Soiled, Torn, Dead
Soiled, Torn, Dead
Chapter 7, Part II, of Lolita is an extraordinarily powerful piece of writing, even by the standards of that work. This is the chapter that begins: “I am now faced with the distasteful task of recording a definite drop in Lolita’s morals”. In this chapter Humbert Humbert describes how the twelve-year-old Dolores Haze was turned into a prostitute by his demands on her. Her allowance was granted only on condition that she consents to his sexual requests. He reports: “Only very listlessly did she earn her three pennies—or three nickels—per day; and she proved to be a cruel negotiator whenever it was in her power to deny me certain life-wrecking, strange, slow paradisal philters without which I could not live more than a few days in a row, and which, because of the very nature of love’s languor, I could not obtain by force. Knowing the magic and might of her own soft mouth, she managed—during one schoolyear!—to raise the bonus price of a fancy embrace to three, or even four bucks.” Obviously we are here in the realm of utter depravity, once we look beyond Humbert’s lyrical evocations of his “nympholepsy”. The reader can only feel unqualified disgust with the perpetrator and pity for the victim. But he follows up this gut-wrenching report with the following jocular outburst: “O Reader! Laugh not, as you imagine me, on the very rack of joy noisily emitting dimes and quarters, and great big silver dollars like some sonorous, jingly and wholly demented machine vomiting riches; and in the margin of that leaping epilepsy she would firmly clutch a handful of coins in her little fist, which, anyway, I used to pry open afterwards unless she gave me the slip, scrambling away to hide her loot.” Here Nabokov juxtaposes a comical image of a jingly Humbert dispensing coins with a tragic state of affairs involving a prostituted young girl. It is a bold, not to say outrageous, juxtaposition: the tragic seen through the lens of the comedic. In this respect it starkly encapsulates the whole style and form of the novel. Just to drive the point home, Nabokov has Humbert remark casually: “I had brought prices down drastically by having her earn the hard and nauseous way permission to participate in the school’s theatrical program”. The chapter, which is mercifully short, ends with Humbert imagining the escaped Lolita in the “foul kitchen of a diner (Help Wanted) in a dismal ex-prairie state, with the wind blowing, and the stars blinking, and the cars, and bars, and the barmen, and everything soiled, torn, dead.”
Here the very limits of cruelty and abuse are expressed through comical images and flippant phrases. It is as if the comedic and the tragic join and coalesce, with no gap between them. This enables the reader to feel the distance between Humbert’s self-serving narrative and the actual facts of the case: what he contrives to find funny is anything but. This I think is the key to the power of the chapter: there is a kind of double tragedy at work—the tragedy of Lolita’s life under Humbert’s rule, and the tragic lack of vision in Humbert’s skewed perception of reality. So blinded is he by his passions (if that is the word) that he finds comedy in tragedy, humor in despair. He laughs where he should cry. The reader cannot help but feel that such a tragic lack of vision is a powerful source of tragedy of the first kind. It is how evil allows itself to exist, at least in this instance. The chapter thus sets the stage for the later transformation of vision in Humbert, and is pivotal to the story. The very idea that Lolita has undergone a drop in morals is of course monstrous, and monstrously deluded on Humbert’s part, but it is entirely in keeping with the psychopathic turn of his mind. The reader can feel nothing but hatred and contempt for him at this point, with no possibility of redemption (despite later developments). The chapter works so powerfully on the reader precisely because it so poignantly captures Humbert’s madly distorted vision. And the image of the jingly, shuddering coin emitter is genuinely funny in its way, despite its horrific real-world correlate. Nabokov knew exactly what he was doing here. [1]
[1] I once went to an all day reading of Lolita in New York City given by assorted scholars and celebrities. If I had been asked to participate, I would have chosen this chapter to read aloud. It is Nabokov’s art at its most sublime. The chapter links directly to chapter 20 in which Lolita’s tennis game is lovingly described and reality finally makes its white way into Humbert’s dark fevered consciousness.
“Soiled, torn, dead”. Yeah, that’s what my internet access has been lately. Haven’t read any of Nabokov’s stuff. Heard of him, ofcourse. Can you imagine the hysteria that would have turned up had it been a gay novel?
There is a gay character in it, Gaston Godin, also a pedophile, but no one ever talks about him.
Is Nabokov’s Lolita a lolit a? Kubrik’s is…it is impossible not to feel aroused to some degree by her Lolita. Nabokov, who wrote Kubrik’s screenplay, has stated that his Lolita is purely a victim. I do not believe him. I think he projects to some extent into Humbert Humbert.
Nabokov’s screenplay was not much used by Kubrick and his Lolita is undoubtedly entirely a victim. I don’t understand what you say about projection, but there is no doubt that Humbert is a vile psychopath, despite his partial redemption at the end.
Kubrik’s Lolita is not a simple victim. She is an accomplice. She has a seductive quality. In fact, the term “lolita” has come to mean “an underage, adolescent temptress”, not “an abused child”. Kubrik, whose version of the story I consider a masterpiece, is responsible for this. But is Nabokov entirely innocent? (I am using inocent for its factual value, not as a moral term). i think not. His Lolita is indeed more child-like, and a victim, and Humbert, a psychopath. But the story is not a simple moralistic tale. It is not: look at this vile man who behaved in a despicable way and is nauseating…Not at all…there is too much beauty in these pages, and the reader cannot help but pity and understand Humbert, who is finally seen as a co-victim. Even more: I think thete is something of Nabokov in Humbert. I also think that Kubrik saw this and decided to focus on that quality of the story.
I agree with very little of this. Who is Humbert a victim of? Quilty?
Not who: what.
He is a victim of desires he cannot control, of circumstances…
Whereas Dolores Haze is a victim of an actual criminal violent individual. In that sense I suppose Iago is a victim, or many another common criminal. This is playing with words. I would recommend a close re-reading of chapter 29 (“You broke my life”) and surrounding text.
Iago is not the correct equivalent of Humbert Humbert: Othello is. Othello commits an atrocious crime but we all believe that he somehow did not have a chance to act in a different way. We commiserate him: hate crime and pity the criminal. In my opinion there is no equivalent of Iago in Lolita because Lolita is not really a moral story as Othello is. Why are we fascinated by Nabokov’s story? I cannot speak for you, of course, but in my case, not because it is a masterful codemnation of child abuse and hebephylia, but because it is a fascinating archetype. Iago is a villain; Humbert is not. He may be a psychopathic criminal, but he is much more than that. I can imagine myself as Humbert Humbert for a second…never ever as Iago…But I will certainly follow your advice and re-read that chapter. The entire book, actually.
It is a book that needs to be read at least twice, and slowly; I have read it many times. I have also taught it many times, and written quite a bit about it. Any attempt to summarize it simply will fall flat. I will be interested to hear what you think once you have re-read it. I recommend the annotated version. Humbert Humbert fits into no known literary category and is sui generis.
I will make this comment now: I think you will want to revise your Othello-Humbert comparison. Pay close attention to his dealings with his first wife, not to mention his second.
I should add the following. Do you remember that he murdered Quilty in cold blood? Do you remember that he planned to murder Charlotte so as to have Lolita to himself? Do you remember him wondering what to do with Lolita when her “nymphage” has evaporated and then reflecting that he could use her to be mother to a Lolita the Second on whom he could practice his dark arts? Do you remember him striking Lolita on the face? Et cetera.
Several ideas queue in my mind but I will wait to respond until I have re-read the novel.
I have finished my very pleasurable second read of Lolita. Like Pierre Menard’s Quixote, the text has changed in these decades, and so have I…Here are a few impressions:
1) LO-LI-TA….Humbert Humbert’s mother tongue is French and he is a polyglot. The French “t” is pronounced roughly lik the Spanish one. He must have pronounced an explosive “t” a l’espagnole, articulated on the teeth, giving full meaning to thos iconic sentence.
2) Dolores Haze IS a Lolita. She seduced Humbert in that motel. And she had previous sexual experience. Of course…I repeat, of course that does not justify Humbert’ s subsequent behavior.
3) Humbert Humbert is a very sick man. He deserves serious psychiatric treatment, not a prison. Nabokov (God) punishes him by making a murderer of him. This makes no sense, it is not in his character and is introduced in the story as a deus ex machina to solve the problem of what would happen when Lolita turns 15 and is no longer a nymphette. And to subtly punish Humbert.
4) This is not the story of Lolita, who is an ancillary if necessary character. It is Humbert Humbert’ story.
5) The book is part of a very select club of books that have created archetypes: Othello, the jealous; Romeo and Juliet, the lovers; edmond Dantes, the vengeful; Raskolnikov, the redeemed; Don Quixote, the quixotic…Amazingly, Nabokov’s novel fixes two, not just one archetypes. Yet we only acknowledge one: the lolita. There os no humbert: “the administrator was a humbert: he lewdly spied his employee’s 13-year old daughter…”. I find this interesting and telling about our society.
One comment: you say Humbert is not by nature a murderer, but he planned to murder Charlotte then chickened out and he was violent with Lolita and his first wife. Let’s not forget too that he is in prison for murder not pedophilia.
Humbert fantasizes all the time. I do not think he really planned to kill his wife. It is a fantasy. Bit, for the sake of argument, let’s admit it was more than a fantasy: in any case, it would have been a “utilitarian”, clean, Agatha Christie-esque murder with a purpose. Methodical. Not the brutal, vengeful and senseles, ridiculous murder that Nabokov makes him commit. It makes no sense to me.
I don’t see how Quilty’s murder is a deus ex machina somehow connected to Lolita’s impending release from nymphage. It is simple revenge and an opportunity for Nabokov to flaunt his virtuosity.
Suppose that Lolita does not escape or that Humbert finds her: she is already 14 and showing clear signs of exiting nymphage. A few more months and Humbert will get tired (if not sick) of her and replace her. She can still work as a barmaid at a Diner, while Humbert continues his exploits. A sordid ending that punishes Lolita sending the wrong moral message. Alternatively, suppose she escapes but Humbert does not kill Quilty: sordid, too. The years between Lolita’s escape and Quilty’s murder are really boring. And there is not a real final. Here is when a deus ex machina solution appears.
On a different note, this new reading reassured my conviction that Humbert is a victim. A victim of his disease. He tries hard to stay away from his unacceptable impulses, or at least to keep them under some control. That is why I think it is so unfair that he is converted from amethodical Swiss intellectual into a cheap Italian operetta jealous murder…
I never feel he is a victim, except in so far as every human being is. It’s not his impulse that makes him wicked; it’s his actions based on it. But he does inspire compassion in that unbearable scene of reunion with Lo. But I’m glad you’ve achieved insight into what is a great work of literature and a compelling human story. It’s a book that needs to be re-read and studied carefully.
I think Lolita’s escape is a plot device (but not a deus ex machina) but not Quilty’s murder: that is psychologically required and dramatically apposite.
It is clear that we are not going to agree. I must confess that I have very little sympathy towards Lolita. She is the main victim, but she is also vulgar, shallow, selfish.. bordering stupid. In contrast, I do have some sympathy towards Humbert, a deranged person who is also arrogant, petulant and pretentious. And a criminal. But he is infinitely more interesting than his victim. And it annoys me that Nabokov punishes him in the way he does.
I have never met anyone or read anything that agrees with your position, which is not to say it is wrong (though I think it is). I wonder if anyone else feels the way you do.
I shall add that this second read did change one perception I had: that perhaps Nabokov felt some sympathy for Humbert. I do not know where I might got that impression. Clearly that is not the case. Yet he does not like Lolita, either.
You’re right about Humbert but I think Nabokov does like Lolita (his wife did).
Then why does he make her fall in love with a creep, marry a simpleton loser she dos not love, get pregnant in her teens, and set out to a trailer park, “white trash” life in Alaska? Are you suggesting he is sacrificing his heroine to make a moral point? That Humbert’s wickedness is so harrowing as to destroy her so deeply? Then Lolita would be a moral book, which I think it isn’t. I think a lectio facilior is: a pervert meets a shallow nymphette, it is tinderbox & dynamite and disaster follows…
She is a victim of circumstance but Nabokov depicts her as a fundamentally decent person, as indeed Humbert himself comes to see. I do think it is a moral book.
Of course a moral book need not be a book which contains morals, i.e. moral lessons; it has a moral (not an immoral) point of view.
Yes, it does to some extent. But in my opinion it is not the main point or characteristic of the book. Nabolov has chosen, for some reason, to masterfully tell us this story and to surgically dissect one of the two main characters while presenting the other with much less detail. And the result is crude in both cases. And yes, we all agree that what Humbert does is wrong.