Post for 11/7

I think these two chapters were interesting on a number of levels. Firstly, and this is important to Nabokov, they're both self-contained. One could simply read a single chapter, and still be satisfied. Mind you, they would likely want more, considering the quality of Nabokov's prose. But really, I think it's fascinating that these chapters are all self-contained strains of thought. They each seem to have a theme. For instance, chapter five was about Mademoiselle, six about lepidopterology. And really, I think that the whole thing can be explained with Nabokov's famed section at the end of chapter six.

I confess I do not believe in time. I like to fold my magic carpet, after use, in such a way as to superimpose one part of the pattern upon another. Let visitors trip. And the highest enjoyment is timelessness--in a landscape selected at random--is when I stand among rare butterflies and their food plants. This is ecstasy, and behind the ecstasy is something else, which is hard to explain. It is like a momentary vacuum into which rushes all that I love. A sense of oneness with sun and stone. A thrill of gratitude to whom it may concern--to the contrapucltural genius of human fate or to tender ghosts humoring a lucky mortal.

And I think this says a lot about Nabokov in multiple ways. The first, and perhaps the most obvious is this idea of folding the "magic carpet" of his life. He creates connections where they do not exist. And I think that is actually a pretty good way to deal with Nabokov, and a particularly good way to deal with Lolita. It's clear that Humbert's problem is that he tries to create a story, an artifice out of life. However, art and life are not the same. Humbert ends up destroying his life for his dedication to his art. He is so dedicated to superimposing the qualities of a novel onto his life, (i.e. the first paragraph of the story is gorgeous, yes, but also incredibly capital "r" Romantic) that he ends up ignoring the perspective, and humanity of Lolita. This may be a trait Nabokov and Humbert share. I'm not saying they're alike. They're not, but I think this is a point of likeness. However, Nabokov varies by seeing the humanity in others, where we have little proof that Humbert does.

The second is the idea of timelessness that Nabokov discusses. Rather than transcending death with art, he believes he transcends death in his greatest moments of life. I rather like that. Perhaps I'm projecting my own beliefs into this moment, but I really believe that's what Nabokov is saying here.