There is strong motif of cruelty that runs through Lolita. Not only does Nabokov himself use cruelty in regard to his characters, but also manages to make his characters do cruel things themselves. While this may seem the same thing, and sometimes is in Lolita, Nabokov manages to separate this fine line. His characters cruel actions seem only to echo their pathetic and meaningless lives, made all the more potent by Nabokov's exemplar prose.
My first example comes from the almost comic relief of Claire Quilty's presence in this novel. His entire life seems to be based on the comic opposition, or emphasis, of Humbert Humbert's sexual deviancy. Quilty is depicted as a pedophile of undaunted means and rather than struggling with his illicit tendencies as Humbert does, he revels in them. Even his death is comical and surreal. Quilty seems to be present in this novel only to juxtapose Humbert character.
Nabokov tends to play with his characters. Not only is Quilty seen as a supporting comic character, but Humbert's entire plight--which is the basis of the book--is used as a playground for Nabokov's imagination. In several interviews he has stated that his characters don't take on a life and personality of their own, they are simple playthings for him to manipulate.
Humbert as a character is cruel not only to Lolita, but also his first wife Valeria, and his second wife Charlotte. Though his cruelty isn't seen as just that because the novel is written from his point of view, the facts are that Humbert was not a nice person. He struggled with his pedophelia, yes. He had a moral code that he tried to stick to, yes. But as a person, Humbert Humbert was not a nice person. Nabokov simply enhances this aspect of his personalty to turn Humbert into a manic and obsessive lover, to the point that Humbert ends up killing Quilty for the same crime that he, himself, has performed on Lolita.
Life, and the meaning of death, are ridiculed to the point of being almost meaningless in this novel. Annabel dies before they can really even consumate their relationship, Valeria ends up dying in a lab mishap, Charlotte gets run over after she becomes useless, Quilty gets shot out of revenge and Humbert himself dies meaninglessly. The only real tragedy in this entire book is the shattered life of Lolita, and thoguh her life has been forever marred by Quilty and Humbert, she manages to forgive them both.
Not only did Nabokov play with the morals of his characters, but he also humiliated them. Their most improtant morals, customs, beleifs and even their lives are used to tell this tragic tale.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
week 6/ Lolita
This is the second of two posts on the novel "Lolita". For this post I'd like to focus on the second half of the dilemma of reading the novel; if one focuses solely on the subject, then one demeans and abolishes the novel.
A superior reader, I would think, could overlook just about any subject for the sake of the writing. They could take the book at face value and evaluate it in the simplest of manners; by it's grammatical correctness. Though this is not the highest level of reading, it's certainly an interesting way to interpret Nabokov's "Lolita". "Lolita" is written in such a high style of language that the reader has trouble actually following the physical events of the novel.
Nabokov is playing with more than just the emotions of the reader. He also makes several analogies to other authors and poets, like his character of Annabel that mirrors that of Edgar Allen Poe. Or the fact that this novel has the feel of a Shakespearean drama. Or the way that it turns into a shoot-em-up western or a film noir towards the end.
Taking into account all of these factors one can see that not only did Nabokov write in a very elevated style, but he also played with the events of the story. In this way, the elevated reader can not only enjoy the elevated writing style and the effects that has on the reader, but they can also amuse themselves over the various subplots and puns (the prevalence of the hunter theme, for example).
The main character, Humphrey, has the distinct ability to persuade his reader--and condemner--that his emotions, and therefore his actions off those emotions, were pure and not meant to harm. While this is not the truth, the reader still has trouble distinguishing between the truth and what's written; especially when it's written by an man who professes to duping the other characters. What can the reader believe?
The reader can believe that this novel is a masterwork of the English language. It can twist people's emotions to the author's bidding and therefore skew the true meaning of events; just like regular communication between two individuals can. In a way, this novel is a perfect study of the imperfection of communication and the perfection of language. Both are essential , and yet both corrupt the other.
One cannot condemn this novel based solely on the content. In fact, this novel functions off the severity of the content. If not for such a controversial subject then the author could not show off the power of the English language. Nabokov relies on the reactions of his readers to finish off the reading experience of this novel.
A superior reader, I would think, could overlook just about any subject for the sake of the writing. They could take the book at face value and evaluate it in the simplest of manners; by it's grammatical correctness. Though this is not the highest level of reading, it's certainly an interesting way to interpret Nabokov's "Lolita". "Lolita" is written in such a high style of language that the reader has trouble actually following the physical events of the novel.
Nabokov is playing with more than just the emotions of the reader. He also makes several analogies to other authors and poets, like his character of Annabel that mirrors that of Edgar Allen Poe. Or the fact that this novel has the feel of a Shakespearean drama. Or the way that it turns into a shoot-em-up western or a film noir towards the end.
Taking into account all of these factors one can see that not only did Nabokov write in a very elevated style, but he also played with the events of the story. In this way, the elevated reader can not only enjoy the elevated writing style and the effects that has on the reader, but they can also amuse themselves over the various subplots and puns (the prevalence of the hunter theme, for example).
The main character, Humphrey, has the distinct ability to persuade his reader--and condemner--that his emotions, and therefore his actions off those emotions, were pure and not meant to harm. While this is not the truth, the reader still has trouble distinguishing between the truth and what's written; especially when it's written by an man who professes to duping the other characters. What can the reader believe?
The reader can believe that this novel is a masterwork of the English language. It can twist people's emotions to the author's bidding and therefore skew the true meaning of events; just like regular communication between two individuals can. In a way, this novel is a perfect study of the imperfection of communication and the perfection of language. Both are essential , and yet both corrupt the other.
One cannot condemn this novel based solely on the content. In fact, this novel functions off the severity of the content. If not for such a controversial subject then the author could not show off the power of the English language. Nabokov relies on the reactions of his readers to finish off the reading experience of this novel.
Monday, September 29, 2008
week 5/ Lolita
Lolita is such a controversial book I wanted to wait until I had finished it in it's entirety before I commented on it. On the one hand the elegant prose style elevates this tale to such a level that it's hard to objectively look at the subject material. On the other, if one focuses solely on the subject, then one demeans and abolishes the novel. For this post I want to focus on Nabokov's writing style and how that influences the story itself.
By writing the history of a convict from the pedophile's point of view, the audience has already assumed a positive attitude towards the narrator. Why is that? Because the convict is going to naturally try and spin the story, and himself, in an, at least, moderately positive light. They will do this automatically as a method of self preservation, no matter how much guilt they may feel or express.
As the Pedophile presents his story he will justify his actions by those of the other characters. In "Lolita", Humbert doesn't even try to hide this automated psychological defense. Humbert Humbert uses his gift of elegant prose to romanticize an otherwise socially monstrous act. His flowery language distracts the reader from the actual words and allows them to be persuaded by the heady universe of love that Humbert professes himself to live in.
In this universe it is Lolita that is the seductress and Humbert the innocent bystander for the most part of the novel. Although he expresses feelings of guilt and uneasiness, it's only at the very end that Humbert admits that his actions were monstrous. At this point of admission the audience has already fallen for his story. At this point the "jury" that he speaks to are perhaps willing to forgive his transgressions in light of his new found guilt.
Humbert speaks of his eternal suffering that evolves from the knowledge that he has stolen Lolita's innocence and childhood. This suffering is meant to sway the jury of his imminent and ongoing sentence. The fact that it is done by himself to himself could perhaps persuade the jury that no further action need be taken.
All of these persuasive tactics are used in Humbert's recounting of the tale and all are meant to impress upon the jury the point that he has and continues to suffer for his crimes. There are moments where he seems sincere--the moments where he idolizes Lolita--though his continued duplicity towards the other characters should send warning signals to the reader. Here, Nabokov has presented a wonderful dilemma of prose and content that only the reader can truly work out for themselves.
By writing the history of a convict from the pedophile's point of view, the audience has already assumed a positive attitude towards the narrator. Why is that? Because the convict is going to naturally try and spin the story, and himself, in an, at least, moderately positive light. They will do this automatically as a method of self preservation, no matter how much guilt they may feel or express.
As the Pedophile presents his story he will justify his actions by those of the other characters. In "Lolita", Humbert doesn't even try to hide this automated psychological defense. Humbert Humbert uses his gift of elegant prose to romanticize an otherwise socially monstrous act. His flowery language distracts the reader from the actual words and allows them to be persuaded by the heady universe of love that Humbert professes himself to live in.
In this universe it is Lolita that is the seductress and Humbert the innocent bystander for the most part of the novel. Although he expresses feelings of guilt and uneasiness, it's only at the very end that Humbert admits that his actions were monstrous. At this point of admission the audience has already fallen for his story. At this point the "jury" that he speaks to are perhaps willing to forgive his transgressions in light of his new found guilt.
Humbert speaks of his eternal suffering that evolves from the knowledge that he has stolen Lolita's innocence and childhood. This suffering is meant to sway the jury of his imminent and ongoing sentence. The fact that it is done by himself to himself could perhaps persuade the jury that no further action need be taken.
All of these persuasive tactics are used in Humbert's recounting of the tale and all are meant to impress upon the jury the point that he has and continues to suffer for his crimes. There are moments where he seems sincere--the moments where he idolizes Lolita--though his continued duplicity towards the other characters should send warning signals to the reader. Here, Nabokov has presented a wonderful dilemma of prose and content that only the reader can truly work out for themselves.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
week 4/ Sylvia Plath
There seems to be several similar concepts between this week and Sylvia Plath and last week with Jack Kerouac and the beat poets. The first thing that I noticed was that the power and raw emotion of the literary works are paralleled. Both Plath and the beat poets use their poetry as a type of catharsis, for themselves and for their audiences. By using such strong language Plath and the beat poets claim their reader's instant attention and suck them in to a whole new world. This world, though it may seem wicked and lost at the start, is actually an account of the deepest feelings of mankind. The writing styles are vastly different--Plath slaved over her writting and lived for the acceptance of the literary world while the beat poets rejected such dependance on social rules--and yet the message is still the same raw, human emotion that we all carry.
The second thing that I noticed was that both beat poets and the world of Sylvia Plath use their personal lives as inspiration for their work. It seems as though the harder their lives got, the better their poetry turned out. Why is that, I wonder? The beat poets were living in a post cold war era, where the terror of the past era needed to be dealt with and life had to be reevaluated. These poets found that they needed to live life to the fullest and explore all avenues that were available to them.
Sylvia Plath, on the other hand, grew up in a fairly stable school environment, was consistent in her "by the rules" poetry, married and had children. All of which were seen as normal and acceptable things for women to do at the time. The question then should be, what makes her seemingly mundane history allow for the ingenious poetry that rivaled and complemented that of the beat style? The beat pots lived life day-to-day for the thrill of living alone. Shouldn't this, theoretically, produce the most cathartic poetry?
Was it because she suffered from depression? Or was it her mundane life and almost maniacal need to publish her works that created the depression? Either way we tend to fall back on mental instability to explain away her genius. Or should we take a more romantic view on the purpose of artists and say that it is the poet who is more susceptible to human emotions than the rest of us.
I would like to think so. In my opinion it's the artist's, and especially the poets who are capable of touching the deepest of human emotions and living through the experience to explain them all to us. Yes, we all feel these truths, but perhaps it takes a more specialized being to write them down for us to see plainly. It's the poets who allow us to recognize these topics in a controlled manner.
Without art, I believe that humankind would have no release. We would build in and upon one another with out actually reaching out to touch our neighbors. Perhaps Sylvia Plath, and indeed many other authors and poets, have had trouble achieving this most simple means of human happiness, but they have allowed us to find it. Through them we become more.
The second thing that I noticed was that both beat poets and the world of Sylvia Plath use their personal lives as inspiration for their work. It seems as though the harder their lives got, the better their poetry turned out. Why is that, I wonder? The beat poets were living in a post cold war era, where the terror of the past era needed to be dealt with and life had to be reevaluated. These poets found that they needed to live life to the fullest and explore all avenues that were available to them.
Sylvia Plath, on the other hand, grew up in a fairly stable school environment, was consistent in her "by the rules" poetry, married and had children. All of which were seen as normal and acceptable things for women to do at the time. The question then should be, what makes her seemingly mundane history allow for the ingenious poetry that rivaled and complemented that of the beat style? The beat pots lived life day-to-day for the thrill of living alone. Shouldn't this, theoretically, produce the most cathartic poetry?
Was it because she suffered from depression? Or was it her mundane life and almost maniacal need to publish her works that created the depression? Either way we tend to fall back on mental instability to explain away her genius. Or should we take a more romantic view on the purpose of artists and say that it is the poet who is more susceptible to human emotions than the rest of us.
I would like to think so. In my opinion it's the artist's, and especially the poets who are capable of touching the deepest of human emotions and living through the experience to explain them all to us. Yes, we all feel these truths, but perhaps it takes a more specialized being to write them down for us to see plainly. It's the poets who allow us to recognize these topics in a controlled manner.
Without art, I believe that humankind would have no release. We would build in and upon one another with out actually reaching out to touch our neighbors. Perhaps Sylvia Plath, and indeed many other authors and poets, have had trouble achieving this most simple means of human happiness, but they have allowed us to find it. Through them we become more.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
week 3/ On the Road
There are two major points I would like to address in this blog; the first being Kerouac's writing style and the second being that of the content of the book itself.
Starting with Kerouac's writing style. It's unorthodox to say the least; he was shunned by the literary community as a whole and yet he still managed to sell millions of copies of "On the Road". The question I had was, why? His book is, on the surface, nothing special. It outlines life as Kerouac lived it, along with his friends and their chance encounters.
Perhaps it's the way he writes "On the Road"; in a straightforward and unassuming way. Kerouac writes in an almost stream-of-conscious manner, complete with run on sentences and bad grammar. Why then, did the people of not only that generation, but also of this one like the story so much. I believe that at the time this stream-of-conscious style of writing (a style that was so shunned by the scholastic and literary community that Kerouac and Ginsberg never received recognition from them) was what spoke to the general public. Kerouac uses everyday speech--even slang--to convey his story in one of the most compelling first person narratives that I have ever read.
Only a select few go to prestigious literary schools. The rest of the population were simply working class men and women who were just trying to get along in a post cold war life. This is something that Kerouac--and indeed the entire beat movement--reveled in. "On the Road" isn't simply a book about a guy who went traveling, it was about the life choices/styles of the up and coming generation. It was a guidebook on how to live your life, and still can be.
This major philosophy of really exploring and living ones life to the fullest is true for not only the post cold war era, but also this one, and all those to come in the future. There is so much potential in human beings and the only way to discover that potential, that talent, is to really explore oneself and those around you. What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be alive? Does one need to follow the rules of society to the tee, or are there some expectations that we should throw off and recreate ourselves into the new generation and new social code of today?
Perhaps it's just my youth speaking, but I believe that you can only excel in life if you can trust yourself. Most of the general public don't know how to do that, and that's what gets us stuck into a pattern of followers. Yes, tradition is necessary and good; history MUST be acknowledged and studied, if only to be informed about what could happen in the future. BUT, I believe that tradition for traditions sake is repetitive and destructive. It creates an entire generation of people who are unable to think and live for themselves.
In "On the Road" Kerouac teaches us how to discover, or rediscover, oneself. He lives life to the fullest by breaking it down to the bare minimums and then really feeling those moments. It's in the moment of fear before an accomplishment that we learn the most about ourselves.
Starting with Kerouac's writing style. It's unorthodox to say the least; he was shunned by the literary community as a whole and yet he still managed to sell millions of copies of "On the Road". The question I had was, why? His book is, on the surface, nothing special. It outlines life as Kerouac lived it, along with his friends and their chance encounters.
Perhaps it's the way he writes "On the Road"; in a straightforward and unassuming way. Kerouac writes in an almost stream-of-conscious manner, complete with run on sentences and bad grammar. Why then, did the people of not only that generation, but also of this one like the story so much. I believe that at the time this stream-of-conscious style of writing (a style that was so shunned by the scholastic and literary community that Kerouac and Ginsberg never received recognition from them) was what spoke to the general public. Kerouac uses everyday speech--even slang--to convey his story in one of the most compelling first person narratives that I have ever read.
Only a select few go to prestigious literary schools. The rest of the population were simply working class men and women who were just trying to get along in a post cold war life. This is something that Kerouac--and indeed the entire beat movement--reveled in. "On the Road" isn't simply a book about a guy who went traveling, it was about the life choices/styles of the up and coming generation. It was a guidebook on how to live your life, and still can be.
This major philosophy of really exploring and living ones life to the fullest is true for not only the post cold war era, but also this one, and all those to come in the future. There is so much potential in human beings and the only way to discover that potential, that talent, is to really explore oneself and those around you. What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be alive? Does one need to follow the rules of society to the tee, or are there some expectations that we should throw off and recreate ourselves into the new generation and new social code of today?
Perhaps it's just my youth speaking, but I believe that you can only excel in life if you can trust yourself. Most of the general public don't know how to do that, and that's what gets us stuck into a pattern of followers. Yes, tradition is necessary and good; history MUST be acknowledged and studied, if only to be informed about what could happen in the future. BUT, I believe that tradition for traditions sake is repetitive and destructive. It creates an entire generation of people who are unable to think and live for themselves.
In "On the Road" Kerouac teaches us how to discover, or rediscover, oneself. He lives life to the fullest by breaking it down to the bare minimums and then really feeling those moments. It's in the moment of fear before an accomplishment that we learn the most about ourselves.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
week 2/ On the Road
The thing I find the most facinating about reading "On the Road", is not that his writting style is unique for the time period--which it is; Kerouac broke boundaries by writting in stream of concious, but I'll write about that later--it's that we read Allen Ginsberg's poetry and Corso's poetry and now we're reading a novel about their lives. It's really neat to get the inside scoop on what their lives were like. It gives a more personal look to the writting styles and almost violent catharsis of the beat poetry. This background check-up on the authors puts in place the day to day life that they lead. I can really understand now the why behind their "live for today" theory; in fact "On the Road" demonstrates that theory very well. I would never have or could possibly ever do the things that they did. It seems that society has become so much more dangerous. I'm really enjoying this book and I look foward to the ending!
Friday, August 29, 2008
week 1/ Ginsberg & Corso
This weeks reading focused on Allen Ginsberg and Gregory Corso. What is the most striking about their poetry is the frank and, in quite a few places, vulgar language. It seems that these poets are angry at the world and everyone in it who simply lives their lives in the day to day monotony of American life. Ginsberg and Corso seem to rail at the social injustices of current life and strike out at the general unknowing public. Many, would find this poetry offensive at first glance, even by today's standards. In fact, Ginsberg's "Howl" was taken to court for it's vulgar content (which only allowed the poem to gain more popularity). I myself was stricken by the first couple of lines in "Howl" and by the brash accusations of Corso in "Bomb"; until I looked closer and really read the poem. If the reader allows themself to absorb the frank vocabulary and breathtaking content the act of reading the poem itself can become a catharsis. One must free themselves first, before one can rebuild and rethink. Indeed, both Corso and Ginsberg tore down the curtains of society to reveal the dark and dirty secrets they hid. Sensoring this literature can be understood when one realises that both Ginsberg and Corso were accusing America of hiding from the truth of life. That's scary. It takes a brave person indeed to evaluate oneself and find oneself lacking. I found the gritty language almmost refreshing when juxtaposed against the flowery writing of Shakespeare and Wordsworth (both very good poets in their own regard). In this time and age when the internet and the atom bomb are common terms that are thrown around to the point where getting to know someone new never has to take place face to face and killing can be done with the press of a button. We need poetry like this. We need people who are willing to strip themselves bare infront of a world (as Ginsberg so eloquently put it) who is no longer interested with personal opinions and "wishy washy" feelings. Be a man, grow up, go insane. The basis of our culture. At what point do we force ourselves to stop and reevaluate the situation? At what point do we open ourselves to the hopes and fears of another? We are scared and silent in this world of autonomy, because to open oneself is to become weak. Ginsberg and Corso laid the lines out bitterly and without fear; with just enough humor to make the general reader really hang on long enough to listen and understand. So what if they got a little dusty while ripping down that curtain. At least the rest of the world got a chance to see the sunlight out of the dark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)