Three Things I’ve Learned, Since Calling Myself a Writer...
1. Do not expect to be taken seriously when you tell people…
In my experience, people are always very skeptical of writing as anything more than a hobby. The idea of writing as a career is downright laughable to some.
But really, who cares about their opinion?
Just their opinion mind, I’m not suggesting it wise to drop anyone with a differing opinion.
It’s more mindset that I take issue with.
A lack of support can take its toll on you; you are who you surround yourself with. And if they are not supportive- maybe one ought to break free of such people?
I don’t know. I’ve very new to all of this; I haven’t quite got it all worked out yet, though this has got me thinking now…
Thankfully, the friends/contacts I’ve made more recently, who share maybe not my goals, but have equal drive and ambition, are far more supportive.
This is what and who I have learned to stay focused on in order to stay motivated.
2. This is not the numbers game you thought it was…
I learned very quickly (and thank Goodness I did!) that Writing, at least in the long-term, really isn’t all about numbers. I mean this, for the moment, in terms of social media presence.
I’m a Writer, I believe I have a basic-to-firm understanding of the phrase ‘audience’- I’m hoping this will grow over time. I thought I had to have an enormous audience to have any measure of success. But I am so grateful that one of the first and biggest lessons I have learned is that:
this isn’t about ‘top-line numbers’; it’s about engagement.
The old phrase I see mentioned time and time again over the internet: quality over quantity has never been more relevant here. Everyone knows now that those huge follower counts mean very little when your post gets three likes or 1 smiley face comment! Now if you only had four followers and got that, then it’s impressive: 100% follower engagement. But this is so often not the case.
For now at least, I’m looking at the engagement statistic. Every like, share, retweet, comment I receive, makes me so happy! After all, Writers are writing to be read. Readers are, rightfully so, the priority.
3. This is a lot harder that I thought.
And this one is pretty self explanatory.
I was a fool, I did not by any means think this was going to be easy but I had no idea how much of a pain eye strain could be! Or the headaches from reading and re-reading the same paragraph over and over. The constant glow of your laptop screen imprinted on the backs of your eyes and the indent on the side of your middle finger from scribbling notes all day are all side effects of a writing career, I’ve found. But what surprised me the most is the way four hours can just vanish along with the standard 8-hour working day!
All of this brings me back to number one and the people who don’t take writing seriously as a career path, branding it a: “Cop-out”.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
“A Critical Analysis of Humbert Humbert’s Psychological State in Vladimir Nabokov’s Modern Masterpiece Lolita” by Lily Smythe
Purchase on Amazon UK here
Vladimir Nabokov’s 1952 Modern classic Lolita[1] does little to refute the image of a deeply disturbed, unpredictable, widowed stepfather from its readers; his words encapsulate a maelstrom of emotion riddled with contradictions.
Narrator Humbert Humbert, is undoubtedly accountable for his seditious crimes ranging from paedophilia to murder and abduction, yet still begs for compassion ‘Please reader, no matter your exasperation’[2] and the chance to explain himself: ‘do not skip these essential pages!’[3] Despite acknowledging his ‘incomplete and unorthodox memory’,[4] Lolita’s narrative provides sufficient textual evidence to suggest that his inability to retell events coherently is nothing more than a clever ruse to mitigate his crimes. Humbert emits a dubious reluctance to explore the ‘deeper and darker waters’[5] of himself; an unwillingness to reveal his true character as if afraid of exposing something nefarious. Inferred by the reader early on, this is in fact the crux of the argument: is Humbert Humbert insane or is he simply pleading insanity as an attempt to diminish responsibility for his crimes? A fundamental technique used to achieve this lies in Humbert’s expertise in ambiguity. Considered a shield against his own self-loathing and the realisation of his wrongdoing,[6] it negates his ability to recall events accurately despite his claim as a ‘very conscientious recorder’[7]. The fallacy of his memory is prevalent in his confusion in chronology, companions and even locations. There is scope to suggest that this could well be an attempt to obscure important facts from the reader that may encroach on Humbert’s true nature and are therefore deliberate actions to achieve his overarching objective: to rid himself of the burdens he carries from engaging in an immoral and illegal relationship with a twelve-year-old girl.
Another example of the aforementioned ambiguity occurs shortly after Humbert proclaims is love for Lolita, when he receives a letter. Humbert teases the reader: ‘The hollow of my hand was still ivory-full of Lolita.... She had a message for me… an unstamped, curiously clean-looking letter in my shaking hand. This is a confession: I love you (so the letter began; and for a distorted moment I mistook its hysterical scrawl for a schoolgirl's scribble) … Pray for me —if you ever pray. CH’[8]. He leaves the original author unknown until the very last minute: ‘CH’[9] (Charlotte Haze). For the entirety of the passage, the reader may be forgiven for believing the letter to have come from Lolita, thus suggesting a longing inside Humbert’s to cling to the fantasy of a requited and accepted relationship with the young girl, consequently offering a glimpse at the ‘darker’ side of his character. Moreover, it reveals a craving to tell the story as he desires, even if it means bending the truth in order to achieve a more wholesome image of himself, thus fuelling the case against him as not insane, just unreliable. Though Humbert does state, in his own defence: ‘such suffusions of swimming colours are not to be disdained by the artist in recollection’[10], implying any errors, omissions or misconceptions are inevitable when creating art to which he considers his manuscript to be. Still, not long after this admission, Humbert again contradicts himself on the vague nature of his own work, stating he felt his ‘slippery self-eluding’[11] his responsibility to not only tell the story but also to explain his actions. His alliterative choice of lexis could have multiple connotations, for instance the whole phrase could have simply been a Freudian Slip[12], returning in support to the argument that Humbert may be intentionally masking aspects of his character.
Nonetheless, in true Humbert style, Lolita proves he subverts his own defence that his work is unavoidably erroneous whilst expanding his considerations of himself as a ‘very conscientious recorder’[13]. Whilst explaining his plans to marry Charlotte over the phone to Lolita, he discusses his ‘artistic duty’[14], priding himself in his capability to recall events straight from his journal accurately. Furthermore, there are frequent occasions where his memory is uncannily precise. He even goes so far as to claim the ‘courtesy of a photographic memory’[15]. Entire diary entries are included as well as half of the aforementioned confessional letter written to him by Charlotte, to which he claims to remember verbatim but then later refutes[16]. The reader is informed that he chose to remove the part about Charlotte’s brother[17] and it is suggested that the letter going into ‘the vortex of the toilet’[18] may have been a total fabrication altogether. Ultimately, this implies Humbert considers himself practically omnipotent in terms of his narration; it becomes clear that he chooses what he does and does not inform the reader of, inevitably leading to doubt not only in Humbert’s reliability but also his judgement and moral character. Having changed parts of Charlotte’s letter and his continuation to confuse events, arguably in an effort to gain the reader’s sympathies, his unreliability soon leads to a questioning whether his altering of the facts is limited solely to Charlotte’s letter. Nabokov has often been heavily criticised for the text supposedly advocating an ‘aesthetic bliss’[19] that encourages a structure in which the reader sympathises not with the so-called victim of the crime but with the perpetrator instead. In On a Book Entitled Lolita,[20] Nabokov stated that he does not share Humbert’s morals and disagrees with him on several other subjects[21] yet Lolita essayist Ellen Pifer[22] argues that many critics remain unconvinced, simply because they have missed the subtleties Nabokov intended.
The origin of the notion that Humbert may actually be suffering from more than just dishonesty, and rather mental instability, is first hinted at during the fictional foreword[23] by John Ray[24]. Here it is implied that the dreadful events of Lolita could have been averted had Humbert sought psychiatric help or remained inside a sanatorium during the summer of 1947[25]. Whilst the text does inform the reader of Humbert’s numerous visits to sanatoriums, they do not appear to generate a change in his behaviour. Psychiatrists deem him fit for release each time, arguing in favour of Humbert’s sanity. He believes his opportunities to leave the sanatoriums came from his ability to fool his psychiatrists, he sought happiness from watching them make false conclusions concerning factors such as his sexuality[26]. This does not suggest mental instability but rather a talent for deceit, and could lead the reader to believe Humbert is merely creating a façade, using the excuse of insanity as means to rid him of guilt or responsibility for his crimes. A prime example of his actions speaking louder than his words occurs as he claims, shortly after his third stay in a sanatorium, that the ‘reader will regret to learn that soon after my return to civilization I had another bout with insanity’,[27] again suggesting that Humbert’s consistent mention of his own mental state, as insane, are an elaborate cover up. His words continually make reference to a disturbed psychological state but his ability to plot rationally and manipulate on such a large scale do not support this. Thus one may argue that Humbert is either consciously or subconsciously inventing a reason to excuse himself from responsibility and his total lack of self-control. Such allusions are an attempt to keep the reader on side; one would only attempt to excuse something if they knew it were wrong.
With reference to these few examples of Humbert Humbert’s behaviour, there is sufficient scope to suggest, though an unreliable narrator, that he is not insane. Humbert admits to an imperfect memory and it is clear that despite biased revisions, he feels it his duty to retell them precisely, often producing a confused structure. The novella continues with confused dates, blurred facts and mistruths despite Humbert claiming to have a photographic memory; he also appears to believe it is acceptable and somewhat necessary to lie and deceive in order to get what you want. Overall Lolita provides little to support the conclusion that Humbert’s portrayal of himself and of others is entirely accurate and could be considered a ruse to fool the reader into excusing him for what he has done, at one stage even begging for compassion, referring to himself as: ‘tender-hearted and morbidly sensitive’.[28] In order to achieve this convincingly, he overplays his allusions to insanity with several mentions of visits to sanatoriums without any clear outcome of him going there. However, the text does show the occasional sign of repentance for his crimes: ‘Had I done to Dolly, perhaps, what Frank Lasalle, a fifty-year-old mechanic, had done to eleven-year-old Sally Horner in 1948?’[29] Here Humbert sees passed his own desires and to the consequences of his actions and what his actions and their effect could have on his beloved Lolita. His rhetorical questioning implies a sense of disbelief; an acknowledgement that he may consider Frank’s actions monstrous and couldn’t possibly consider his own in the same light. Recognition of the depravity of his crimes demonstrates that he is able to rationalise them, proven in his desire to alter his retellings, thus suggesting logical thinking, which is not a behaviour consistent with a man suffering from insanity.
CITATIONS
[1] Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita (London: Penguin Classics), 2000.
[2] Ibid., 131.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 217.
[5] Ibid.,308.
[6] Joseph C Goulden. “Prologue: How We Began.” The Best Years. (New York: Atheneum), 1976) 3.
[7] Ibid., 72.
[8] Ibid., 66-68.
[9] Ibid., 68.
[10] Ibid., 236.
[11] Ibid., 308.
[12] ‘An unintentional error regarded as revealing subconscious feelings’ and, in this case, ‘slippery’ could refer to being uncontrollable. Humbert has an uncontrollable side to himself.
[13] Ibid., 72.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 40.
[16] Ibid., 68.
[17] Ibid., 67.
[18] Ibid., 68.
[19] Jessica Joan Goddard. Realizing and Imagining "Aesthetic Bliss" in Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and Pale Fire. Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 23(2), 2011.
[20] Vladimir Nabokov. A Book Entitled Lolita. Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 23, 2012.
[21] Ibid., 4.
[22] Ellen Pifer. “The Lolita phenomenon from Paris to Tehran”. The Cambridge Companion to Nabokov. Ed. Julian W. Connolly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 185-199.
[23] Nabokov. Lolita. “Foreword”. 3.
[24] Written by the fictional John Ray Jr., Ph.D., the foreword informs us that the author of this manuscript, entitled Lolita, or the Confession of a White Widowed Male, died of heart failure in 1952, while imprisoned and awaiting trial.
[25] Nabokov. Lolita. “Foreword”. 35.
[26] Nabokov. Lolita. 34.
[27] Ibid., 34.
[28] Ibid., 131.
[29] Sarah Weinman. "The Real Lolita." Penguin Random House. http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/longreads/real-lolita (5th February 2015).
Lasalle has kidnapped Horner after a chance encounter at a bookstore and moved from state to state with her for almost two years before she managed to escape. Lasalle plead guilty to the charges and remained in prison until death.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Source
Nabokov, Vladimir. London: Penguin Books, 1995.
Secondary Sources
Bennett, Tony, ‘Texts in History: The Determinations of Readings and Their Texts’, in Reception Study: From Literary Theory to Cultural Studies, ed. by James L. Machor and Philip Goldstein (New York: Routledge, 2001), pp. 61-74.
Bodroghkozy, Aniko. “Television in Black-and-White America: Race and National Identity” Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Volume 38. Issue 1 (2007). Project Muse. <accessed: 9th February 2015>
Goddard, Jessica Joan. Realizing and Imagining "Aesthetic Bliss" in Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and Pale Fire. Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 23(2), 2011.
Goulden, Joseph C. “Prologue: How We Began.” The Best Years. (New York: Atheneum, 1976), pp. 3-1.
Pifer, Ellen. “The Lolita phenomenon from Paris to Tehran”. The Cambridge Companion to Nabokov. Ed. Julian W. Connolly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 185-199.
