دوشنبه، شهریور ۰۲، ۱۳۸۸

از کتابی که دارم می‌خوانم

To reinvent her, Humbert must take from Lolita her own real history and replace it with his own, turning Lolita into a reincarnation his lost, unfulfilled love, Annabel Leigh. We know Lolita not directly but through Humbert, and not through her own past, but through her narrator/molester's past or imaginary past. This is what Humbert, a number of critics and in fact one of my students, Nima, called Humbert's solipsization of Lolita.
Yet she does have a past. Despite Humbert's attempts to orphan Lolita by rubbing her of her history, that past is still given to us in glimpses. Nabokov's art makes these orphaned glimmers all the more poignant in contrast to Humbert's all-encompassing obsession with his own past. Lolita has a tragic past, with a dead father and a dead two-year-old-brother. And now also a dead mother. Like my students, Lolita's past comes to her not as a loss, but as a lack, and like my students, she becomes a figment in someone else's dream.
At some point, the truth of Iran's past became as immaterial to those who appropriated it as the truth of Lolita's is to Humbert. it became immaterial in the same way that Lolita's truth, her desires and life, must lose color before Humbert's one obsession, his desire to turn a twelve-year-old unruly child into his mistress.
When I think of Lolita, I think of that half-alive butterfly pinned to the wall. The butterfly is not an obvious symbol, but it does suggest that Humbert fixes Lolita in the same manner that the butterfly is fixed; he wants her, a living breathing human being, to become stationary, to give up her life for the still life he offers her in return. Lolita's image is forever associated in the minds of her readers with that of her jailer. Lolita on her own has no meaning; she can only come to life through her prison bars.

- Reading Lolita in Tehran
~ Azar Nafisi
pp. 36-37

برچسب‌ها: , ,

0 Comments:

ارسال یک نظر

Links to this post:

ایجاد یک پیوند

<< Home