Omitting personal pronoun

[Chicken Sandwich]

I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, is is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but (he) is not conducive to attractiveness.

From Nabokov's Lolita. Why is it possible to leave out "he", as the author did in the example above. I never know when I can and when I cannot leave out the personal pronoun. Do you leave them out when it's clear what the pronoun would have been?

Are there any rules that govern this principle?

Thank you in advance.

 

[emsr2d2]

From Nabokov's Lolita. Why is it possible to leave out "he", as the author did in the example above. I never know when I can and when I cannot leave out the personal pronoun. Do you leave them out when it's clear what the pronoun would have been?

Are there any rules that govern this principle?

Thank you in advance.

The writer has not omitted anything. "He" is not appropriate there.

The fact that he is horrible, abject, an example of moral leprosy, and a mixture of ferocity and jocularity which betrays supreme misery is not conducive to attractiveness.

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

The writer has not omitted anything. "He" is not appropriate there.

I think that I've never seen "but" used this way. I have looked up "but" to see if I can find this usage, but I couldn't find it. I understand what this sentence means, after having read your explanantion.

So if I understand correctly, "but" can be used to refer to all that came before? If so, "but" could be replaced by "which", right?

I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, is is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, which is not conducive to attractiveness.

Thank you.

 

[Barb_D]

I thought it was the mixture that was not conducive.

 

[billmcd]

I don't know of any "rule" and I agree with your assessment.

 

[5jj]

I thought it was the mixture that was not conducive.

I agree.

I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but (that) is not conducive to attractiveness.

 

[emsr2d2]

I agree.

I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but (that) is not conducive to attractiveness.

Hmmm. I agree, though I would say that the final "that" refers to the whole section starting with "he is horrible" and going all the way through to "betrays supreme misery".