In class we do refer to poor Humbert Humbert as a monster. Well he is isn't he? Zachary brought up the relationship between Frankenstien and Lolita. Our experience of H.H. is like the "experience of horror in relation to the monstrous," from Timothy Beal's book Religion and Its Monsters (Beal 7). Our encounter with Humbert Humbert is "as an encounter with mysterious otherness [monster] that elicits a vertigo-like combination of both fear and desire, repulsion and attraction" (Beal 7). That's true isn't it? Maybe my own reactions are off, but while I feel repulsed by Humbert, I also feel interested and attracted to him. He is charming, and from what he says, good-looking, but if anyone has seen the movie Twilight we know monsters can be beautiful like Edward, the handsome vampire Bella falls in love with. (Robert Pattinson makes a very sexy vampire monster in the movie, we forget he is a monster and cheer for him as well, but he is a good monster.)Beal says that monsters "are figures of chaos and disorientation within order and orientation, revealing deep insecurities in one's faith in oneself, one's society and one's world" (5). The character of H.H. disturbs the reader's sense of security, stability, integrity, etc. We like a pedophile! We are cheering him on and then realize we've been sucked in by Nabokov and feel unsure of ourselves and our feelings. Are we dispicable for liking this dispicable man? We feel pity for him.
The intro and conclusion of Religion and Its Monsters talks about Frankenstien and could be helpful for developing the thread Zachary was interested in. I have the Beal book if you would like to look at it.
P.S. read my post below this one, it has some great links!
Posts
Sam, thanks for your comments on my paper idea. Religion and It's Monsters sounds like it could be a big help in developing my argument. And yes, I absolutely agree, like Victor, Humbert Humbert is as much of a monster as the monster himself.
ReplyDeleteCheers!