Shame and Humiliation

[xssve]

I tried to read Lolita, and could not get through it. Maybe it was too dark and I was not comfortable with the subject? Anyway, I was rather -trying to think, was it shame or humiliation - when I returned it to the library and ran into a seriously conservative friend. That was uncomfortable.

Earlier someone suggested masks - I feel like I am wearing a mask here, and express feelings and opinions that I would rather my mom not hear.

I hate it when that happens.

They are both, very dismal books, not exactly peppy, upbeat stuff, more like Russian novels - you just sort of sit there for a while staring at the wall for a while after you're done.

 

[xssve]

Enervating, is possibly the word I would use there.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Enervating, is possibly the word I would use there.

Hell, nearly all the "great literature" that was inflicted on me as I was growing up would fall under that description! If it weren't for Shakespeare, I would have stopped reading entirely. Ghastly things, all of them.

 

[AllardChardon]

Poor Humbert. He is slayed by Lolita in the garden at first sight and remains tormented until his death. The film by Stanley Kubrick is brilliant. Dr. Zimph and the "home situation" is one of my favorite scenes. Peter Sellers' best movie, IMO. No wait. Dr. Strangelove, again with a big tip of the hat to Stanley, who so loved his leading men, especially Malcomb McDowell.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In the book, Allard, Humbert has had a fascination with a type of girl he calls "nymphets" and has always wanted one of his won. He sees Lolita-- who is very muchher own person, Nabakov, in his writing makes it clear that Humbert is self-deluding-- and has the chance to marry her mother. It's not that he loves Lolita at first sight-- it's that she's within reach.

I see what you're saying, xssve, but Humbert is never remorseful-- he's frustrated, angered, and humiliated by Lolilta's refusal to be the Nymphet of his dreams. He's humiliated more, later, when she runs away with a callow youth, and decides at that time that he loathes her.

Hmm. Frankenstein was successful in his creation-- only, it didn't measure up to his expectations, and he hated the partial failure. A lot of Frankenstien, IMO, is about not facing up to one's responsibility for one's actions. Humbert deluded himself that he'd created what he wanted, Lolita never was his creation.....

Both stories are about hubris and self-delusion, for sure-- but I think they treat the subject in some fundamentally different ways... And man, I don't feel the need to re-read either one of them!

 

[AllardChardon]

Thanks, Stella, for the clarification between the book and the movie. Makes sense. I mean who wouldn't want their own nymphette, in theory, of course.

 

[xssve]

The underlying theme of both books is one of corrupted innocence, and in both cases, the creators are in love with the idea of the thing they desire: Dr. F with the power of life over death, Humbert with his Nymphet, the idealization of erotic innocence - both are stricken with remorse when they realize they have gotten both more - and less than they bargained for.

I dunno, maybe it's though my male filters, but I got a very clear sense of Humbert Humbert's guilt and remorse - his idealized Nymphet turns out to be really just a little girl, all the shallower seeming through contrast with his previous mysterious idealization - he did create her, in the sense that he made her "a woman", in the classic sense of the phrase, and transmogrified her in the process - her innocence was the very thing that made her irresistible - by seducing her before she was ready, and the result of his own handiwork is repellent to him.

The moral of both tales is: be careful what you wish for, or: some loves are better left unrequited.

Again, I have to view this through my male filters, but I've seen women do this too - we practice a sort of denial in which we mitigate responsibility for our actions by heaping abuse upon our victims - we hate them for making us feel bad. Frankenstein because his creation is unnatural, abhorrent; an abomination in a culture obsessed with beauty, Humbert because he has destroyed the object of his compulsion, "ruined" her, again, in the classical sense, and his rejection of her is an attempt to "undo" the result of his doing.

In a sense, this is also the underlying dynamic of original sin, we blame it all on Eve for tempting us - Muslims go so far as to require their women to wear veils, it's considered impossible for a man to resist temptation - it's not our fault!

The knowledge of "good and evil" in this case then, might refer to making the connection between sexual gratification and procreation, i.e., the loss of innocence, from the carefree idyllic existence of childhood to the life of toil and responsibility that is the joy of parenting.

i.e., it works as metaphor on a number of levels, and has overtones of a coming of age ritual.

So, I wonder if Shelly herself did not draw her inspiration from Genesis, it doesn't seem unlikely - Percy was an atheist and the Romantic period was a study in contrasts between the "finer aspirations" of mankind and the squalid, filthy horror of everyday existence before electricity, sewage treatment, running water, antibiotics, etc., that for many, belied and made mockery of the myth of a benevolent deity.

The monster is, of course, the classic Byronic hero.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The underlying theme of both books is one of corrupted innocence, and in both cases, the creators are in love with the idea of the thing they desire: Dr. F with the power of life over death, Humbert with his Nymphet, the idealization of erotic innocence - both are stricken with remorse when they realize they have gotten both more - and less than they bargained for.

I dunno, maybe it's though my male filters, but I got a very clear sense of Humbert Humbert's guilt and remorse - his idealized Nymphet turns out to be really just a little girl, all the shallower seeming through contrast with his previous mysterious idealization - he did create her, in the sense that he made her "a woman", in the classic sense of the phrase, and transmogrified her in the process - her innocence was the very thing that made her irresistible - by seducing her before she was ready, and the result of his own handiwork is repellent to him.

The moral of both tales is: be careful what you wish for, or: some loves are better left unrequited.

Again, I have to view this through my male filters, but I've seen women do this too - we practice a sort of denial in which we mitigate responsibility for our actions by heaping abuse upon our victims - we hate them for making us feel bad. Frankenstein because his creation is unnatural, abhorrent; an abomination in a culture obsessed with beauty, Humbert because he has destroyed the object of his compulsion, "ruined" her, again, in the classical sense, and his rejection of her is an attempt to "undo" the result of his doing.

Shit now I do have to re-read the book!
but here's wikipedia's plot summary Which says what I remembered-- that Lolita had already started fucking- with a boy at summer camp.

HUmbert never found her abhorent, he never rejected her. She left him, in fact, with another pedophile-- the two men detested each other, for a nice little subtext,-- and Quilty dumped her because she wouldn't let him make porn movies with her. But before that, Humbert chased them all over the U.S., trying to rescue his unwilling darling.

The denial that HUmbert practiced, and yes, women do the very same thing, was a denial of who Lolita actually was. The famous description of him is that he was a "monster of incuriosity" and the book makes that very clear, using Humbert;s own words.

In a sense, this is also the underlying dynamic of original sin, we blame it all on Eve for tempting us - Muslims go so far as to require their women to wear veils, it's considered impossible for a man to resist temptation - it's not our fault!

The knowledge of "good and evil" in this case then, might refer to making the connection between sexual gratification and procreation, i.e., the loss of innocence, from the carefree idyllic existence of childhood to the life of toil and responsibility that is the joy of parenting.

i.e., it works as metaphor on a number of levels, and has overtones of a coming of age ritual.

So, I wonder if Shelly herself did not draw her inspiration from Genesis, it doesn't seem unlikely - Percy was an atheist and the Romantic period was a study in contrasts between the "finer aspirations" of mankind and the squalid, filthy horror of everyday existence before electricity, sewage treatment, running water, antibiotics, etc., that for many, belied and made mockery of the myth of a benevolent deity.

The monster is, of course, the classic Byronic hero.

The Genesis allusions is commonly accepted

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Thanks, Stella, for the clarification between the book and the movie. Makes sense. I mean who wouldn't want their own nymphette, in theory, of course.

Me, for one. My erogenous brain needs stimulation and a callow, warm body won't do it. I didn't even want anything to do with nymphettes when I was their age.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Me, for one. My erogenous brain needs stimulation and a callow, warm body won't do it. I didn't even want anything to do with nymphettes when I was their age.

Well one of the points of Lolita was that "nymphette" is all in the observer's mind, and has nothing to do with the actual ypung lady who is being observed.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well one of the points of Lolita was that "nymphette" is all in the observer's mind, and has nothing to do with the actual ypung lady who is being observed.

In other words Humbert was obsessed with a symbol that replaced the flesh and blood human being who didn't want anything to do with him. Good taste on her part.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In other words Humbert was obsessed with a symbol that replaced the flesh and blood human being who didn't want anything to do with him. Good taste on her part.

Oh, the story is much more complicated than that! I wouldn't try to sum it up in one or two sentences. That's part of what makes Nabokov one of the literary greats of his time; he never wrote an easy story with cookie-cutter characters.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As good a reason as any to avoid such things. I, on the other hand, have an easy, cookie cutter mind and when a character in a book makes a bad decision that I can see causing trouble, get frustrated and throw the thing across the room. Obviously I was never fated to be a literary critic!

 

[OLDERNWISER]

.....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't know, it seems that the people who are so different from one's self are what make life interesting, maybe? if everyone was like me, and I could predict, and more importantly, agree with every action, well, I guess life would be more predictable anyway.

Without question. That doesn't mean, however, that I want to spend my leisure time reading about them when I encounter 'odd folk' all day long.

I don't want anyone to get the idea that this position is one that I am espousing for the generality. I'm odd, too, and this is one of the ways it comes out. The fact that I am attempting to write a novel and the occasional short story, given my outlook on life, is ironic in the extreme.

 

[xssve]

Shit now I do have to re-read the book!
but here's wikipedia's plot summary Which says what I remembered-- that Lolita had already started fucking- with a boy at summer camp.

Irrelevant, since Lolita the girl is not what Humbert covets.

HUmbert never found her abhorent, he never rejected her. She left him, in fact, with another pedophile-- the two men detested each other, for a nice little subtext,-- and Quilty dumped her because she wouldn't let him make porn movies with her. But before that, Humbert chased them all over the U.S., trying to rescue his unwilling darling.

It's been a while, probably Thirty years since I read it, so all I have is impressions, but I'll stand by them.

The denial that HUmbert practiced, and yes, women do the very same thing, was a denial of who Lolita actually was. The famous description of him is that he was a "monster of incuriosity" and the book makes that very clear, using Humbert;s own words.

Pretty much what I already said, so, sure.

The Genesis allusions is commonly accepted

Obvious even.

 

[xssve]

Poor Humbert. He is slayed by Lolita in the garden at first sight and remains tormented until his death. The film by Stanley Kubrick is brilliant. Dr. Zimph and the "home situation" is one of my favorite scenes. Peter Sellers' best movie, IMO. No wait. Dr. Strangelove, again with a big tip of the hat to Stanley, who so loved his leading men, especially Malcomb McDowell.

I don't think I ever saw the Sellers version, I'm sure it would have been thought "too advanced" for me at the time, I'll have to add it to my video list.

They just don't show old movies on TV like they used to, there was a Classics channel in Memphis, and they used to show these great old 40's movies, they were a riot - I never imagined I'd be getting belly laughs out of Bringing Up Father, since B&W=dull.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Irrelevant, since Lolita the girl is not what Humbert covets.

It's been a while, probably Thirty years since I read it, so all I have is impressions, but I'll stand by them.

Pretty much what I already said, so, sure.

Obvious even.

I was wondering if you were reading my posts-- now I'm wondering if you read your own...

 

[xssve]

I was wondering if you were reading my posts-- now I'm wondering if you read your own...

Cryptic. Care to elaborate?

 

[Corylea]

You're right. I stand entirely corrected.

God, don't tempt me like that, Doc; you don't know what I might do!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

God, don't tempt me like that, Doc; you don't know what I might do!

Hey, Cory, where've you been?

 

[Corylea]

As to what kind of literature does this shame-based theory of eroticism lead to, well, I think of things like the central narrative in BDSM, the question of why someone gets tied up in the first place. It could be because they don't want to have anything to do with the dom, it could be because they're just masochistic, or the dom's simply sadistic and overpowering and it's an act of rape, but more likely it's gong to be because the sub has inhibitions based on shame or reluctance that the dom's going to force them to overcome.

I find this interesting, because the scenario that's most common for BDSM in the circles I run in is one where the partners are serving each other in some way. Often this starts out with the top's serving the bottom's need for an endorphin high, then once they get there, the bottom serves the top's need to be aggressive or predatory or controlling or all of the above. The "official" version is that the bottom is serving the top, but as far as I can tell, it's frequently mutual.

The more intense scenes are usually sacrifices of some kind, where the sub allows the dom to have more of what s/he wants than they usually get, where both parties know that the sub will be taking more pain or giving up more control than usual, as a special gift to the dom.

In all of these cases, the bottom/sub seems to feel proud more often than ashamed. The people I've seen wrestling with shame are the tops -- on the order of, "Can I be a good person and like to hurt and/or control my lover" or "Am I worthy of the sacrifice that this person is about to make for me" or something like that. I have held crying tops in my arms and assured them that I was a grown woman who consented and had a safeword and all that jazz. And I've asked bottoms to reassure me that they enjoyed having my Beast come out to play, and things were good for them.

People often retrieve emotions from past relationships, both from childhood relationships with their parents and from previous romantic relationships. Sometimes this is done intentionally, with the scene intended as catharsis, but often it is not; it's just that playing with intensity brings up similar intense experiences from times past.

I especially enjoy the sacrifice scenario, and that's one where the bottom is just not ashamed even a little bit. That doesn't mean that it's a cold or unemotional scene, though -- often it's a very, very emotional scene -- it's just that the emotions rarely include shame (at least, not for the bottom and only sometimes for the top).

 

[Corylea]

Hey, Cory, where've you been?

Hi, VM, thanks for asking.

I've been working on making a computer game. It's been an intense sort of high; I keep making one more template or one more dialogue or one more area. There's a lot left to do, but I've come up for a bit of air before diving back down again. It's great fun, though, quite the creative high.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hi, VM, thanks for asking.

I've been working on making a computer game. It's been an intense sort of high; I keep making one more template or one more dialogue or one more area. There's a lot left to do, but I've come up for a bit of air before diving back down again. It's great fun, though, quite the creative high.

Hmmmm . . . stimulating work, that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I find this interesting, because the scenario that's most common for BDSM in the circles I run in is one where the partners are serving each other in some way. Often this starts out with the top's serving the bottom's need for an endorphin high, then once they get there, the bottom serves the top's need to be aggressive or predatory or controlling or all of the above. The "official" version is that the bottom is serving the top, but as far as I can tell, it's frequently mutual.

The more intense scenes are usually sacrifices of some kind, where the sub allows the dom to have more of what s/he wants than they usually get, where both parties know that the sub will be taking more pain or giving up more control than usual, as a special gift to the dom.

In all of these cases, the bottom/sub seems to feel proud more often than ashamed. The people I've seen wrestling with shame are the tops -- on the order of, "Can I be a good person and like to hurt and/or control my lover" or "Am I worthy of the sacrifice that this person is about to make for me" or something like that. I have held crying tops in my arms and assured them that I was a grown woman who consented and had a safeword and all that jazz. And I've asked bottoms to reassure me that they enjoyed having my Beast come out to play, and things were good for them.

People often retrieve emotions from past relationships, both from childhood relationships with their parents and from previous romantic relationships. Sometimes this is done intentionally, with the scene intended as catharsis, but often it is not; it's just that playing with intensity brings up similar intense experiences from times past.

I especially enjoy the sacrifice scenario, and that's one where the bottom is just not ashamed even a little bit. That doesn't mean that it's a cold or unemotional scene, though -- often it's a very, very emotional scene -- it's just that the emotions rarely include shame (at least, not for the bottom and only sometimes for the top).

Thank you Cory, for this very insightful post!