You homed in on the crux of the issue with your very incisive exposition and analysis of the book in the second half of the post. The bit about writers today living in fear of exploring such themes and incorporating such characters in their work is key. That literary license is what makes fiction so powerful, because those challenging ideas expressed in a novel tear away the curtains of civility and social “normalcy” and ask questions we’re not allowed to ask in smart company for fear of being labeled mad or dangerous. I would argue that there’s much more to learn from an author’s potential “misrepresention” of a person or group than there is from preventing the author from ever running the risk of causing offense.
I don't know about mirrors, I just don't like reading stuff that makes me feel uncomfortable, or that I have to steel myself to read. It's annoying, frankly. I've started Uncle Tom's Cabin three times, and Beloved once. I wanted to see the film, or read the book, 12 years a slave, but couldn't bring myself to do so. I am trying to adopt a similar attitude to that stated by Toni Morrison: If they could live it then I can write about it.
Great review, and I love the way you've used the vehicle of the review to pose larger/wider questions.
Appreciate all these thoughts and words on this masterpiece, Shaina. I'm really glad that you linked to this and after having read the start of your article I went off and read Lolita.
At the end of my copy on Kindle, there's a long breakdown by Craig Raine, wherein he states (amongst much analysis):
"We must resist Humbert's reversion to stereotype. He is not an unreliable narrator and his distortions, when they occur, are acknowledged. ... [The protagonists of Nabokov's other books] are reliable reliable. They get nothing right. Humbert, on the other hand, is a paragon of exactitude, a miracle of meticulousness, who misses nothing ... his own duality, compounded of adoration and disgust, fused into one genuine whole, before the final separation."
For me, as I reached the final third, I too began to not think of him as unreliable, but that he had been recounting his madness and affliction and that eventual transition to regret yet still with his undying love for Dolly.
Great review, Shaina! I haven't read the book and it's not really on my list even though it's been recommended. The language seems beautiful though. Knowing more about it will make it more accessible in the future. Thank you 🙏
I'm not sure I'll ever read the book---I'm not a reader who is too enamoured with the language of writing, I'm an 'ideas guy'. But I thought you missed a very good reason to teach Lolita. When I hear people talking about pedophilia I rarely see anyone put their feet into the shoes of a pedophile. What does it mean to our understanding of what it means to be a human being for there to be some of us who are so obsessed with sexual attraction to children that they are willing to run the huge penalties that society inflicts on those who act on these instincts? It's hard to see someone as a monster if they are a victim of some sort of accident of genetics and/or social conditioning.
It's the same sort of thing with regard to women who get accused of dressing 'provocatively' when they get raped. Women do dress provocatively---all the time. And men (or at least I was until I hit middle age) are obsessed with hormonal drives that sometimes are extremely hard to keep under control. Puritans of both left and the right, religious and atheist, have a very hard time admitting the existence of these hormonal drives because they play havoc with the assumptions of their pet ideologies.
Dressing provocatively doesn't justify rape. And neither do the hormonal sex-drives that make many people miserable in polite society. (I'm not even sure that rape is caused by the sex-drive. I'm not an expert and many people who are suggest it's an artifact of the drive for dominance---which is something else. Humans are complex as fuck.)
I don't want pedophiles abusing children. But I don't support the rampant emotion-laden hatred aimed at them by far too many people. I believe that they shouldn't be punished. Instead, if possible I want them treated, and if not, isolated from people they could harm. Beyond that, I see them as deformed, damaged individuals like anyone else with some form of disability.
From your review, I'd suggest that teaching _Lolita_ might useful as a means of getting students to get beyond their revulsion and stretch their understanding of the human experience as a precursor to developing an expanded sense of compassion.
You homed in on the crux of the issue with your very incisive exposition and analysis of the book in the second half of the post. The bit about writers today living in fear of exploring such themes and incorporating such characters in their work is key. That literary license is what makes fiction so powerful, because those challenging ideas expressed in a novel tear away the curtains of civility and social “normalcy” and ask questions we’re not allowed to ask in smart company for fear of being labeled mad or dangerous. I would argue that there’s much more to learn from an author’s potential “misrepresention” of a person or group than there is from preventing the author from ever running the risk of causing offense.
I think you've convinced me to read this. I skimmed a bit of the spoilers, but wow is that prose good.
I don't know about mirrors, I just don't like reading stuff that makes me feel uncomfortable, or that I have to steel myself to read. It's annoying, frankly. I've started Uncle Tom's Cabin three times, and Beloved once. I wanted to see the film, or read the book, 12 years a slave, but couldn't bring myself to do so. I am trying to adopt a similar attitude to that stated by Toni Morrison: If they could live it then I can write about it.
Great review, and I love the way you've used the vehicle of the review to pose larger/wider questions.
Appreciate all these thoughts and words on this masterpiece, Shaina. I'm really glad that you linked to this and after having read the start of your article I went off and read Lolita.
At the end of my copy on Kindle, there's a long breakdown by Craig Raine, wherein he states (amongst much analysis):
"We must resist Humbert's reversion to stereotype. He is not an unreliable narrator and his distortions, when they occur, are acknowledged. ... [The protagonists of Nabokov's other books] are reliable reliable. They get nothing right. Humbert, on the other hand, is a paragon of exactitude, a miracle of meticulousness, who misses nothing ... his own duality, compounded of adoration and disgust, fused into one genuine whole, before the final separation."
For me, as I reached the final third, I too began to not think of him as unreliable, but that he had been recounting his madness and affliction and that eventual transition to regret yet still with his undying love for Dolly.
Great review, Shaina! I haven't read the book and it's not really on my list even though it's been recommended. The language seems beautiful though. Knowing more about it will make it more accessible in the future. Thank you 🙏
I'm not sure I'll ever read the book---I'm not a reader who is too enamoured with the language of writing, I'm an 'ideas guy'. But I thought you missed a very good reason to teach Lolita. When I hear people talking about pedophilia I rarely see anyone put their feet into the shoes of a pedophile. What does it mean to our understanding of what it means to be a human being for there to be some of us who are so obsessed with sexual attraction to children that they are willing to run the huge penalties that society inflicts on those who act on these instincts? It's hard to see someone as a monster if they are a victim of some sort of accident of genetics and/or social conditioning.
It's the same sort of thing with regard to women who get accused of dressing 'provocatively' when they get raped. Women do dress provocatively---all the time. And men (or at least I was until I hit middle age) are obsessed with hormonal drives that sometimes are extremely hard to keep under control. Puritans of both left and the right, religious and atheist, have a very hard time admitting the existence of these hormonal drives because they play havoc with the assumptions of their pet ideologies.
Dressing provocatively doesn't justify rape. And neither do the hormonal sex-drives that make many people miserable in polite society. (I'm not even sure that rape is caused by the sex-drive. I'm not an expert and many people who are suggest it's an artifact of the drive for dominance---which is something else. Humans are complex as fuck.)
I don't want pedophiles abusing children. But I don't support the rampant emotion-laden hatred aimed at them by far too many people. I believe that they shouldn't be punished. Instead, if possible I want them treated, and if not, isolated from people they could harm. Beyond that, I see them as deformed, damaged individuals like anyone else with some form of disability.
From your review, I'd suggest that teaching _Lolita_ might useful as a means of getting students to get beyond their revulsion and stretch their understanding of the human experience as a precursor to developing an expanded sense of compassion.
Yet I purchased a copy at a church festival book fair. Go figure.