old, male academics, and something of this bathos is preserved in the redundancy of their names. Another question that intrigued was one by arron89: I think John Ray, Jr. offers some insight into this question. He calls it a work of art that "transcends its expiatory aspects". He also says of the text, in the admitting the immorality of its author, I think that perhaps this is part of the reason the book is so lyrical. It is lyrical, and literary, and witty so as to seduce the reader; the text itself is a temptress, an enchanter. But apart from its interaction with the reader, the breathtaking quality of narration also says something about Humbert himself: the enchanting prose window through which the reader peeps is the very same lens through which Humbert views his life; just as the prose is lyrical and breathtaking and hilarious to us, so is life and Lolita to Humbert. But it is not only a reflection of H.H's perception but also an attempt, as John Ray puts it, to transcend the expiatory, to make a work of art.
Now I have a question of my own to ask. In the foreword John Ray, Jr. ends with the sentence, "'Lolita' should make all of us, -- parents, social workers, educators -- apply ourselves with still greater vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation in a safer world." In other words, he ends with a banal statement. In fact, the entire last paragraph is one big platitude. And yet the paragraph before it is so interesting! And all the paragraphs before that are interesting too! Has John Ray, Jr. pushed too far, and now is he suddenly retreating? Is he guarding his thoughts on Lolita? He had just said, before this cliche paragraph, that the book entrances the reader while making him or her abhor the author. Is he scared to praise the book without reservations, without casting it as a "book with a lesson"? (which it is clearly not -- Nabokov abhors moral lessons; he is an aesthete.) I think that the bathos of the novel trickles down into the foreword itself. Just like Humbert's narrative, there is something entrancing about the foreword, but it is washed away and ironized by the self-indulgence in some parts (such as the offhand mention of his Poling Prize) and the platitude in others (such as the last paragraph, the last sentence, the insincere moralizing). I find it very funny that this book is written and handled and tampered with by academics, because it is hilarious to see these academics toss and turn an impossible dilemma -- Humbert's love for Lolita. They don't know what to do with it so they make it out to be a comedy and so it is washed away in bathos.
I'm not sure if this will answer your questions, ktm, because I'm just thinking out loud here. You pointed out that Nabokov didn't really have a purpose in writing this novel. Yet a lot of people (myself included) try to reduce the book to a single message when the book is probably more complicated. I think John Ray is making that mistake here given his last sentence. Perhaps Nabokov is using him as a tool to mock critics and anyone else that tries to make the same mistake JR does. On a side note, this is a paraphrase from memory of what Nabokov says in an interview about the novel's meaning and intent. Nabokov states in the message at the end of the novel that he got the idea for this story when he read a newspaper article. The article was about an ape who had been taught how to sketch, and the first thing he sketched were the bars on his cage. Similarly, Humbert is depicting for us the cage (and everything in it) that society has built around him. I took this to imply that we should try to understand the "prisoner" rather than condemn him right away. Nabokov then goes on to talk about tabooed love, not only in this case but in other novels as well. A lot of love affairs in literature are scandalous (cheating spouses, love triangles, etc.). So, a lot of those stories can be viewed as having cages built around the characters involved in the scandal. The rest of society is outside the cage and acts as a bystander and a judge of sorts.
I'm nearing the end now. I'm inclined to agree. Especially if Nabokov is an aesthete as ktm states. This is a fascinating point at the crux of the novel Lolita in my opinion. Nabakov attempts to highlight the shortcoming of society through its inflexible legal system and arbitrary notions of acceptability. He toys with the reader and their perceptions throughout, seeing how far he can push them through Humbert. Perhaps there is no overall message. Perhaps Nabokov was extending one of the foundations layed down by the Surrealists, rather than the aesthetes, showing the only real freedom is to be found in the mind and in the powers of artistic creation. What I am finding fascinating in these final chapters are the briefest of insights into how this was affecting Lolita along their voyage together. The retrospective glimpse we get of her dejected in a motel mirror. Her feelings of lonliness and fear of death allowing us to understand her reliance on Humbert, underlining it with contemplations of suicide. Throughout the novel Lolita up to this point, Humbert has been the narrator and he has provided an entirely blinkered view on things - as we have identified, he is somewhat bias in this tale and he tries to get the reader to side with him despite claims to the contrary. In allowing these quiet reflections to appear latterly, perhaps Humbert is cracking, realising that her current situation in a dead-end town with, pregnant by an intellectual misfit is entirely his doing. These are the only moments to this point when remorse could be argued on the point of Humbert. He himself mentions having stolen her childhood. Perhaps the blinkers have started to come loose.
