I’ve (finally!) posted my review of Nabokov’s Lolita, over at The Book Book.
It certainly made for a discomfiting read, on some levels. Anyone with a niece or daughter, as young as the title character or simply once that young — and, I’d bet, any one who herself was once that young — will find in its pages plenty to squirm over.
And yet, there are all those other levels: the annoyingly hard-to-resist charms of the voice of the narrator, the protagonist, Lolita’s stepfather (and abuser) Humbert; the lavish stylistic flourishes; the mounting tensions — leading first to the central “Will he or won’t he?” answer and, later, finally “…will he really kill? kill whom?”
Of course I’m writing here as a guy — a middle-aged guy, at that — and maybe this alone invalidates all my disclaimers to the contrary. But I have to admit that even while being most horrified, I could also feel a little frisson of titillation from time to time. This was especially true early in the book, before the “Will he or won’t be?” question got its (maybe inevitable) answer. It was like inspecting close-up the carapace of what looks from a distance like a beautiful beetle: the ugly hairs and horrible eyes jump out at you, and you almost can’t wait to back off again. It’s a grotesque parody, in a way — a Bruegel‘s-eye-view of infatuation.
(Of course the publisher knows and is quite willing to trade on, to toy with this. Just look at that cover from the book’s 50th-anniversary edition. Do you see the horrors of pedophilia there? I don’t, either.)
Anyway, obviously there’s a lot to feel ambivalent about. If you don’t mind ambivalence and messy morality, love language, and of course haven’t read Lolita, you might want to give it a try. Just don’t be surprised if, like me, you can’t imagine yourself ever reading the book again — and being grateful to have read it once.
On another note, I just wanted to thank everyone for their comments and support regarding our friend “Ashleigh Burrows.” (If you haven’t seen it already, please pay a visit to friend Froog’s blog, where he meditated yesterday, movingly, on the interconnectedness of everything.)
For what it’s worth, the last word I have is that a/b remains in the hospital following last Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, but that her condition has been upgraded to “good.” Of course, that means (among all the really good things!) that she’s embarked now on a long and no doubt complicated period of rehabilitation and life-rebuilding.
We’re thinking of you, girl.
fg says
Ah, I will have to go and read your review.
Before starting to read this but had seen the cover above, I immediately scrolled down to comment, “But those are not a child’s lips! It all wrong, if you’ve read the book.” But then I held off to read and I see, sure enough, you have put your finger on it. Marketing.
I’m very happy to hear a/b is “good”. Thanks for the updates.
What a week.
fg says
fyi- thought I’d add this here as its addressed to you,
An excellent review JES. You make the reader walk the line while you explain the falls on either side.
I read the book years ago, a read that I wanted to find time for even before then. From what I remember, and for me with a bad memory, I remember how it felt to read vividly, the book walks a tight line. I recall I was thrilled to read the book, on the edge of my seat, appalled and fascinated. It was terrible and compelling to read. And strangely enough even though the protagonists voice is so strong I felt it clever because Nabokov confronts you, the reader, and not Humbert who prevails and just IS. I watched frightened over his shoulder as he contemplates his abuse and manipulation.
John says
fg: Thanks for the heads-up about your comment at The Book Book — I often forget to check back over there for comments until long after the commenters have probably moved on to later reviews. (My comment in return is here.)
I’d seen Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 film of the book years ago, so knew some of what to expect in reading it. I did like the casting of the various roles, even then. In retrospect, now that I have read the book, Kubrick may have walked the same delicate line as Nabokov, particularly in casting 14-year-old (but not-quite-young-enough) Sue Lyon as Lolita rather than opting for a “legal adult” who could simply be made up to look young-ish.
On the other hand… I just went over to Wikipedia to see what it says of the film. No source for this information is provided, sigh, but it says:
So SK apparently would have preferred either to have fallen off the tightrope on the one side, or to have raised it even higher off the ground — made the walk even more dangerous. So, who knows.
Thanks again, as always, for the comments.
John says
Update: Just in case you missed the follow-up post here at RAMH but are following this comment thread… a/b is back at The Burrow!
marta says
We’ve exchanged a few comments on Lolita. I wonder how I’d feel if I reread it now that I’m very much older.
Good news about your friend a/b. And lovely to see the interconnectedness of things and fellow human beings.
John says
marta: You’re the friend who supplied the quote in that review, about liking Humbert in spite of yourself. :)