Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Reading "Lolita"...

After reading Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran, and reading Robert Ellis’ blog about Nabokov’s Lolita, I decided I wanted to read it and am trying to. It isn’t easy. Ellis said he read it after reading Jane Smiley’s Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Novel which is also on my to-do list. So many books, so little time. I can understand why it is a great novel if only for the beauty of Nabokov’s language. He loves words and plays with them beautifully, musically, carrying you along through some truly revolting ideas with mellifluous language.

I am about two-thirds of the way through, and will finish if only to assure myself that Humbert does indeed die, but I don’t ever recall disliking a character more than I do Humbert Humbert. Which begs the question, how does one handle reading a beautifully written and constructed book filled with revolting and unsympathetic characters? I guess I’m sticking with it to find out.

I wrote a blog some weeks back about sad, depressing books with no redeeming value but this book does not fall into that category – I think. The redeeming value, apart from the beauty of the writing, is still eluding me but I’m willing to trust that a novel that has withstood the amount of time this one has, did so for a reason. I have yet to find any of the characters to be sympathetic but am also aware that, because Humbert is the narrator, it may be his inherently detestable nature that makes them seem so. His descriptions of women – other than his adored and salivated-over nymphets – are scathing and he doesn't have any more tolerance of men. I have to give Nabokov credit, he has gotten inside the head of a thoroughly revolting human being and brought him vividly to life. I admire Nabokov for that though do not envy him. I doubt I’d have that amount of courage.

The central issue of Humbert’s character, of course, is his overwhelming erotic obsession with “girl-children”, his nymphets over which he rhapsodizes endlessly, and his possession of Lolita, the 12 year old daughter of a woman he married who was conveniently run over by a truck a month later -- leaving him with this child. Now, the thing is, Charlotte, the mother, as seen through Humbert’s eyes, was a really nasty piece of work and his observations on her may not be entirely unfair. Her treatment of Lolita is disturbing and her scheming to snare the single Humbert when he comes to board with them is embarrassing. So she’s no prize. And, apart from her physical allure for him, Humbert doesn’t much like Lolita either. She’s a spoiled, whiney brat and one gets the sense that he would be much happier if she were entirely stupid and completely lacking in a will of her own.

In one paragraph Humbert muses over the fact that he only has a couple of years in which to “enjoy” her before she turns into a teenager, a “detestable creature”, and then a “revolting, heavy-bottomed co-ed”. He muses about how he will dispose of her when that day comes but then does entertain the notion that it might be worthwhile to keep her until marriageable age so that he can legally marry her, get her with child and begin breeding himself a second Lolita, a daughter/granddaughter, with his "own blood running in her lovely veins”, who might become old enough for him to use for his pleasure while he is still virile enough to do so. He even goes so far as to fantasize about maintaining his masculinity long enough for the violation of a third generation - a Lolita III.

Clearly, I am having problems with this book. I don’t think I’m alone in that and, to a certain extent, I think it is an important book for the inside-the-head look at a pedophile it provides. I know there are Humberts in this world, though I wish there weren’t, and I think Nabokov, in some strange, subtle way, is illuminating something else, something more than the eroticization of girl-children in many segments of society. Humbert is an arrogant, self-absorbed man who sees no reason why he should not have what he desires. Maybe it is that alone, more than his sexual obsession, that differentiates him from too many others. That is the truly frightening part.

Thanks for reading.

6 Comment:

Anonymous Sharon said...

Yikes (shudder), I've had that book on my shelf for years and never got around to reading it. Now I'm repulsed and think I need to burn it and Lysol the shelf!

11:09 AM, December 27, 2005  
Anonymous trish said...

Gag. Your conclusion might be the truth. What the hell is it with men and young girls? Old geezers drooling over twenty-somethings are nauseating. Do they realize what asses they look like?

3:25 PM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Dharma said...

Oh Kathleen!

The first time I read this book I was moved by the language. Absolutely in love with his ability to write. The second time, about 20 years ago, I had such a hard time getting past the subject matter. I am glad that I was able to just read it for the beauty of writing the first time. Perhaps, someday a third reading will reunited me with the beauty as well as the brilliant psychological character study.

8:59 PM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Kathleen Valentine said...

That's the thing, of course. It is gorgeously written and it is a brilliant psychological study -- it's just that Humbert is so damned revolting. Which is what makes Naobokov such a genius.

8:58 AM, December 28, 2005  
Anonymous Robert Ellis said...

Lolita is a beautifully written, fascinating character study. I don't know if Nabokov meant for Lolita to have any "redeeming value" beyond that. Nabokov said that "Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss..." And it's true: Lolita is full of ecstatic prose.

Humbert, while thoroughly unsympathetic, is not the most vile character in fiction. I read The Collector by John Fowles recently, the story of a butterfly collector who kidnaps a young woman and holds her hostage in a remote farmhouse. (Interestingly, Nabokov was also a butterfly collector.) The story is told first from the collector's point of view, then from the point of view of his victim. The book is compelling, but the writing doesn't have any music. The collector is even more despicable than Humbert, in my opinion, but reading the book I kept thinking, Humbert is vile, but man can he write.

Lolita can probably be read in any number of ways, but I read it with the love of language in mind. I'm aware that my experience of the book is influenced by my gender, culture, time. I'm sure I would read it differently as a woman, especially an Iranian woman (I've added Reading Lolita in Tehran to my wish list on your recommendation, but I've got a lot of books to read before I'll get there). I'll confess I took the easy route and didn't agonize over it too much. I read it for the music, sometimes reading it aloud, pacing alone in my office or in the kitchen to my wife. It may be a writer's book; if you don't appreciate the language, it's hard to get past the theme. Actually, as a story, it's not very satisfying and the ending is something of a disappointment. But beyond it's ability to disturb and provoke, Lolita has the ability to exalt.

12:04 PM, December 28, 2005  
Blogger Kathleen Valentine said...

Thanks for visisting, Robert! I agree that the language is beautiful -- in a sense that makes the subject matter all the more chilling. And you are right, Humbert may not be the most detestable character in literature but his blythe insensitivity to his victim(s) makes him quite horrible. In a sense Nabokov's genius is in his ability to maintain the contrast -- elegant prose writing about a horrible subject, a suave and charming character who is a monster of the first order (plus Humbert describes Frederic Judd Waugh's paintings as "awful" - how can you not hate him after that?)

As I am getting deeper into the book, I am noticing how Humbert's descriptions of Lolita change with his mood. When he is annoyed with her or fears she is doing something behind his back (which she is) he describes her in the most loathsome - but consistently physical - terms. She is filthy, needs a bath, smells bad, is getting too muscular, her body as it becomes more womanly revolts him. But when he is pleased with her she is his sweet angel.

Nabokov is being disingenuous if he claims the book has no moral purpose. He knows what he is doing. There may not be a moral, per se, but he is cleverly constructing the anatomy of a pure monster - and he is doing it very, very well.

10:24 AM, December 29, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home