Cecily's Reviews > Lolita
Lolita
by
by

Cecily's review
bookshelves: miscellaneous-fiction, usa-and-canada, unreliable-narrators, crime-detective-mystery, psychology-psychological, relationships-twisted-or-sad
Jan 04, 2009
bookshelves: miscellaneous-fiction, usa-and-canada, unreliable-narrators, crime-detective-mystery, psychology-psychological, relationships-twisted-or-sad
Impossible to rate as it's an awful subject, but very well written. The skill of the book (and what makes it most disturbing for me), is that it isn't a clear-cut story of innocent child and predatory adult (which is not to excuse Humbert's actions), and it's only told from one - very biased - point of view.
Since writing this review, I've discovered that Nabokov was a . If I (re)read him, I'll have to bear that in mind.
This book raises many intriguing and troubling questions, balanced out by beautiful writing. Some see it as a love story, but I see no love - not even self love. The subject is appalling, but it’s not very explicit, which has the disturbing effect of making the reader complicit in Humbert’s fantasies and later, his actions.
* Some minor spoilers below (but the story is well-known) *
Truth and Lies
It is written as the supposedly honest confession of a paedophile, with overtones of necrophilia (initially he intends to drug her to rape her) and incest (when he is Lolita’s (step)father and even fantasises about her bearing him a child to replace her in his sexual affections). It mixes psychological self-analysis, wry humour, literary flourishes and endless excuses and justifications, though at other times he relishes his debauchery. Mostly he writes in a detached way, especially early on, occasionally slipping into the third person for himself.
Although it’s meant to be “true�, I couldn’t see why Lolita stuck with Humbert once the initial excitement had worn off, even allowing for the fact she enjoyed manipulating him for gifts and money (her loose morals, he said). But she'd been groomed very effectively, and there was no one obvious for her to turn to.
Humbert offers no explanation as to why she was so sexually precocious (it seems to predate her fling at summer camp). Perhaps he's imagining it, as justification for what he must, deep down, know is wrong, or maybe he's not the first to have abused her. The bit where the headmistress of Beardsley School tells Humbert that Lolita is “morbidly uninterested in sexual matters� was bizarrely implausible. Maybe even Humbert can't lie plausibly all of the time.
Shameless
Humbert gives plenty reasons why he should not feel guilty (“nymphets� are demoniac; it’s a natural urge; other societies allow such relationships; if she was drugged she’d never know; it’s not as bad as murder; he’s generous and indulgent), but Nabokov muddies it further by the fact that Lolita is allegedly not a virgin and actually takes the initiative in their first sexual encounter, and at least one subsequent one, even though she doesn’t appear to enjoy it. That's enough justification for Humbert (hopefully not Nabokov), and leaves the reader unsettled and unconvinced. Lolita is a child, unable to give consent, no matter the circumstances and history.
Falling Apart
The second half of the book is more muddled and, at times manic, reflecting Humbert’s own decline. After all the dreadful things he does, his final downfall is a literal but relatively trivial crossing of the line: a gloriously ironic way to end such a troubling novel.
Modern Mores - see also
Would such a book be published today, now society is hyper-alert for paedophiles, and #MeToo is taking off?
� Marguerite Duras published The Lover (see my review HERE), but that was autobiographical in back in 1984.
Maybe it's marginally less shocking when the sexes are reversed?
� In 2004, Zoe Heller wrote Notes on a Scandal / What Was She Thinking? (see my review HERE), about a married but oddly naïve teacher and a teenage boy pupil.
� In 2012, John Banville finished his Alex Cleave trilogy with Ancient Light (see my review HERE), in which an aging man fondly remembers a teenage fling with a friend's mother.
Of those three, Banville's is my favourite.
What does the writing of such a book say about Nabokov and, more troublingly, what does the reading of it say about me?
Another Nabokov
Nabokov's short story, Symbols and Signs, features parents struggling to cope with an adult child's mental health issues. See my review HERE. The shock comes from love, not abuse.
Since writing this review, I've discovered that Nabokov was a . If I (re)read him, I'll have to bear that in mind.
This book raises many intriguing and troubling questions, balanced out by beautiful writing. Some see it as a love story, but I see no love - not even self love. The subject is appalling, but it’s not very explicit, which has the disturbing effect of making the reader complicit in Humbert’s fantasies and later, his actions.
* Some minor spoilers below (but the story is well-known) *
Truth and Lies
It is written as the supposedly honest confession of a paedophile, with overtones of necrophilia (initially he intends to drug her to rape her) and incest (when he is Lolita’s (step)father and even fantasises about her bearing him a child to replace her in his sexual affections). It mixes psychological self-analysis, wry humour, literary flourishes and endless excuses and justifications, though at other times he relishes his debauchery. Mostly he writes in a detached way, especially early on, occasionally slipping into the third person for himself.
Although it’s meant to be “true�, I couldn’t see why Lolita stuck with Humbert once the initial excitement had worn off, even allowing for the fact she enjoyed manipulating him for gifts and money (her loose morals, he said). But she'd been groomed very effectively, and there was no one obvious for her to turn to.
Humbert offers no explanation as to why she was so sexually precocious (it seems to predate her fling at summer camp). Perhaps he's imagining it, as justification for what he must, deep down, know is wrong, or maybe he's not the first to have abused her. The bit where the headmistress of Beardsley School tells Humbert that Lolita is “morbidly uninterested in sexual matters� was bizarrely implausible. Maybe even Humbert can't lie plausibly all of the time.
Shameless
Humbert gives plenty reasons why he should not feel guilty (“nymphets� are demoniac; it’s a natural urge; other societies allow such relationships; if she was drugged she’d never know; it’s not as bad as murder; he’s generous and indulgent), but Nabokov muddies it further by the fact that Lolita is allegedly not a virgin and actually takes the initiative in their first sexual encounter, and at least one subsequent one, even though she doesn’t appear to enjoy it. That's enough justification for Humbert (hopefully not Nabokov), and leaves the reader unsettled and unconvinced. Lolita is a child, unable to give consent, no matter the circumstances and history.
Falling Apart
The second half of the book is more muddled and, at times manic, reflecting Humbert’s own decline. After all the dreadful things he does, his final downfall is a literal but relatively trivial crossing of the line: a gloriously ironic way to end such a troubling novel.
Modern Mores - see also
Would such a book be published today, now society is hyper-alert for paedophiles, and #MeToo is taking off?
� Marguerite Duras published The Lover (see my review HERE), but that was autobiographical in back in 1984.
Maybe it's marginally less shocking when the sexes are reversed?
� In 2004, Zoe Heller wrote Notes on a Scandal / What Was She Thinking? (see my review HERE), about a married but oddly naïve teacher and a teenage boy pupil.
� In 2012, John Banville finished his Alex Cleave trilogy with Ancient Light (see my review HERE), in which an aging man fondly remembers a teenage fling with a friend's mother.
Of those three, Banville's is my favourite.
What does the writing of such a book say about Nabokov and, more troublingly, what does the reading of it say about me?
Another Nabokov
Nabokov's short story, Symbols and Signs, features parents struggling to cope with an adult child's mental health issues. See my review HERE. The shock comes from love, not abuse.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Lolita.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
January 4, 2009
– Shelved
January 4, 2009
– Shelved as:
miscellaneous-fiction
August 9, 2009
– Shelved as:
usa-and-canada
December 10, 2016
– Shelved as:
unreliable-narrators
June 30, 2021
– Shelved as:
crime-detective-mystery
June 30, 2021
– Shelved as:
psychology-psychological
June 30, 2021
– Shelved as:
relationships-twisted-or-sad
Comments Showing 1-50 of 111 (111 new)
message 1:
by
Ian
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 21, 2011 01:20AM

reply
|
flag
I've got this on my tbr list (recently added), but your review is making me waffle. Well-written analysis.



In other words, part of thinking and learning is reading uncomfortable things. It's our reaction to them that matters more.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend Cecily but I just had to comment because you expressed what are quite common misconceptions and I felt strongly that something ought to be said.
Personally, I think everyone should read this book so they can see how truly f*cked up pedophiles are and how they destroy lives. However, it is not a pleasant or comfortable read for the most part.

Cecily wrote: "Yes, but it was a very long time ago. I don't remember much about it, unfortunately. Now you mention it, I can see how it would be another good companion read."
Mann came to the subject in a very different way, more poetry and metaphor, I think. So, I wasn't repelled by his stalking this young man/boy. Seems like Lolita examines the more repellant aspects of this type of relationship.
Mann came to the subject in a very different way, more poetry and metaphor, I think. So, I wasn't repelled by his stalking this young man/boy. Seems like Lolita examines the more repellant aspects of this type of relationship.
Chris wrote: "I've been thinking about that ending question. I don't think reading a book about bad things or evil people or whatever makes you a bad person. I think it makes you think. I think it would be mo..."
Agreed!
Agreed!

My review is not intended to excuse Humbert. I agree he is not a reliable narrator - a point which is increasingly evident as the narrative structure disintegrates somewhat.
I think the reason the book is so powerful and controversial is precisely because although Humbert, as the powerful adult is entirely wrong, there are aspects of the story that seek to blur the edges, because Humbert wants to justify himself. I suppose the danger is when readers actually believe that, rather than using it to understand the predatory mind.
I don't doubt your assertion that paedophiles destroy lives (fortunately, I have no direct experience), and I think that is shown in the book, though not in terms as horrific as is often the case.
Jemidar wrote: "I'm sorry, I find this review offensive. It is always clear cut with pedophiles, they hold the power while the "child" does not. I understand if you've never dealt with the subject matter first h..."
I've been in this same debate just a couple weeks ago. I think (from the reviews I've read, not the book), that Nabokov wrote it to make it appear not so clear cut. Wouldn't a pedophile see it that way -- that he was not "in control" of the situation, when in reality he was? I will never side with the pedophile, or believe any justification for such behavior, but this particular books does that, I think. Or, maybe it just tries to give us insight into what sort of person Humbert is, and how he perceives himself and his actions.
I'm curious, but I still don't think I will ever be able to bring myself to read this one.
I've been in this same debate just a couple weeks ago. I think (from the reviews I've read, not the book), that Nabokov wrote it to make it appear not so clear cut. Wouldn't a pedophile see it that way -- that he was not "in control" of the situation, when in reality he was? I will never side with the pedophile, or believe any justification for such behavior, but this particular books does that, I think. Or, maybe it just tries to give us insight into what sort of person Humbert is, and how he perceives himself and his actions.
I'm curious, but I still don't think I will ever be able to bring myself to read this one.
Cecily wrote: "I think you're right, Chris, which is why I read it and was not ashamed to review it. But nevertheless, it leaves me feeling a little uneasy. "A Clockwork Orange" had a similar effect, albeit for s..."
I watched the film years ago, and still wish that I had not. It was very disturbing to watch.
I watched the film years ago, and still wish that I had not. It was very disturbing to watch.

Very disturbing to watch, and I nearly stopped about a third of the way through, but I'm glad I saw it to the end, as I think the points it made did, more-or-less, justify what went before. The book is less shocking, because some of the violence is disguised by the Nadsat slang; whether that is a good or a bad thing, I'm less sure.
The imagery of the movie was so disturbing, and it has stuck with me for nearly 30 years. (It was a movie my then-boyfriend-now-long-ex wanted to watch. *ugh*)

I agree that Nabokov is such a good writer that Humbert does worm his way in a little even if you are aware of the games he's playing. He also plays on your complacency. I guess what I really wanted to do was point out that he clearly is the predator, it is clear cut but he would like to tell you differently.
I guess my real objection was to any insinuation that Dolores could even be partly responsible. If she was already sexually experienced it was because she had already been subject to abuse. If I misread your review then I'm sorry. I just feel very strongly about the victims being blamed in any way when they are only acting out what their abusers have taught them.

As well-intentioned as these comments are, they make the same mistake as people make in criticising Nabokov for writing the novel. Their morality takes over their aesthetic judgement.
I also think Humbert isn't so much unreliable as just wrong, morally.
He genuinely believes that he is expressing love for Lolita (even if it is morally transgressive), but in retrospect he comes to realise that he was a thief and that he oppressed her.
Whether or not she initiated anything is a red herring. He had already trapped her. Within the trap, he might feel that she exercised free will, but he had dictated her options.
The significance of this realisation needs you to believe in Humbert's reliability as a narrator.
It was the same person in the same frame of mind writing down his thoughts while in jail for a few months.
He isn't reliable in one part of the text, and unreliable in another.
It isn't as simple as somebody doing something morally and legally wrong because they are evil.
To deal with this sort of immorality and crime as a society, we need to understand that the perpetrators are not always motivated by evil.
They might be motivated by a twisted and wrong-headed concept of love.
Humbert finally understood that. Now, it's up to us to get it.
This doesn't mean we should justify or excuse this type of misconduct. However, it's incumbent on us to understand it objectively.
Cecily's original review is very sensitively and astutely written. It is not offensive in the slightest.


Sorry, I didn't mean to hound you down personally. It's just that many people will never read "Lolita" and think more critically about these issues, if they misunderstand what awaits them there.

Cecily, what a great review (and I'm not just saying that because I agree whole-heartedly with what you've written)! Everyone else, what a thought-provoking discussion (and -- what is this!? -- disagreement without someone crying bully!? HOW NOVEL.)!
I wish I had more to say but work has pulverized my ability to contribute to intelligent and literary conversations.

I don't believe that I ever said that Humbert was evil just that he was psychologically typical of a pedophile and therefore untrustworthy. I one hundred percent believe he believes his version of things but that doesn't make it the truth.
My personal view is that Nabakov's genius lies with his telling the story from Humbert's point of view because it's an uncomfortable place for most of us to be, and whilst giving us 'insights' into the mind of a pedophile it is clearly not how society expects a responsible adult to behave in his position. People often mistake this literary device as support for Humbert but I don't believe Nabakov intended that and that he wanted us to see his self-delusion firsthand.

Stripped of its immorality, Humbert's love was founded in some aesthetic appeal of the young girl's body, when it was at its most "perfect" and unaffected by the aging process.
This same aesthetic is everywhere in advertising and modelling.
We are not allowed to grow old, mature, age, expand or droop.
We are being urged to preserve an image of ourselves (and our loved ones) when adolescent.

I'm personally uncomfortable with equating love with sexual objectification, but you may be right about Nabakov's intentions. It's not the first time I've heard that said and the evidence to support it is as readily available as the first line of the book.

I think this is a very good way of putting it. HH's "unreliability" is more that he is trying to manipulate the reader into sympathizing with his point of view (and into empathizing with him). Some of the time I get the feeling that HH is convincing himself as much as us, but at other times it seems like a clear attempt to argue his case. I think Nabokov makes it plain that the manipulation is happening, which is why it is strange that he has been criticized for writing a book that supports pedophilia.

Humbert could only "love" Lolita in his own mind, while she conformed to the ideal aesthetic and sexual object in his mind.
Ultimately, at the end, he realised that by loving her only for that reason, he had actually stolen the thing that he purported to love.
He had denied her the capacity and right to love.
The entrapment and manipulation also stole her free will, which made any genuine reciprocation meaningless.
Humbert states his case so persuasively, because by the end he realises he was wrong. Nabokov needed us to go on Humbert's journey with him, not just to start with our moral preconceptions and dig in or remain static.

Perhaps one problem is that those who were or know victims of abuse are likely to react differently from those for whom it is merely a theoretical horror - not that I'm trying to out anyone about that.
Jemidar, I think it's not so much that Humbert's position is morally ambiguous, but that he wants to think it is, and to persuade the reader to think so too. I can't put it better than Ian has.
"does the cult of youth automatically lead to paedophilia?"
Wow, that's a difficult and scary question. I certainly hope not, though the converse would possibly be even worse.

That lots of readers have been seduced into accepting Humbert's position as somehow justified is supported by the fact that "Lolita" has come to mean a sexually responsive teenage girl, rather than an abused child.

"I only knew what hunted thought
Quickened his step, and why
He looked upon the garish day
With such a wistful eye;
The man had killed the thing he loved
And so he had to die.
Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold."
"The Ballad of Reading Gaol"
by Oscar Wilde

Even so, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you that Humbert had no motive for dishonest narration: the truth hurts, and although he realised and regretted some of the harm he had done to Lolita, I think he salved his conscience by attributing part of the responsibility for what happened onto her.

I agree with you, Cecily. The fact that Humbert couldn't gain anything in legal proceedings by telling his story doesn't really persuade me that he had no motive to lie. I have seen plenty of people lie under oath, who have nothing to gain from the lie and objectively something to lose by it. For some people, self-delusion and the impulse to manipulate others is an ingrained habit. Vanity is often to blame.
In Humbert's case, he does develop some degree of insight, or at least he appears to. That said, the murder he commits is ostensibly to avenge Dolores. It seems to me that even that act was all about Humbert, not about her. This is partly what makes me question whether Humbert really accepted that he had done wrong.


Russel Banks, in Lost Memory of Skin, offers an interesting take on an element of the pedophilia issue.



I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing but the wonder of this review and its thread is, as had been said a number of times already, the way decent and profound debate has been carried on in a decent and respectful way. thanks to all of you. really impressive
does the cult of youth automatically lead to pedophilia This from Jemidar is an incredibly significant question which perhaps, as a society, we do need to look at even if it is to say afterwards 'no it does not'. The recent cases in UK of swim wear for pre-pubescent girls with padded bras, the t shirts worn by 4 year olds with 'Future porn star' emblazoned on them do make me shudder. i know they are extreme but the parents who would buy them are really not thinking straight.
Kim wrote:"That lots of readers have been seduced into accepting Humbert's position as somehow justified is supported by the fact that "Lolita" has come to mean a sexually responsive teenage girl, rather than an abused child."
This was a truly brilliant point as well because it really brought me up short against the very thing of which Jemidar was speaking where we can, even subconsciously, ease a little of the, if not exactly blame well maybe 'involvement' in the abuse onto the young person.

I knew he was a synaesthete--I think he talks about it in one of his non-fiction.
This is one of my top ten books of all time!





This is the citation for the quote:
Levine, Peter (1967). "Lolita and Aristotle's Ethics" in Philosophy and Literature Volume 19, Number 1, April 1995, pp. 32�47.

Although it’s meant to be “true�, I couldn’t see why Lolita stuck with Humbert once the initial excitement had worn off, even allowing for the fact she enjoyed manipulating him for gifts and money
HH says somewhere that she could hardly run off on their meandering road trip because she had no money and was only 13. I think she runs off with Quilty when she's presented with her first reasonable opportunity.
The unreliability of HH is a very tricky issue -
� and her sobs in the night � every night, every night � the moment I feigned sleep. (p176)
Since comments like this, and there are a few, are so self-condemning, you might think that here is where HH is reliable. And quite clear-sighted about his & Lolita's evil relationship.
But then, when he starts with the rhapsodising about love, he seems - what, deluded? For most of the road trip, and a lot of the rest, he seems actively irritated by Lolita - her personality, her interests, all banal - he chides himself for thinking it could be anything other, since she's a dumb kid and he's a sophisticated adult. He doesn't like her, but he loves the sex. All the lovey dovey stuff can be read two ways then, i guess - he finally does love Lolita or he falls in love with Lolita-as-perfect-nymphette, the like of whom he will never meet again.
Nabokov is piloting Humbert, the novel and the reader through tricky waters - all three of us flicker from self-delusion to revelation, from lies to truth, and back again, throughout the whole story.

I think your final comment encapsulates why the book has endured, despite it's troubling subject.

Saving the distance, I'd add another modern story which deals with the same subjects, but this time, the "abused" teenager is a boy, and even though the stories are completely told with different motives, I'll leave it here for those who want to inquire. The Reader
I think there was a movie adaptation three or four years ago which was fairly good...