If at times Lolita is difficult to wade through, I suppose the reader can chalk that up to the narrator’s admitted psychiatric problems. This book was hard to finish on many levels. First of all, the language itself is dense and beautiful, but requires the constant attention of the reader. I was unable to simply flip through pages, and I often had to go back and re-read things I’d missed. I wish I had a footnoted copy of this book in order to translate all the French I’ve forgotten since high school, as Humbert was so fond of throwing French speech into the narrative. Second, the narrator is absolutely despicable and reprehensible. I have to say that anyone who uses the term “Lolita” to refer to a sexually-aggressive female adolescent probably has not read this book. It is clear that poor Lolita is very much a victim of Humbert Humbert — a point made clear even though it is told only through his point of view. He is an unreliable narrator. His language, his intelligence are meant to beautify his actions and evoke sympathy from the reader, and a quick glance at several Amazon reviews for this book demonstrate that many readers do fall for his story. Humbert Humbert is a creepy pedophile, even if he is gifted with language. He admits to hanging out in places where he is likely to see girls in his target “attraction range,” which is a trait common to pedophiles. He is unattracted to girls or women of any other age range.
Interestingly, Nabokov’s allusions to Edgar Allan Poe’s work really made me see Poe in a new light — a sort of Humbert Humbert, if you will. As an American Literature teacher, I know Poe married his pubescent cousin. I always thought it was weird. After reading this novel, I see it as weird on a whole new level. Humbert excuses his lust for Lolita through allusions to other times, when grown men took child brides. I had always excused Poe’s behavior that way, but I find now that I don’t. Poe’s behavior was pedophiliac. Humbert christens his first love Annabel Leigh (a clear reference to Poe’s poem “Annabel Lee”). I do think a familiarity with Poe is helpful to readers of this novel.
I think this novel is open to both a literal and symbolic interpretation, which is one of the reasons it was stimulating intellectually. Humbert represents Europe — jaded, cynical, refined, intelligent, formal, but also corrupt. Lolita, on the other hand, represents America — young, uncouth, unrefined, naive. America raped and corrupted by the Old World. I think that it is an interesting way to look at the novel, and it works. As Nabokov emigrated to America, I have to wonder if the clash in cultures he experienced didn’t contribute to some of the ideas expressed in the novel.
I am glad I read this book. In a way, I feel like an initiate into a special literature club. It was really hard, though, and I wanted to smack the narrator constantly. He’s very clever, but he’s evil. I argue with the notion that this is an erotic novel. Humbert’s pedophilia is anything but erotic. I don’t see how readers could walk away from this book and feel that Nabokov was endorsing the idea that a grown man and a girl child can have a normal sexual relationship. In other words, Nabokov does not glamorize pedophilia or make it seem in any way romantic — quite the reverse. I am, however, no longer surprised that it is controversial — it astonishes me that Nabokov found a publisher for such fare in the 1950’s. The novel is beautifully written, and even funny in places, but ultimately, it is so sad — even Humbert eventually acknowledges that he ruined Lolita’s life. I think Lolita is a very good study of the mindset of a pedophile, and I shouldn’t be too surprised to learn that psychologists might study it for that reason.
4 thoughts on “Lolita”
This is one of those books – the "classics" – on my list to read, and I never get around to it. I think it's due to the fact that it has been so widely studied – critiqued. You feel you have to read in such a way that you fully absorb this book for what it represents both at the time it was written and now. To catch the meanings, the symbolism, the purpose. It goes along with all classics, I suppose, or even those books that are popular. Some books just seem overpowering with the weight they carry, and I guess Lolita is one of those for me.
However, all of that to say that, once again, your review has made me actually WANT to read it soonish. It was the last couple of lines in your review that did it – the beautiful but sad. So much of life is like that. I'm intrigued by the book now. Thanks – in a good way!
I tried reading Lolita a while back. I wasn't able to finish it, but I think it was mostly a case of the library due date calling the shots. 😉 If I remember corrrectly, I had just finished mucking through The World According to Garp which made me want to hurt someone. I'd like to try it again, though. I reserve the right to email you for help — consider yourself warned. 😉
I'm reading it right now for the first time. It's taking me a long time because every sentence is just so beautiful that I read them over and over. I'm amazed that I can have so much love for a book with such a horrible subject. Great review!
well, although i do realize that the "subject"is "horrible", but its achingly beautiful. i think that nabokov was able to portray the exact mindset of pedophiles, not all. and that is a thirst for purity and innocence in the wrong way. because humbert is more affected by her far beyond the physical, it more symbolic intangible idea that lives more in the subconscious than in our reason. I also suspected that of poe, and the poem is an exact shortened version of lolita, and i noticed first time he said annbel leigh. my favorite poem of all time. poes best poem. i dont know why but this book reminds me of catcher in the rye, holden not wanting to grow up, save children from losing thier innocence.anywa, thats what i think, and no im not a pedophile, lol.
Comments are closed.