Vladimir Nabokov - Lolita

[Kenneth Mitchell]

As much as I can appreciate Nabakov's writing style (and this is undoubtedly a fantastically written novel) I just feel uncomfortable reading it because of the book's content. Maybe that is a testament to how well it is written but I can't seem to bring myself to enjoy the novel.

[pontalba]

As much as I can appreciate Nabakov's writing style (and this is undoubtedly a fantastically written novel) I just feel uncomfortable reading it because of the book's content. Maybe that is a testament to how well it is written but I can't seem to bring myself to enjoy the novel.

Have you tried any other of Nabokov's books? Perhaps if you read some of his earlier writings, you'd enjoy them. If you like detective stories, The Real Life of Sebastian Knight is somewhat a mystery story, along with the gorgeous prose.

[BookJumper]

I have never tried reading this, my reservations being more or less along the lines of Kenneth Mitchell's. My knowledge of "Lolita", therefore, is rather restricted to the following:

 

It's no use, he sees her, he starts to shake and cough

Just like the old man in the book by Nabokov

(Don't Stand so Close to Me, The Police)

 

!

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I've only read Lolita, but really liked it. I was suprised that Nabokov felt so 'western'. I would've expected him to be more Russian like Dostoyevsky.

 

Somewhat ironically, he despised Dostoevskii, and considered Dostoevskii more of a 'Western' (in terms of influence and style) writer than the other great Russians, such as Chekov, Turgenev, Tolstoi, Pushkin, Bely or Gogol. Besides, if Nabokov was influenced by anybody it would have been the Russian symbolists, though knowing Nabokov, he would have denied this as fiercely as he denied the existence of any other influences.

[Ben Mines]

I just feel uncomfortable reading it because of the book's content.

 

Nabokov is often characterized as the cool aesthete, but in actual fact he is also a profound, though extraordinarily subtle, moralist.

 

You're in safe hands, and it's a superb book.

 

I think you should read it.

[joe]

I have never tried reading this, my reservations being more or less along the lines of Kenneth Mitchell's. My knowledge of "Lolita", therefore, is rather restricted to the following:

 

It's no use, he sees her, he starts to shake and cough

Just like the old man in the book by Nabokov

(Don't Stand so Close to Me, The Police)

 

!

 

 

That made me chuckle and is my only knowledge of Lolita too.

[Ben Mines]

^ That deficiency is easily amended.

[Katya]

I finished this novel a week ago, and I'd have to say it is one of the top items on my list of beloved works. The prose is so beautiful that you almost have sympathy for Humbert, and the fact that Quilty is the worst of the two pedophiles led me down the same path, though I was never exactly sorry for the novel's main character. To be honest, Lolita's character annoyed me, especially her bedazzlement with pop culture and her repeated put-downs of "you old dope." But I suppose that's what one should expect of a twelve year old. A second argument can be made though. Instead of an innocent child deflowered by a corrupt man, one can say an innocent (however troubled) man is deflowered by a corrupt child.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I think you may have fallen into Humbert's trap, katya. Humbert wants us to believe that he is 'touching' that he is sensitive-I made a similair argument on another forum, and, due to my own laziness, I will copy and past this here.

 

I agree, in part, with the assesment of Humbert as being, in a sense, enslaved to his own desires-he could not help being what he was. But he was a cruel and malicious individual in other ways-notice his treatment of his sily and stupid first wife, his treatment of Lolita's utterly phillistine mother-note the way in which he describes them, as being idiotic creatures who deserved what they got-remember it is Humbert who is narrarating the events, Humbert who is describing the characters, Humbert who is describing the actions of various characters, it is Humbert who traps us into thinking that his wives were idiots, that Lolita was manipulating him, that he was a victim of his own perversity.

 

Humbert does not allow Lolita to grow up-he wants her to reflect his ideal image, his Annabel Lee, it is Humbert who drugs and rapes Lolita. Humbert fails to see Lolita outside of his own narrow and arbitary prism of what Lolita should be, he only loves and desires Lolita insofar that she reflects his own personality and tastes. Humbert is a true despot. Lolita's 'freedom' is not too dissimilair to the 'freedom' of citizens who live under a autocratic regime.

 

You say that Lolita has a degree of choice-but what choice does she have? Both of her parents are dead and she is kidnapped by a perverted lunatic and taken on a long road trip, followed by a stint at a place where she knows nobody-Humbert withdraws her from the place as soon as she begins to show the slightest semblance of recalcitrance, of independence, of wanting to be a 'normal' teenager. She could have gone to somebody for help, but she was just a young girl, and I as I mentioned before, a lot of people tend to forget that and think that she is a lot older simply because she was raped by an older man. As Lolita's mother notes, deep down she is just a 'normal girl' however bourgeoisie that may sound to Humbert's tendentious ears.

 

People also tend to forget how Lolita was often treated like an unwanted child by her 'victim' mother (Or as Humbert may describe her; car crash, dead.)

 

Humbert was a master manipulator, right from the word go-

 

Humbert's narcissism is apparent from the start, note for example his hilarious statement that the McCoo's house burned down due to the "the synchronous conflagration that had been raging all night in my veins"-ironic, perhaps, interesting nonetheless. Also note his description of the dog which is nearly run over by the car he is travelling in, the kind of dog that will always be at risk from being run over my cars, in any case he is tempting fate as his conclusion is an oddly prophetic summarisation of his own relationship with Lolita. (And ironic, considering the fact that the car that runs over Dolores tries to avoid a dog and thus hits her.)

 

He immediately sets upon Charlotte-best get the description out of the way as quickly as possible-accusing her of philistine vulgarity, all American pretension and drabness a book-club bourgeoisie if ever there was one. Perhaps he was right, but he fails to notice the fakeness behind his own "old world politeness" how is equally constrained by the image of him as a old world intellectual and how he needs to keep this image up in order to hide his inner, perverse nature. Baudelaire once claimed that the devil's greatest trick was to convince the world he didn't exist and Humbert's trick echoes the devil's deceit.

 

He deceives Charlotte into thinking he is in love with her-that is coldness is a old world idiosyncrasy, rather than being a manipulation of Dolores, supposed instantaneous, attraction to him. When she threatens to send Lolita to boarding school he knows that he cannot beat her into submission like he did to Valeria, twisting the wrist she once broke, he had to manipulate her, and make it out as if it was she who always made the decisions, that Charlotte wore the trousers in the house and that Humbert lived in a state of perpetual acquiescence, poor, vulnerable Humbert! He tricks his rather bland next-door-neighbours, Jane and John (even their names are a reflection of bland, dour Americana!) into thinking that he had an affair with Charlotte year before and that he was in fact Lolita's real father-not that he lets us see this in a negative light, it was an act of cleverness, rather than a string in the web of Humbert's deceit. But even the subtlest spiders have weak points!

 

He fails to differentiate the difference between a moth and a butterfly when he picks up Lolita and he convinces her that if she leaves him she will only end up in a cold, loveless home, where she will rot amongst the drudgery. He fails to see how much Lolita desires normality, how she wants a father figure in her life-instead he deceives us with his nebulous neologisms, he sexually manipulates Lolita when she is sick and constantly tricks a wide range of people-priests, psychoanalysts and naive neighbours and teachers-as well as Lolita herself in delaying the news of her mothers death.

 

Also notice Lo's maturity at then end of the novel-she is certainly 'morally' superior to H. I think what Nab does is undoubtedly one of the greatest tricks in literary history-to make us think that a teenage girl is a pest, a phillistine and and ignoramous, simply for being a teenage girl.

[BookJumper]

After reading Inderjit's post, any smidgen of intention I may have had to pick up this book found a cliff to jump off of. If I feel sick just reading this, I've probably got too delicate a little soul for the book. Sorry, Nab. Any other works of his I might enjoy (i.e. minus the disturbing sexual content)?

[Kylie]

I really enjoyed Lolita, Bookjumper. Knowing how much you enjoy good prose, it I think you would enjoy Nabokov's works. The only other one I've read is Pnin and I would definitely recommend that as a good introduction. My review, for what it's worth, can be found here.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

After reading Inderjit's post, any smidgen of intention I may have had to pick up this book found a cliff to jump off of. If I feel sick just reading this, I've probably got too delicate a little soul for the book. Sorry, Nab. Any other works of his I might enjoy (i.e. minus the disturbing sexual conten

That was certainly not my intention! However, I think that it is worthwhile reading Lolita as a forceful moral argument against the 'disturbing sexual content' you refer to-Nabokov is too great an author to descend into a one-dimensional characterisation of Humbert as being 'evil', and he is too intelligent a moralist to make his moral message obvious-he frequently denied having any and derided what he saw as careless, glib, in your face moralising, on the part of other authors, he makes us work hard to read the 'message' behind the book, Lolita needs to be re-read and re-read, pref. in the annotated version, to be truly appreciated.

 

As Kylie stated, Nabokov has one of the most beautiful English prose styles of any writer, and his other works, for example, Speak, Memory and Pale Fire are certainly worth reading, as well as Ada, which is his most difficult book to read.

[BookJumper]

I certainly do intend to read some Nab at some point; I find his literature criticism quite insightful and (just as I tend to like the criticism of authors I like, i.e. Coleridge and Auden on Shakespeare) I am willing to give any good critic a chance as an author. I'm afraid however my acquaintance with him will have to be negotiated via another work; my problem does not regard the authorial moral stance, but is rather a quite sweeping personal problem with explicit content: I just find it difficult to deal with certain themes as they always end up upsetting me more than any book should.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Fair enough. There are, however, no 'explicit' sex scenes. Humbert the pervert is quite the prude.

[Ben Mines]

I just find it difficult to deal with certain themes as they always end up upsetting me more than any book should.

 

This is like your argument against complexity, to which all my counterarguments, mutatis mutandis, could be applied.

 

And besides, aren't you a student of Shakespeare? I find Titus Andronicis far more upsetting than Lolita.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Michelle
merged

[BookJumper]

This is like your argument against complexity, to which all my counterarguments, mutatis mutandis, could be applied.

Don't you even dare going there. This is not an argument against anything; this is me trying to explain that, because of certain disturbing and upsetting personal experiences which haunt and make unliveable my everyday existence, it is physically impossible for me to deal with books/films/songs that confront certain themes. I search in books an escape from a life I find hard to bear, not a replay of the worst bits.

 

And besides, aren't you a student of Shakespeare? I find Titus Andronicis far more upsetting than Lolita.

I am a selective student of Shakespeare; I have not yet read Titus and don't intend to, for the same reasons outlined above. However, I don't feel this is such a crime. The body of work produced by Shakespeare is so immense and varied, you couldn't possibly adore it all indiscriminately; I remember talking with my coursemates over lunch once and it turned out that only one of us had read every single play (and that only for professional reasons, as he's a stage actor) and that everyone had ones they liked less than others because of the themes involved.

[Ben Mines]

I see. Sorry BookJumper. That's quite a different box of apples, and something I can completely understand.

 

However, just speaking for myself, I find it helps to read novels on unpleasant subjects with which I have the misfortune to have personal experience.

[BookJumper]

It's alright. I bring up this objection a lot (as it's put me off a lot of books recently, it's the main reason I've picked up children's lit again) but it's difficult to explain I'm not just randomly closing myself off from a large, possibly quite good section of fiction without going into details that I don't want to disclose and people don't want to hear.

 

As I was saying on another thread re: the fact that I get disturbed by books a lot more easily than by films, I suffer from a hyperactive imagination. That's why reading books that relate to unpleasant events in my past, no matter how vaguely, is not a good idea as it can trigger nausea, nightmares, prolonged depression spells. The wrong sentence can do that, nevermind a whole plotline.

 

Back on track, I do intend to read Nabokov at some point. Just not this particular tit

[pontalba]

Fair enough. There are, however, no 'explicit' sex scenes. Humbert the pervert is quite the prude.

Yes, he is isn't he? I think that is a point many readers miss about him.

 

Also notice Lo's maturity at then end of the novel-she is certainly 'morally' superior to H. I think what Nab does is undoubtedly one of the greatest tricks in literary history-to make us think that a teenage girl is a pest, a phillistine and and ignoramous, simply for being a teenage girl.

 

I have to agree with what you've said, but in the end Humbert did realize how terrible a thing he'd done, and was truly sorry for his actions. Maybe he finally grew up a little himself.

Of course "sorry" doesn't cover what he did, but it's better than not realizing, or not being sorry.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

I have to agree with what you've said, but in the end Humbert did realize how terrible a thing he'd done, and was truly sorry for his actions. Maybe he finally grew up a little himself.

 

Indeed, this final scene, perhaps because it is one of the few moments when H.H shows some 'real' emotion, adds a lot of depth to his character.

[Janet]

I enjoyed this book very much. I do confess I found the story a little repetitive in parts, but it didn’t really matter as it was helped by Nabokov’s beautiful language. I didn’t find I could have much sympathy for Humbert Humbert. Lolita might not have been an angel, but she was a child and he took horrible advantage of her. And yet, I do believe in his own way he loved her.

 

Definitely a book that would benefit from a re-read at some stage.

[pontalba]

I enjoyed this book very much. I do confess I found the story a little repetitive in parts, but it didn’t really matter as it was helped by Nabokov’s beautiful language. I didn’t find I could have much sympathy for Humbert Humbert. Lolita might not have been an angel, but she was a child and he took horrible advantage of her. And yet, I do believe in his own way he loved her.

 

Definitely a book that would benefit from a re-read at some stage.

 

I'm glad to hear that Janet!

It does take a couple of readings to really take everything in I believe. Over the last 7 years I've read it all the way through 3 times, and spot read bits and pieces many times to check a detail. I did finally purchase the annotated version, and that was somewhat of a help.

[Christian Friborg]

I would like to read the book first before watching the films. Someone recommended me this book years ago. I think I should give it a shot. I've heard good reviews about it.

[Brian.]

I would like to read the book first before watching the films. Someone recommended me this book years ago. I think I should give it a shot. I've heard good reviews about it.

 

Ive read this recently and I loved it, you should read it sooner rather than later.

[Snowla]

I'm halfway through the book, and i truly adore the heroine. She is such a sassy creature. I will try nabokov's other works after finishing lolita. Although my tutor doesn't recommend me reading lolita, for i'm a teenager.