Subject
Re: VN/Dostoevsky--rape of Lolita (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Walter Miale <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca>
The context of the post that precipitated this not very illuminating thread
was:
>Both Humbert and the underground man are unreliable narrators, and their
>unreliability takes on precisely the same quality. They faithfully record
>the basic events of their respective stories; we have no reason to doubt
>the facts they describe. Rather than deceiving themselves about factual
>information (for instance, Humbert does not delude himself into imagining
>that Lolita is really older than twelve), they deceive themselves about
>the moral implications of their actions.
I tried to suggest that the assumption that the narrator is reliable with
respect to fact is perhaps unwarranted. As a case in point, we have only
the narrator's word regarding the events in The Enchanted Hunters. Isn't it
possible or probable that he lied to the reader about these (and other)
events, and that he may therefore have been guilty not only of the crime
(the crimes, as Susan Elizabeth Sweeney observes) as he reported them but
of an even more brutal crime?
Humbert's factual account of the events of that night and morning is taken
at its face value by critics, as far as I know. Kubrick and Schiff/Lynne
also as I recall depicted unambiguously (with respect to the fact of what
took place) the events as reported by Humbert. Indeed, it's not easy for a
filmmaker to render as factually uncertain events that take place in front
of the camera. If a filmmaker wanted to depict the events that morning at
the hotel AND to suggest the possibility that Humbert's account was
inaccurate, he or she would have to solve a cinematic problem.
With respect to the question, Is Humbert Humbert accurate with respect to
facts? I must concede that the author would seem to believe yes. In
Nabokov's screenplay, at least in the McGraw-Hill version I have, he
depicts the event as Humbert descibes it, with Lolita initiating the act.
But does the author have privileged knowledge with respect to his
characters? Did Nabokov KNOW what happened in the hotel room? I suppose if
anybody did, he did, but not even John Ray knew for sure, and unfortunately
it was Humbert Humbert who had the last word.
In any case, it's clear that none of this in any way absolves the villain
from any guilt whatsoever for the criminal act that he committed that
fateful morning.
Walter Miale
The context of the post that precipitated this not very illuminating thread
was:
>Both Humbert and the underground man are unreliable narrators, and their
>unreliability takes on precisely the same quality. They faithfully record
>the basic events of their respective stories; we have no reason to doubt
>the facts they describe. Rather than deceiving themselves about factual
>information (for instance, Humbert does not delude himself into imagining
>that Lolita is really older than twelve), they deceive themselves about
>the moral implications of their actions.
I tried to suggest that the assumption that the narrator is reliable with
respect to fact is perhaps unwarranted. As a case in point, we have only
the narrator's word regarding the events in The Enchanted Hunters. Isn't it
possible or probable that he lied to the reader about these (and other)
events, and that he may therefore have been guilty not only of the crime
(the crimes, as Susan Elizabeth Sweeney observes) as he reported them but
of an even more brutal crime?
Humbert's factual account of the events of that night and morning is taken
at its face value by critics, as far as I know. Kubrick and Schiff/Lynne
also as I recall depicted unambiguously (with respect to the fact of what
took place) the events as reported by Humbert. Indeed, it's not easy for a
filmmaker to render as factually uncertain events that take place in front
of the camera. If a filmmaker wanted to depict the events that morning at
the hotel AND to suggest the possibility that Humbert's account was
inaccurate, he or she would have to solve a cinematic problem.
With respect to the question, Is Humbert Humbert accurate with respect to
facts? I must concede that the author would seem to believe yes. In
Nabokov's screenplay, at least in the McGraw-Hill version I have, he
depicts the event as Humbert descibes it, with Lolita initiating the act.
But does the author have privileged knowledge with respect to his
characters? Did Nabokov KNOW what happened in the hotel room? I suppose if
anybody did, he did, but not even John Ray knew for sure, and unfortunately
it was Humbert Humbert who had the last word.
In any case, it's clear that none of this in any way absolves the villain
from any guilt whatsoever for the criminal act that he committed that
fateful morning.
Walter Miale