It’s his own word. And I think it’s possible to get a sense of the kind of girl he is talking about, or at least how he sees them. What you’re saying about Ginny McCoo is interesting, and maybe he would have tried to rationalize a relationship there, but he does have a type and he doesn’t like some of her friends- partly because they’re a threat, of course. I don’t remember what Ginny is like when she shows up, but the description that she is lame and mean comes from Lolita, so I didn’t really take it at face value.
He definitely has a type, but it just seems so vague. He says that being a nymphet isn’t about being just a pretty young girl, but it’s this other quality about it–and that they bewitch much, much older men. And the average person can’t tell a nymphet from an ordinary girl. And I think he (and Charlotte Haze) both point out that objectively Lolita isn’t all that gorgeous, even though he’s attracted to her. It makes me think that really, can’t any girl who’s long limbed, undeveloped, with chestnut hair fall in for a nymphet? HH would probably say that there’s much more to it, but from my POV, it just seems that he’s trying to cover it up with so much lavish prose so that we don’t see through to the fact that it’s just so much rationalization .
I also remember reading the book the first time through and being really entranced by ooh, the idea of a nymphet, how pretty and fascinating and risque to say such a thing, too. And now it just seems like it’s kind of a pathetic attempt to make pedophilia seem like this thing that the average, boring person doesn’t understand. You don’t want to be boring and bourgeois do you? Accept nymphets! When really all it seems to be is that he stagnated at age twelve and now finds certain girls in that age range of about 8 to maybe 12 or 13 very arousing.
Especially impressive considering that English was not his native language (I think it was like his 3rd or 4th).
I find it ironic that a lolita means an underage seductress, when in the book she was clearly a victim. Nabokov made a pedophile sympathetic because he is such an awesome writer.
I’ve only seen the beginning of the Kubrick film, but I believe he captured the humor of the film at least.
But that’s just it. I don’t think it is. He talks about how soon she’s going to start developing so time is of the essence, in terms of marrying the mother and spending as much time with her as possible.
And as a person, he has contempt for her. Her movie magazines, her cute version of the opera Carmen, her taste for burgers and malts, her inability to appreciate great lit. I mean, she’s twelve, of course she’s not going to be able to relate to him on his level. But as a person, he sees her as rather commonplace and dull. And we do, too, too. At least, I did–I remember reading it and thinking how awful this girl was and not feeling all that bad. I hate to admit it, but part of me was thinking, well, he wasn’t seducing some truly innocent twelve year old, and then I hated that I felt that way because of course he wants us to see her like that. As someone not worthy of feeling sorry for, as less than a real victim. He being not Nabakov, but Humbert.
And she wasn’t even the only one who bewitched him. He talks about seeing nymphets in many situations. She was the only one he was ever allowed direct access to for so long, so he “fell in love.”
Again, I do think this is missing the point. He waxes poetic about her undeveloped body and in comparison, describes the bodies of most mature women as being lacking. The way he describes his first wife, as rather short waisted and so on, or Charlotte Haze–they’re probably normal looking women, but from how Humbert describes them, you almost find yourself thinking, “Of course he loves nymphets, they ARE beautiful–adult women are so dull and heavy.” At least, that’s how I felt. Like a nymphet is a breath of fresh air in a commonplace world. But again, it’s entirely self-serving of HH to write it that way.
He grew up with English, French, and Russian spoken in his family. According to this he learned to read and write English before Russian. So, whether it was native or not, with the way kids are with language, it sounds to me like he had native or near-native fluency from a young age and grew up with English and French alongside Russian.
I am so happy to find other people who like the book Lolita and can appreciate it for what it was and not give me funny looks. It is one of my favorite books. The writing is indeed very beautiful and as the OP noted, it just keeps on giving on rereads, and you learn what a black humor it is and how unreliable Humbert is. It is immensely funny and moving at the same time.
I also saw the Irons movie. I actually liked it, except for Frank Langella’s bouncing nutsack, which has always traumatized me.
Yeah, Marley and FS, you are right. I’d somehow forgotten about the elements in the book that you mentioned. It’s been a long time since I read it.
In the book, Humbert clearly and explicitly states that he is only attracted to girls between the ages of 9-14. He is specifically attracted to girls who have just started puberty, and waxes poetically about it for pages at a time. He is not attracted to adult women at all.
Yeah, you’re right. I screwed the pooch. Apologies to all.
Clearly I need to reread the book. I was in my my early teens at the time I read it so perhaps being attracted to prepubescent or adolescent girls just didn’t strike me as being particularly noteworthy at the time and so I haven’t carried it with me as time has gone by.
A lot of it is in his own head, for sure. I thought he had a thing for slightly tanned skin and for a kind of coarse demeanor, but that may just be what she’s like.
Probably, yes. He’s desperate to be understood.
Yes. And drom a sexual standpoint he stagnated at about 12, I agree completely. He’s an adult in terms of his manipulative qualities.
Spoke three languages growing up at home, apparently. (Somehow I had the impression he only started speaking English as an adult, which would have been even worse.) In the edition of Lolita that I have, he apologizes for his English as compared to his Russian. It really makes you want to punch him in the face.
I was reading a few Salon.com articles on Lolita, and I got the sense that a lot of people do see it, not necessarily as a great love story, but not quite as a tale of exploitation.
This review of the Jeremy Irons film, for example:
I get the sense that these authors seem to think that it’s somehow bourgeois or too moral or prudish to see it as child abuse. I don’t think Lolita is JUST a book about child abuse, but I don’t see what’s so horrible about viewing it through that lens.
I also read this one, a review of the memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran:
I may be totally off base, but I just get a sense from this writer of, “Oh, god, not another moral reading.” Like it’s too safe to see the sexual abuse part. Though the reviewer also comes across as kind of snotty–I don’t see why Nafisi’s interpretation isn’t just as valid, even if it’s not what Nabakov himself exactly intended.
ETA: I also came across a challenge to authors to redraw the cover of Lolita, and quite a few of those depicted a very developed girl on the cover, or a cute girl sucking a lollipop or candy. It makes you wonder who actually has read the book.
“Nymphet” is a delusional construct he uses to justify his attractions. Any girl he’s attracted to is consciously trying to seduce him. He even insinuates that they are demonically possessed. Essentially it’s a way for him to deny their childhood and their innocence. They know what they’re doing. They’re not victims. He’s not the pusuer, they are.
The disconnect between his elaborately constructed, self-serving fantasies about what the girls are, and the constantly intruding realities of how they actually speak and act is a major theme of the book. Nabakov lets us know that Lolita is a child and a victim, even if Humbert doesn’t know it.
Yeah, that review is completely off base, and the writer has no understanding of either the novel or of Nabakov. Nabakov unequivocally stated in interviews that Humbert is an evil and despicable character. he is not supposed to be sympathetic. He is a person so engrossed in fantasy and delusion that he can’t see what he he’s actually doing to his victim. It absolutely IS a novel about child abuse. Hell, even Humbert comes to some realization of that at the end of the book.
Anyone who doesn’t get that, or who thinks Humbert’s narration should be taken at face value is being whooshed. Thematically, the novel is, more than anything, a satirization of self-pity (as well as, to some extent, urbanity, and the power of pretty language to be persuasive).
You may be onto something there. Ultimately I guess these authors sense that it’s very limiting to consider this book (any good book ) to be about only one thing, and that a lot of people cannot get past the child abuse element. I sympathize with that, but there’s no need to defend Humbert or soften what he does.
It’s more PC than moral, but yes, I can see some of that too. What Nafisi says about Humbert destroying Lolita by turning her into a reincarnated Annabel Leigh - that’s true. He does that. Of course he also makes her immortal by writing the book. Nabokov didn’t write the novel to make a point about individual identity but there is a lot of material about identity in the text, so as long as Nafisi understands she is interpreting the text rather than discovering the author’s intentions, I think that’s fine.
The poster for Kubrick’s movie had Sue Lyon sucking on a lollipop. They’re probably riffing off that, or just lazily copying it. Anyway I would like to see the results.
Sorry- which do you mean?
The review of Reading Lolita in Tehran.
I haven’t read Nafisi’s book yet myself, but I picked up a copy today, so I’ll see how it goes.
One other thing that came to mind for me, with Lolita, was that in the film, everyone calls her Lolita. In the book, her real names is Dolores (on the dotted line, as it were), and her mother refers to her as Lo, and she’s sometimes called Dolly. But Humbert is the one who calls her Lolita. For me it felt jarring to hear everyone using this word. To me, the fact that it’s HH’s word for her summed up a lot–it’s only in his head that she’s this sexual, precocious nymphet. That’s his invention, his projection.
What I disliked about Kubrick’s film was that Lolita seemed as though she was meant to be a sexually alluring object to everyone. Everyone calls her Lolita, everyone can see that she’s developed and attractive. In the book, it’s Humbert’s sordid little fantasy.
I mean, the movie can be interpreted as Humbert’s perverted take on things, too, but it’s much harder to do so. I think it’s easy to see the movie and come away with the all too common perception of a “Lolita” type as being the type of girl who’s a sexy little vixen in a young teen’s body who leads poor horny men astray.
I don’t think that impression comes from the movies- I think it’s just from people who’ve heard of the book and not read it.
In addition to the “unreliable narrator” aspect that’s been covered several times in the thread, keep in mind, Humbert dies alone a psychiatric prison, just a short while before his trial is to start. And this isn’t something we learn about him at the end of the book, after we’ve gotten to know him… we learn this in the very first paragraph of the Foreward. Nabokov tells us right off the bat that this isn’t a character to be liked or admired, nor do his actions go unpunished. I have to say, if someone calls this book a “pitiful excuse” for Humbert’s behavior, I do have to wonder if they read closely enough.
Then whatever you do, don’t read the wonderful annotated version! It’ll prolong your reading by years!
I have that edition. You need at least two bookmarks for that one. 