#8 Lolita

Previous Post: « Tomorrow Will Today...

The second book in my series of reviews on the top 100 novels of the last 100 years, Lolita is perhaps the most infamous of the list. I had never read it before, as I have always been turned off by what I assumed would be a depressing story. Now that I’m finished, I can say that Lolita both was and was not the novel I was expecting.

Nabokov tells the story through the first person perspective of Humbert Humbert (not his real name), who must go down as one of literature’s least reliable narrators. As he relates his love affair with his 12-year-old step-daughter, we can never be sure of what is fact and what emanates from his skewed imagination. For many of the events he is drunk; for all of them, he does his best to hide himself from the truth of what he has done. I was fully expecting to feel nauseous at the realistic portrayal of pedophilia. I was not prepared for the mad onslaught of ecstatic prose that characterizes Nabokov’s style.

As I’m fully aware that every English major with a computer and an internet connection is blogging about the Great Books, I’ll keep this short. I have two things I want to say about Lolita. If I exceed the two, feel free to punch me in the stomach.

First, the flowery onslaught of visual language, whether in the form of metaphor, turns of speech, invented vocabulary, or descriptive wordplay, strikes me as the apotheosis of high school prose. It’s eagerness is only equaled by its earnestness, and it infiltrates the inner voice of the reader with the same determination as Catcher In The Rye. I’d hate to be the creative writing teacher who has to grade all the short fiction produced just after the class has finished reading Lolita.

But Nabokov is not simply engaging in self-congratulatory linguistic gymnastics. He lets us in on the secret almost immediately, when Mr. H allows, “If you can still stand my style…” This is Humbert Humbert’s story we’re reading, not Nabokov’s, and if he wants to weigh down his reality with affectation and an antiquated lexicon, well, it must say something about the type of person we’re dealing with.

This is not realism. Mr. H dare not face reality. His entire world is a fiction, lest he be subjected to the horrors of his grotesque malignities. HH is a romantic, and he believes he and his step-daughter are embarking on a grand love affair. Even at the end, when he can no longer entirely hide from his crimes, he still believes there were light moments and true affection. He believes he always tried to have Lolita’s best interests at heart. It’s only in the margins we understand the extent of his malevolence. The truest moment of the entire book is when he casually mentions that Lolita cries herself to sleep every night.

Second, Lolita explores the very dark question of what happens when a person is afflicted with dangerous, destructive impulses which they cannot deny. As evil and twisted, and as nausea inducing, as HH might be, I still can’t help but feel pity for him. He cannot help his desires, that much is clear. His compulsion absolutely does not absolve him of his actions, but it does require us to more closely examine the fragility of human nature. Is Mr. H doomed to his living hell, or is there some way for him to escape his pathologies without giving in to them?

We all have our damaging impulses which haunt us. We are addicted to chemicals. We gamble and we drink. We lie and steal and get into arguments with strangers. We cheat on our spouses. We know an action is wrong but something compels us to do it anyway. We have phobias and manias and neurological disorders and dysfunctions. It’s sad to think about a person who’s been afflicted by some damaging obsession they simply can’t ignore no matter how strenuously they try. It’s something I can fully sympathize with.

I’m a Kansas City Royals fan after all.

Please Note: The style of this blog post was in no way affected by having just read Lolita.

Next Post: « Nothing That An Ad On...

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 8th, 2011 at 4:29 pm and is filed under Novel, Writing. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s not forget the other achievement of Humbert’s style: making Lolita, by all means a slut who joined a pornography studio disguised as a boarding school (don’t tell me the characters didn’t know what they were getting into), seem like a decent, lovable human being.

    Fantastic book on all accounts.

  • Divinebear6

    Dolores is a slut? Is that before or after being a normal girl who is raped repeatedly by the man who kills her mother? And whatever she might do to survive it is the height of hubris for the antfarmer to encapsulate her in his clearly oh so vivid imagination as a “slut”. I enjoyed this review and thought it to be pretty close to what Nabokov was trying to say about H. and about humans in general. I will note that Russian, N.’s original language, is a great deal more “flowery” than english, so perhaps there’s some effect from that going on. I had sympathy for H., none for Quilty, and quite a lot of sympathy for that poor little girl, so like millions of children before her, taken into adulthood by force by someone who can’t control their desire. Check any warzone; you’ll find raped children. Check any high school; if the kids ar honest as many as a third of them will have been victims.

Optimized by SEO Ultimate