Evil

"Criag lay motionless and wondered, with a clarity of mind he had not experienced in many, many days, whether he dreaded going back to the world because the world was evil, or whether it was because he felt he himself was tainted, unfit to mix with human beings again."

This passage touches on the theme of this short story. Bixby forces us to ask ourselves, what is evil? And then, how do we respond to it? Craig is very confused with how to respond. He feels like a violated victim and all at once an enabler of a terrible evil. He keeps imagining his father saying this wrong, you are wrong if you are a part of this. But he has a relationship with teh vampire that disproves all preconceived notions and suspicions about them. Why should he feel guilty about sharing life with a friend?The peace of the ocean and vast night sky above give Craig the ability to ponder all of these questions, and what he himself believes.

Should Craig have fought for his life earlier? Is there a strict definition of evil, that vampires indisputably fall into?

Share Alike!

(I see that the two people below me also posted on nearly the same thing, and I'm sorry that mine isn't very different or original--I wrote it last night before seeing any of the others. I guess I should have written about homosexuality after all... Oh well.)

Page 117:

“Still, deep in his mind, Craig’s conscience wailed. Legend, history, the church, all at one time or another had said that vampires were evil. He was submitting to a vampire; therefore, he was submitting to evil. Food or no food, the Reverend Craig would never have submitted.”

To what extent should we listen to the advice of our fathers? Do divisive lines between “good” and “evil” protect us or prejudice us? These are important questions the authors ask in Share Alike, ones that I don’t think necessarily have easy answers.

On one hand, Hofmanstahal’s vigilant, predatory presence is disturbing and clearly not as “symbiotic” as he claims. Vampires are well known to charm and exploit others, leaving behind them a wreckage of helpless followers. On the other hand, people are predisposed to think this way about them from the causes mentioned above, “legend, history, [and] the church.” In many ways, Hofmanstahal defies the traditional concept of a vampire--for example, he doesn’t feed on a beautiful virgin like folklore would have it, but another grown man (the homosexual connotations here are intended, I’m sure). The reader can sympathize with him because at times he seems caring, or at least we can say he does not explicitly value his desires over Craig’s needs, like a traditional vampire would. If we condemn Hofmanstahal as evil, we must also recognize a similar hypocrisy in human beings, in that we too kill and “give nothing in return for the food [we] so brutally take” (112).

So is Craig’s gut right in feeling that this vampire is bad news? Since his conscience is inseparable from the image of his father, it seems impossible to tell whether or not this is protective intuition/morality or conditioned prejudice. Indeed, by the end of the story, the “hallucination” of Craig’s father has fled, and it’s up to individual interpretation whether Craig has sinned and thereby shamed and disgusted his father, or whether he has cared adequately enough for Hofmanstahal that the bias against vampires spurred by tradition has been broken.

Discussion: How does Craig’s opinion of Hofmanstahal change throughout the story? Is this change of opinion genuine or can it be attributed to the hypnotic venom?

Share Alike

“We drink from the fountain of life while man feasts at the fleshpots of the dead; yet we are called the monsters.” (pg. 116)

Hofmanstahal mentions this to Craig as he is refuting the myths associated with being a vampire. This line stands out to me because it seems to foreshadow the end of the story. Hofmanstahal is the monster, yet Craig is the one who ends up committing the monstrous act that results in the vampire’s death. This story seems to emphasize the effects that society has on a person. Craig often considers matters from his father’s perspective, and recalls that church and history have determined vampires to be evil, and consequently he may now be evil as well. He fluctuates between this odd “symbiotic relationship” and feelings of guilt or being tainted. In the end, the fear of being witnessed by people on the boat leads him to knock Hofmanstahal off the boat. This is ironic in that the character who has been referred to as evil by society is actually the one who ends up the victim.

What do you think the author’s main purpose for writing this piece was? Was this the ending you were predicting while reading the story?

Father-thing, Mother-thing, Charles-thing

"What do you want? Peretti was annoyed. You looking for a bruise? Gazing unhappily down, his fists clenched, Charles explained what had happened in short, mumbled words."

Charles had just found his real father at the bottom of the barrel courtesy of father-thing, Ted. Charles, however, never explains what he saw to his mother except telling her "he's talking to himself." In peril, Charles runs to the aid of Tony Peretti- the neighborhood bully who had also beaten him up of several occasions. Charles' state of mind throughout this episode is unclear. Could he have been in a dream? Or is he just a troubled 8 year-old? His encounters with father-thing, mother-thing, and Charles-thing are obviously preposterous; if they were real, he wouldn't risk the possibility of being beat up by Peretti.

How would you explain the irony in Charles seeking out Peretti for help and not his mother?

Waves

"And Hofmanstahal, vampire or not, was an interesting conversationalist"


The human behavior that we see illustrated in "Share Alike" is candid and satirical. They end up bonding in a sudo-sexual symbiotic relationship that Craig thoroughly enjoys and even revels in the thought of the intimate act. His conversion from repulsion to appreciation of Hofmanstahal's vampire needs and his swing back to repulsion are solely guided by society. Craig's rejection of their newly developed relationship is a product of what he thinks the Navy men and also his father would think of him, showing that no matter how dire the situation is, society still guides people's actions. His father's disgusted face floats above them in the night, a sign of familial dissent that he has experienced in the past. Craig realizes when he pushes Eric into the water that he has symbolically lost what he cared for in turn for the approval of others, which is something that everybody faces in life, no matter what your lifestyle.

Is Craig a victim of society or conformity?

Classic Pre-Teen

"Don't call me Frankie! she said. 'I don't wish to have to remind you any more." -p77

This comical and exasperated response from Frankie/F. Jasmine is a brief example of her struggle in adolescence. Everything around her is changing. She is no longer considered just a child and she cannot do the things a child does. She feels uncomfortable and outcasted in this period of change, so she takes refuge in adulthood. She musters up all the sophistication she can and tries to be mature, to be a part of this grown up group. But always, impulsively, her instincts as a child fight for a chance to be heard. She tries to act like an adult, a member, by discussing the wedding in response to Uncle Charles' death. Here her child-ness shows, she cannot get over the self-centered attitude of an angsty pre-teen. So here she responds with a quick outburst of hey! don't call me that! Immediately she recovers, masks herself in sophistication and uses her best adult language- "I don't wish to have to remind you."

Adolescence can be a terrible time for many people, is Frankie just skipping out on an awkward changing period by skipping straight to adulthood? Is she suppressing her true self as Frankie here, or is this sophistication a mature and wise improvement?

One Body

"She had been breathing very fast, but after a minute her breath slowed down so that she breathed in time with Berenice; the two of them were close together as one body, and Berenice's stiffened hands were clasped around F. Jasmine's chest" (109).

In a moment of tenderness and unity, F. Jasmine climbs into Berenice's lap feeling sick and overwhelmed. The two sit, almost in silence, and breathe in time together. The narrator describes the moments as if there were together "as one body". This moment could be suggestin that when allowed to calm down, and simply be with another person, it is possible to achieve a sense of togetherness and understanding that is other wise out of reach. Throughout the novel, Frankie struggles to find her place, and yet, she finds unity in a completely unexpected moment. Following this gentle moment, Berenice and Frankie discuss what it is to be on "caught" at a certain station in life: whether this be gender, race, or personality, most people feel caught in one moment or another.

What is the significance of this gentle moment between Frankie and Berenice? If Frankie stopped trying so desperately to find her place, do you believe she would find unity more often?

Angst and Anger

"Frances wanted the whole world to die. She sat on the back seat, between the window and Berendice, and, though she was no longer sobbing, the tears were like two little brooks, and also her nose ran water. Her shoulders were hunched over her swollen heart and she no longer wore the wedding dress." p. 172

In the start of Part 3, the protagonist has once again changed her name and essentially her identity. She was first named Frankie, then F. Jasmine, and now Frances. Each time Frances changes her name, she implies that she has become a new person with a new perspective to live. Throughout the novel, Frankie was childish, selfish, and violent, and this excerpt displays that she still has the same attitude as before. Frances states she has grown, but still acts childish by moping and wishing ill-will for the world. Not only does she display her violence, but she even sheds the wedding dress as a sign of her disappointment in the wedding. Her attitude in this excerpt embody the attitude that a child would have when they're displeased.

Every time Frankie/F. Jasmine/Frances changes her name, does her attitude and personality truly change or is she still the same person?

Adulthood

"Hush up!" F. Jasmine said. The jail did not frighten her this evening, for this time tomorrow she would be far away. She gave the jail a last glade then walked on. "How would you like for someone to holler something like that to you if you were in jail?"


This scene is the turning point for Frankie's coming of age story. In this moment, we can see F. Jasmine beginning to develop the ability to empathize with others, an emotion that she was previously unable to demonstrate. As children develop, their ability to feel empathy and compassion for others develops also, a sign of maturity. This scene foreshadows her budding adulthood through her emotional changes. The scene also goes on to show her understanding of childhood by choosing not to explain the scene with the crazy man to John Henry, which is a learned skill that requires retrospective after the phase. Her empathy befittingly is first shown with the people that she identifies with- those in jail, because she herself feels alone and caged in her lack of identity. She cannot see that through the development of her ability to identify and empathize with others she will eventually find her niche and become joined with others, and in doing so, become her own self. 

The Member of the Wedding (pg. 100)

“The old Frankie. She had been in her seat on the second row and she stamped and put two fingers in her mouth and began to whistle…The old Frankie had never admitted love. Yet here F. Jasmine was sitting at the table with her knees crossed, and now and then she patted her bare foot on the floor in an accustomed way, and nodded at what Berenice was saying. Furthermore, when she reached out quietly toward the Chesterfield package beside the saucer of melted butter, Berenice did not slap her hand away, and F. Jasmine took herself cigarette. She and Bernice were two grown people smoking at the dinner table.” (pg. 100)

This passage refers to the first time that F. Jasmine has ever engaged in a conversation about love. There is an interesting interplay between silence and noise that is apparent in this scene, not to mention in several other portions of part 2. The narrator states that the old Frankie instigated a lot of commotion during a show regarding love, but now F. Jasmine has matured and is participating in an adult conversation about a topic she was previously reluctant to consider. This passage is representative of her conflict between childhood and pettiness, and the inevitable transition she must make into late adolescence and maturity. McCullers uses silence and noise to emphasize the conflict Frankie is facing. Juvenile Frankie makes lots of noise when confronted with a matter that is beyond her maturity level, while sophisticated F. Jasmine sits quietly at the table with Berenice and takes a cigarette. There are several instances in which this contrast between silence and noise can be seen. For example a few pages before, F. Jasmine sees 4 girls from the club walk by. She says that the old Frankie would have waited expectantly to receive an invitation and then shouted at them upon not receiving it. But instead F. Jasmine watched them quietly and supposedly was no longer jealous. There are also times in which periods of silence are abruptly interrupted by noise, such as the sound of the piano, further signifying Frankie’s internal conflict to achieve some level of maturity that she does not necessarily comprehend.

What significance do you see in the interaction between noise and silence? Are there other moments in the novel that this interplay occurs?

Isolation and Confinement

“Often some criminals would be hanging to the bars; it seemed to her that their eyes... had called to her as though to say: We know you” (149).

McCullers is showing again how F. Jasmine is disconnected from other people, but trapped at the same time. She feels connected to the prisoners in the same way that she feels connected to the people in the circus. She most likely feels this relation to these groups because she identifies with their isolation as well as their captivity. She feels that she cannot escape her town, her gender, or her age, just as the prisoners cannot get past the bars that hold them. She also relates to them on the basis of isolation. The prisoners are clearly cut off from the rest of society, but in F. Jasmine's mind, she may as well be just as disconnected. She feels that she has no one to relate to, no one to identify with.

Do you think there is any other way that F. Jasmine would identify with the prisoners? Why is she so intrigued by them?

F. Jasmine's Biological Clock

“ The silence was over, and it was like those kitchen times when, after the first uncanny moments, she realized the reason for her uneasiness and knew the ticking of the clock had stopped- but now there was no clock to shake and hold for a minute to her ear before she wound it, feeling relieved.” pg. 165

This happens just after F. Jasmine hits her date, the drunk soldier, over the head with a glass bottle when he tries to kiss her. The silence ends just as the soldier ends and she realizes that the silence is just like the silence of the kitchen when the clock stopped ticking, but now she had no clock to try to fix. The images of past sexual events flash before her eyes and she thinks the world is crazy. By finally connecting her past encounters F. Jasmine seems to see the idea as reality instead of childish fantasies. She is unable to fully understand the maturity of the acts and seems to use the word “crazy” as a synonym for sexual. Therefore earlier in the novel when she says “ It happened that green and crazy summer when Frankie was twelve years old.” the phrase“crazy summer” can be replaced with “sexual summer” and the “it” she is referring to is not only the wedding, but her maturity.
The clock also represents F. Jasmine's sexual maturity over the passage of time. She, before, was unconscious of her biological clock but now that she is entering her more sexually mature years she is uneasy and the clock stopping shows that she is trying to ignore this change. It is strange that she jumps at the chance to be sexual and grow up quickly, but since she cannot comprehend her own sexuality she cannot use it. She should not be having sex at twelve, but she should be aware of her own biological changes that are changing her view of the world throughout the novel.

Will F. Jasmine realize her biological maturity? Will she have sexual relations before she even realizes this biological change? Why is she trying to block out her own maturity that she ironically runs towards at first?

The Member of the Wedding

"She was back to the fear of the summertime, the old feelings that the world was seperate from herself-and the failed wedding had quickened the fear to terror." 157

This passage comes from the very end of the book, after the wedding is over and Frankie is back home. At this point, she has just been caught after trying to run away because she was not allowed to go with her brother and Janice. It seems like Frankie is right back where she was at the beginning of this book and that nothing has changed. You would think that Frankie would have grown some from her experiences with the soldier and going to the wedding, but it seems like she is right back where she started. Is there some change in Frankie or are things the same?

Do you think that Frankie changed/grew throughout the novel? Why or why not?

The Member of the Wedding

Berenice: “What makes you think they want to take you along with them? Two is company and three is a crowd…Remember Noah and the ark?...He admitted them creatures two by two…”

F. Jasmine: “They will take me”

Berenice: “And if they don’t”

F. Jasmine: “If they don’t, I will kill myself, but they will”

Berenice: “Kill yourself how?”

F. Jasmine: “I will shoot myself in the side of the head with…the pistol that Papa keeps under his handkerchiefs along with Mother’s picture in the right-hand bureau drawer” (79-80)

Frankie has become Humbert-Humbert obsessed with the idea of leaving with her brother and his soon-to-be wife and not coming back. In this scene, Berenice tries very stubbornly to make her understand that it does not make sense for Frankie to go with them. However, Frankie, tired of not fitting in anywhere, dismisses Berenice’s advice and with much assurance tells her that if her plan fails, she will commit suicide. After Frankie describes how she would proceed to do such thing, McCullers describes a very vivid reaction coming from Berenice: “Berenice did not answer for a minute and her face was a puzzle. ‘You heard what Mr. Addams told you about playing with that pistol. Go on upstairs now. Dinner will be ready in a little while' (80).” She was simply speechless given that it is not common for a 12-year-old to talk so impulsively about suicide.

To the reader it seems very clear that Frankie is putting all her eggs on her brother and fiancé’s basket. However, it does not seem very feasible that the plan will succeed given that it is not the custom for a newlywed couple to begin marriage with a 12-year-old awkwardly violent girl by their side. How could the failure of the plan affect Frankie’s crazy temper?  Would she actually do something of that nature in order to show her dissatisfaction?

The Member of the Wedding- page 12

"There was in the neighborhood a clubhouse, and Frankie was not a member. The members of the club were girls who were thirteen and fourteen and even fifteen years old. They had parties with boys on Saturday night. Frankie knew all of the club members and until this summer she had been like a young member of their crowd, but now they had this club and she was not a member." (12)

Frankie in the novel seems to be alone. She is separated. McCullers says that she is not a "member," just as she is not a "member" of the wedding, her brother's wedding. Frankie appears completely isolated and alone.
McCullers seems to present Frankie's isolation in order to explain her obsession with her brother's wedding. I wondered if something in Frankie's past had been traumatic for her to react to her brother's wedding in this way. I understand that she is transitioning from childhood to adulthood. However, this doesn't seem like normal behavior. Also, Frankie really isn't alone. She isn't like Pecola where not even her mother pays attention to her. She at least has Berenice, John Henry, and possibly her father. Nevertheless, Frankie desires to connect with people.

Why isn't Frankie able to make any connections with other kids her age? Frankie had a connection with these "big" girls beforehand and was able to hang out with them. Why do you think the connection broke/ Why did these girls kick her out of her club?

Jazz Song Pg. 44

Page 44:

“The tune was low and dark and sad. Then all at once, as Frankie listened, the horn danced into a wild jazz spangle that zigzagged upward. At the end of the jazz spangle the music rattled thin and far away. Then the tune returned to the first blues song, and it was like the telling of that long season of trouble. She stood there on the dark sidewalk and the drawn tightness of her heart made her knees lock and her throat feel stiffened. Then, without warning, the thing happened that at first Frankie could not believe. Just at the time when the tune should be laid, the music finished, the horn broke off. All of a sudden the horn stopped playing. For a moment Frankie could not take it in, she felt so lost.”

The term consonance has two denotations. The first definition applies to music, meaning a harmonious sounding combination of notes. The second definition refers to an agreement between actions or opinions. In this passage, neither are achieved when the tune of the horn is suddenly cut off, leaving Frankie feeling incomplete--she waits for the ending of the song to come, but it is left unresolved. This passage demonstrates her dissatisfaction about being on the brink between childhood and adulthood, as well as her anticipation of moving on to the next segment of her life (hence the “drawn tightness”).

In reaction to this, Frankie begins to hit herself on the head and talk aloud, without paying attention to her own words. One gets the sense that not only is she incapable of communicating her feelings, but she is not always aware of what those feelings are herself. Discussion: do you agree or disagree with the notion that communication (which can be seen as an adulteration of thought and unconscious desire) is futile?

From Childhood to Adolescence

"This August she was twelve and five-sixths years old. She was five feet five and three quarter inches tall...In the past year she had grown four inches... If she reached her height on her eighteenth birthday, she had five and one-sixth growing years ahead of her. Therefore, according to mathematics and unless she could somehow stop herself, she would grow to be over nine feet tall. And what would be a lady who is over nine feet hight? She would be a Freak." 

This passage clearly illustrates Frankie's transition from a child to a pubescent adolescent. She is almost thirteen, yet she still believes it to be true that she can actually grow to be over nine feet tall. While this logic seems childish (very rarely do people grow to be over nine feet tall) the thoughts that drive such logic are those coming from a young girl. Frankie is delving into the world of low self-esteem and insecurity, very common among girls of 13 and 14. The passages prior to this also show the inner struggle of Frankie to be both a child and a young girl. Frankie is constantly in her own mind, thinking about the wedding, about her looks, about the world, things that she never gave much heed to before. She recognizes that these are new thought patterns, yet she doesn't have really have anyone to talk to about why she is having such thoughts. She looks for company from her 6 year old cousin (as a child would do) yet this doesn't satisfy her either. Frankie is in limbo between childhood and adolescence, a place that is never easy to be in. 

What events do you believe need to take place in Frankie's life in order to propel her from childhood to adolescence? As far as her low-self esteem, do you believe that the upcoming wedding will help her realize that she is not a Freak or merely make her more insecure? 

Childhood to Maturity

“…her world seemed layered in three different parts, all the twelve years of the old Frankie, the present day itself, and the future ahead…” pg. 61

At this moment, Frankie is just leaving the Blue Moon bar and realizes that this is not an activity that twelve-year-olds typically engage in. She is obviously not happy with her life thus far and She realizes that she is more or less alone within her family. She is caught between the childhood that John Henry is still exploring and the adulthood that Janice and Jarvis are entering. Frankie realizes that this day marks her exit from childhood and her arrival into maturity, at least in her own mind. She is beginning to think of all that she will do and the ways that she will act as an “adult.” For example, as uneducated as she is about anything regarding sex, she realizes that there is something of this nature that she will be involved with. It is hard to say, however, if she is trying to change the way that she feels about herself or change the way that everyone else views her.

Frankie is trying to leave behind her childhood, but also actually go into the “grown up world.” As they are two different things, which do you think is more important to her?

Maturation

“…her world seemed layered in three different parts, all the twelve years of the old Frankie, the present day itself, and the future ahead…” pg. 61

As Frankie transforms into F. Jasmine, she feels that there has been a shift in the direction her life is headed. This shift transcends her feeling of belonging but no one else takes notice. In part 1 she is far from adulthood, just entering her preteen years. She knows nothing of sex, as evidenced by her theory that Mrs. Marlowe was having a fit. McCullers skips over this defining day to refer back to it later. McCullers ignores the standard form of telling a story of depicting events in chronological order in order to allow the audience to see the difference and review her previous actions which lead to this immense change. While F. Jasmine feels that something in her world has been altered, it is really her. She would not have experienced such a strange change of events if this feeling had not prompted her to leave her home in search of something. Encountering the red headed soldier springboards her into many new experiences. He is the catalyst that sends her into the real world. We learn that red is her favorite color. McCuller’s purpose behind giving Frankie such a habit of describing the habit of things serves several purposes. Her favorite color is rarely mentioned. She thinks her red blood will be a cut above that of the other blood donors. Ironically she isn’t even allowed to donate. When she meets an older man who expresses sexual interest in her, she is attracted to him by his red hair. Red stands for an adult world of which she has only had a small taste and still has little hope of fully understanding despite the fact that she thinks she is very close to attaining all the life knowledge she needs.

Since red has come to represent sexual activity and other aspects of the adult world F. Jasmine doesn’t yet understand, why is the bar named the Blue Moon? The name could be a form of irony, or refer to a rare event with strange results.

Isolation

"This was the summer when Frankie was sick and tired of being Frankie. She hated herself, and had become a loafer and a big no-good who hung around the summer kitchen: dirty and greedy and mean and sad." (p. 26)

When Frankie is first introduced to readers, she seems to be a lost and sad child who can't seem to find herself. She feels like a "freak," because she is tall and is fed up with not having somewhere to belong. It's from this excerpt from the novel that Frankie's sense of depression and unhappiness with her life are portrayed. She focuses on how she doesn't have that sense of belonging in the world, and that the world has essentially excluded her. Instead; she resorts to staying at home and worries about being a "freak." Even when Frankie's friend John Henry comes over to play and eventually gets kicked out by her, she realizes that she is being overly harsh, and yet doesn't change her demeanor. Frankie tries to go around town to find a place to belong, but in the end, she is just unhappy again. It's as though Frankie makes attempts to find a group to identify with, but it seems as if she is just too picky to accept anything.

Is Frankie truly trying to find a place to belong or is she just allowing herself to wallow in her loneliness and isolation? If she does find a group to identify with, will she get the satisfaction that she seeks?

Member of the Wedding 23

"She decided to donate blood to the Red Cross; she wanted to donate a quart a week and her blood would be in the veins of Australians and Fighting French and Chinese, all over the whole world, and it would be as though she were close kin to all of those people. "(23).

From the first paragraph of the novel, it's clear that one of the conflicts the protagonist Frankie needs to deal with is trying to find a sense of belonging and self. Not only does Frankie say she belonged to no club, but she also had "become an unjoined person" (5) implying that she hadn't always been so alienated. However, this passage shows how deeply her need for inclusion runs. It isn't enough for her to say her blood saved lives; she wants to have a connection with those who has her blood, hoping they could become "close kin". Despite having Berenice and John Henry around, Frankie still feels alone. She seems to actually reject their presence at times, which makes me wonder if she is actually alone, or if she is neglecting the people who are there. Either way, Frankie isn't comfortable with herself and doesn't seem to have a means of identifying herself if she isn't associated with a group.

Is Frankie's alienation simple adolescent angst, or is there something more to it? Is she really as alone as she perceives herself to be, or has she merely overlooked the people who are there with her?

Howl

"Homosexuality is a condition, and because it alienated me or set me apart from the beginning, it served as a catalyst for self-examination or detailed realization of my environment and the reasons why everyone else is different and why I'm different." 1:14

At this point in the movie, Allen Ginsberg (James Franco) is explaining his reasons for writing the poem the way that he did. Right before he says this, he explains that the poem is not a promotion of homosexuality, it is actually a promotion of frankness. He then goes on to explain how his homosexuality is what caused his frankness. Homosexuality is what set him apart from others, it is what made him examine himself and the society he was living in. After hearing this explanation, I felt like I understood why he wrote the way that he did. I understood why he used some of the words and phrases that were considered vulgar to get his point across. Watching this movie made me understand and appreciate this poem much more than I did before. I see the reasoning behind what he is trying to say and the way that he is saying it. Some of the things that he says may seen inappropriate at first, but if you understand why he is saying what he is, it seems a little bit more acceptable.

Do you think that without Ginsberg's use of "vulgar" language the poem would have had the same effect? Is this language necessary?

Rhythm in Expression

"Poetry is a rhythmic articulation of feelings" (Not sure where that was said, but I wrote it down). Starting around 00:48:25, Franco as Ginsberg starts reading the second part of his poem, at "What sphinx of cement and aluminium bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?" and the film articulates the word "Moloch!"

I found this moment of the film particularly interesting because of the way the audience reacts to the words that are being read by Ginsberg. Not only do we see a literal representation of this work through the animation, we see the audience moving in tune with this beat poetry, causing the entire venue to elude a sort of rebellious and lively energy. This entire piece has so much life and the reality that this youth is faced with, and we can really understand the sincerity of how it affects the crowd. It seems that the audience most reacts to Ginsberg's articulation of "moloch". According to wikipedia, the Moloch "is often used to refer to a person or thing demanding or requiring a very costly sacrifice." In some ways, Ginsberg is requiring his audience to sacrifice the world and it's expectations to reach freedom of expression. The audience members are fully engaged and seem to move with the words, seemingly eager to subscribe to his ideas and sacrifice the control of their surroundings in the "real world." It's interesting that the audience has been so smitten by Ginsberg's words, and that the rhythmic appeal of Ginsberg's monotone spiel causes the audience to become entranced, making the entire room move with his words. It's important that the audience's reaction is shown in the film, for the popularity of Ginsberg's poetry and the rise of the counterculture is what sparks the want for literature to be censored, thus this piece is tried in court.

Though I completely admire Ginsberg's expression in his poetry, I wonder if the venue of choice causes this energy to take over, inspiring the crowd to engage in "group think." Can location and surroundings change the way literature is read or received? Had Ginsberg's poetry been read initially to an audience in a more academic setting, would his piece ever leak out to become part of the counterculture?

The right to be yourself

"The poem is misinterpreted as a promotion of homosexuality. Actually, it is a promotion of frankness . about any subject. if you're a foot fetishist, you write about feet. A stock market freak can write about the rising sales curve of the erection of the standard oils chart. When a few people are frank about homosexuality it breaks the ice and then people are free to be frank about anything and that is socially useful." 1 hour and 12 minutes into the movie

This final moment in the movie is extremely significant because it is when Ginsberg is able to explain what his poem is meant for. Ginsberg believes that his poem is to shake things up and get the idea out that people should be able to be themselves. Being homosexual in the 50's was extremely difficult. Ginsberg felt ostracized and thought that he could not connect with and be loved by someone because he is homosexual. Ginsberg realized that he is able to truly express who he is through poetry. Through poetry people could finally understand him and his issues with himself and society. Howl illustrates the conformist pressure that is forced upon people in many societies. Howl also shows the destructive nature of this pressure as well as the ecstasy that is associated with being yourself and why being yourself is important..
It is very easy to confuse the true meaning of Howl because it is so complex. In the above line Ginsberg sums it up perfectly that he never mean for his poem to be advocating homosexuality. Ginsberg just wanted to express who he is and wanted to "break the ice" and inspire other people to truly express who they are.

Do you think banning the book gives Howl more significance and credibility? How has the use of crude language made this poem more less effective to the reader? How do people move forward to make society a place where we can be free to express who we are?

Contradicting Expectations

I don't have a time signature! (sorry) Toward the end of the Film, Ginsburg discusses the very controversial motorcyclists line: "Who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy".

At the point in the film, James Franco is portraying Ginsberg in an interview about his poem, his intentions, and the trial surrounding Howl. Franco's character is casually pouring tea as he discusses the very explicit section that catches most readers by surprise: "Who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy". In the interview Ginsberg tells the reporter that surprise was just what he was looking for. We aren't just talking about profanities or the actions described here: We are talking about the way in which the motorcyclists and the reaction are described. Picture, for a moment, a motorcyclist. Most people see a large, burly, tough looking guy with a beard. Maybe he's even a hell's angel? This is not the type of person we would picture getting involved in such activities. Prototyping? Yes. But I believe this is exactly what Ginsberg was counting on. He even calls the motorcyclists "saintly", another description we do not expect. The most significant word in this passage, however is "joy". In the film, Ginsberg addresses this word specifically. One would expect the narrator to say "screamed in pain" or another equivalent. Ginsberg makes it a point to explain that he wanted this line to be unexpected. It is entirely possible, depending on who you are, you could be screaming in joy. This scene in the film enables me to gain a better understanding of the poem in a way that I would otherwise be unable to see.

Did Ginsberg succeed in surprising you with this passage? What does this element of surprise do for the poem? How did the film help you gain insight and understanding?

Honesty of Obscenity

“The battle of censorship will not be finally settled by your honor's decision, but you will either add to liberal-educated thinking, or by your decision you will add fuel to the fire of ignorance. Let there be light. Let there be honesty. Let there be no running from non-existent destroyers of morals. Let there be honest understanding.” 1:08

The lawyer of this trial finishes his beautiful speech about censorship with this quote and this could be used as defense for Howl and all of this books used in this course. People are not comfortable with subject matter in Howl, Lolita, etc. because the subject matter is uncomfortable. Allen Ginsberg seems to make the point in Howl that uncomfortable topics are what drive people and they should write about the feelings that are weighing on them. He wrote Howl to be true to himself and because of this Howl does have true literary merit. In the trial the prosecuting attorney seems to focus on the the subject matter as not relating first hand to Ginsberg as the character of Ginsberg tells snippets of the poem with stories showing how it relates to his life which begs the question: why not call Ginsberg to the trial to testify? The lawyer knows that this trial stands for all “obscene” literature and there will always be more works to come in the future. He makes the perfect point that banning this poem will not stop obscenity, but will hinder true liberty of opinions allowed to be expressed. Honesty, he seems to say, is not only the story but the vocabulary used to tell the whole story that contributes to the work as a whole.

Will the banning of this work add to liberal-educated thinking? Without this specific work will the world be ignorant? Is the use of obscene language enough to deem a whole work obscene? Did Ginsberg need to use obscenity to be honest?

Madness and Meaning and Truth.

"After a year or two I came to realize it meant something clear, unconsciously...like a photograph developing slowly over time." Ch. 5, 40 minutes into the movie.

This scene in the movie is where Allen Ginsberg's character is discussing the motivation and meaning behind the writing of Howl. He begins with discussing the idea that at the start, even he himself did not fully understand what it was that he was writing. This idea comes to embody the emotional aspect of the poem Howl. Ginsberg wrote what he was feeling, as best as he could. He admits that it wasn't until later that the significance behind the words became known to him. He started the see his own work more clearly over time. I think this scene does well to highlight the insanity theme throughout the poem. Ginsberg is admitting that his work was not meant to make sense, that the madness portrayed by it is the end to a means, not the other way around. The madness and the emotion behind the words are what really matter, not the meaning behind them. Ginsberg eventually goes on to discuss the other end of the spectrum; the times when his poem makes perfect sense to him, and perhaps, those who read it. He remarks on the idea of truth, which I think is another theme in the poem Howl. Though full of "madness," the poem tells the truth and Ginsberg in this scene does a good job of glorifying that.

How is Ginsberg own confession of not actually understanding his own work as it was being written a clue, in many senses, into the "madness within" Howl's author? How does Ginsberg's thoughts towards his poem help the reader to better understand the context in which it was written, and in turn, better understand the poem as a whole?

"For reasons that may appear more obvious than they really are, I am opposed to capital punishment; this attitude will be, I trust, shared by the sentencing judge. Had I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges. But even so, Dolly Schiller will probably survive me by many years. The following decision I make with all the legal impact and support of a signed testament: I wish this memoir to be published only when Lolita is no longer alive” (308-309).
It is amusing that Humbert would begin this passage by sardonically claiming that he is opposed to capital punishment, and that he is sure that this sentiment will be “shared by the sentencing judge”, particularly, since, he is sitting behind bars for carrying out the execution of Quilty in a Hollywoodesque scene that is as comedic as it is heroic. Certainly, it is the heroic Humbert presenting himself here, as he suggests that his sentence shall be only “thirty-five years” for raping Lolita. He then goes on to suggest he should be rewarded for ridding the world of a man as evil as Quilty. Humbert continues his theme of obsessed hero as he acknowledges he should not outlive “Dolly Shiller” and as such, he is prepared to nobly, support a “legal impact” that would seal his fairy tale until her death. Humbert, though, has no idea of what chivalry or heroism looks like in real life and, as a result, the version he presents of himself does not materialize into a noble protector or father figure. Ultimately, this passage may serve as a reminder to just how unreliable Hubert is as a narrator and offers the reader the chance to abandon a moral reading of this text in favor of an aesthetic one.

Does Humbert’s unreliable narration enable readers to separate their own moral lens from the text? Should this novel be treated as an American fairytale or is it merely smut?

Romanticizing obsession

“And I looked at her, and knew as clearly as I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else”  (277)

This quote illustrates the two main themes of the novel: Obsession and how languages is used to deceive the reader. When H.H. has his final confrontation with Lolita he still thinks he has a chance to live happily ever after with her, even though he knows that she is with child and has clearly moved on. His love and passion for her goes beyond the call of fatherhood and clearly shows how insane and obsessed H.H. is. His obsession for Lolita has totally destroyed his life, he is filled with the single thought of Lolita and is unable to move past the fact that he has lost her. Instead of realizing he is at fault H.H. blames this all on Quincy and sets out to kill him and get revenge for what was “taken” from him.

Additionally, with this quote H.H. tries once again to romanticize his relationship with Lolita. He tries to convince the reader that he is a hopeless romantic and we should sympathize with him and forgive his terrible crimes. H.H. clearly does not see a problem with his behavior and wants to manipulate the readers. If anything the final meeting between H.H. and Lolita is ironically fitting for him because she is able to be happy without him in her life and she receives financial compensation for her terrible childhood.

Why do you think H.H. places all of the blame on Lolita’s kidnapper Quilty? Why can H.H. not take responsibility for his perverse actions?

There Was in Her a Twilight

“…and it struck me, as my automaton knees went up and down, that I simply did not know a thing about my darling’s mind and that quite possibly, behind the awful juvenile clichés, there was in her a garden and a twilight, and a palace gate- dim and adorable regions which happened to be lucidly and absolutely forbidden to me, in my polluted rags and miserable convulsions;” – pg. 284

Despite the countless hours spent with Lolita over the course of their relationship, Humbert never depicts his nymphet’s personality or the inner workings of her mind to the reader. As a result, Lolita has no “voice” in the events of narrative, which gives Humbert’s character full control over the way that we view their relationship. As this passage points out, it wasn’t until long after she’d been taken away from him before it finally “struck” Humbert that he “simply did not know a thing” about the true, inner Lolita. The realization that within the objection of his affection there are parts forbidden to him in his “polluted rags” frustrates Humbert and only seems to remind him that their “love” was doomed from the start. The imprisoned Humbert writing the story appears to be deeply distraught as he looks back and discovers there to be an entire side to Lolita that escaped his power, control, and manipulation, and perhaps, even worse, a side to Lolita that he can not describe, exaggerate, idolize, fantasize, or obsess over as he rots away in a prison cell.

One is then left to wonder why it is that Humbert’s obsession with Lolita never spurred him to truly get to know her. Was it because Humbert was more interested in preserving the perfection of the nymphet figure that he had constructed in his fantasies than he was in the real, human Lolita? If he had taken the time to understand and learn about Lolita’s thoughts, opinions, and quirks, would Humbert have still chosen to pursue her as her lover, or instead as a loving father?

Lolita- pg 283

“Nothing could make my Lolita forget the foul lust I had inflicted upon her. Unless it can be proven to me- to me as I am now, today, with my heart and my beard, and my putrefaction- that in the infinite run it does not matter a jot that North American girl-child named Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac, unless this can be proven (and if it can, then life is a joke), I see nothing for treatment of my misery but the melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art.” (pg. 283)

This quote is found directly after the scene in which Humbert encounters Dolores Schiller for the first time since she made her escape. Humbert pleads with her to come back with him and she bluntly states that she would be more willing to take Cue back because he only broke her heart, whereas Humbert broke her life. Following his departure from Coalmont, Humbert seemingly takes full responsibility for his actions for the first time through this demonstration of deep remorse. He finally admits that he has in fact ruined her life by robbing her of her childhood and that there are no measures he could take to rectify the situation.

While this passage seems to be a sincere affirmation of regret on the surface, as a reader I still have a difficult time buying into it. There have been plenty of instances in which Humbert uses his prose to manipulate the audience and I wonder if this is yet another ploy to deceive. I do not discount the fact that he certainly has come a long way from the Humbert we were initially introduced to. Perhaps he genuinely does love her in his own distorted way; however I feel that if he were truly taking on the burden of full responsibility for ruining his Lolita’s childhood, he would not be obsessed with seeking revenge against Quilty. If he believes that he is the guilty one, why does Humbert find it necessary to kill the man who rescued Lolita from the torture that Humbert alone was inflicting upon her?

What is your take on Humbert at the end of this novel? Is he being sincere and does he really recognize the impact that his actions had on Lolita?

Fatherly Advice

"Be true to your Dick. Do not let other fellows touch you. Do not talk to strangers. I hope you will love your baby. I hope it will be a boy. That husband of yours, I hope, will always treat you well, because otherwise my spector shall come at him, like black smoke, like a demented giant, and pull him apart nerve by nerve" (Chapter 36, pg 290-291).

So Humbert concludes his memoir after discovering Lolita married and pregnant at seventeen and killing Clare Quilty for kidnapping her. Quilty and Humbert were remarkably alike: both have an obsession with nymphets and possess the ability to manipulate language, though Quilty is more like a typical pervert in how he uses Lolita. Quilty's death at Humbert's hand almost makes it seem like Humbert was trying, too late, to protect Lolita from a worse version of himself.

Over the course of the novel, Humbert has established his relationship to Lolita as a romantic one under the guise of a paternal one, but perhaps this relationship, like many of the events in the book, has been twisted by Humbert's perception. Now, knowing he can never return to Lolita, he gives her parting wisdom which sounds like a a mixture of what a father would tell his daughter over the course of her life, from the "Don't talk to strangers" spiel given in childhood to the threat that hangs over Dick should he mistreat her. He kills Quilty for stealing her away. Humbert is even willing to go to jail for Lolita's rape, but believes he shouldn't be charged for the murder because in the former case he recognizes he stole Lolita's innocence, but in the latter he was trying to protect her.

Has Humbert finally learned to be a father, or is he covering himself for his crimes? Does his shifting relationship with Lolita mean he is a changed man?

The Nymphet Obsession

"...I seldom ever dreamed of Lolita as I remembered her - as I saw her constantly and obsessively in my conscious mind durng my daymares and insomnias. More precisely: she did haunt my sleep but she appeared there in strange and ludicrous disguises as Valerie or Charlotte, or a cross between them." -pg. 254

This passage illustrates H.H's constant projection of his "nymphet" obession onto those he meets in his life. Lolita had served to perfectly embody and personify Humbert's idea of this "nymphet" that he had lost in Anabelle as a young child. In many ways, Lolita full-filled everything that Humbert had always wished to find. Before he found Lolita, however, H.H attempted to project his "nymphet" ideas onto anyone who would do at the time, such as his first wife, Valerie, who he only liked because of her child-like qualities. Humbert also projected his obsession onto Charlotte, only because of what he was sure he could get from her - the real thing, that is, Lolita. I think that having Lolita appear to him in his dreams as both of these women serves to further highlight the idea that, in many ways, every other women or girl Humbert encountered was just another way for him to deal with his nymphet obssesion. Every other relationship was just a stepping stone until he could achieve what he had so longed for; finding a nymphet.

After Humbert loses Lolita, I think it is safe to say that this obsession in no way dies down. In contrary, it becomes even more passionate and fierce. He starts to only think of Lolita, the nymphet, he has lost. This shows that no matter what H.H did in his life, his obsession would always be there, whether he was projecting it on other women in any way he could, or whether it was by aquiring his own nymphet like Lolita. H.H is an obsessed man who cannot be cured, no matter what he does.


How is the idea that Humbert Humbert constantly dreams of Lolita, mixed with the other women in his life, sufficient in embodying his obsession with nymphets? Can the readers determine if there is an end to Humbert's destructive and alarming obsessed spiral?

Lolita and HH

"Suddenly, as Avis clung to her father's neck and ear while, with a casual arm, the man enveloped his lumpy and large offspring, I saw Lolita's smile lose all its light and become a frozen little shadow of itself…she was gone—to be followed at once and consoled in the kitchen by Avis who had such a wonderful fat pink dad and a small chubby brother, and a brand-new baby sister, and a home, and two grinning dogs, and Lolita had nothing." (286)

Humbert realizes how empty and worthless Lolita has felt all along; that he took her childhood from her and cannot make it up in any way, and that he never really knew the real Lo: "It struck me…that I simply did not know a thing about my darling's mind and that quite possibly…there was in her a garden…which happened to be lucidly and absolutely forbidden to me…" (284).

The reader can also tell he feels very small after he goes to the house where she and her husband live. He asks her to take him back and run away with him, Lolita opposes. From that scene on, it seems like he lowers his guard and forgets all about his French pride and writing skills and is begging Lo to take him back. I find ironic that when they were together, he would take away from her the money he gave her so that she wouldn't escape. But now that she is all escaped and married and pregnant and not his anymore, he is even able to give her $4000 acknowledging she will not go back to him anymore.

Has Humbert become a more sensible, sane man by this point in the story? Or do the last moments of Humbert outside of jail reinforce the themes that have been associated with him? (Insanity, control, evilness)

Lolita- page 185

"...what I feared most was not that she might ruin me, but that she might accumulate sufficient cash to run away. I believe the poor fierce-eyed child had figured out that with a mere fifty dollars in her purse she might somehow reach Broadway or Hollywood- or the foul kitchen of a diner (Help Wanted)..." -Page 185




This passage includes the themes of both obsession and control. He is so obsessed with Lolita that he would rather be altogether ruined than be without her. However, the two are closely related. It is as if Humbert doesn't think that far ahead. If he were to be "ruined," he wouldn't have Lolita anyways.

Money is one way that Humbert control's Lolita. He pays her 21 cents everyday as long as she does her 'duty.' However, money as a means of control often backfires. It backfires because Lolita knows that Humbert really desires her 'duties' and because Humbert fears she could use this money to leave him.

At the end of passage I, Lolita is very upset with Humbert but in the end goes back to him sobbing because "she had absolutely nowhere else to go" (142). She does appear to be saving up money. But for what? Do you really think that she might attempt to run away? Sometimes, the abused save up enough resources, but never get the the courage to run away. Do you think that is Lolita's case?

Control

'Look,' she said as she rode the bike beside me, one foot scraping the darkly glistening sidewalk, 'look, I've decided something. I want to leave school. I hate that school. I hate the play, I really do! Never go back. Find another. Leave at once. Go for a long trip again. But this time we'll go wherever I want, won't we?'
I nodded. My Lolita.” Chapter 14 pg. 207

This reversal of roles shows how the control has shifted. Before Lolita was being possessed by Humbert and he planned the trip around America, however, now Lolita is calling the shots. She seems to have learned that by controlling physical intimacy she can control Humbert, as he does not have self-control over his obsession. Humbert believes he is making her happy and keeping her within his grasp when he is actually helping her to escape in the future. Humbert is confused and enchanted by Lolita's new found maturity and he is so blinded by his obsession with her he misses his real threat, Clare Quilty. Humbert is the enchanted hunter and because he is so enchanted and distracted by Lolita he is unable to see Quilty in the shadows plotting to steal Lolita away.
This new trip also shows Lolita's freedom and she seems less like a fairy child and more calculating teenager. For example, she explains away her piano lessons coolly and arranges for her friend to lie for her. The theater seems to be Humbert's explanation and he is correct, but in the wrong way. It is not only the theater that causes his slipping grip on Lolita, but it is Quilty in the theater. Humbert's superior European knowledge has failed in analyzing the situation and making the connection between the play and real life. Humbert is trying to save his relationship with Lolita and keep her a nymphet for himself and it causes the relationship to become a strange father-daughter relationship, pushing her farther and farther from his lover fantasy. He does not see this aspect and so he follows her out of Beardsley to save their relationship.

Will Lolita finally escape Humbert? Does his inability to accept her maturity and escaping make you pity Humbert? While Humbert is losing control of Lolita does Quilty and the shadows represent self-control? Is Lolita running from one pedophile to another?

Genealogy

“—I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated-to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de l'age; indeed, the telescopy of my mind, or un-mind, was strong enough to distinguish in the remoteness of time a vieillard encore vert-or was it green rot?-bizarre, tender, salivating Dr. Humbert, practicing on supremely lovely Lolita the Third the art of being a granddad” (174).

In this passage, Humbert laments that he made “a great mistake” when he did not flee for Mexico and set into motion this incest driven fantasy. An interesting contrast exists here in Humbert’s blurring of the loving roles of husband, father, and “granddad” with his pedophilia. Humbert’s willingness to combine these roles provides an example of his fractured sense of self and time. He seems only to be capable of thinking about time in terms of his “dans la force de l'age” and a “nymphet’s” peak years. Everything else, such as, consequences, is a remote impossibility for Humbert who claims through the “telescopy of my mind, or un-mind” to be able to imagine each generation he will prey upon. Ultimately, he fails to fill in the spaces between the periods of molesting his progeny and perceive how his actions are incompatible with the roles he imagines assuming. As a result, Humbert seems like a determined and fragmented monster that is similar to a mid-evil vice character in his inability to be moral. Therefore, this passage may serve to remind readers that Humbert’s solipsism, which is rooted in rhetoric and control of language, sometimes fails to persuade due to his inability to define or express love in a way most would understand.

Obsessions

"...I would park at a strategic point, with my vagrant schoolgirl beside me in the car, to watch the children leave school-always a pretty sight...she would insult me and my desire to have her caress me while blue-eyed little brunettes in blue shorts, copperheads in green boleros, and blurred boyish blondes in faded slacks passed by in the sun." (I have the ebook so the page numbers are a bit off, but it can be found in chapter 2).

This particular excerpt effectively encapsulates Humbert's obsession with nymphets and feminine youth, not necessarily Lolita. Lolita is a victim in many respects, but what stands out in particular (to me, anyway) is the flagrant manner in which Humbert has projected onto her both Annabel's memory and his deeply grotesque fascination with pubescent girls. I find this scene particularly disturbing (aside from the fact that he wants Lolita to fondle him while he watches young girls exit a school bus) because it highlights her insignificance in a way. Despite Humbert's apparent obsession with Lolita, he remains attracted to other nymphets and, at times, compares Lolita to those who are more appealing to him, if even by a smidgen. She is enticing because she is more accessible than other nymphet's due to his title of convenience: stepfather. Also, Lolita is vulnerable because she has no one else to turn to, and Humbert preys on that, frightening her with the threat of being sent to a reformatory school should he be thrown into jail. In addition, Humbert goes out of his way to locate a beach so as to reenact the scene from his childhood, and, ironically, his sexual plans with Lolita are foiled, much as they were with Annabel. This is just one of many instances in which Lolita appears to play the role of the puppet, a stand-in of sorts.

Lolita's usefulness will perceivably expire when she breaches the realm of maturity, via age or the loss of innocence, the latter of which has already occurred. So why is Humbert still obsessed with this tainted nymphet? The target of Humbert's lust, like a pendulum, seems to sway back and forth between Lolita and youth in general. He appears to justify his attraction to her by labeling it "love", but is that accurate? Can Lolita conceivably become a component of Humbert's future sans nymphet-ness?

Page 207

"In our hallway, ablaze with welcoming lights, my Lolita peeled off her sweater, shook her gemmed hair, stretched towards me two bare arms, raised one knee:

'Carry me upstairs, please. I feel sort of romantic to-night.'" (207)

This passage made me question Humbert's trustworthiness and Lolita's sanity even more than I had before. What is going through Lolita's mind at this point? Has she become completely used to what she is doing with Humbert and now provokes it or is this Humbert's attempt at defending himself? After I read this part, I continually questioned everything that Humbert said. Was he telling how things really happened or was this all made up in an attempt to defend his crime? If Lolita is really behaving the way that Humbert describes in this passage, what is she thinking? This shows how much of an affect the things that he has done to her have had. In part two, we see how much Lolita is changing. The things that she and Humbert have been doing have had an enormous impact on her relationships with other people her own age. Will Lolita ever be able to escape Humbert and live a normal life? Is Lolita okay with the way they are living?

Deception

"By permitting Lolita to study acting I had, fond fool, suffered her to cultivate deceit. It now appeared that it had not been merely a matter of learning the answers to such questions as what is the basic conflict in "Hedda Gabler," or where the climaxes in "Love Under the Lindens," or analyze the prevailing mood of "Cherry Orchard"; it was really a matter of learning to betray me. How I deplored now the exercises in sensual simulation that I had so often seen her go through in our Beardsley parlor when I would observe her from some strategic point while she, like a hypnotic subject or a performer in a mystic rite, produced sophisticated versions of infantile make-believe by going through the mimetic actions of hearing a moan in the dark..." (Chapter 20, pg. 215-216).

Here, Humbert Humbert bemoans his decision in allowing Lolita to participate in her school's drama department, believing she has learned to deceive him by constantly acting around him. As Part Two of Lolita continues, it is clear the Humbert is growing increasingly paranoid, thinking Lolita is perhaps having a tryst with another older man. His worries carry a double irony, the first being that he is unwilling to lose Lolita as a sexual partner, though she is a couple years the nymphet age, and the second is his fussing over her supposed deception when the audience (be it the readers or the jury) have to take smooth-talking Humbert's words with a grain of salt, since he needs to portray himself in a positive light if he hopes to be found "not guilty" for whoever's death he caused. If Humbert were to think clearly, however, it would not be certain if Lolita learned the dramatic skill set through her school or rather, has she been using it throughout their relationship, stringing Humbert along and constantly toying with his emotions.

Has Lolita now found a way to fool Humbert, so she may carry out her plans? Or rather, has she been doing this all along, toying with Humbert's emotions because she knew he had more to lose than she did?

Lolita vs. Humbert

Miss Pratt: “…Dolly is obsessed by sexual thoughts for which she finds no outlet, and will tease and martyrize other girls, or even younger instructors because they do have innocent dates with boys…” (197)

Humbert: “…I sat beside Dolly just behind that neck and that hair, and unbuttoned my overcoat and for sixty-five cents plus the permission to participate in the school play, had Dolly put her inky, chalky, red-knuckled hand under the desk. Oh, stupid and reckless of me, no doubt…(but) I simply had to take advantage of a combination that I knew would never occur again” (198)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we have a young girl, who, on one side of the coin, seems terribly dysfunctional, teases her classmates for not being sexually active, and does not excel in school; but who, looked at from the other side of the coin, gets paid 65 cents to masturbate her (legal?) guardian.

In my opinion, this scene is probably the most perverse and macabre in the story. Lolita is not only 100% adjusted to having a corrupt childhood but also has an incentive for maintaining it. This lifestyle is what leads her to “be obsessed by sexual thoughts for which she finds no outlet.” As a result, people around her notice the undisguised side effects of Humbert’s presence in her life (even though he strives to keep it all a secret). At this point the readers’ point of view on Lo is a drastic one, either they sympathize with her and are understanding of her behavior or think of her as a dumb girl who, one way or another, got herself into this.

Humbert, on the other hand, is definitely reduced to his lowest terms. He tries to control every aspect of Lolita’s life, which leads him to become paranoid and lunatic. The reader can even see in the first quote’s scene how Miss Pratt is awkwardly confused for his refusal to let Lolita engage in school activities. Humbert definitely lost control in the situation.

Will Lolita realize she is been the protagonist of a tragedy? Or will she keep assuming her childhood is the ‘norm’ and that all other girls are staying behind?