Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

[Peder]

Mne tnx, Abc
It's very nice to be back,
Peder

 

[Peder]

Does anyone have thoughts on whether Old Europe was seducing New America, or the other way around?

pontalba,
I'm not sure who was seducing whom, if seducing is even the right word; there was sure a lot of circling going on! But I have wondered, without reaching any conclusions, how Nabokov's Russian and European backgrounds have influenced his views of America and how he writes about it.

I mentioned that his sense of humor led to exquisite satire, but the thought also has crossed my mind that there is a fine line (I think, maybe) between satirical humor and just plain ridiculing the object of the humor.

There is a hilarious paragraph in Lolita, for example, where he describes the motels where he and Lolita stayed, and starts naming them: E-Z Acres, Stop-A-While, Drop-Inn, Stop-N-Rest, Lazy Acres, Shady Acres, Shady Pines and so on. I make these names up instead of searching for the actual ones that Nabokov used, but his are even closer to the mark in their accurate eye for the super-folksy names that used to appear on quaint motels across the US -- and maybe still do, where the chains have not yet penetrated.

The point is that I'm not sure whether, in that paragraph, he is being merely gently satirical at our expense, or is actually poking some plain-old European fun at our presumed country-cousin ways.

And it occurs to me that this, especially, is a forum to ask the question you asked and I hope we get some feedback from both sides of the Atlantic.

Without starting another Revolution, of course.

Peder

 

[pontalba]

peder
Actually the word used was debauching, not seducing. My error. And debauch is really the more accurate word (c- p.314 in Vladimir Nabokov--On a Book Entitled Lolita). Seduction is a part of debauchery, but not the real center.
I would have to say that it is some of both. HH is the adult and responsible party, both legally and morally............but Lo certainly jumps in with both feet at least some of the time. Her immaturity does not realize the ramifications of her actions. But really, what sort of background did the girl have..........certainly no maternal (good) example.

 

[Peder]

peder
Actually the word used was debauching, not seducing.
I would have to say that it is some of both. HH is the adult and responsible party, both legally and morally............but Lo certainly jumps in with both feet at least some of the time. Her immaturity does not realize the ramifications of her actions. But really, what sort of background did the girl have..........certainly no maternal (good) example.

Well, pontalba,
Just at the moment you have me at a disadvantage here. It is dark now and I can't refer to the book for the thought I have about the Europe vs America issue. But somewhere close to the section of the notes that you are looking at, I'm pretty sure I remembered seeing that some people actually thought the book was anti-American when it came out (50 years ago). I don't know who they were, or why they would think such a thing, but it seems very strange and without foundation to me at this point. So, America debauching Europe? Or Europe debauching America? That wording sounds very strong to me, but evidently some people are capable, or were, of seeing the book in strong symbolic terms.

But in the strictly non-symbolic here-and-now personal terms of HH and Lolita, it is very clear as you say that HH was the responsible party in every respect, whatever he did or didn't do. That being the case I am more than willing to pin all the blame on him, and give Lolita a pass for her behavior. That may run me afoul of the other opinions already expressed here and I am certainly going to have to refresh my memory by looking at the book again before I say much more.

But on the other hand, I'm a risk taker and I can't resist, so here goes.

I have seen her called a brat, which I can't disagree with, but I myself remember her more as a flirt. But I don't really remember her as being so very out of bounds in either case. For example, I don't think her brattiness would have led to juvenile delinquency or worse, nor do I think her flirtiness was headed toward a life of wanton sex, or worse. As you said, and I thoroughly agree, she didn't realize the fulll implications of her actions or where they might lead, especially with a loose nut like Humbert. I certainly don't think she made the calculation that here was guy she could play.

So at the risk of brewing up a real storm of disagreement (but what else are forums for?) I would characterize Lolita not quite as a young pre-teen who was out of control, (which maybe she was), but more as a high-spirited girl who was pushing the bounds of her space and testing the limits of parental control rather earlier than children generally do as part of growing up. And along the way I can imagine she might have been having fun learning that new game called flirting. Is this a case, again, where Nabokov is taking behavior that would be more normal for a teenager and pushing it down a few years onto a pre-teen, where it seems totally outrageous? I'll really have to check the book when I can see it again, but in the meantime I'll be glad to hear objections.

Peder

 

[SFG75]

Interesting theory on the book as a commentary on Europe and America. He does have some interesting takes on suburban life, that's for sure. When H.H. marries Charlotte, she becomes involved in a hundred activities and states that she would commit suicide if H.H. ever indicated that he was a true believer. The cruel nature of her mothering and this belief just begs for an explanation by the reader, or more aptly, forces you to want to scream: "hypocrite!" should you happen to see her. I haven't reached the cheesy names of the motels as described by Peder, but it certainly does provide some interesting evidence for the America/Europe thesis.

 

[pontalba]

Peder
You sent me back to take a look-see and sure enough on the next page VN writes:
"Another charge which some readers have made is that Lolita is anti-American. This is something that pains me considerably more than the idiotic accusation of immorality. Considerations of depth and perspective (a suburan lawn, a mountain meadow) led me to build a number of North American sets. I needed a certain exhilarating milieu. Nothing is more exhilarating than philistine vulgarity. But in regard to philistine vulgarity there is no intrinsic difference between Paleartic manners and Nearctic manners." P.315

I have to admit, I had to look up 'paleartic' and 'nearctic', but basically all it means is geographic locations.............Europe or North America.

It seems to me the underlined sentence above reveals a great deal about Mr. Nabokov. So, according to VN, no 'slight' is meant on either continent.

I will have to go back and find the passages where Lolita literally throws herself at HH, but it certainly was a 2-way street to some extent. I strongly agree that she, due to inexperience in the sexual field, simply picked the wrong man to experiment on.

 

[Peder]

Peder
You sent me back to take a look-see and sure enough on the next page VN writes:
"Another charge which some readers have made is that Lolita is anti-American. This is something that pains me considerably more than the idiotic accusation of immorality. Considerations of depth and perspective (a suburan lawn, a mountain meadow) led me to build a number of North American sets. I needed a certain exhilarating milieu. Nothing is more exhilarating than philistine vulgarity. But in regard to philistine vulgarity there is no intrinsic difference between Paleartic manners and Nearctic manners." P.315

I have to admit, I had to look up 'paleartic' and 'nearctic', but basically all it means is geographic locations.............Europe or North America.

It seems to me the underlined sentence above reveals a great deal about Mr. Nabokov. So, according to VN, no 'slight' is meant on either continent.

I will have to go back and find the passages where Lolita literally throws herself at HH, but it certainly was a 2-way street to some extent. I strongly agree that she, due to inexperience in the sexual field, simply picked the wrong man to experiment on.

COL Pontalba,
That means Chuckling Out Loud.
Which I really am doing.
That underlined sentence definitely says a lot about about Mr. N!!!!! And you are definitely the Ms of understatement here!
I take it to mean that he sees a lot of philistine vulgarity on both continents. Thwack! And among which he definitely does not include himself. Of course. Can you perhaps find anyplace that he said "Let them eat cake?" j/k j/k But really! Sheesh!
I remember that he coined the phrase "philistine vulgarity" but I certainly didn't remember how blatant and smug he was about it. My favorite greatest author definitely has clay feet!

Regarding Lolita throwing herself at Humbert, I remember she came into his room and draped herself over his shoulder to look at what he was working on. Even I started panting! Now I really can hardly wait for morning to come, so I can start refreshing my memory of the book.

See SFG? The book gets better, and you should definitely keep reading! I had also forgotten his withering view of the "club-woman type" that you allude to. You should keep reading. Hah! I should start reading! It sounds like I have a lot of forgotten treats in store.

But first to bed,
CU all tmw,
Charles

 

[pontalba]

I've gone back and I do believe I am enjoying this more the second ime around. One could almost feel sorry for HH lost in his obsession for Lo, but the more I look at this the more I see why Lolita was drawn to him. Simple affection. She had no real knowledge (in the beginning) of what he was, or what he wanted of her. An example of this on p.45 when Charlotte, Lo and HH are sitting on some cushions on the floor of the piazza. HH speaks of "L. was between the woman and me (she had squeezed herself in, the pet)." The child received no real attention or affection from her mother, and the father was long dead.

However by p. 135 at the end of section 31, the truth is told. In case anyone has not finished, I won't say what this "possible truth" is. I don't want to spoil anything for you. Besides, is it the truth? Or HH's wishful thinking/rationalization?

 

[Peder]

I've gone back and I do believe I am enjoying this more the second ime around. One could almost feel sorry for HH lost in his obsession for Lo, but the more I look at this the more I see why Lolita was drawn to him. Simple affection. She had no real knowledge (in the beginning) of what he was, or what he wanted of her. An example of this on p.45 when Charlotte, Lo and HH are sitting on some cushions on the floor of the piazza. HH speaks of "L. was between the woman and me (she had squeezed herself in, the pet)."

Oh pontalba!
One more thing I had forgotten, and yet another reason to quickly get on with the re-reading!

But, you know, I (too?) seem to be hearing the book with a totally new ear now. In earlier reads, Nabokov's smugness about Philistine vulgarity hadn't really been so noticeable to me, for example. And now, that phrase 'the pet' seems just so vulgar and utterly repulsive to me when isolated and contrasted to 'simple affection' in the unsuspecting family setting that you describe!

The opening sentences were the opening sentences for a love story, except that we knew otherwise. And now Lolita is looking for affection and again we know otherwise what is on HH's mind. And both of those contrasts color our reaction to what we are reading.

I have to wonder if VN isn't again playing on the contrast between what seems and what is, and on our knowledge in contrast to the character's knowledge. We know, but do they know? And, beyond that, did VN know that we would know that they didn't know what we knew? From the first day of publication 50 years ago, everyone has known of the older-man/underage-girl theme of the book. I wonder if Nabokov knew that we would know, (he had to know), and I wonder if there is any way anyone could read the book without bringing that 'outside' knowledge to it, instead of reading the story as a complete unknown, as with most other books, and letting the story unfold in our mind page by page. Could anyone in this world ever have read the book and been 'surprised' that Humbert was a pedophile?

The reason I raise the question is because Nabokov is such a master at manipulating the way he allows information to be revealed to us. His layering of the story in a way that requires multiple rereads to fully 'get' it, and HH being in jail right up front, but for what?, are two examples that come to mind. But most especially there is the faintest beginning of that small thread that he slides in almost subliminally very early on, and which gradually peeks out more and more until it eventually gives rise to a pivotal turn in the story and then, still later, finally leads to its full climax at the end. (Just tantalizing you SFG, and I won't say a thing more about it, so you can have the full dawning pleasure of the hidden mystery, too.) In large part it seems that many of the scenes, and their revulsion in our mind, revolve about the famous question "What did they know and when did they know it?", now that we know it and we know they didn't. That may be part of why our skin crawls as we read.

And, PS, one more reason for calling it great writing.

But, on with the re-read!
i have to catch up with you all,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

One thing to keep firmly in mind whilst reading Lolita is that HH is a predator. Plain and simple. No matter how complex his reasons for being what he is, or his reasoning and rationalizations, he is first and foremost a predator. Vulpine keeps coming to my mind in connection with HH.

I mentioned earlier that I'd seen both films of Lolita. I think that the latter one was probably the more accurate of the two, but James Mason captured that vulpine characteristic of HH more accurately than Irons.

SFG Where are you in the book now? I hope you are continuing!

 

[pontalba]

Lolita annoyed me at the start of the book - I couldn't stand her vanity or arrogance - but I really pitied her near the end. I really felt for her when he was speaking about how she would cry during sexual acts. I never really warmed to Lolita, I still found her to be a bit arrogant and snobbish, but I did pity her for her position.

Me too! But the part that bothered me was when Lo said to HH something about her mother strangling him when she found about what he'd done. The knowledge we as readers had was very heavy at that moment.

Peder How far along are you again?

 

[pontalba]

I have to wonder if VN isn't again playing on the contrast between what seems and what is, and on our knowledge in contrast to the character's knowledge. We know, but do they know? And, beyond that, did VN know that we would know that they didn't know what we knew?

Yup. I suspect (she said with a tinge of understatement) a bit of the vulpine 'quality' of VN.

 

[SFG75]

Me too! But the part that bothered me was when Lo said to HH something about her mother strangling him when she found about what he'd done. The knowledge we as readers had was very heavy at that moment.

Peder How far along are you again?

The immaturity is there, no doubt about it. Her statement that you mentioned, coupled with others in which she calls H.H. a dirty old man make you wonder as he did-as to whether or not she is joking or being serious. It's also interesting to note that he would search for her hiding spots for money. Because of this action, you can't help but wonder if she is a prisoner of his, albeit a passive-aggressive one who knows not to cross him. I would further maintain this position in light of the fact that H.H. mentions how he would terrorize her by mentioning how should be shuffled around as a state ward and how horrible it would be if he were to ever go to prison because of their affair. If you have to terrorize the poor thing, it doesn't sound like a willing relationship IMHO.

In regards to the book, I'm up to chapter 6 of the sectond half of the book. I had a long reading spell yesterday as my kids were sick and I had to come home to put them down to sleep.

 

[pontalba]

It's also interesting to note that he would search for her hiding spots for money. Because of this action, you can't help but wonder if she is a prisoner of his, albeit a passive-aggressive one who knows not to cross him. I would further maintain this position in light of the fact that H.H. mentions how he would terrorize her by mentioning how should be shuffled around as a state ward and how horrible it would be if he were to ever go to prison because of their affair. If you have to terrorize the poor thing, it doesn't sound like a willing relationship IMHO.

Yes, yes, and again Yes! She pushes him as far as safely possible.

I believe it was you that brought up the question of HH being a pedophile or a hebephile. It would seem to be both. HH states on p.178

"Another reason attracting me to that particular school may seem funny to some readers, but it was very important to me, for that is the way I am made.  Across our street, exactly in front of our house, there was, I noticed, a gap of weedy wasteland, with some colorful bushes and a pile of bricks and a few scattered planks, and the foam of shabby mauve and chrome autumn roadside flowers; and thru that gap you could see a shimmery section of School Rd., running parallel to our Thayer St., and immediately beyond that, the playground of the school.  Apart from the psychological comfort this general arrangement should afford me by keeping Dolly's day adjacent to mine, I immediately foresaw the pleasure I would have in distinguishing from my study-bedroom, by means of powerful binoculars, the statistically inevitable percentage of nymphets among the other girl-children playing around Dolly...........

Now first of all the fact that he noticed the small gap allowing sight of the school, and they he states "for that is the way I am made." Predator to the Nth Degree. Always on the look out for fresh game.

 

[Peder]

The book was a little more graphic than I had expected - I thought it would only tell of his love for Lolita and would gloss over the actual lust and the deeds. Don't get me wrong, I think that it was better the way that it actually was, I just wasn't expecting it. I can now see why the book was banned all those years ago.

Hi MonkeyCatcher
I was intrigued by your reaction to the book as more graphic than you expected. I have typically told people, who said they weren't interested in reading the book, that it was less graphic than they might think, and not at all 'explicit.' And certainly not pornographic.

However, and in answer to pontalba also, I am on page 21 in my reread, and have just finished reading Humbert's reveries about nymphets. And I can easily see where the book says more about the matter than one might expect, even after all these years of more graphic and explicit literature (which I won't name for tender ears. )

"About the quiet scholar [i.e. HH himself], nymphets played freely, as if he were a familiar statue or part of an old tree's shadow and sheen. Once a perfect little beauty in a tartan frock, with a clatter put her heavily armed foot near me upon the bench to dip her slim bare arms into me and tighten the strap on her roller skate, and I dissolved in the sun,....., Ah leave me alone in my pubescent park, in my mossy garden. Let them play around me forever. Never grow up."

That is not what I would call graphical or explicit, but it is certainly framework enough for imagination to fill in further details and make it much more vivd and explicit than it is on the printed page. So I can see what you mean.

You have mentioned your interest in why people do the (wrong) things they do. Right here, it seems to me that Nabokov has taken quite believable fantasies of a young, newly adolescent boy and transcribed them directly into the thinking and feelings of an older pedophile male Humbert. I don't know anything about how pedophiles think, and in fact they seem incomprehensible to me -- not to mention entirely reprehensible -- but my recollection is that Nabokov reportedly researched pedophile case histories and maybe this is what he really found out about how they tick. Dunno.

But despite all, the book was never actually banned in any legal sense. The publishers of the time just didn't want to go near it, because they had before them the recent example of a lengthy court case over a different book (one of the Tropic's by Henry Miller as I recall) and they didn't want to risk going through all that again. Which is why, when the book was finally published, without being banned, it created such a sensation and became instantly famous across the US. One had to be there to believe it, and Nabokov himself later described the commotion as "Hurricane Lolita."

But still, to this day, nearly fifty years later to the day, it arouses interest and debate. Come join the hurricane and tell us more about your modern-day reactions.

Sincerely,
Peder

 

[SFG75]

I don't know if it was terribly graphic, the only scene that was gripping in that regard was when Lo straddled him while he was sitting on the couch. As stated earlier, it is one of the comedic scenes IMHO as she is merely being playful while it's just driving him up the wall with lust and excitement. There were other scenes, but I feel they were not as attention-grabbing than the one mentioned previously.

In regards to the nation-state thesis, it would be interesting to try and draw up such a model whereby the U.S. represents Lo. A young, *virginal* country where people are not bound by negative memories of the past and who believe that they ontrol their own destiny, all the while, finding themselves in cumbersome situations of their own making as a result. Likewise, you have the stuffy, haughty H.H. which represents Great Britain. A product of good stock and upbringing, who tries to keep his young pet through bribes and gifts. Unable to possess it entirely, it then discovers that it loses it's prey, much as the nation lost all of it's colonial possessions and is looking around wondering what happened. Not actual fact, just providing some more "reading into" observations that aren't really there.

 

[Peder]

Author! Author!

Peder How far along are you again?

Well, pontalba,
In terms of pages, I am only to page 40, still way behind you all.

But In terms of delight, I have just read 5 pages of Nabokov that KMDDFTTOTF (Knock Me Down Dead Three Times Flat On The Floor) and I am in total complete rapture!

And I hope you, and everyone, will bear with me for a bit.
--
Since "light of my life, fire of my loins, my sin, my soul, Lolita when she was in my arms" etc etc. I have been reading through Naobokv's rambling slow buildup to his story, his filling in background on pedophilia, Humbert's past, and so on, and so on, and so on. Anyone who has read Lolita knows how that early part goes. But I decided to re-read it closely over lunch today.
--
After that initial passionate opening, I read through Humbert's family tree and the "two Dorset parsons, expert in obscure subjects -- paleopedology and Aeolian harps, respectively" Then the story of Annabel which ended with "exclamations of ribald encouragement" from two bearded bathers. I wonder what their words were? Onward! Onward!!? Then his extended discussion of nymphets (and faunlets). "Let them always be around me, never grow up" etc etc. Then his encounters with ladies of the night who "chirped" dix-huit when asked their age, dix huit, dix-huit.. Then onto his marriage of convenience to Valeria which eventually ended up with his wanting to kill the taxi driver, but having only a broom in the kitchen as the most lethal weapon he could find. Then the prison library's copy of Dickens, from MDCCCLXXXYII Then his Arctic voyage "with heaps of supplies: the Reader's Digest, an ice cream mixer, chemical toilets, paper caps for Christmas." And then another bout with insanity which eventually led him to a place in the New England countryside and to prospective employment with one Mr. McCoo and his two daughters, and Humbert "imagining in all possible detail the enigmatic nymphet I would coach in French and fondle in Humbertish." A new language, that!

What! What!!! Nymphet did he say?! The story picks up!

But then Mr. McCoo's house burns down and the job is gone, along wth the room where Humbert was going to stay. (p.36)

"A grand person, Mrs. Haze ... offered to accommodate me" Humbert says, but in his anger he "swore to myself I would not dream of staying in Ramsdale under any circumstances."

And the re-reader says to himself "Oh, ho, ho, do I ever know what you don't know!" But Nabokov has no intention of letting the first-time reader notice that, even before the beginning of the story, the story has already begun.

It may have been "Dolores on the dotted line" when she signed her name on page 1. But nobody ever said it was Ms. Dolores Haze when she signed on the dotted line! Nabokov has the reader in the dark and on the slippery slope down into the full-fledged action before the reader even knows what is happening!

And on their way to Lawn street, "speaking about sharp turns," the taxi driver swerves around a dog who runs out to bark at him. (The very same dog who will appear again later, the rereader thinks ) and soon Humbert finds himself on Ms Haze's doorstep and then ushered into her living room.

Leaning over the bannister the contralto voice of Mrs. Haze inquires "Is that Monsiuer Humbert", and Charlotte comes down the stairs tapping her cigarette. But who is this Charlotte!? No hint from the author, of course. (But in the movie, Charlotte is the incomparable, the inimitable Shelley Winters, as no other Charlotte can ever be!)

Charlotte shows him the house and he makes deprecating remarks to himself about it. "I and Lo have our rooms" -- "Lo being presumably the maid," Humbert imagines, at this first anonymous mention of our heroine.

"I see you are not too favorably impressed'" Charlotte continues, and after another paragraph says "Let me show you the garden."

They go through the dining room and into a sudden burst of greenery.

" 'The piazza' sang out my leader, and then without warning, a thick blue sea wave swelled under my heart and, from a mat in a pool of sun, half-naked, kneeling, turning about on her knees, there was my Riviera beauty....this Lolita, my Lolita..."

When Mrs. Haze notices his stare she continues with the tour, offhandedly saying: "That was my Lo. These are my lilies."

Forty pages into the book, and five full pages after Mr. McCoo mentions a kindly neighbor, Mrs. Haze, there is one of the memorable lines in the whole book!

"That was my Lo."

Yes indeed, that was my Lo and finally the story is under way for all to see!
--
I think that whole runup is magnificent, not the least because Nabokov knows exactly where he is headed, but the reader doesn't have the faintest idea.

Anyway, that was a longer answer than you asked for, pontalba, but I couldn't resist. When I finally realized the extent of Nabokov's mastery. I just had to sing his praises.

Author! Author!

CU later,
And I'll be shorter,
Peder

 

[Peder]

I don't know if it was terribly graphic, the only scene that was gripping in that regard was when Lo straddled him while he was sitting on the couch. As stated earlier, it is one of the comedic scenes IMHO as she is merely being playful while it's just driving him up the wall with lust and excitement. There were other scenes, but I feel they were not as attention-grabbing than the one mentioned previously.

Well, SFG,
I am looking forward with even greater interest now to figuirng out which scene I think is the most, er, ahem, comical. But you sure have started with a good candidate.

In regards to the nation-state thesis, it would be interesting to try and draw up such a model whereby the U.S. represents Lo. A young, *virginal* country where people are not bound by negative memories of the past and who believe that they ontrol their own destiny, all the while, finding themselves in cumbersome situations of their own making as a result. Likewise, you have the stuffy, haughty H.H. which represents Great Britain. A product of good stock and upbringing, who tries to keep his young pet through bribes and gifts. Unable to possess it entirely, it then discovers that it loses it's prey, much as the nation lost all of it's colonial possessions and is looking around wondering what happened. Not actual fact, just providing some more "reading into" observations that aren't really there.

Fascinating! And I am now more interested than ever in hearing from British readers Your metaphor should shake some out! Or did I miss someone up above? I don't think Lolita was a strictly American phenomenon, but even an answer to that would be good to know.

BTW: Have you been thinking of new ways to teach history lately? This one might really catch on!

Meanwhile I read on,
Now that Lolita has arrived, life should really pick up
Peder

 

[pontalba]

No indeed Peder don't even think about making it shorter! Enjoying every word. You are right on target too. Keep it up, because, I am re=reading, but in sections, not necessarily in order. For example, I have skipped ahead to after they left Beardsley............and the following of the red car. I don't want to spoil it for the others that have not gotten that far, but wow. To read again the depth of manipulation by Lolita herself is most instructive.

 

[Peder]

No indeed Peder don't even think about making it shorter! Enjoying every word. You are right on target too. Keep it up, because, I am re=reading, but in sections, not necessarily in order. For example, I have skipped ahead to after they left Beardsley............and the following of the red car. I don't want to spoil it for the others that have not gotten that far, but wow. To read again the depth of manipulation by Lolita herself is most instructive.

Pontalba,
Well, I think things will get shorter anyway.
As expected, life sure has turned much more interesting with the three of them all living under one roof and each pursuing their own objectives. I've made fair progress in reading, but hope to wrap up the doings of the three-way triangle before commenting on it. But I'm also beginning to think there is a fair argument to be made that none of them is quite an equal match for little Lo. And that continues on into the sections that you are rereading too. HH might be able to doiminate her physically, but I would say as a preliminary observation that she sure has got him emotionally.
However, we shall see.
And, oh yes, the book may not be explicit or graphic or whatever other term one uses, but it sure is about the all-time-favorite indoor-outdoor activity. I don't know how I missed so much before that was so obvious!
I'll keep y'all posted,
Peder