Glenn Russell's Reviews > Lolita
Lolita
by

Prof. Harry Levin of Harvard says it is a great book and darkly symbolical (Mr. Nabokov explicitly denies any symbolism). Graham Greene says that “Lolita� is a distinguished novel. William Styron says it is "uniquely droll" and "genuinely funny."
"Lolita," then, is undeniably news in the world of books. Unfortunately, it is bad news. There are two equally serious reasons why it isn't worth any adult reader's attention. The first is that it is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid and archly fatuous fashion. The second is that it is repulsive.
"Lolita" is not crudely crammed with Anglo-Saxon nouns and verbs and explicitly described scenes of sexual violence. Its depravity is more refined. Mr. Nabokov, whose English vocabulary would astound the editors of the Oxford Dictionary, does not write cheap pornography. He writes highbrow pornography. Perhaps that is not his intention. Perhaps he thinks of his book as a satirical comedy and as an exploration of abnormal psychology. Nevertheless, "Lolita" is disgusting.
"Lolita" is a demonstration of the artistic pitfall that awaits a novelist who invades the clinical field of the case history. Since a large proportion of the human race is emotionally unbalanced and neuroses are so common as almost to be normal, novelists must rightly concern themselves with disturbed minds. But there is a line that is artistically perilous to cross.
Past the artistic danger line of madness is another even more fatal. It is where the particular mania is a perversion like Humbert's. To describe such a perversion with the pervert's enthusiasm without being disgusting is impossible. If Mr. Nabokov tried to do so he failed.
Tell it like it is, Orville! The above are excerpts from Orville Prescott's 1958 New York Times book review of Lolita back when Mr. Prescott was the most influential literary critic writing book reviews.
From my own experience of this classic, I would strongly recommend listening to the audio book narrated by Jeremy Irons, who does a masterful job of catching the flawless beauty of Mr. Nabokov's poetic language.
However, I must say, the subject matter of Lolita is not at all to my taste. I much prefer the author's Pale Fire and Pnin.

“I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita.�
� Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita
by


Prof. Harry Levin of Harvard says it is a great book and darkly symbolical (Mr. Nabokov explicitly denies any symbolism). Graham Greene says that “Lolita� is a distinguished novel. William Styron says it is "uniquely droll" and "genuinely funny."
"Lolita," then, is undeniably news in the world of books. Unfortunately, it is bad news. There are two equally serious reasons why it isn't worth any adult reader's attention. The first is that it is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid and archly fatuous fashion. The second is that it is repulsive.
"Lolita" is not crudely crammed with Anglo-Saxon nouns and verbs and explicitly described scenes of sexual violence. Its depravity is more refined. Mr. Nabokov, whose English vocabulary would astound the editors of the Oxford Dictionary, does not write cheap pornography. He writes highbrow pornography. Perhaps that is not his intention. Perhaps he thinks of his book as a satirical comedy and as an exploration of abnormal psychology. Nevertheless, "Lolita" is disgusting.
"Lolita" is a demonstration of the artistic pitfall that awaits a novelist who invades the clinical field of the case history. Since a large proportion of the human race is emotionally unbalanced and neuroses are so common as almost to be normal, novelists must rightly concern themselves with disturbed minds. But there is a line that is artistically perilous to cross.
Past the artistic danger line of madness is another even more fatal. It is where the particular mania is a perversion like Humbert's. To describe such a perversion with the pervert's enthusiasm without being disgusting is impossible. If Mr. Nabokov tried to do so he failed.
Tell it like it is, Orville! The above are excerpts from Orville Prescott's 1958 New York Times book review of Lolita back when Mr. Prescott was the most influential literary critic writing book reviews.
From my own experience of this classic, I would strongly recommend listening to the audio book narrated by Jeremy Irons, who does a masterful job of catching the flawless beauty of Mr. Nabokov's poetic language.
However, I must say, the subject matter of Lolita is not at all to my taste. I much prefer the author's Pale Fire and Pnin.

“I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita.�
� Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Lolita.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
Finished Reading
April 6, 2018
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-41 of 41 (41 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
A.P.
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 06, 2018 07:30PM

reply
|
flag

Thanks so much, Anna. I think many readers and literary critics would agree - a novel with such beauty in the language and such ugliness in the subject matter.

Thanks, Cheri. I wanted to include those excerpts from Orville Prescott since I don't recall sharper criticism of a book than this one, coming from the country's top literary critic back in the 1950s, of a book that has since been judged one of the great works of 20th century literature.

Didn't even realise this audio existed.
As much I loved this, Pale Fire, for me, will always be his magnum opus.

Didn't even realise this audio existed.
As much I loved this, Pale Fire, for me, will always be his magnum opus."
Likewise, Steven. Pale Fire is a flawless masterpiece.

Thanks, Lars. Generally I wouldn't quote another reviewer at length, but in this case I judged an exception was just the thing to drive home how the subject matter of VN's novel is not to everyone's taste, even esteemed literary critic Orville Prescott.


Ha! Just a wee bit, for sure. Thanks for your reflections here, Caterina. Orville's sharp judgements open up all sorts of questions on the connection of art and morality, one of the ongoing hot topics going back to Plato. I think after reading Lolita, Plato definitely kicks VN out of his republic.

No kidding! But I was never a fan of Plato's Republic, egad, no music except military marches? No poetry?

No kidding! But I was never a fan of Plato's Republic, egad, no music except military marches? No poetry?"
I'm with you entirely. Anything that smacks of regimentation and clamping down on the imagination and creativity, I run the other way as fast as I can.

As for Nabokov, who wrote while standing, I taught both Pale Fire and L, always said L was the best American novel on love...perverse, as in another way Am love is. pale Fire is one of the great parodies, but really demands a reader familiar with other poets, especially Wordsworth or maybe Frost.

That's quite something, Alan. With your background and scholarship I can imagine all the many layers of these two classics that have opened up for you and your students. I found listening to the audio book of Pale Fire with Robert Blumenfeld speaking the words of Charles Kinbote a most rewarding and remarkable literary experiences. Really magic.


No, not at all expensive.
Looks like Brilliance Audio has in CDs. But CDs have all but been replaced by Audible.com. Also, your local library system probably has both novels on CD.
CDs:
Audible.com:


Thanks so much, Cecily. I agree! - once an author publishes a work of fiction, their stating what the work is or isn't counts for very little. Recall Wimsatt and Beardsley and their “The Intentional Fallacy," where they said, in effect, the author’s intention is only a secondary consideration; rather, any meaning contained within a piece of literature must be derived from the work itself.


Exactly! I haven't read that rather detailed W & B essay in some time but I seem to recall the authors addressing exactly what you are noting here. Even on a much, much more modest scale, I recall readers pointing out to me various aspects of my crazy microfictions I never consciously considered. And just recently I was exchanging emails with Fernando Sorrentino and he told me I discovered a number of points he didn't consider in his short story The Lesson. As I should have since I worked in a suffocating insurance office for 18 years and Fernando worked in one for 18 months. Link to my review and his story (I see you "liked" this already :)): /review/show...

Fascinating to have confirmation from the author. I hope he was pleased and intrigued.
I've just reread the story. Thanks.

Yes, indeed! ;)

As a way to hone my own skills as a book reviewer I have been going back and studying Orville's reviews. Quite something - he had the keen ability to compress so much in so few words. One of my favorites is a glowing review back in 1963 of young Charles Webb and his first novel The Graduate. He concludes his review with "But Mr. Webb has created a character (Ben) whose blunders and follies just might become as widely discussed as those of J.D. Salinger's Holden Caulfield." -- If Orville only knew back when he wrote his review, thanks to the famous film, how true his words would prove to be!

Enjoy, Իé. This classic Nabokov has inspired many avid readers to read the novel over and over and over again. The poetry of the language is second to none.

I read it a long time ago and share many of your views.

I read it a long time ago and share many of your views."
Hey David. I don't think you are confused at all. I acknowledge N's Lolita is a five star classic but admit it is a novel featuring a subject not at all to my personal taste.

I believe you, Britton! Incredible novel, acknowledged as one of the best written books in the 20th or perhaps any century.
Pornography for the high brow. I get it now. Wonderful review.

Thanks, Pamela!
Orville Prescott was THE book reviewer for the New York Times for 24 years (1942-1966) back in the days when everyone looks to the Times for the scoop on new books. Orville wrote 2 or 3 reviews every week (doing the math, that comes out to over 3,000 reviews). But none were more famous than his scathing review of this Nabokov classic.

Bullseye, Matt!

Great to know, Aishah. Pale Fire is a magnificent novel. I wrote a review you might want to check out. Link: /review/show...

Are we going to return condemnation/ban on Lady Chatterley and Ulysses? Or will it be aim..."
Well stated, Frank! I sense the real issue with great literature - fewer and fewer people have the ability to read a work like Joyce's Ulysses (or, Homer's, for that matter!) or, even if they have the needed level of literacy, the desire to read such a work, bringing to mind that famous quote by Ray B:
“You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.�
� Ray Bradbury

He has a crude understanding of mental illness and literature. Many years after reading this, I happened to do some work with Humbert Humberts and gained some insights into their minds. They exist in total denial, which Mr Nabokov identified expertly. How he knew, I have no idea. What a vein of literary character Nabokov found to work with.
This book had that strange effect on me of wanting to dislike the subject intensely, but getting swept up in its language and execution. It was near perfect in its ability to do that. It was like getting caught in a rip tide and admiring the view of the sea as it draws you into a fatal relationship (reader-author, swimmer-riptide). Really unnerving. But classy how he achieved it. Basically that tells me this is what literature is, pushing you, revealing things you don't want to know about, and doing it all with linguistic gymnastics. I must read it again.

As perhaps you sense, I included Orville Prescott's now famous (or infamous) NYT review to provoke responses to one of the truly great works of 20th century literature. Rodrigo Fresán said it is indeed ironic that the Great American Novel was written on such a subject with such a character - and authored by a writer from Russia!
