In a message dated 2/24/2012 9:29:36 AM Central Standard Time, STADLEN@AOL.COM writes: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.
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
RSGAll private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.