No plot
summary needed because I think most people are well acquainted with this
particular story. I read this book as my choice for the “Banned or Censored
Classic” for the 2016 Back to the Classics Challenge hosted by Karen at
the blog Books and Chocolate. This book was banned in the UK
and in France, in the late 1950s although it was eventually
published in both countries. I can’t find any Internet evidence, however, that
it was banned in the U.S. at all which really surprised me, given that Forever
Amber was banned less than 10 years earlier and having read both, I would
say that Lolita is more explicit and much, much more disturbing.
I read Reading
Lolita in Teheran a few years ago. Probably mostly because the title
alludes to it, but I specifically recall Azar Nafisi’s
deconstruction of this novel. In particular she elucidated on how
Humbert Humbert not only physically imprisons Delores, but how he denies her
her own existence outside of himself figuratively and metaphorically as well.
This is something I thought a lot about as I read Lolita.
I know
that Nabokov is revered for his writing but I wasn’t really able to appreciate
it as such. I realize there is a lot that I missed; references to other works,
etc. But even if I could unequivocally state that this was the best written
novel ever, it is, in my opinion, a very unpleasant story and no amount of Humbert
Humbert's charm can deflect from that. There are a few books that I
have read where I am sure that I would have appreciated them more when I was
younger, but this is a book that I am glad I read when I was older and somewhat
wiser. I don’t know if I would have been able to see past some of the
roadblocks that Humbert puts up had I been a younger and more naïve reader.
I don’t know
what Nabokov’s intent was when writing this book, but clearly publishers and
the public at large have also been seduced by Humbert Humbert. Just look at the
freaking cover art for most of the editions of it (thankfully mine published by
Everyman’s Library only has a photo of the author); why is Delores objectified
again and again? Why do we use the term culturally “Lolita” to mean a
“nymphette” as defined by Humbert? These facts are as disturbing as the book
itself.
I'm looking forward to eventually getting to Reading Lolita in Teheran. It's been in the queue for quite a while now.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't sure what I was getting into with Lolita, but I have to say I really enjoyed it. Unsettling subject matter for sure, but he wrote it in a way that made it palatable for me. I think the fact that he was never really shown as a sympathetic character, or that his views were acceptable, allowed me to read it without being put forced to try and ignore my own feelings in view of his. If that makes any sense.
Thanks for the comment Rob. Reading Lolita in Teheran was a bit hit and miss for me (and spoilery for some of the classic novels discussed in the book!) , but worth reading for sure. I think I enjoyed the literary criticism side of it more than the depiction of her life as a woman under a conservative, religious regime.
DeleteI agree that Nabokov does not condone Humbert’s actions. However, Humbert’s POV is the only one the reader gets and there is a lot of subtlety that I probably would have missed as a younger, less informed reader.
This is one of those books that I have managed to avoid reading and really don't want to get lulled into thinking that I should. I like to read classics and books that I consider to have had an impact on either society or writing in general, but I know it would bother me so much that I would be in a funk while I was reading it and a long time afterwards.
ReplyDelete>clearly publishers and the public at large have also been seduced by Humbert Humbert.
I think you are right--I think that people read it because to do so has a panache of sophistication.
Good review, though. You've just reaffirmed why I don't want to bother with it :)
BTW, I enjoyed reading the chapter on Lolita in Reading Lolita in Tehran, and I felt that reading about it was better, for me anyway, than actually reading it!
DeleteI'm also one who has loved Reading Lolita in Tehran, and who doesn't think could read Lolita. But, curious about Nabokov, I read his Invitation to a Beheading. Though I liked that book, -it's intriguing, language is somewhat of it's own character in the book too, I don't think I like Nabokov as much as Nafisi's talk about Nabokov and his books, concepts, ideas, in the context of her life in Tehran.
ReplyDeleteI only know of a well read young man, father and husband, a christian young man, who has read this book and commented to me that he finds a lot of humor in it. I'm not questioning his integrity, nor diminishing his comment, I simply think that there must be some who can read this book and go pass those roadblocks you talk about. I haven't read it, but it may be the case that he unleashes a fantasy that's totally wrong, and possibly he also constructs a prototype too, Lolita, who unfortunately exists, and this couple of co-dependent people usually come in pairs, though I'm not justifying Humbert's actions in the least.
... I meant ITS OWN, not IT'S OWN
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment Silvia. I agree, there are readers who can appreciate the writing and the story telling in Lolita and not be as affected by the content, I mean Azar Nafisi is one such person! I definitely want to try more Nabokov in future, in particular I want to try Pale Fire.
Delete