Comments on: Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita

By: Trevor Berrett

Trevor Berrett — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:01:30 +0000

Hi Jane, thanks for your comment. I agree that Lolita shouldn’t get such a bad rap, but I do understand it. It deals with a disturbing topic. That alone makes people wary, and that alone makes its scandalous reputation understandable, even if that perpsective is flawed by ignorance to how the topic is presented. Its reputation is even more understandable when, as you say, Nabokov leaves interpretation of the relationship up to the reader, allowing the reader to say that “this is the most true love story of our time.” While to me those elements make its scandalous reputation understandable, I don’t think that perspective is right either. As you say, underneath the surface much more is going on that subverts the idea that Nabokov put out the book merely to create a sordid effect. A careful reader should be able to see around those elements to a fascinating study of Humbert’s mind and technique – now that’s disturbing, but not scandalous.

Which Nabokov book, by the way, is your favorite?

By: jane

jane — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:29:12 +0000

Lolita isn’t my favorite Nabokov work, but I’ve enjoyed it each time I’ve gone back to it. You’ve written that you understand why the book gets such a bad rap, but I’m not sure I do. Is it the subject matter? Some people seem to think that because Nabokov wrote about pedophilia he must have condoned it or at least been sympathetic towards it, but I don’t agree. As we know, Humbert is an unreliable narrator! I think Lolita is more of a humanization of pedophilia than a defense; it’s really up to the readers to decide how sordid or not they find the Humbert-Dolores relationship. Maybe people dismiss Lolita as a piece of filth because they’re unsettled about their own reactions to the subject matter; they want to know more about Humbert’s obsession but can’t get past their inherent discomfort with pedophilia.

By: Trevor Berrett

Trevor Berrett — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:15:16 +0000

Excellent! Thanks for the links, Stewart.

By: Stewart

Stewart — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:16:29 +0000

I suspect you haven't seen these clips, Trevor. So here you go: Nabokov discusses Lolita: Part I | Part II

By: Trevor Berrett

Trevor Berrett — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:20:45 +0000

Lee, I hope it lives up to your hype! I’m sure it will.

Sherry, very interesting points. I agree with your fist one about the sexual repression Lo and others probably dealt with.

And your second point: I’m not sure I disagree that Humbert targeted Lolita based on how easily he could get her, but I think there is a physical attraction that has less to do with the circumstances and how easily he can attain his goal. It’s not easy, after all: he does have to marry her mother to get to her.

Then again, maybe that was all part of the challenge!

(By the way, one of my favorite parts of the book is when Humbert is talking to Lo’s head mistress – excellent play in your post with that section!)

By: Sherry

Sherry — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:59:57 +0000

“Lo is not entirely innocent. At twelve, she is on the edge of puberty, and becoming aware of her sexuality. Having said that, in the 1950s girls of that age were probably less aware of their sexuality than girls of that age are now.”

I’m going to have to disagree with John here. I don’t believe girls were less aware of their sexuality, but that it was more repressed through society. They were likely more ashamed. To me this gives added tragedy to Lolita’s situation. She’s not just dealing with something (a sexual awakening) that is confusing, but also trying to do so without adequate help. Humbert’s motives are obviously not in her best interest.
Also, I believe Humdinger seeing something different in Nymphette’s is common-there are similar patterns of children who are targeted. However, I don’t think it suggests Lolita was necessarily more sexual. I think it shows she was an easier target. Can you blame someone because they are less-protected or aware? Humdum tries.

By: Lee Monks

Lee Monks — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:29:42 +0000

I envy you your first read of those, Trevor. I only hope you’re half as impressed as I was. It’s one of those reading occasions where you backtrack FAR too often as you can’t believe what you’ve just read, the sheer bravado of it, and the miraculousness of a totally unique writer of, in my opinion, genius.

By: Trevor Berrett

Trevor Berrett — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:10:56 +0000

I don’t know when I would have gotten around to his short stories if not for your recommendation, Lee. Much sooner now!

By: Lee Monks

Lee Monks — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:49:41 +0000

As brilliant as ‘Lolita’ is (and it is extraordinarily so) I think his ‘Collected Stories’ eclipse any such collection I’ve read. Effulgent, magisterial, gleeful genius.

By: Trevor Berrett

Trevor Berrett — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:12:08 +0000

I have picked up Pnin from the bookstore shelf many times, Max. With your recommendation, I’ll probably buy it one of these times, sooner rather than later.