Subject
Re: [Fwd: Re: Query: Humbert's Diary (fwd)] (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Kiran Krishna <kiran@Physics.usyd.edu.au>
of the things might have been modified later. Also, there is the
Flaubertian transition between diary and the mentioning of the poem in
praise of Lolita's eyelashes (from memory: I don't have the text in front
of me), back to the diary again (with 'Diary resumed').
Kiran
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, D. Barton Johnson wrote:
> ------------------
>
> There's another hypothosis -- assuming fictional character's have lives
> of their own, as VN's tend so often to do, perhaps at the time Humbert
> was writing the diary he believed no one but himself could possibly
> decipher it's maniacal curlicues, but by the time he is writing
> _Lolita_ five years later in prison, he well knows that the scrutiny of
> a loving and jealous wife can achive what he thought to be impossible.
> Thus the loving wife comment is not an authentic line form the original
> diary, but an afterthought inserted either satirically or unconsciously
> by Humber the jailhouse litteratuer.
>
> One might say that this is a lot of suposing to be doing, but on the
> other hand, despite Humbert's photographic memory, he admits to
> inserting a line or two into Lotte's lovelorn letter (I don't have my
> copy of the text at the moment, but the line I'm thinking of, if I
> rember correctly, is soemthing like "the vortex of the toilet, where it
> eventually did go, might be my own matter of fact contribution. She
> probably begged me to make a special fire to consume it.") If Humbert
> is capable of inserting his own later thought into the text of the
> letter without alerting the reader (or rather, only alerting him after
> the reader's had their snicker at Lotte's expense), one must suppose
> him capable of doing the same to the diary. Furhermore, I think this
> would fit in with the stucture of the book as a whole --- I believe
> it's meant to be read twice, the first time as a mystery and the second
> time as a tragedy. For the first time reader, even if they manage to
> figure out quite early on who Lo disappears with, _Lolita_ requires a
> second reading to truly appreciate how early and how often he appaears,
> and how ineveitable Lo's tragedy is. The "loving wife" comment in the
> diary is only one example of VN's genius for inserting slight comments
> and details likely to be passed over or regarded lightly by someone
> reading _Lolita_ for the first time, but whose significance will strike
> the second (or third or fourth or fifth) time reader like a pile of
> bricks --- the list of minor characters and their outcomes in the
> forward is a steller example, as is that half-heard conversation on the
> Enchanted Hunter' porch, when it seems Humbert's paranoia overcomes his
> auditory skills.
> ------------------------
> EDITOR's NOTE. Just to throw something extra into the pot...someone
> might want to ponder the implications, if any, of Kinbote's insertions
> into "Pale Fire" and how the narrator of Eugene Onegin translates
> Tatyana's letter from French into Russian.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> Date: Saturday, November 17, 2001 1:58 pm
> Subject: Re: Query: Humbert's Diary (fwd)
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:53:25 -0800
> > From: Mark Bennett <mab@straussandasher.com>
> > I think the most reasonable answer is that at the time HH kept the
> > diary he
> > could not foresee that CH would ever ransack his room looking for
> > "locked up
> > love letters." He had stopped keeping the diary approximately 5
> > days before
> > CH drove DH to Camp Q, leaving behind with Louise the letter to HH
> > in which
> > CH both confessed her love for him and presented him with the
> > Hobson' choice
> > (Humbson' choice?) of moving out of 342 Lawn Street or marrying
> > her. Before
> > these events occurred HH had no reason to believe that he would
> > ever again
> > have a "loving wife" who would find his diary and decipher its
> > "microscopicscript," written in HH's "smallest, most satanic
> > hand." I think the more
> > important question is why HH didn't immediately remove or destroy
> > the diary
> > as soon CH's indicated to him that she believed the little
> > mahogany table
> > wherein it was hidden contained HH's old love letters. Knowing how
> > "insanelyjealous" CH was of his past, HH should have easily
> > foreseen that she would
> > not rest until she confirmed her suspicion. Oh well, had HH acted
> > prudentlyCH would not have found the diary, she would not have
> > been run down by Fred
> > Beale's Packard, HH would not have become DH's default dad, and so
> > on . . .
> >
> >
> > >Hello,
> >
> > I'm sorry if everyone apart from me knows the answer to this one
> > already,but could someone explain to me why Humbert does not just
> > write his diary in
> > a language Charlotte Haze doesn't understand? 'Obvious
> > abbreviations' at the
> > beginning of I, 11 suggests in some obscure way that he is not too
> > concernedabout being found out...
> >
> > --
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiran Krishna
3rd yr physics
(Falkiner High Energy Physics)
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
--------------------------------------------
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest
political end.
- Lord Acton
...Money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by
man.
- F.A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/hienergy
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~kiran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the things might have been modified later. Also, there is the
Flaubertian transition between diary and the mentioning of the poem in
praise of Lolita's eyelashes (from memory: I don't have the text in front
of me), back to the diary again (with 'Diary resumed').
Kiran
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, D. Barton Johnson wrote:
> ------------------
>
> There's another hypothosis -- assuming fictional character's have lives
> of their own, as VN's tend so often to do, perhaps at the time Humbert
> was writing the diary he believed no one but himself could possibly
> decipher it's maniacal curlicues, but by the time he is writing
> _Lolita_ five years later in prison, he well knows that the scrutiny of
> a loving and jealous wife can achive what he thought to be impossible.
> Thus the loving wife comment is not an authentic line form the original
> diary, but an afterthought inserted either satirically or unconsciously
> by Humber the jailhouse litteratuer.
>
> One might say that this is a lot of suposing to be doing, but on the
> other hand, despite Humbert's photographic memory, he admits to
> inserting a line or two into Lotte's lovelorn letter (I don't have my
> copy of the text at the moment, but the line I'm thinking of, if I
> rember correctly, is soemthing like "the vortex of the toilet, where it
> eventually did go, might be my own matter of fact contribution. She
> probably begged me to make a special fire to consume it.") If Humbert
> is capable of inserting his own later thought into the text of the
> letter without alerting the reader (or rather, only alerting him after
> the reader's had their snicker at Lotte's expense), one must suppose
> him capable of doing the same to the diary. Furhermore, I think this
> would fit in with the stucture of the book as a whole --- I believe
> it's meant to be read twice, the first time as a mystery and the second
> time as a tragedy. For the first time reader, even if they manage to
> figure out quite early on who Lo disappears with, _Lolita_ requires a
> second reading to truly appreciate how early and how often he appaears,
> and how ineveitable Lo's tragedy is. The "loving wife" comment in the
> diary is only one example of VN's genius for inserting slight comments
> and details likely to be passed over or regarded lightly by someone
> reading _Lolita_ for the first time, but whose significance will strike
> the second (or third or fourth or fifth) time reader like a pile of
> bricks --- the list of minor characters and their outcomes in the
> forward is a steller example, as is that half-heard conversation on the
> Enchanted Hunter' porch, when it seems Humbert's paranoia overcomes his
> auditory skills.
> ------------------------
> EDITOR's NOTE. Just to throw something extra into the pot...someone
> might want to ponder the implications, if any, of Kinbote's insertions
> into "Pale Fire" and how the narrator of Eugene Onegin translates
> Tatyana's letter from French into Russian.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> Date: Saturday, November 17, 2001 1:58 pm
> Subject: Re: Query: Humbert's Diary (fwd)
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:53:25 -0800
> > From: Mark Bennett <mab@straussandasher.com>
> > I think the most reasonable answer is that at the time HH kept the
> > diary he
> > could not foresee that CH would ever ransack his room looking for
> > "locked up
> > love letters." He had stopped keeping the diary approximately 5
> > days before
> > CH drove DH to Camp Q, leaving behind with Louise the letter to HH
> > in which
> > CH both confessed her love for him and presented him with the
> > Hobson' choice
> > (Humbson' choice?) of moving out of 342 Lawn Street or marrying
> > her. Before
> > these events occurred HH had no reason to believe that he would
> > ever again
> > have a "loving wife" who would find his diary and decipher its
> > "microscopicscript," written in HH's "smallest, most satanic
> > hand." I think the more
> > important question is why HH didn't immediately remove or destroy
> > the diary
> > as soon CH's indicated to him that she believed the little
> > mahogany table
> > wherein it was hidden contained HH's old love letters. Knowing how
> > "insanelyjealous" CH was of his past, HH should have easily
> > foreseen that she would
> > not rest until she confirmed her suspicion. Oh well, had HH acted
> > prudentlyCH would not have found the diary, she would not have
> > been run down by Fred
> > Beale's Packard, HH would not have become DH's default dad, and so
> > on . . .
> >
> >
> > >Hello,
> >
> > I'm sorry if everyone apart from me knows the answer to this one
> > already,but could someone explain to me why Humbert does not just
> > write his diary in
> > a language Charlotte Haze doesn't understand? 'Obvious
> > abbreviations' at the
> > beginning of I, 11 suggests in some obscure way that he is not too
> > concernedabout being found out...
> >
> > --
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiran Krishna
3rd yr physics
(Falkiner High Energy Physics)
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
--------------------------------------------
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest
political end.
- Lord Acton
...Money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by
man.
- F.A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/hienergy
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~kiran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------