In a message dated 2/24/2012 9:29:36 AM Central Standard Time, STADLEN@AOL.COM writes:
How can Humbert's so-called "redemption" entail his going straight off to commit his filthy murder, in which not he but another is Clearly Guilty -- both of child-sex-crime and his own murder? I am using Nabokov's own adjective: "There is no rhetorical link between a filthy murderer [Raskolnikov], and this unfortunate girl [Sonya]." (Lectures in Russian Literature, 1981, p. 110.) Nabokov was clear-sighted, not sentimental -- or, at least, much more clear-sighted than sentimental. His summing-up of Humbert was: "a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear ' touching ' ''. (Strong Opinions, 1973, p. 84.) And: "Both [Hermann and Humbert] are neurotic scoundrels, yet there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann." (Preface to Despair, 1965.) So a fraction of one-365th or -366th "redemption" is all that is granted Humbert by his creator, ten years on.
Anthony Stadlen
Isn't Quilty guilty (sorry) of the same crimes as Humbert, or worse? Even Lo eventually finds C. Q. a little too creepy and abandons him. I don't know that I'd call the murder of Quilty "filthy" or even most foul and unnatural--as these things go. I'm not sure that I quite understand your initial question. Frankly, I'd find it easier to shoot Frank Langella than Peter Sellars, if a choice had to be made. I think a one-day parole is fair enough for H. H.
RSG
All private editorial communications are
read by both co-editors.