In the early stages of his obsession Humbert sees Lolita merely as a new incarnation of Annabel, even making love to her on different beaches as he tries to symbolically consummate his earlier passion. In what other ways does Humbert remain a prisoner of the past? Does he ever succeed in escaping it? Why is Lolita singularly impervious to the past, to the extent that she can even shrug off the abuse inflicted on her by both Humbert and Quilty?
This is such an interesting question. I read Humbert’s recollections of Annabel as simply another justification and excuse for his obsession and abuse of Lolita. How different were his experiences with Annabel from that of many (most?) teenagers. I interpreted Lolita’s imperviousness to her past as the defense mechanism of an abused child. I’m wondering if I projected this and that my interpretation may not be based on the actual text. So much of the BookBrowse discussion and questions make me want to read the book again.
Vicki, I also have to read it again. It felt good to read a book of such complexity. This time I won’t need the dictionary so much!
I wonder how many others in the Book Club feel as we do about a second read? I now understand why Kim K said he’d read it three times. I want to read again not only for the language (and vocabulary!) but for additional meaning. The Book Browse discussions and questions have me wondering about aspects I did not think of during my initial read. For example, connections to Nabakov being a lepidopterist.
Humbert remains a prisoner of the past throughout Lolita. Though he briefly gestures toward release in his late recognition of Lolita’s humanity, he cannot break free; his obsession is less with Lolita herself than with reliving and immortalizing his lost Annabel through art.