Candi's Reviews > Lolita
Lolita
by
by

“I am like one of those inflated pale spiders you see in old gardens. Sitting in the middle of a luminous web and giving little jerks to this or that strand. My web is spread all over the house as I listen from my chair where I sit like a wily wizard.�
That admission comes directly from the pen of one of the most infamous, unreliable narrators of all time as he puts his memories to paper. I’d say it goes a long way in describing Vladimir Nabokov himself, as well. No, I’m not calling Nabokov a pedophile or any such perversion of character, but his manipulation of the reader in this text is very much like that same calculating spider. It's ingenious, really.
I skirted around this novel for years due to my extreme aversion to the subject matter, certain that I would be outraged, nauseous, and ready to throttle any male that even gave my daughter a second glance. But what happened here was not even close to what I anticipated. I felt wooden, unaffected. I went about reading this with a sort of clinical detachment. I can only begin to guess that the behavior of people in the past couple of years has led me to view such debauchery as this as something entirely commonplace. What more do I really expect at this point? I’m no longer surprised by most persons. They often act beyond comprehension, so why wouldn’t a middle aged man take advantage of a pubescent female, whisk her around the country, and scar her for life? Of course, I knew in the back of my mind that this was purely fictional, but entirely possible. Maybe my reaction was my own coping mechanism for handling the reading of this masterpiece.
“You have to be an artist and a madman, a creature of infinite melancholy, with a bubble of hot poison in your loins and a super-voluptuous flame permanently aglow in your subtle spine (oh, how you have to cringe and hide!), in order to discern at once, by ineffable signs � the slightly feline outline of a cheekbone, the slenderness of a downy limb, and other indices which despair and shame and tears of tenderness forbid me to tabulate � the little deadly demon among the wholesome children; she stands unrecognized by them and unconscious herself of her fantastic power.�
Nabokov adeptly puts the reader directly into the head of the depraved Humbert Humbert (HH). And this guy, like any other narcissist or sociopath, finds a number of ways to justify his behavior. The story is told entirely from his point of view, making the reader nearly complicit in his actions. We are even asked to bear with him as he explains his side of things. But I don’t think Nabokov was truly aiming for this. I don’t think we are meant to feel sorry for him, to understand him. I could be entirely wrong, but I felt the whole time that he was trying to show the reader just how twisted a mind could become in its search for justification and absolution. We can even snicker at HH if we want. Nabokov would in fact be delighted if we did so, wouldn’t he?! This is not really a laugh out loud kind of thing, but the irony is there in plain view. Especially when we are later confronted with another character who is made to seem even more despicable than our humble HH. Surely, HH is a simple, gutless wonder compared to this wackadoodle?!
“Please, reader: no matter your exasperation with the tender-hearted, morbidly sensitive, infinitely circumspect hero of my book, do not skip these essential pages! Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me; try to discern the doe in me, trembling in the forest of my own iniquity; let’s even smile a little.�
I should point out that Lolita is my first foray into Nabokov’s work (it won't be my last!). There are plenty of scholarly reviews out there that can do a much better job than I of explaining the brilliance of his narrative style and clever use of literary devices. It was evident from the start that all of those who sing praises to his skill are quite right. However, my lack of emotion while reading this book really stunned me. I surprised myself a whole lot more than HH managed to anger me. So, I’m left wondering if I am indeed one of Nabokov’s victims ensnared in that web after all?!
“The beastly and beautiful merged at one point, and it is that borderline I would like to fix, and I feel I fail to do so utterly. Why?�
That admission comes directly from the pen of one of the most infamous, unreliable narrators of all time as he puts his memories to paper. I’d say it goes a long way in describing Vladimir Nabokov himself, as well. No, I’m not calling Nabokov a pedophile or any such perversion of character, but his manipulation of the reader in this text is very much like that same calculating spider. It's ingenious, really.
I skirted around this novel for years due to my extreme aversion to the subject matter, certain that I would be outraged, nauseous, and ready to throttle any male that even gave my daughter a second glance. But what happened here was not even close to what I anticipated. I felt wooden, unaffected. I went about reading this with a sort of clinical detachment. I can only begin to guess that the behavior of people in the past couple of years has led me to view such debauchery as this as something entirely commonplace. What more do I really expect at this point? I’m no longer surprised by most persons. They often act beyond comprehension, so why wouldn’t a middle aged man take advantage of a pubescent female, whisk her around the country, and scar her for life? Of course, I knew in the back of my mind that this was purely fictional, but entirely possible. Maybe my reaction was my own coping mechanism for handling the reading of this masterpiece.
“You have to be an artist and a madman, a creature of infinite melancholy, with a bubble of hot poison in your loins and a super-voluptuous flame permanently aglow in your subtle spine (oh, how you have to cringe and hide!), in order to discern at once, by ineffable signs � the slightly feline outline of a cheekbone, the slenderness of a downy limb, and other indices which despair and shame and tears of tenderness forbid me to tabulate � the little deadly demon among the wholesome children; she stands unrecognized by them and unconscious herself of her fantastic power.�
Nabokov adeptly puts the reader directly into the head of the depraved Humbert Humbert (HH). And this guy, like any other narcissist or sociopath, finds a number of ways to justify his behavior. The story is told entirely from his point of view, making the reader nearly complicit in his actions. We are even asked to bear with him as he explains his side of things. But I don’t think Nabokov was truly aiming for this. I don’t think we are meant to feel sorry for him, to understand him. I could be entirely wrong, but I felt the whole time that he was trying to show the reader just how twisted a mind could become in its search for justification and absolution. We can even snicker at HH if we want. Nabokov would in fact be delighted if we did so, wouldn’t he?! This is not really a laugh out loud kind of thing, but the irony is there in plain view. Especially when we are later confronted with another character who is made to seem even more despicable than our humble HH. Surely, HH is a simple, gutless wonder compared to this wackadoodle?!
“Please, reader: no matter your exasperation with the tender-hearted, morbidly sensitive, infinitely circumspect hero of my book, do not skip these essential pages! Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me; try to discern the doe in me, trembling in the forest of my own iniquity; let’s even smile a little.�
I should point out that Lolita is my first foray into Nabokov’s work (it won't be my last!). There are plenty of scholarly reviews out there that can do a much better job than I of explaining the brilliance of his narrative style and clever use of literary devices. It was evident from the start that all of those who sing praises to his skill are quite right. However, my lack of emotion while reading this book really stunned me. I surprised myself a whole lot more than HH managed to anger me. So, I’m left wondering if I am indeed one of Nabokov’s victims ensnared in that web after all?!
“The beastly and beautiful merged at one point, and it is that borderline I would like to fix, and I feel I fail to do so utterly. Why?�
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Lolita.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
July 21, 2020
– Shelved
July 21, 2020
– Shelved as:
to-read
July 21, 2020
– Shelved as:
classics-shelf
April 10, 2021
– Shelved as:
book-i-own
August 17, 2021
–
Started Reading
August 27, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 125 (125 new)
message 1:
by
�
(new)
-
added it
Aug 23, 2021 10:26PM

reply
|
flag

Haha! Stay tuned, Mark! May be a while yet though, as some busy life stuff has gotten in the way of reading and writing!

I understand that � my recent book is th poster child for it: Fresh Water for Flowers (review).


This review is slowly but surely making its way to the top of my list of things to do, Mark! :D I've been college hunting most of the summer - reading and reviewing have unfortunately been more scarce of late :)















Thank you, Jenna! Maybe I just super prepared myself for this after anticipating it for so long :D Who knows why we react the way we do sometimes?!

I hope the previews didn't drag on too long, Mark :D I'm glad they still give refills on those popcorn buckets ;) Thanks for your patience and your fun response! I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts after your re-read.

Thanks very much, Betsy. I'm really gaining a lot even now after finishing. All the additional insights, including yours, add more depth to the reading experience for me. I particularly love what you've said here (and agree): "To me, he did humanity a service, the way any writer who writes an authentic evil person does. He exposes it, doesn't tell the reader what to think, just lays it all bare."

Thank you, Noel! I felt the time was finally right for this one, and I'm very glad I read it. I will read it again one day down the road and see how much my own interpretation changes. It's certainly not at all what I expected - so true :)



You know I don’t have anything to point at this novel. But I know what you mean about feeling unaffected by a story. Oh yeah, I know it all too well. Who knows why we feel like we feel...


Thanks a bunch, Kathleen! Oh, yes, I know what you mean - it's almost shocking to be one of those that is not completely repulsed by the novel :D I don't know how this happened! In some ways, I really did feel like one of those members of the jury HH kept referring to in his 'memoir'. As if I really did need to keep an open mind and not pass judgment until it had all ended! How on earth did he make me do this?!

Thank you, Anne! Yes, I was wondering the same - most everyone is quite familiar with the plot of this one at least. It does prepare you in a way for what to expect. Sad but true that these topics are not new to us anymore. It had to be quite groundbreaking at the time! I'm wondering if I should venture further and watch the film. Have you seen it?


Thanks, Candi. After I wrote my comment, I thought of Bob Woodward's Fear (/review/show...) and realized that this was what I loved so much about Woodward's tone. A nonfiction book, completely different from Nobokov, but both books had a certain nonjudgement about their subjects that, for me, made the exposure even more powerful.



I had a grad seminar prof to teach our small group what you did naturally: read the words. It's never about plot for him, only in service of the writing. He wants his reader to be detached so they can focus on the writing.
The words, down to the syllables. He's great to read aloud. The anagrams, references, the butterflies (nymphet!) flitting through his books; he was a lepidopterist. The chess. He was an expert at a certain sort of chess and every book has some or a lot of chess, one is a chess game, and I don't play but that's okay, one can't ever get all of it nor do any two people agree on some of it.
And of course the brilliant writing. My favorite being Pale Fire. Nabokov is always an intellectual exercise not an emotional one. One of his inspirations for Lolita was Poe's vile unreliable narrator Montresor in the short story The Cask of Amontillado. Nab admired how well he did it and challenged himself to try in a novel. He was no pedo nor does he glorify it.
A success: Humbert is more vile than Poe's Montresor. And less fun to read than Kinbote in Pale Fire.
I admire your review. Kudos!

Thanks for your kind words, Jennifer! I was thinking about what to say about this for a long time. In the end, I decided to just write about how I felt while reading this versus any kind of analysis which would have been way beyond me! My gut reaction on paper :) Oddly enough, I was reading this while away on a relaxing vacation. I'm not sure it was the best place to be - inside HH's head while away! :D

Many thanks, Sue. I think this is the sort of book you have to feel ready for - especially if you've had such reservations about it. This thread is very helpful to see how everyone else approached this and reacted to it as well.

Thank you, Annette. It's often difficult to take on something that you are being 'forced' to read in the first place, and then the subject matter of this makes it even more so, I believe. I can't blame you for disliking it!

I appreciate your kind comment, Ian. I'd never be able to hand this book to someone and say "read this!" I could only say if one was seriously considering it, then it's really a personal choice as to whether the time is right or not :)

Thanks so much, Barbara. I can still hear Humbert's words in my head, and I imagine them echoing there for a very long time to come! The prose is top notch :)

Side Note: This novel was inspired by true events. I forgot the name of the man that inspired the story but it is similar to what happened to Lolita. If I find out the name I’ll send you another message. Hope you have a happy week!

Her name was Sally Horner, I won't repeat his. The facts of her story were quite similar -- except for the unreliable narrator, literary merit art and skill, the wordplay etc. Humbert mentions them once.