“I leaf again and again through these miserable memories and keep asking myself, was it then, in the glitter of that remote summer, that the drift in my life began; or was my excessive desire for that child only the first evidence of an inherent singularity?”
Lolita by, Vladimir Nabokov was the first buddy read of the year for me and Rebekah. Lolita is one of those books, that when you mention to people, they scrunch up their faces and say, “Ew! But, why?!” To which Rebekah and I responded, “Because we can,” and “Freedom of speech,” and “Down with book censorship!” and “We’re gluttons for punishment!” Lolita is a title that has made it on the list of banned books throughout the years, but if something is banned, that just makes people want to read it more.
The general plot is universally known - the narrator, Humbert Humbert, is attracted to underage girls. He specifically develops an attachment to Lolita and spends the entire narrative trying to justifying this attraction, even though he blatantly says multiple times that he knows that he’s wrong. Yea, homeboy, you’re beyond wrong, you’re a criminal... . He refers to young girls as “nymphets” (gross, so gross) and its clear that he does this to project blame and responsibility onto children, as if it is their fault that he is attracted to them. He takes away their humanity, assigning them to something mythological to release himself of guilt.
“…their true nature, which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as ‘nymphets.’”
From the very beginning of Lolita, it’s clear that Humbert is mentally ill and he’s been hospitalized multiple times. This is also used as a tactic to attempt to illicit sympathy for Humbert. Rebekah and I pretty much have the same personality type and had no sympathy for Humbert whatsoever. As the narrative progresses Nabokov’s writing style becomes more and more lyrical, portraying to the readers that Humbert’s mental state is deteriorating.
What’s interesting is that this sneaks up on the reader. There was a point, in the second part of the book where the style became more “stream of consciousness” and I texted Rebekah because I had a lightbulb moment.
“As happens with me at periods of electrical disturbance and crepitating lightnings, I had hallucinations. Maybe they were more than hallucinations.”
Humbert is such an unreliable narrator. He contradicts himself and he exaggerates his own personal attributes. It becomes tricky for the reader to actually get a grasp on who he is because he hypes himself up so much. It’s fascinating how Nabokov is able to put the reader entirely in the head of a psycho and still feel like the main character is evading them.
“..my old bedroom slippers - the only old things about me.”
We get these heartbreaking glimpses of the trauma that Lolita suffers - they are fleeting glimpses, but they are there and Rebekah and I discussed what this text would have been like, had it been entirely from Lolita’s perspective. Ironically, it was difficult being in the head of a child abuser, however we think it would have been an even more difficult text, had it been in Lolita’s voice.
“…and her sobs in the night - every night, every night - the moment I feigned sleep.”
What Nabokov achieved with this text is actually mind-blowing. When Rebekah and I first started Lolita we were saying, “Uh, yea this is going to be a 1-star read, because GROSS!” By the end we said, “GROSS, but 4 stars!” Why? Nabokov’s writing is poetic, lyrical, and complex. There are so many literary references that I wish I had an annotated edition and plan to purchase one (there’s even a Howards End reference). In the author’s note at the end, Nabokov knows that he wrote on a detestable topic, simply because he could. He points out that readers are obsessed with the “Why!? Why would you write something like this!?” To which the artist smirks and responds, “Why shouldn’t I?” Isn’t the purpose of art to sometimes make you scrunch your nose and push you completely out of your comfort zone, to leave you confused, fascinated and disturbed at the same time?” Nabokov is basically trolling the reader the entire time, “See what I’ve done? Do you see how uncomfortable I’ve made you? Do you see how gorgeously I’ve written about something so horrible? Do you see how much power wield with my words? Didn’t you oddly enjoy that?” Someone who is unapologetic about what they do is always our cup of tea.
We can see why people can’t make it past the first few pages and why many people choose not to read this. Rebekah and I were saying how we are glad we have the freedom of choice. As consumers, we can choose the content we want, without it being censored widely. Let the reader choose what they want to read or not. This will not be the last Nabokov because his writing is top notch. As previously stated, Lolita surprised us.
Rating: 4/5.
Questions to consider:
- Did you ever sympathize with Humbert? Why or why not?
- Why do you think Nabokov would write a book like this? Now, go read his author’s note. Did it change your view of this book?
- Books like this have been censored. Do you agree and why or why not?
- Can a book like Lolita ever be consider art? How does a book like this affect how we view art and the role of art?
- What makes Humber an unreliable narrator?
Post a Comment