I’m not really sure why it’s taken me so long to read Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. Perhaps the subject matter? I’m sure it didn’t help. Also I had a particularly obnoxious professor who felt it her duty to remind us weekly that Nabokov was the best thing since sliced bread. I couldn’t stand her and, I guess, by osmosis, I couldn’t stand poor, unsuspecting Lolita either. What a shame. It wasn’t until a few months ago, sitting in a restaurant in Vienna talking books with Pat from Euro Like Me, that I finally decided to take the plunge. He’d read Reading “Lolita” in Tehran and, never having read Nabakov’s novel either, couldn’t understand the lure of the original…
So here are the nuts & bolts: (taken from Library Journal) Nabokov’s classic story about a middle-aged, expatriate European man’s obsessive love for a 12-year-old girl is a beautifully produced novel that pushes the boundaries of the medium. While Lolita continues to raise the hackles of would-be censors even today, most readers will marvel at the restraint and playful humor with which Nabokov limns his tale. This doesn’t begin to cover it…
Some parts are incredibly uncomfortable to read: (on his preference of ‘nymphets’ between the ages of 9 & 14) The bud-stage of breast development appears early (10.7 years) in the sequence of somatic changes accompanying pubescence. And the next maturational item available is the first appearance of pigmented pubic hair (11.2 years). My little cup brims with tiddles.
Some are tragically sad: At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.
Some highlight the aberration… the complete fucked-uppedness… of the pedophilic mind: I must confess that depending on the condition of my glands and ganglia, I could switch in the course of the same day from one poll of insanity to the other - from the thought that around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated - to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de lage; indeed, the telescopy of my mind, or un-mind, was strong enough to distinguish in the remoteness of time a vieillard encore vert - or was it green rot? - bizarre, tender, salivating Dr. Humbert, practicing on supremely lovely Lolita the Third the art of being a granddad.
Others are poetic as all get-out: I looked and looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else. ~ On playgrounds and beaches, my sullen and stealthy eye, against my will, still sought out the flash of a nymphet’s limbs, the sly tokens of Lolita’s handmaids and rosegirls.
But it’s this passage that, for me, sums up the whole of Lolita so well: I loved you. I was a pentapod monster, but I loved you. I was despicable and brutal, and turpid, and everything, mais je t’aimais, je t’aimais! And there were times when I knew how you felt, and it was hell to know it, my little one. Lolita girl, brave Dolly Schiller. I recall certain moments, let us call them icebergs in paradise, when after having had my fill of her - after fabulous, insane exertions that left me limp and azure-barred - I would gather her in my arms with, at last, a mute moan of human tenderness. And the tenderness would deepen to shame and despair, and I would lull and rock my lone light Lolita in my marble arms, and moan in her warm hair, and caress her at random and mutely ask her blessing, and at the peak of this human agonized selfless tenderness (with my soul actually hanging around her naked body and ready to repent), all at once, ironically, horribly, lust would swell again - and “oh, no,” Lolita would say with a sigh to heaven, and the next moment the tenderness and the azure - all would be shattered.
The second I finished Lolita I started right back at the beginning. I was excited… really excited (ok, maybe excited is a poorly chosen word in this case) about what I’d just read, still, I didn’t want to hastily declare it one of my favorite novels. So I went back… read it again… re-read my notes and highlighted text, and added even more notes and highlights.
I started driving Jim crazy by stalking him through the flat reading excerpts that made him cringe and wonder how on earth I could insist this was one of the best books ever written. He’d finally had enough when I pulled back his curtain mid-shower and read: ‘And I also knew that the child, my child, knew he was looking, enjoyed the lechery of his look and was putting on a show of gambol and glee, the vile and beloved slut‘. “That’s it,” he said, “Can’t you find somebody else to talk to about this? I mean, surely there’s a support group? Message board? Therapist? Something?”
Thus began my fascination with what others thought of Lolita. And here’s where it all gets a little disjointed. But I want to fit in some of my thoughts… and, hey, it’s my blog…
- It seems to be predominately women who love Lolita. I’m thinking this is half because women, by nature, are more likely to romanticize the situation and overlook the pedophiliac angle… and because I imagine very few men are comfortable in any way identifying with the subject matter.
- I agree 100% that Humbert loved Lolita, but I balk at some of the reviews claiming this to be the best love story ever written. Unrequited love? Sure. But reciprocal, healthy and mutual love… what are these people smoking??
- I find it fascinating that a small but vocal faction of women who loved the book feel the need to vilify Lolita (Dolly… Delores… Carmencita) for her cruelty to Humbert. It’s almost as if - in order to love & approve of Humbert, Lolita must be the persecutor and not the victim. No consideration is given to the possibility that Lolita’s circumstances formed her as a person.
- Nabokov is an extremely gifted writer. His long, complicated sentences unfold like exotic hothouse flowers. And kudos to him for taking no prisoners in the telling of a difficult tale. I mean, it took balls to write a story like this. He had to anticipate the backlash. Still, he didn’t shy away or give his readers an easy out - a good reason to forgive Humbert. Yet they still did/do. That alone I admire beyond belief.
So Pat, without a doubt, one of the best books I’ve ever read. It’s warm and funny and scary and confusing and (at times) an outright assault on everything polite society brought you up to expect…