I tried to read Lolita a few years ago. I was trying to read “ironically” but all I could see was the self-justification of a child abuser. I admit I didn’t make it to the end. It just made me so sick to my stomach.
Why was/is this book so popular? What is it’s point? This is an honest question. Explain it to me.
Mostly it’s popular for its shock value. And also it is pretty well written.
What makes it interesting is that Nabakov successfully tackles one of the darkest and most twisted elements of the human psyche. It’s supposed to make you uncomfortable; it’s an exploration of quite terrifying aspects of human sexuality.
My understanding is that the plot of the book isn’t what makes it so highly respected in literary circles. Rather, the multitude of allusions (to Joyce, Shakespeare and others) and the cleverness of the author (Nabokov) in constructing the story are what the critics appreciate. There are lots of word games and such.
Humbert Humbert was a sick, reprehensible character. I couldn’t remove myself enough to enjoy the book’s style. The Humbert and Quilty characters ruined the book for me.
Lolita is my favorite book (try saying that at a party)
I can’t really describe what I find so compelling about it…the writing is part of it. It is so complex and beautiful. It’s themes are disturbing, but intersting…a lot of it is about desperation. And how can you argue with words like
Lolita
Light of my life, fire of my loins.
My sin, my soul.
I think it is more a matter of how the use of language is used to relate the plot. Humbert’s self justifying confession is mirrored by his use of beautiful language to both reveal and conceal the sordid nature of his tale. His attempts to make something ugly into something beautiful purely through the attractiveness of his prose. His command of the language is all that seperates himself from Quilty.
As a crime reporter, I write a lot of stories about child abusers, and talk to a lot of cops who investigate child sex abuse. I know it sounds strange, but a great many of the abusers actually love their victims, and feel immense internal turmoil over the harm they know they’re causing. A little-known fact is that a great many child abusers are convicted based on their own confessions, freely given. It’s such a relief to them to finally admit their guilt.
I read Lolita some years ago, and thought it was a great book even then. Knowing what I know now, I’m amazed at how true-to-life Nabokov’s observation of his protagonist’s inner voice is. Humbert’s anger at Quilty for taking Lolita is genuine. However sick and twisted, Humbert’s lover for her was real.
What’s most unusual is how willing Lolita is to be Humbert Humbert’s lover. I think that’s what shocked a lot of people - that a 12-year-old girl would be willing, even eager, to sleep with a grown man. But it really does happen. That doesn’t make it okay for the older party to go through with it, but it does mean that the relationship is not “child abuse” in the normal sense. The child is denied a chance at normal social-sexual development, but they are not immediately traumatized, and may not even recognize that something bad is happening/been done to them. It’s a good example of someone’s own unavoidable ignorance harming them in the long run, without them even being aware of it.
A real-life example of a Lolita-type relationship like what I alluded to above(where the child is a willing participant) is that of Mary Kay Letourneau, a 36-year-old schoolteacher from Tacoma.
She slept with a student of hers for the first time when he was 12, and had two of his children before he was 15.
My link is old, but in new testimony from the “victim” (whose identity is now public because he is 18 and party to a lawsuit seeking damages from his old school system) the guy admits he made a bet with a classmate over who could sleep with a teacher first. Obviously, not a victim in the normal sense.
Not to hijack this into a GD/Pit thread or anything but…they aren’t traumatized until the social workers get a hold of them, is that what you’re saying?
Interesting that you brought up the Letourneau case. I always saw that so-called crime as a bittersweet “forbidden romance”, and very Lolita-like. (After all, he sought HER out, when she was released from jail the first time!) Also interesting to see that her “victim” is now suing the school for “failing to protect him”, and I can’t help but wonder…has his therapist convinced him that he was truly abused, and he’s working to set things right, or has age corrupted him to the point where he’s seeking out the big bucks? (A la Michael Jackson’s alleged lover…)
Better yet, try saying that at your parole hearing.
That is not at all what he said, and if you do want to debate the issue you should take it to GD.
Lolita is one of my favorite books, too. As has been pointed out, it’s about an uncomfortable subject, and it’s supposed to make you uncomfortable. On first gloss, it does seem to be the self-justification of a child molestor. But part of the interesting thing about the book is that it’s about a monster, written from the monster’s point of view. Of course he’s going to justify what he’s done, and of course he’s going to try and make himself out to be ‘the good guy’. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see that that’s clearly not what the reader is supposed to think.
One of the very first things we read in the book, in the foreward, page one, written by “Humbert’s doctor”, is that Humbert died alone, in a (I believe psyciatric) prison, a few days before his trial. Not exactly a heroes ending. We learn this before we even meet Humbert for the first time, so we’re clearly being set up to not totally trust this guy as a narrator. Early on in his story, Humbert freely admits being in and out of mental institutions. He glosses over this, but it’s gotta stick with the reader that this isn’t a sane or reliable narrator.
Again, because it’s told from Humbert’s point of view, he attempts to make himself out to be in the right. But how do we know how the audience is meant to feel about him? Just look at how he talks about Quilty. He hates Quilty, his rival in effections for Lolita, and describes him as a monster, and everything Quilty does as wrong. But, Nabakov sets up very clear duality between Humbert and Quilty throughout the novel. They are virtual twins in who they are in thought and action. I believe it’s mentioned they even look a little bit alike, but it’s been a while since I’ve read the book, so I could be wrong about that one. But still, with the complete duality between the two of them, it’s clear that when Humbert rips into Quilty, the reader really knows it is also about Humbert himself. Quilty doesn’t do anything that our narrator hasn’t, or wouldn’t do given the chance.
I could go on, but I’ll just mention one more detail that both furthers the whole duality of Humbert/Quilty, and shows the incredible wordplay Nabokov uses throughout the book. In the foreward, we learn that one “Vivian Darkbloom”, a writer mentioned in the story, has written a biography of Quilty. Nabakov writes the ‘biography’ of Humbert, and Darkbloom writes the biography of Quilty. “Vivian Darkbloom” is an anagram of “Vladimir Nabokov”.
I’ve only read Lolita once, but about a quarter of the way through it, I started to see it as a metaphor. Nabokov is originally Russian, and spent the first part of his career writing in that language. He later transitioned to English, for a variety of reasons. As I was reading Lolita, I began to wonder if the whole thing wasn’t basically a shameful love letter to his new tongue. Humbert = Nabokov; Lolita = English. It’s couched in a scummy metaphor (pedophilia) because, perhaps, a writer abandoning his native language in favor of an “upstart alternative” made Nabokov feel icky, so he needed a potent device to express his feelings. And Humbert wallowing in the joy of Lolita’s company is paralleled by Nabokov wallowing in the expressiveness of the language.
I’m not saying I’m right, but I am saying it made the book an interesting read. I have to go back and look at it again sometime.
Being your favourite book, one would think that you could remember a better example of Humbert’s longing and the beauty of Nabokov’s language, if that was indeed what you were trying to do. With that predictable quote, you’re hardly doing the book justice. 
I agree with you, though. It’s terribly difficult to describe exactly what makes Lolita such an intriguing masterpiece. Even on the most basic level, the simple story-line is overwhelming. One would have to be extremely narrow-minded not to see past the crime HH commits. For many, it is indeed not the story itself that makes the book so incredible. Nabokov’s word games, poetry, and references to other great literary works make it so multifaceted, and pretty damned unique.
Brash yet vulnerable Lo, vain and desperate Humbert, and even lesser characters like the pitiable Charlotte Haze are all very real, which is all the more amazing considering they are not only figments of Nabokov’s imagination, but at least partially of Humbert’s. Something which is oft overlooked is the fact that ‘HH’ is a wonderful liar and storyteller all of his own. The book takes the form where it is very difficult to believe that there was a living, ‘ordinary’ man behind it all. Humbert told us the story, not Vladimir Nabokov. An avid reader will find it difficult to distinguish between the lies Humbert tells, and the truths it is necessary to believe in order to understand the book.
I could go on for hours about what makes this far more than a simple ‘shock tale’ of a pedophile and his victim. It is a labyrinthine, beautiful story. It’s about love, entrapment, vulnerability, and desperation. Humbert does not constantly try to justify his actions, although I can certainly see why this might be assumed on a superficial level. As Lizard so wonderfully pointed out, many a time, the abuser himself is racked with guilt and shame over what he’s done. HH is no exception to this. MANY references throughout the book show just how terrible he feels for hurting his ‘nymphet.’ For instance, he speaks of how he hears Lolita crying every night, and perhaps most poignantly of all, he mentions how a grief-stricken Lo turns to him on one occasion:
“…we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.”
Not only is this plain acknowledgement of her vulnerability and dependence on him, but there’s also the fact that he knows his love is only in his arms because she is trapped, kidnapped, and alone. Tragic.
There are other complexities that I won’t touch, such as how Humbert’s longing for Lolita is similar, and in fact possibly based on Nabokov’s love for lepidoptera.
How is this book a mere self-justification of a pedophile’s crime? Even enjoyed on its purest and simplest level, it is an incredible tale of heartache, loneliness, and a superb, witty study of post-war culture changes in the United States. I urge you to read it again, bearing all this in mind.
P.S. I suppose I ought to clarify that this isn’t intended to be an attack of any kind directed at the posters here. Lolita is my favourite book, too; and I can’t help but take it as a personal affront when someone appears to ‘misunderstand’ it. :o Even, I thoroughly agree with your summary of what makes Lolita appealing. Carlotta, I hope I didn’t appear too condescending. I’m delighted that you’re interested in why people hold the book in such regard, and that you haven’t entirely dismissed it as a ‘smutty’ novel. Hope I didn’t tread on any toes with my first post. 
Hmm, so that would make Charlotte Haze equate to Britain and Clare Quilty…America?
Oh, and acicadasings I don’t remember reading a more careful or worthwhile first post. Welcome aboard the board.
I think most people miss the point that Humbert is European, and Lolita is American. In my opinion the descriptions of Lolita in the book seem to be describing american culture rather than just one girl. I think the theory you expressed about language is a big part of it… but it seems to me that if you look at when the book was written it may be a reaction to American culture taking over Europe.
acicadasings, what a wonderful post! I hope it makes carlotta consider rereading it as it’s done me. You make a lot of excellent points, most notably, your emphasis on the range (and inner conflict) of complex emotions felt by the main character, Humbert. Your comparison between HH/Lolita and VN/butterflies is also spot on. Look forward to hearing more from you. Cheers.
Historical aside: Adolf Eichmann was given a copy of Lolita to read to pass the time while on trial in Jerusalem. He refused to finish it and gave it back, calling it “a most unwholesome book”.
I don’t think that’s what he meant at all. In fact, Nabokov wrote the short story that was the basis for Lolita years before he began writing in English. It’d be funny if that question was brought to Nabokov in an interview while he was alive; he was infamously arrogant and loved to tear about invalid viewpoints of his novels (which lead to him writing Pale Fire to show that literary criticism is often crap.
UnuMondo
I got to read the book from a fairly interesting viewpoint- as a twelve year old girl. While I could appreciate the flow of Nabakov’s prose, I could also sympathize with the character of Lolita and saw her as being somewhat less willing than her suitor believed.
Umm, Unumundo, Nabokov himself once called Lolita his “love affair with the English language.” I’m sorry, I don’t have a cite for that, but it’s in a book found at my local library edited by Harold Bloom. I’m sure it’s not that difficult to find if you mistrust me.
While the Master himself (sorry, Cecil) may have said that, I don’t necessarily hold with Cervaise’s contention that the whole thing is a metaphor for Nabokov’s abandonment of his native tongue, though I think that it is a part of the literary sprawl that is Lolita.
On thing I’d like to mention, though, is that while the novel’s plot centers on the story of a pedophile, the novel is not a salacious tale of girly-grabbing. Humbert himself takes a sick kind of pride in the fact that his tale never devolves into pornography, telling us that he shan’t use any so-called “dirty” words. In fact, that’s one of the things I love about this book. The words themselves wouldn’t offend the people at the Jack Chick Lovers Club from Bob Jones University, but if you put 'em together… Well, you know the story.