Blogs
Lolita analysis, part 1
|
Okay! I've finished Lolita again and here are those discussion questions that I promised. Anyone else who has read the book is free to answer them too and remember, I got them from here: http://www.shmoop.com/lolita/questions.html if you want to check it out!
1. How does the Foreword influence our reading of Humbert's "memoir"? How are we meant to regard the Foreword's idea that the memoir is a "case study" with moral lessons? How do Ray's Foreword and Nabokov's Afterword speak to each other?
Some of the things we learn from reading the Forward: This guy, Humbert Humbert, wrote it while he was in captivity for an undisclosed crime. He died before not many days before the start of his trial. The subject matter seems like it would offend some people, names have been changed, and the editor uses such words to describe the author such as "demented", "abnormal", and "capricious" to name a few. However, the editor also considers the novel to be well-written, a "work of art". The editor appears to be a doctor of psychoanalysis who believes that a critical juncture was missed for assistance to be given to Humbert.
So the purpose of the Foreword is constructive. It establishes already some expectations that we will have about the writer's nature and the novel's material. We know that studies are already being done on it and that the editor believes that it will have an ethical impact on its readers. Even though the story is naturally fictitious we are placed in a setting that lends it realism.
As to the case study with moral lessons the editor writes "...these are not only vivid characters in a unique story; they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils." I think that explains itself sufficiently.
Nabokov's Afterword is the antithesis to the Foreword. It is deconstructive. It places the story of "Lolita" back into fiction and mocks psychoanalysis. He also directly states that there is no moral lesson to be gleaned from this tale.
2. What is the effect of knowing from the beginning that the three main characters involved in the story are already dead?
Now, I don't like this question because I don't believe it's entirely accurate. If you're reading "Lolita" for the very first time, the only thing that you'll know reading the Foreword is that Humbert is already dead. So is the eponymous girl but you wouldn't know that from the Foreword because her married name is given (THAT you won't learn until very very late in the book) and not the name by which Humbert calls her typically. As for the third, he's supposed to be a mysterious figure. In the book you realize his status as another main character later on too. I suppose the point is moot.
3. How does Humbert draw attention to the act of writing? Why does he do this?
I'm not too fond of this question either because I don't really know what it's getting at. But I'll take a stab at it.
Humbert seems to me to be a very self-conscious individual. Throughout the book he periodically draws attention to his appearance or some witty parlance of his (such as his affinity for alliterations). We can see that he is very aware of his audience as he will directly address members of the jury or, as he puts it, his intelligent readers. (Appealing to our pride.) He's definitely angling for reason with lots and lots of sympathy, in other words, for his readers to look upon his actions favorably. You have to keep in mind that he died before his trial so he never had a verdict. With Humbert's calls to the reader, we become the jury, in lieu of the original. We in the end pass judgement upon him. Any other allusions are more subtle ... ? Again, I'm not sure where this question is going.
1. How does the Foreword influence our reading of Humbert's "memoir"? How are we meant to regard the Foreword's idea that the memoir is a "case study" with moral lessons? How do Ray's Foreword and Nabokov's Afterword speak to each other?
Some of the things we learn from reading the Forward: This guy, Humbert Humbert, wrote it while he was in captivity for an undisclosed crime. He died before not many days before the start of his trial. The subject matter seems like it would offend some people, names have been changed, and the editor uses such words to describe the author such as "demented", "abnormal", and "capricious" to name a few. However, the editor also considers the novel to be well-written, a "work of art". The editor appears to be a doctor of psychoanalysis who believes that a critical juncture was missed for assistance to be given to Humbert.
So the purpose of the Foreword is constructive. It establishes already some expectations that we will have about the writer's nature and the novel's material. We know that studies are already being done on it and that the editor believes that it will have an ethical impact on its readers. Even though the story is naturally fictitious we are placed in a setting that lends it realism.
As to the case study with moral lessons the editor writes "...these are not only vivid characters in a unique story; they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils." I think that explains itself sufficiently.
Nabokov's Afterword is the antithesis to the Foreword. It is deconstructive. It places the story of "Lolita" back into fiction and mocks psychoanalysis. He also directly states that there is no moral lesson to be gleaned from this tale.
2. What is the effect of knowing from the beginning that the three main characters involved in the story are already dead?
Now, I don't like this question because I don't believe it's entirely accurate. If you're reading "Lolita" for the very first time, the only thing that you'll know reading the Foreword is that Humbert is already dead. So is the eponymous girl but you wouldn't know that from the Foreword because her married name is given (THAT you won't learn until very very late in the book) and not the name by which Humbert calls her typically. As for the third, he's supposed to be a mysterious figure. In the book you realize his status as another main character later on too. I suppose the point is moot.
3. How does Humbert draw attention to the act of writing? Why does he do this?
I'm not too fond of this question either because I don't really know what it's getting at. But I'll take a stab at it.
Humbert seems to me to be a very self-conscious individual. Throughout the book he periodically draws attention to his appearance or some witty parlance of his (such as his affinity for alliterations). We can see that he is very aware of his audience as he will directly address members of the jury or, as he puts it, his intelligent readers. (Appealing to our pride.) He's definitely angling for reason with lots and lots of sympathy, in other words, for his readers to look upon his actions favorably. You have to keep in mind that he died before his trial so he never had a verdict. With Humbert's calls to the reader, we become the jury, in lieu of the original. We in the end pass judgement upon him. Any other allusions are more subtle ... ? Again, I'm not sure where this question is going.
