/lit/ - Literature

>>16167382
Time to visit the dentist

>>16167382
>keeps a written record of his plans to groom and rape a womans daughter
>leaves those plans sitting in his room when he knows his wife snoops around his shit
the fuck was Humbert's problem? was he retarded? did he subconsciously want to get caught?

>>16169107
He had no respect for her and thought she was totally clueless. Probably didn't expect her to find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMXVWQCa_MY

>>16169107
Humbert wanted what was best for Lolita. If it were up to him, she wouldn't have been taken by a pornographer and became a whore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k1Vx0equfE

when did Lolita began her relationship with Quilty? Or is that detail really absent from H.Hs account of the "facts"?

>The Nuremberg prosecutor found my diaries

>>16170420
He claims to be a talent scout who will take her to Hollywood when she's in the school they settle down near. It's in the book; you could read it.

>>16170656
but she knew who Quilty was from way before that, he went to one of her mom's gatherings and sat her on his lap when she was very little. She also recognized him at the Enchanted Hunters, she was well aware of who he was when he was attending to the rehearsals of the play

>>16169186
>Humbert wanted what was best for Lolita.
He just wanted to rape her all the time, dude. There was this moment, I can't recall clearly but he tells that when he would finally cum and stop, he would have a little remorse and think about her for a second before getting hard again and and go for second and third round. Dude was sick.

>>16170666
The school is where Humbert claims their relationship starts. He posits Quilty as a kind of stalker and fellow traveller from the start, but the idea of it being a relationship only starts once they settle down and he sends her to school.
>>16170720
Humbert doesn't claim to rape her. He contrasts himself with Quilty.

>>16170817
he doesn't claim to rape her, but he confesses to having sex multiple times with a minor (statutory rape)

>>16170920
No, he never confesses to full sex. The closest you get is sexual favours, which could be anything.

>>16170920
You can read between the lines that even if she was willing initially, she grew to resent it if she didn't from the start. In the above passage, when old dude would get lustful, she would actively express annoyance or resistance.

>>16170420
long before humbert ever entered the picture

>>16171288

>No, he never confesses to full sex.

lol what?


"This was a lone child, an absolute waif, with whom a heavy-limbed, foul-smelling adult had had
strenuous intercourse three times that very morning." (Lolita 32)

>>16171411
He's being deliberately vague- intercourse in this instance might well not mean sex but conversation. He soon after mentions his dwindling chances of making love with her that day, but previous to this they have just had three arguments that morning as he tries to get her to pack.
The sex acts he does describe in that hotel don't amount to intercourse, so it's another of Humbert's tricks to gain plausible deniability.
Another of his tricks appears in the same sequence- he claims he did not take her virginity, in much the same way that he claims all the downward spiral is later Quilty's fault.

>>16171516
>intercourse in this instance might well not mean sex but conversation
i thought you died in jail humbert

>>16171704
>I am surprised Humbert is a liar
The point of the book is that he's a liar. He's either lying when he describes the events of that morning in detail down to the potato chips on the bed and the maids whistling in the corridors, which contains no sex let alone three times and describes all the debauchery happening the day before, or he's lying when he says intercourse three times that morning though he previously said no time for sex and he is too nervous, or, he is lying the whole damn time
The point of the book is that you're supposed to doubt everything. Even in that section when he claims someone else took her virginity: he says Lo told him so, and he implies he doesn't necessarily believe her story, but who is our source for Lo saying she lost her virginity at all? Humbert is doubting words he might well have put into Lo's mouth, which makes it a more credible story to the reader than if he said she told me and I totally believe her.

>>16171754
>I am not concerned with so-called "sex" at all. Anybody can imagine those elements of animality.

he doesn't describe the sex in detail but it's incredibly clear that it happened. there's no reason he would lie about that, as it would only make him look worse in the eyes of the court

>>16171828
> so-called "sex" at all. Anybody can imagine those elements of animality.
Excepts he describes in detail jacking it to her naked ass and putting his dick between her ass cheeks in that same hotel. He describes plenty of sex acts in detail but he always veers away from what would get him heavier charges. You even want to claim he explicitly cops to having sex with her, though his story of that morning contradicts it. He is a liar, but a smart liar who knows how a police statement works: he knows there is no time or space to have fucked her that morning, so he lets an implication slip so people might hound him for that and ignore the fact he described in detail molesting her to a lesser extent than rape the day before.

>>16171851
What are you even trying to say? That he's trying to get away with lesser crimes by falsely admitting to worse crimes?

>>16171876
No, I'm saying he did far worse things than he copped to at all in the book, but he leaves false leads he knows people will jump on so they ignore the horrors he does describe. It's like if you kill someone with an axe and then go to the police and say I killed this guy with a knife: the police will think you're a crank.
What Humbert is doing is more subtle: he also wants to accuse the reader of a filthy mind. He describes the morning and there is no sex, and it's mostly him trying to get Lo cleaned up and the fuck outta there, because he is afraid of what he did the day before. Then he lets an implication slip there was sex that morning, and suddenly the reader, like you did, forgets about the stuff he actually copped to and described in detail, and tries to accuse him during the time he can account for his movements and can say no sex happened.

>>16171896
The thing is that he does give quite a few details about the sex in the paragraph before he says "I am not concerned with so-called sex." It's just strange to me that you would think he's lying about that in particular

>>16167382
Bro fuck off I’m like 1/3 in

>>16171936
It's not strange, he does it repeatedly in that passage. He claims to debauch her, and then claims he couldn't have because someone else took her virginity. Debauchery as an offense often requires proof the child was not already immoral. It's key he specifies not only was she fucking someone else, she was also a lesbian. He's building a case which makes it very hard to get him for statutory rape, debauchery, or anything above molestation. He makes contradictory statements because law officers and lawyers hate contradictory statements because they fall apart in court.
In the case of the copping to a knife murder when you actually did an axe murder, the prosecution would be very wise to never admit your statement into evidence. It's easier to convict you if they never mention you made a false confession. Humbert is trying to make sure they go for lesser charges they can make sure stick, while muddying the waters on higher charges. He also gets a sick enjoyment from people only being outraged about the higher charges, as though that excuses the lesser offenses as actually lesser.

>>16170920
>Statutory rape
>Statutory
>"Enacted, created, or regulated by the legislative branch of a government"
>Literally "technically, the government says this is rape"
>Conflating this with actual rape because the terms sound similar

>>16167382
>>16169107
I don't understand why he didn't write in shorthand. He's smart enough.

>>16170817
>Humbert doesn't claim to rape her
What about
>Had I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges.

>>16172924
>>Had I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges
>>16171954
>In the case of the copping to a knife murder when you actually did an axe murder, the prosecution would be very wise to never admit your statement into evidence. It's easier to convict you if they never mention you made a false confession. Humbert is trying to make sure they go for lesser charges they can make sure stick, while muddying the waters on higher charges. He also gets a sick enjoyment from people only being outraged about the higher charges, as though that excuses the lesser offenses as actually lesser.
He's asking you to try him for the rape he never describes and dismiss all of the sex acts he does describe. Know what happens if he gets off a rape charge and no other charges were lodged? He walks. A lawyer would charge him with things that there's a solid case to be made out of which would ensure his conviction. Getting Al Capone on taxes ensured a conviction; most people would want him tried for extortion but then he will walk when the victims all develop amnesia on the stand.

>>16173026
He says right afterwards that it should only be published after he and Lolita are both dead, though. He claims he didn't write the final chapter with legal defense in mind (unlike earlier chapters) and that seems to hold up.

>>16173105
>No he's totally telling the truth
kek no. One of the great things about Nabokov's portrayal is now manipulative Humbert is. The majority of readers are very upset if you tell them there isn't enough for a rape conviction, because they want a rape conviction. It's an idée fixé they have and they fail to realise that Humbert is absolutely depraved even if he didn't rape her. They scream for there to be rape in the book, but when presented with dozens of accounts of molestation that is not enough for them. He must go all the way, or they just plain aren't interested.
>after he and Lolita are both dead
You mean, after he can't be charged again, and after she won't be alive to hear his confession?
>final chapter
You know he claims she writes him a letter calling him dad, but only once she's dead and can't say "I never wrote him" or even "I wrote 'Fuck you scumbag'". You trust the known liar when he says things you like, but he's a constant liar. That's Nabokov's genius: what lies of Humbert's you choose to believe reveal a lot about you.
Once you take Humbert as a constant liar, many more interesting details crop up: did Lo write to him or did he make that up when he read about her in a newspaper? Did Lo really have any other sexual experiences, before or after him? Why, when Lo loves photography and Humbert is constantly mentioning photos of all kinds of things including other nymphets, and she runs off with a porn producer, are there no mentions of Humbert ever taking her photo? Humbert lies by omission almost as much as inclusion. Why does the level of abuse vary so much across his story- most offenders get more vile as time goes on, but all the supports for rape anon cites in the thread are before he even feels secure, so how does that make sense? If you start looking at Humbert as a liar, Quilty stalking her makes an even weird proposition possible- does Quilty exist or is he a fictional aside? Apparently, if we believe Humbert, he dies while trying to bribe the incorruptible Humbert who makes himself out to be a one nymphet knight in shining armour. We can't check because he's dead, just like we can't check if Lo really wrote to him because she's dead. For many things that make Humbert seem less depraved, our only witness is Humbert. Humbert is not a reliable witness, and he knows you can't check his story with dead people.

>>16173169
>when he read about her in a newspaper
when does this occur

>>16173247
>Dr Ray is trustworthy
According to the frame, Humbert is dead before she dies. But the frame is shaky in reliability. He dies a month before she goes into labour and dies, if we believe Dr Ray. If we don't believe Dr Ray, and most of all, don't trust Humbert's murder defense that he killed Quilty to save Lo from the evil man, then there are a lot more possibilities. If we do trust Dr Ray, Lo treats him as a father, updates him on her life, while knowing he is on trial for killing Quilty. In the second proposition, if we trust Humbert and Ray, Humbert is not a bad guy but her saviour/father/lover. If you don't trust Ray, then the order of events and the defense for the murder might change entirely.

>>16173169
I dont know man. I guess he could be lying about everything, but that's really not an interesting reading of the book.

I feel like Nabokov doesn't explicitlt describe sex because he just doesn't find it to be as beautiful as everything that leads up to it. The peaks of aesthetic bliss in the novel happen when sexuality is only implicit, like when Dolores puts her feet on Humbert's lap. This falls in line with Nabokov's opinion about sex (in novels), which he has said he finds "uninteresting".

And I don't doubt thay Humbert is lying at certain points in the novel. For example, it's hinted at that Lo didn't lose her virginity to another girl, Humbert filled that detail in because he didn't want to imagine Lolita getting penetraded by another guy.

But I don't think avoiding prosecution was his main goal, ando so this ultra skepticism isnt really warrented. Rather he was trying to convince himself that he wasn't a complete monster, and wether he was or not is up to the reader to decide.

>>16173288
you didn’t answer my question
>Lo treats him as a father, updates him on her life, while knowing he is on trial for killing Quilty
man what the fuck are you talking about, when and where even are we anymore. can you do this alternate timeline in list/date form instead

>>16173169
I don't trust Humbert, I just don't see why he would lie in the very particular excerpt I posted.
Pushing to only get charged with rape makes sense enough. But that excerpt was something that could not be used for that purpose as it was never intended to be used in the courtroom or published until after his death when it wouldn't do him any good.
Most of the book was written with the idea of using it in the courtroom. That chapter was not.
That doesn't mean the chapter should be taken at face value, of course. But it robs him of a motive to lie in that particular way.
>You mean, after he can't be charged again, and after she won't be alive to hear his confession?
Yes.
Please be careful with what I'm saying - I'm not saying that he confessed to rape, legally or personally, I'm only saying that he claimed to have raped her.

>>16169107
Nabokov needed a deus ex machina

>>16173319
>he could be lying about everything, but that's really not an interesting reading of the book.
It's one of the most interesting ways to read the book.
>Nabokov doesn't explicitlt describe sex because he just doesn't find it to be as beautiful as everything that leads up to it.
This is a hint that Dr Ray doesn't exist. Ray wants the manuscript out there because he claims it is beautifully written. He claims Humbert is depraved. Humbert claims that he chose his name equally because he knows he is depraved. In terms of editing choice, while Ray and Humbert make the same choices as Nabokov would (beauty before all), it's strange that Ray's complete lack of editing extends to allowing the murderer to be pseudonymous, but gives us Lo's original name and married name. Whose death date can we check from that? Nabokov describes a lot of sex acts, in detail, as Humbert. The idea that sex is uninteresting when we all know everyone buys it expecting a rape is hogwash.
>For example, it's hinted at that Lo didn't lose her virginity to another girl, Humbert filled that detail in because he didn't want to imagine Lolita getting penetraded by another guy.
No, Lo tells him the name of the boy, and when he presses her for details she clams up. He could be lying then, as always, but the lesbian bit is about kissing, not fucking. He doubts her about the boy because he doesn't get juicy details from her, but he's unabashed about using it as a "I didn't even take her virginity" defense.
>But I don't think avoiding prosecution was his main goal,
Avoiding prosecution for certain things certainly is. Quilty is portrayed as even more depraved than him and trying to offer him ever more depraved things before Humbert executes him, and a lot of his murder defense seems to rest on the I'll sentiment his victim should arouse if we believe him about Quilty's crimes. Now, if he's lying about Quilty's crimes and stalking and Quilty wasn't offering to bribe him with all of Sodom and Gomorrah, maybe Humbert has executed someone who actually just recognised Lo and knew Humbert was not her father and probably raping her.
>ando so this ultra skepticism isnt really warrented.
It definitely is with Nabokov. He often has a frame story which is written by a character who wants external validation of their viewpoint and so invents an alter ego.
>Rather he was trying to convince himself that he wasn't a complete monster, and wether he was or not is up to the reader to decide.
Well, if you believe him, Quilty was the complete monster. If you believe Dr Ray, Humbert might be a monster but he has redeeming features like how he writes. That's more than a bit sus.

>>16173400
>gives us Lo's original name and married name
No:
>While "Haze" only rhymes with the heroine's real surname, her first name is too closely interwound with the inmost fiber of the book to allow one to alter it;
And later:
>Mrs. "Richard F. Schiller"
(In context, the quotation marks indicate a pseudonym.)
We get her real first name, a thinly pseudonymized original last name, and a fully pseudonymized married name.
Almost all names in the book are claimed to be pseudonymized.

>>16173340
Lo's letter is sept 22.
Humbert claims in the manuscript he has been writing for 56 days, and writes for three more days.
If we trust Dr Ray, then Humbert has miscounted. (He dies 16 November according to Dr Ray, which is 56 days after receipt of the letter… but three days before he stops writing according to Humbert's count)
The murder is the same day he's arrested- so either Humbert counted right and didn't take three days between the letter and killing Quilty but killed him the same day as the letter, or Humbert counted wrong, or Dr Ray has the death date wrong.)
Alternatively, there might be no letter, and Humbert reads her new name in the papers. Or else Lo wrote to him while he was already arrested. Or, or, or.
Whatever the case, either Humbert or Ray, or potentially both, have the wrong dates. If you take Ray as a Humbert literary fiction, then all bets are off including on whether Humbert died or was arrested at all.

>>16173430
Sorry I was wrong about the married name being pseudonymous. However, if he gives the right death date for Dolores, and her correct circumstances of death, how many Doloreses do you think died that way on that date. Compared to Humbert, it is much easier to check if she died, while Humbert his death date and name are completely up for grabs.

>>16173349
>Most of the book was written with the idea of using it in the courtroom. That chapter was not
According to Humbert. Who of course would never lie.

>>16173526
His death date and circumstances of death are in the second sentence of the foreword:
>"Humbert Humbert," their author, had died in legal captivity, of coronary thrombosis, on November 16, 1952, a few days before his trial was scheduled to start.
And then later on the reader is invited to look up Humbert's real identity:
>References to "H. H."'s crime may be looked up by the inquisitive in the daily papers for September-October 1952;

>>16173534
It says within a few sentences of the excerpt that he isn't going to use it in a courtroom. Is he going to read out the part where he says that he isn't going to read it out?
Or if he's going to read out a different version in the courtroom then why bother putting that bit in the book version?
It doesn't match up.

I have to go out for a few hours, but another point on Dr Ray: he consults to fact check with a Windmuller. Which is German for someone who runs a windmill. Given the literary naming, having someone who runs a windmill as a source of factual info should raise some flags.
>>References to "H. H."'s crime may be looked up by the inquisitive in the daily papers for September-October 1952
Why would we need to? In the manuscript, if we believe Humbert, it's Sept 25. The problem with believing Humbert is that if we do that, Humbert is still writing on November 19, three days after his death. Dr Ray makes no mention the dates are miscounted by Humbert, and makes the date of the crime more vague than the manuscript's. Are we to assume every murder in and around September in that town was Humbert?

>It says within a few sentences of the excerpt that he isn't going to use it in a courtroom. Is he going to read out the part where he says that he isn't going to read it out?
>Or if he's going to read out a different version in the courtroom then why bother putting that bit in the book version?
>It doesn't match up.
Of course it doesn't. He's supposedly awaiting trial for murder- which would be the worst time to write a manuscript detailing all your other crimes. Like I said, we have two very sketchy with dates and facts people who tell us he's awaiting murder charges. If both of them are liars, we might not even be looking at a murder case. The supposed murder case might just be a way of publishing a confession to more sordid crimes with impunity.

>>16173586
Sorry meant to link your post here>>16173636

>>16173400
>Nabokov describes a lot of sex acts, in detail, as Humbert.
What? Maybe I'm misremembering but I'm sure most of the explicit sex acts are either alluded to or described very euphemistically, as opposed to the lead up to sex which is exposed in great detail.
You seem to be saying that the reason for that is because Humbert is trying to avoid prosecution. I think sex isn't described because the true aesthetic climax doesn't happen in the sexual act. This lines up nicely with Nabokov's anti-Freudianism that's also present in the novel. "Sex is the ancilla of art". The sexual act with Lolita is not the end goal, but merely the foundation necessary for everything that comes before it.

Now don't get me wrong, Humbert the character obviously wants to fuck Lolita. But you said it yourself, Ray, Humbert and Nabokov prioritize beauty above all, so the reason for Humbert to not focus on explicit sex acts in the writing of the text is an aesthethic choice, and not merely something done to avoid prosecution.

>>16171516
yeah sure he had hot, sweaty and steamy conversation with her thrice that morning.

bump

>>16170533
based and checked

>>16170533
>goyim found out about the lies
oy vey

>>16173636
>Are we to assume every murder in and around September in that town was Humbert?
He murdered a celebrity. It's probably not too hard to narrow it down.
I don't know what to make of the 56 days, and I don't think your ideas explain it, but I would guess the actual murder date (if any) would still be within a week or so from the claimed murder date.
>The supposed murder case might just be a way of publishing a confession to more sordid crimes with impunity.
Can you elaborate? How does it help with getting away with it?

>>16173782
>What? Maybe I'm misremembering but I'm sure most of the explicit sex acts are either alluded to or described very euphemistically, as opposed to the lead up to sex which is exposed in great detail.
In the hotel where anon wants to claim he raped her twice, he not only describes that morning (without sex) but also, the day before, jacking it to her, getting hard while she's reading comics and an act of frottage and all kinds of debauchery. What he describes from the day before is enough to put him in jail and, if they had such things back then, on a sex offenders list. He does have good reason to be concerned that morning, but it's not this >>16173993
>yeah sure he had hot, sweaty and steamy conversation with her thrice that morning
Or at least not with contradiction to the events he describes (so we have a detailed account of actual sex offenses, but happening the day before, or we have one line where he may or may not mean rape*3 - and which does anon pursue? Hint: people don't care about molestation, they want blood on those sheets)
>You seem to be saying that the reason for that is because Humbert is trying to avoid prosecution
Well, certain persecutions. He knows that people only care if he raped the girl. He knows the reader wants a rape scene. He knows the reader will imagine they got one. He knows the reader doesn't give a shit until his pen0r goes in vagoo, and he can describe in detail molesting her and everyone shrugs because why should they care about that, they came here for rape and will want their money back if he "only" rubbed his dick on a kid's thighs). He not only wants to avoid some legal prosecutions (including giving a defense for murder that the other guy deserved death- a sentence longer than he would have given himself) but he also wants the reader to say "There must be a rape, because I don't give a shit about you having any other sex act with a child". He knows the reader wants a money shot as bad as any pervert. That's one of the points of the book: the reader imagines what they want and ignores what they choose. Most readers ignore him explicitly molesting her, and convince themselves they're reading a rape story when Humbert pointedly doesn't give them one.
>think sex isn't described because the true aesthetic climax doesn't happen in the sexual act. This lines up nicely with Nabokov's anti-Freudianism that's also present in the novel. "Sex is the ancilla of art".
Only it's not sex you're hoping happened- you're hoping for an explicit rape because explicit molestation is not enough for the reader. Are we supposed to believe that Nabokov can make masturbation and spreading ass cheeks beautiful but that he couldn't write a rape? He's perfectly capable of giving us a rape scene as explicit as a death or molestation scene- the big question is why the reader wants a rape to explicitly have happened, and why the molestation isn't good enough to convict even though it goes on for pages?

>>16173782
>The sexual act with Lolita is not the end goal, but merely the foundation necessary for everything that comes before it.
It is for most readers. And you can't be antiFreudian and then insist the rape is somehow subconscious and repressed in favour of flowery language and obfuscation. That is Freudian. If you want to be antiFreudian, then the explicit details which are still sexual acts with a minor are there in detail. What isn't is the rape, and Humbert constantly offloads taking her virginity and rape onto other people.
>Ray, Humbert and Nabokov prioritize beauty above all, so the reason for Humbert to not focus on explicit sex acts in the writing of the text is an aesthethic choice, and not merely something done to avoid prosecution.
Again, why think molestation is beautifully written but a beautiful rape is beyond him? Why characterise it as not a sexual act (I think most authorities would agree putting your erect dick between a child's legs is jail time, not just a sexual act) but muddy the waters on the rape. He wants to prove the reader wants the rape. They don't need it to be explicit. But they will handwave everything up until the point he rips her open.
>>16175825
>He murdered a celebrity. It's probably not too hard to narrow it down
If we believe him. Somehow this celebrity can take as much time off as Humbert too. If Ray and Humbert are liars, there might not be a murder (as I've said previously). Or there might be a dead celebrity, but Humbert's timeline proves he has nothing to do with it.
If there is no murder, and there is no Dr Ray, then the molestation might still be real- however the reader will believe the perp is dead. If he doesn't die as per Ray's account, if Humbert got the dates right and had no time to kill Quilty but just attached that story as an alibi for his supposed death, then Humbert might have never went to jail to write the manuscript. He could be Dr Ray, absolving himself of what he confessed by saying "Oh but the guy who did it is dead now, so why not publish the account for beauty?". If he published it without the supposed author being dead, the reader might want someone to start a manhunt. If the reader trusts Ray's account, then the molester is dead and the fact he's publishing a full account of crimes against a child requires no further action.

Also thanks to the anons who bumped this I almost didn't make it back in time to respond. There is a lot of theory about the shit I'm talking about (does Quilty exist is a big question) so anons can research it themselves if I disappear again. Nabokov write really fascinating liars and manipulators so different theorists have different views about how much and how often Humbert is lying, along with if Dr Ray or Quilty even exist.

>>16176756
>Somehow this celebrity can take as much time off as Humbert too.
It seems plausible for the rock star-ish sort of celebrity he is. And he pursued them right after finishing with the play, so it makes some sense that he'd have the time at that particular moment. Especially if he planned it with Lolita in advance.
>If he published it without the supposed author being dead, the reader might want someone to start a manhunt. If the reader trusts Ray's account, then the molester is dead and the fact he's publishing a full account of crimes against a child requires no further action.
Ah, that makes more sense. But why would he compose it as something so easily verifiable as untrue? Wouldn't a plausibly unverifiable lower-profile murder do?

>>16176824
I'm reminded of Pale Fire. People theorize that Kinbote made up Shade, or Shade Kinbote, but Nabokov outright said those interpretations are wrong.
Boyd's book compares Pale Fire to a chess problem. That works because a chess problem is intricate but still neat and discrete. Many things in Pale Fire aren't obvious, but once you get them, there's not much doubt about them. You may or may not notice that, say, Kinbote's real name is Botkin, but if you do notice, then it slots perfectly into place. It's hard to argue against it. It's full of little puzzles with unassailable solutions.
But a theory that Kinbote doesn't correspond to a real person (or Shade doesn't, or Quilty doesn't) is not so neat. It has too many degrees of freedom. You can shift enough things around to make it plausibly true, but that's because you've given yourself a license to invalidate any part that doesn't fit. There may be hints that are explained by the theory, but there are no hints that can only be explained by the theory, and not by some equally wild but entirely disjoint second theory.
Kinbote's alphabetical family's alignment with Judge Goldsworth's alphabetical daughters made me sit up and go "ah!". But all these theories get out of me is an "I guess?". They don't feel like solutions. They're too messy for that.

>>16169107
Getting caught was part of his plan

>>16167382
Desu

>>16177106
>Especially if he planned it with Lolita in advance.
See this part, like the she's a lesbian and already a whore, is also derived from the perspective of the guy molesting her. The whole "Quilty was so much worse tho" thing is another trick of Humbert's to assuage his crimes somewhat.
>But why would he compose it as something so easily verifiable as untrue? Wouldn't a plausibly unverifiable lower-profile murder do?
I said before he makes a lot of contradictory statements - often right on top of each other but sometimes further apart so they are harder to catch- because the more unreliable he is as a narrator the harder it is to say "he did X, Y, and Z on dates Q, P, and R, officer". The timeline and murder not adding up, along with the idea that you start writing a confession to ever more extreme and fantastical crimes while under arrest, makes it really hard to tell what actually happened and where Humbert is lying or telling us the truth and making it seem doubtful etc. Since it's in a fictional universe, we don't have a way of verifying, so Nabokov could have given the frame more plausibility, but he chose not to. Ray's account alluded to newspapers but it also alludes to a source (Windmuller) who somehow is able to verify events, but is absent in Humbert's account. Nabokov could have kept it at newspaper accounts which suggests there is an independent factual account in that universe, but he introduces Windmuller from basically nowhere into Ray's account.
>You may or may not notice that, say, Kinbote's real name is Botkin, but if you do notice, then it slots perfectly into place. It's hard to argue against it. It's full of little puzzles with unassailable solutions.
It's these kinds of details that make Nabokov unlikely to fuck up the dates with the letter and manuscript length. Which real person Kinobote is or if he exists is a whole other debate, but in Lolita we somehow have Quilty (now dead so unable to give an account), Humbert (supposedly dead so we can't question his dates) and this Windmuller character as points of fact for Ray, where they would all know vital details of the story and supposedly add up for Ray to make the narrative plausible. But if Ray is fact checking it, why aren't basic facts like the dates coming out right? Why is the newspaper accounts so vague? Sure we're told Day values it as an art object, but if you value it just for beauty, why check it with this supposed Windmuller? Why does Ray want us to believe the liar is reasonably accurate, and verifiable within that universe, but then leaves things which point to great inaccuracies for the reader to see? Why does Ray have a need to lend credibility, and why does he do it so poorly?

>>16178061
*Ray* not Day

Bumping

>>16177116
What is he going to do now? Embark on an endless holiday through the Midwest by car, raping his victim in hospital, and then shooting Quilty? WITH NO SURVIVORS?

>>16178061
>she's a lesbian [1]
He says that he had hoped her to be a lesbian but it was limited to some girl teaching her how to masturbate.
>and already a whore [2]
This is overstating his claim. He says she already had sex with one teenage boy. He also says she seduced him, but then wasn't prepared for the reality of it. (To be clear, I do think all of this should be taken with a grain of salt.)
>"Quilty was so much worse tho" [3]
Do his descriptions bear this out? Lolita says he never had sex with her and it's written like Humbert expects you to believe it.
[1] and [3] in particular are things that Humbert says he hoped or believed but subsequently disconfirms to an extent. Why would he do that if they're made up out of whole cloth? They point toward unreliability, but they don't serve their purpose as pure lies.
And Lolita wanting to run away with Quilty points to her being miserable and wanting to escape. It's not in his favor.
These only make sense as attempts to downplay his crimes if they're things he truly hoped or believed, not if they're wholly made up. It makes sense if his hate for Quilty blinds him to how other people would perceive it, but not as a calculated deception.

>a source (Windmuller) who somehow is able to verify events, but is absent in Humbert's account.
Louise Windmuller is a classmate of Lolita's in Ramsdale. Jack Windmuller is a lawyer who's first mentioned in a letter from John Farlow and later sorts out the Haze inheritance with Humbert. He appropriately only backs up details about people who lived in Ramsdale, as well as Lolita (whose information he receives from Humbert, explicitly in the text) and Rita (not sure about this, but Humbert was married to her at the time at least):
>For the benefit of old-fashioned readers who wish to follow the destinies of the "real" people beyond the "true" story, a few details may be given as received from Mr. "Windmuller,"

>if you value it just for beauty, why check it with this supposed Windmuller?
For people who are into that sort of thing. He's a bit disdainful about it. It's presented to sate curiosity, not as evidence.

>It's these kinds of details that make Nabokov unlikely to fuck up the dates with the letter and manuscript length.
I certainly think it's intentional on Nabokov's part, but your solution is hardly unassailable. It doesn't make anything fit so neatly that other explanations feel contrived.
If there is a neat solution I expect it to be one that matches the number of days exactly, not one that uses it as a simple inaccuracy.

>>16180319
>>16180319
>He says that he had hoped her to be a lesbian but it was limited to some girl teaching her how to masturbate
No he says that he was disappointed he wasn't her first kiss because she had been schooled by a lesbian at camp.
>>16180319
>This is overstating his claim. He says she already had sex with one teenage boy. He also says she seduced him, but then wasn't prepared for the reality of it. (To be clear, I do think all of this should be taken with a grain of salt.)
Pretty sure it's not her seducing him. There's an implied threesome, but she clams up on details. It's her and another girl with Charlie and that's about the last mention of that, but it comes after a string of confessions from her during which Humbert says things like "I didn't even take her virginity". It would be taken as she's already a whore and one with unnatural urges by the times.
>>16180319
>Do his descriptions bear this out? Lolita says he never had sex with her and it's written like Humbert expects you to believe it.
His next contact with Lo is the letter where she says she suffered a lot. Quilty's a child abductor, pornographer and drug addict if we believe Humbert, and the difference in sentence that Humbert gives to himself (35 years) compared against what Quilty gets from him (death) does imply that Humbert judges him as worse. Quilty's reaction to hearing about Lo's abuse isn't terribly sympathetic- he finds it funny. Lo's running away with Quilty is framed as her wanting a better life, but according to Humbert, Lo in the end says Quilty was worse (you only broke my life, but he broke my heart). Humbert lays off all the calculated deception on Quilty, from the escape plan to the taunting postcards, but his description of the affair is peppered with calculated deception. I mean, we're in a The Haze Woman Found The Diary thread, claiming he's not a calculating deceiver when he married and drugged a woman to fuck her teenager daughter is a bit hard. The fact he mitigates any charges any time he brings up actual incidences of his abuse of her suggests he's carried on in the same vein.
Do you have a reference for the masturbation and seduction because the section I'm getting lesbian and whore from are right by the I didn't take her virginity claim and I don't think there's another section which elaborates.
>>16180319
>He appropriately only backs up details about people who lived in Ramsdale, as well as Lolita (whose information he receives from Humbert, explicitly in the text) and Rita (not sure about this, but Humbert was married to her at the time at least):
The Windmuller dates don't make sense either- Louise is admitted to college when Humbert gets Lo's letter, but is a sophomore in '55 when Ray dates the frame. Windmuller only deals with the inheritance, which lands him in the space of debated time. He could be using Farlow's notes, but since Rita is mentioned, he's likely reliant on Humbert for information and not Farlow.

>>16180319
Windmuller is specified as wanting nothing to do with the sordid side, while Farlow wants nothing to do with the estate law side. As a source for what goes on in Ramsdale, Farlow would be strong, but instead we have Windmuller who is basically only there to hand over the inheritance which might have never happened.
Windmuller complicates the date even further and Ray's supposed disdain for those who want to match it to real life events can only be really used to defend it as an attempt to find a source who would be very much removed from the facts. If we don't trust Ray and Humbert about the very dodgy dates, Windmuller appears to exist solely to say Lo got the inheritance that Farlow said was too complicated to work out, and to make sure she got it during the very debatable three days between the letter and arrest. If Humbert is lying about the letter and inheritance, then Windmuller might not want to be involved solely because he doesn't exist. If Windmuller does exist, and as a lawyer, he'd be likely to know he cannot avoid being part of the trial as he's a key witness.
>>16180319
>If there is a neat solution I expect it to be one that matches the number of days exactly, not one that uses it as a simple inaccuracy
This would really complicate Windmuller's presence in the date keeping. He's basically absent apart from when the date cannot work. He only makes sense as a presence in Humbert's narrative as a kind of alibi to where Humbert was the 24th.

>>16177116
>>16179098
You are little girl.

>be 12
>be having a road trip with your new step dad

>>16180876
>Pretty sure it's not her seducing him.
I meant her seducing Humbert.
>a string of confessions from her
It comes after one confession about a female tent-mate and some claims about classmates of hers. That's all.
>during which Humbert says things like "I didn't even take her virginity".
The chapter before the confession ends with "Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover." I think that's the line you mean.
>It would be taken as she's already a whore
Only Elizabeth and Charlie are mentioned, and there's no implication that there were others. It's presented as complete.
Humbert calls people whores every now and then, but never her.
>and one with unnatural urges by the times
She talks about the sexual activity of a whole list of other children (the Miranda twins, Donald Scott, Hazel Smith, Kenneth Knight, Barbara Burke (who introduced her to Charlie), Charlie himself (who's 13)), so she didn't have "unnatural urges by the times". Humbert or Nabokov is going out of his way to paint it as somewhat ordinary, I think.

>His next contact with Lo is the letter where she says she suffered a lot.
She doesn't mention Quilty at all in the letter, or anything about her time with Quilty. The letter is short.
>the difference in sentence that Humbert gives to himself (35 years) compared against what Quilty gets from him (death) does imply that Humbert judges him as worse.
Humbert hates Quilty, but the hate matches up better to his personal grievances than to his crimes. If Quilty were invented out of whole cloth as a calculated lie he'd look different, I think. Dolores would be less ambivalent about him, for one.
>Lo's running away with Quilty is framed as her wanting a better life, but according to Humbert, Lo in the end says Quilty was worse (you only broke my life, but he broke my heart)
This is not right—she says "I would sooner go back to Cue", implying that she prefers Quilty, and "you only broke my life, but he broke my heart" is then supplied mentally by Humbert.
Here's how Humbert paraphrases her opinion of Quilty:
>He was not a hog. He was a great guy in many respects. But it was all drink and drugs. And, of course, he was a complete freak in sex matters, and his friends were his slaves. I just could not imagine (I, Humbert, could not imagine!) what they all did at Duk Duk Ranch. She refused to take part because she loved him, and he threw her out.
Also notable:
>A great guy. Full of fun. Had rocked with laughter when she confessed about me and her, and said he had thought so. It was quite safe, under the circumstances, to tell him...
>"You see, I had no fun with your Dolly. I am practically impotent, to tell the melancholy truth."

>Do you have a reference for the masturbation
That's how I interpreted "instructed her in various manipulations". I can't find the "hoped her to be a lesbian" part, I might have misremembered. He does seem to find her heterosexual experience much more weighty.

>>16180876
>Louise is admitted to college when Humbert gets Lo's letter, but is a sophomore in '55 when Ray dates the frame.
Does Ray ever date the frame? The real-life novel was published in '55, but I can't find that year mentioned anywhere in the text. Nabokov finished the novel in '53, which does match up with Louise just entering college in '52 if I'm getting my Americana right.

>>16180906
>Windmuller is specified as wanting nothing to do with the sordid side
He
>desires his identity suppressed so that "the long shadow of this sorry and sordid business" should not reach the community to which he is proud to belong.
He doesn't want attention, but he doesn't outright object to oblique involvement with the messy details.
If Ray is real and honest and merely careless about the real life details then I expect Humbert really is dead and Windmuller corresponds to a real person (as Ray contacted him).
If Ray is invented or dishonest then things get too weird. He claims references were in the daily papers for two months. You can't get away with saying that in your nonfiction if there's no murder at all, not even if the timeline is off by a few days.

>This would really complicate Windmuller's presence in the date keeping.
At least a little. But the date he was there is never stated explicitly, only derived by manually keeping count. You can just about argue that he could have been there on a different date in a rearranged timeline.

>>16181774
>It comes after one confession about a female tent-mate and some claims about classmates of hers.
And Charlie.
>The chapter before the confession ends with "Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover." I think that's the line you mean
Sounds about right
>>16181774
>Only Elizabeth and Charlie are mentioned, and there's no implication that there were others
Except Barbara.
>>16181774
>she didn't have "unnatural urges by the times"
By the then definition, anything sapphic was unnatural urges. It's what the phrase meant: homosexuality (or any other deviant sexuality) Humbert is showing that she would not be considered undebauched. He doesn't call her a whore, but the law the jury members would be working with would consider her the same as a degenerate sex worker- it's a defense against charges which rely on the corruption of a moral child. A child that already acts immorally can be subject to far more brutal treatment by the law, and Humbert addressing her lesbianism and lack of virginity would have seen him get fewer charges. In fact, in some states, Lo could be charged as a delinquent or hospitalised.
>>16181774
>She doesn't mention Quilty at all in the letter, or anything about her time with Quilty. The letter is short
She mentions the suffering though. Humbert doesn't at the point of the letter know who her abductor was, but we are meant to assume that she suffered since the hospital. That's why Humbert goes to check out who it was that is to blame for her suffering. It's the motivation for his murder. Had it been her husband who abducted her, he'd probably be dead instead.
>. If Quilty were invented out of whole cloth as a calculated lie he'd look different, I think. Dolores would be less ambivalent about him, for one.
Quilty is a foil for Humbert. There's plenty of weird hints he might be fictional (the monster who lives on Grimm Road) but the idea that he would be a better fiction if Lo's choice was black and white between them doesn't ring true to me. You believe in him as he is written, so why would writing him in a way that makes him an obvious lie be the best way to make him a believable fiction?
>She refused to take part because she loved him, and he threw her out.
This supports Humbert's mental completion of her thoughts. What Lo actually says more bizarre, and potentially a continuation of her manipulation of Humbert, though more likely a lie Humbert made up than the mental completion: she apologises for cheating so much on him. If we're trusting what Lo says, then Quilty is much worse. It's likely what Lo says about him though is Humbert's fantasy. If it's not, then the quotes you have here provide proof she wanted a better life and got let down, or even rejected because she loved him. If it is Humbert's fantasy, and he doesn't reconcile with Lo, and Quilty isn't real, then it makes sense he makes Quilty not only more depraved & deserving of a death sentence, but also someone who can't love her

>>16181960
>The real-life novel was published in '55,
Nabokov dates the preface in later editions. He may have added the date having forgotten the time scale, but that doesn't explain the already present discrepancies in the time scale. He could also have added it to increase the discrepancy.
>>16181960
>He doesn't want attention, but he doesn't outright object to oblique involvement with the messy details.
But if he's to be credible based on it being a small community, then it's pretty obvious to all there who he is. Like I said, Ray doesn't do a good job at concealment from the people he claims he wants to conceal things from. He openly says you can work it out, so Windmuller is offered only the slightest veneer.
>He claims references were in the daily papers for two months.
He says Sept-Oct, but that isn't two months. Lo's letter is only on the 22nd Sept. You could probably find a dead celebrity in that time, and an arrest, but the news coverage as per Ray doesn't even extend to Humbert's death date. If the guy who killed the celebrity died in prison awaiting trial there might be a resurgence of popular press focus, but there seemingly isn't.
You can certainly associate an unrelated murder with the rest. Even if Quilty is real, and Humbert shot him, how do we know it's not like a lot of celebrity murders where the celebrity is killed not because of any involvement with a deranged person's life but because the deranged person believed that by killing someone famous their unrequited love might be fulfilled?
>But the date he was there is never stated explicitly, only derived by manually keeping count. You can just about argue that he could have been there on a different date in a rearranged timeline.
That makes it even less plausible. Humbert might lose count over 56 days, but the timeline from the letter to the murder is a very close three days. If he lost count of a day or two, and we had only Humbert's count that is one thing. But Windmuller is supposedly a lawyer in contact with a fact checker, so not only would Humbert need to have the wrong day, Windmuller would have needed to file his accounts wrong and in concert with Humbert's miscount of those threeish days.

Bump

>>16182116
>And Charlie.
Charlie was what came after the one confession.
>Except Barbara.
She didn't really do anything sexual with Barbara. They took turns with Charlie.
>Humbert addressing her lesbianism and lack of virginity would have seen him get fewer charges.
That sounds reasonable within that framing.

>She mentions the suffering though.
Ah, I had missed this line:
>I have gone through much sadness and hardship.
But—
>Humbert doesn't at the point of the letter know who her abductor was, but we are meant to assume that she suffered since the hospital. That's why Humbert goes to check out who it was that is to blame for her suffering. It's the motivation for his murder. Had it been her husband who abducted her, he'd probably be dead instead.
I don't think this is quite right.
Humbert immediately believes Richard Schiller is her abductor, and plans to murder him without knowing any details about the "sadness and hardship".
It reads more to me as revenge for the abduction than punishment for the suffering. I don't remember him focusing on her claim of hardship.

>he idea that he would be a better fiction if Lo's choice was black and white between them doesn't ring true to me. You believe in him as he is written, so why would writing him in a way that makes him an obvious lie be the best way to make him a believable fiction?
It wouldn't have to be black and white. He could be a lot worse without being an obvious lie.
I was mildly surprised to read that he hadn't had sex with Lo, for one. Why invent that?
>she apologises for cheating so much on him
It reads more like an attempt to comfort him than a genuine apology. She first tells him twice to stop crying.

>>16182238
>Nabokov dates the preface in later editions.
Interesting, thank you.

>You could probably find a dead celebrity in that time, and an arrest
It would have to be Quilty to be plausible, with all the biographical details. We know that he was a playwright who wrote a well-known play called "The Little Nymph" in 1940. Even if that title is twisted from the real title it would be possible to resolve it. You couldn't just take any random celebrity to be Quilty.
And Ray talks about the crime's purpose being a mystery if not for the memoir, which only fits for intentional death.

>Even if Quilty is real, and Humbert shot him, how do we know it's not like a lot of celebrity murders where the celebrity is killed not because of any involvement with a deranged person's life but because the deranged person believed that by killing someone famous their unrequited love might be fulfilled?
Hm, that one's interesting. And somewhat similar to Pale Fire, which counts in its favor.
But I still can't put it into a full picture. How does it all fit together? Do you have an example of a full model that says which of Humbert, Quilty, Windmuller and Ray are and aren't real, are and aren't honest, are and aren't legitimately involved, and why? It wouldn't have to be plausible, just consistent.

>>16179098
Lo refused his offer in favor of Quilty's. He had to find out what he told her.

>>16173782
>forgets the hospital rape that Humbert hides from himself and the reader but it leaks through as the repressed.

Sorry but Humbert *fails* as a writer repeatedly and his rapes slip through the gap. “Type setter please fill the remainder of the page with Lolita”

>>16185106
So that’s why Humbert writes a mask for himself.

>>16185264
Who raped who in hospital? What are these leaks?

do you guys think Lolita enjoyed sex with Humbert at least one time?

>>16183028
>Humbert immediately believes Richard Schiller is her abductor, and plans to murder him without knowing any details about the "sadness and hardship
This one does have a real life parallel that Humbert drops repeatedly (the Sally Horner case: the thirty five years Humbert would give himself as a sentence is the sentence her abductor got, but he's also mentioned to be a mechanic, like the husband.) There's an implication that Humbert has assumed it's him because the real life model of the case, which readers would be familiar with from the press. However that doesn't satisfy Humbert because, if we take the fantasy route, he wants his rival to be a less successful foil than the real one in some ways, and more successful in ways that flatter his vanity (a disabled mechanic vs a celebrity with apparent charm).
>I was mildly surprised to read that he hadn't had sex with Lo, for one. Why invent that?
Because it keeps the fantasy Humbert is the man for Lo. It's like if someone stole your ex and you found out he didn't have a dick- you might mention that a lot and loudly if you were the jealous type.
>a mystery if not for the memoir, which only fits for intentional death.
This in itself implies there's little link to Lo herself. Quilty suddenly has a kid with him after the hospital and nobody notices. Or maybe he never has the kid for people to notice.
>It reads more like an attempt to comfort him than a genuine apology. She first tells him twice to stop crying
But it is how Humbert would view it. It could be Ok guessing what he wants to hear, but if he doesn't reconcile with Lo then it's Humbert writing what he wants to hear.
>full model
There are various ones depending on whether you think Quilty is real but uninvolved, if Quilty is made up but Ray is a dupe, or if all three are kind of one man's fiction. The last one makes a lot of sense since ultimately that is true, though outside the universe Nabokov set it in. Bit busy right now but bumping this with answers so far

>>16186606
She enjoyed it every time. She was a slut.

>>16187539
>the thirty five years Humbert would give himself as a sentence is the sentence her abductor got
>he's also mentioned to be a mechanic, like the husband
Ah, I hadn't made those connections. Very interesting. That raises the probability that Schiller is invented, though I still can't see how it would work.
>Because it keeps the fantasy Humbert is the man for Lo. It's like if someone stole your ex and you found out he didn't have a dick- you might mention that a lot and loudly if you were the jealous type.
Does that assume that Humbert at least believes Quilty to have taken Lo? Or is he so engrossed in his fantasy that it's not just to paint himself as less of a monster? If invented it's still born of genuine jealousy.
>This in itself implies there's little link to Lo herself. Quilty suddenly has a kid with him after the hospital and nobody notices.
There was quite some time between his kicking out Lo and dying, right? Why would people make the connection?
>But it is how Humbert would view it.
Agreed, but is it how Humbert would invent it?
>Quilty is real but uninvolved, if Quilty is made up but Ray is a dupe
I think that if Ray is real and honest and not insane then much of the prologue must be true, even if Humbert deceived him.
Quilty and Darkbloom must be real, with the way Ray talks about them. Windmuller must be real and superficially corroborate Humbert's story, unless someone's impersonating him. If Windmuller is real and not impersonated, then Schiller must be real.
I can almost buy that Quilty is real and murdered but had nothing to do with Lo, but I'm having trouble fitting Schiller into that. Humbert knows about Schiller. Did he meet Lo but hallucinate what she said about Quilty? Did Lo make up Quilty's involvement? Did he murder Quilty first and find out about Schiller later?
>or if all three are kind of one man's fiction. The last one makes a lot of sense since ultimately that is true, though outside the universe Nabokov set it in
But if everything is fictional then you lose most explanatory power. Why would the fictional fiction writer have an inaccurate timeline if everything is in his control? You'd have to introduce a third layer of fiction to explain the incongruities.

>>16169107
Good question, he could've easily written the diary in his native French

>>16189440
>Quilty suddenly has a kid with him after the hospital and nobody notices.
>There was quite some time between his kicking out Lo and dying, right? Why would people make the connection?
I think anon's pointing out that if a celebrity has a teenage girl with him, that's some shit people comment on. Though with the Epstein case I guess it could be the same thing where everyone is saying I NEVER SAW HIM WITH CUNNY HOW COULD I KNOW?!?! even though there are pictures of them with the cunny.

>>16189859
But do we know that nobody commented on it?
Heck, he supposedly almost went to jail for it before Lo:
>Edusa had warned her that Cue liked little girls, had been almost jailed once, in fact (nice fact), and he knew she knew.
(of course that's Humbert quoting Lo quoting Edusa, we don't know that it's true)

>>16190471
>, had been almost jailed once, in
So basically Epstein

>>16190481
Yeah basically

Bumping to save actual /lit/ discussion.

>>16169107
the guy was too horny. it addled his brain