ŷ������

So, apparently, (view spoiler)[Lolita (hide spoiler)] dies from giving birth to a stillborn child on Christmas. Such a terrible ending! Why couldn't she have just been happily married, finally leading a normal life? Did the baby have to die, too?

What a lousy thing to do. Use a discussion title that spoils it for everyone who hasn't read it yet.

Way to go.

Dominique wrote: "So, apparently, [spoilers removed] dies from giving birth to a stillborn child on Christmas. Such a terrible ending! Why couldn't she have just been happily married, finally leading a normal life? Did the baby have to die, too?"

There's a line that sometimes gets bandied about, "Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet" or words to that effect. With that in mind, I'd suggest the pat answer to your question is "it ain't a fairy tale...." The less pat answer is that... well, it's not a fairy tale. I mean that literally and when I say, "literally" I mean that in the fullest sense of that word. Nabokov was telling the opposite of a fairy tale. His narrator presents himself routinely in terms that are lifted from fairy tales, but that's a manifestation of his insanity. Lolita is meant to be dark from the very beginning. From before the beginning, as a matter of fact. It's a tragedy from the Foreward on. (More on that in a minute.)

Nabokov's story is about how lives are destroyed by sexual predators like HH. I suppose he could have a "feel good" version of that in which evil meets justice and innocence triumphs, but such things are actually quite rare in real world, and would thematically be very different from the ideas that he was addressing.

If Nabokov had a happy ending that might satisfy the "feel good" crowd, it'd also diminish the significance of his story. It would suggest that a childhood of molestation is just a thing that can be wrapped up by the end of the book in a neat little package. Ultimately the message would be "Get over it... like Lolita." I don't think that's what he was looking to do.

Φα��οφύλακας wrote: "What a lousy thing to do. Use a discussion title that spoils it for everyone who hasn't read it yet.

Way to go."

It's in the "Foreward" of the book, and never occurs during the narrative plot of the story. Yeah, a lot of folks might not figure that out on a casual reading, but encountering ambiguous spoilers (the "she" in the title of this thread is Delores, but could be asking about her mother, or Annabel Leigh even) for a 60+ year old book that is in the literary canon shouldn't be a surprise to anyone perusing a website dedicated to discussing books.

I supposed she had to de for structural reasons.

Ashappyasiget wrote: "This book was so painful to read (as a woman and as a mother). At some point i felt like throwing the book. I suppose she had to die considering the abuse she goes through as a child. I don't see a..."

So, you're saying she had to die for sentimental reasons?

Dominique wrote: "So, apparently, [spoilers removed] dies from giving birth to a stillborn child on Christmas. Such a terrible ending! Why couldn't she have just been happily married, finally leading a normal life? ..."

I think it was a very dramatic way to make a point of how Humbert had destroyed her life. It's also the only thing that really allows him to experience regret and sorrow, to develop finally a tiny bit as a character, at the very end. I think the final part where he hears the children playing is so poignant.

ashappyasiget wrote: "This book was so painful to read (as a woman and as a mother). At some point i felt like throwing the book. I suppose she had to die considering the abuse she goes through as a child. I don't see a..."

I'm not a mother but I honestly didn't find this book painful at all to read as a woman. It was clear to me from Dolores' mother's "convenient" death that Nabokov was writing a black comedy about a ridiculous man of arrested development, and the precocious girl he takes advantage of. I laughed out loud at so many parts in that book, but I'm able to read with detachment. When I read classic literature I go in with a somewhat analytical mindset, but I know there are people who can't help but emotionally project themselves on to characters so fully that "bad" characters disturb them. I see books like this and even some horror movies as thinking exercises in human psychology.

I think her death shows how much Humbert ruined her life. Her only escape was to go with Quilty (who was arguably worse than him) and in the end she winds up a pregnant teenager living in a shack.

Towards the end when Humbert sees Lolita she tells him “He broke my heart. You merely broke my life.��

The tragedy is that the entire book we only see things through Humberts perspective never really understanding the damage he was doing to Lolita, physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Quilty however didn't hold her Captive..Her Advances towards HH initially was competitive testing for power and control against Mom..Not Unusual Whatsoever But so then when Lo ran to his room and leaped into his body to mouth kiss, the Responsibilty of HH as the adult look out was to go No ! Out! ...Well

Christi wrote: "ashappyasiget wrote: "This book was so painful to read (as a woman and as a mother). At some point i felt like throwing the book. I suppose she had to die considering the abuse she goes through as ..."
Shame on you for downplaying and trying to devalue how upset this book made others feel. Super gross.

Kelsey wrote: "Christi wrote: "ashappyasiget wrote: "This book was so painful to read (as a woman and as a mother). At some point i felt like throwing the book. I suppose she had to die considering the abuse she ..."

I fail to see how she has downplayed or devalued the emotional response which the text incited. Surely the purpose of discussion and analysis is to express ones opinion and argue your position and thoughts? One may read this novel as a glamorization of paedophilia and abuse or, like Christi, as a dark comedy. This is purely opinion and ones opinions and readings are indubitably informed by their identities and experience.

She had to die because the novel is a fake memoir from 1952 and the book was published in 1955 and her death was an in-fiction condition of its publication.

Humbert does mention Dolores crying every night. I'm not sure if Nabokov doesn't further explore Dolores's trauma because:

1. The story is told through the eyes of Humbert, the ureliable narrator;

2. Nabokov thought the horror of Dolores's experiences went without saying; or

3. Some other reason.

Lee wrote: "Quilty however didn't hold her Captive..Her Advances towards HH initially was competitive testing for power and control against Mom..Not Unusual Whatsoever But so then when Lo ran to his room and l..."

Dolores was 14 years old when Quilty took her with him, so still a child sexual abuser. (A major risk factor for child sexual abuse is prior abuse), With both Humbert and Quilty and any other adult, no matter what a child says or does, it is encumbent on the adult to say no to any sexual intimation.