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 agree with you Daniel. There’s a certain amount of recklessness required for good art. If you blow it with a character, there’s far more to talk about and learn from than if you had never written it to begin with.
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.
I understand that. I get a lot out of untouchable subjects. It’s probably why I’m drawn to horror, though I can’t say I recommend my approach or reading habits to other people. I like working my way through difficult subjects. Which can also make me a wet towel to an extent. “I just read this book about the holocaust,” isn’t great conversation material at parties. But I find myself questioning motive and morality and good and evil so much that I’m just as drawn to the dark as I am to the light if that makes sense. In the end, if you don’t get a lot out of it, I don’t know if it’s worth the pain.
Yes. I break up these stories with a lot of nonsense. Because they’re so difficult. For me, it was The Girl Next Door. I haven’t been able to shake that. It’s honestly altered me in some way. I stopped it (audiobook) partway and had an inner discussion. “Do you want to go there? Really?” Finishing it ended up being better than not. I needed the little sliver of redemption in the end. Because it had already wounded me. And then I read Lolita and took that lesson with me. I feel you though. Im not always ready or willing.
Having now read Lolita, I wanted to return to this post. (Thanks Shaina for the insightful article.)
It's an incredible, fascinating read, not just due to Nabokov's language, but also through living through the increasingly self-awareness (in my opinion) of Humber Humbert's condition. I would go so far to say that it is a masterpiece of literature (though that has of course been said of it many times by many others anyway).
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 🙏
Just to let you know that I recently read the book after reading this post.
It is an *incredible* read. Nabokov's command of English is astounding. I've never highlighted passages of a book so much as this one.
It's also a fascinating read in terms of the shift and change that occurs in Humber Humbert. The afterword by Nabokov himself is also well worth reading.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to respond with such a well thought out comment.
Reading is a primary way to grow compassion, but I have to say that Lolita does not provide a compassionate view. If anything, getting inside the mind of Humbert Humbert is more revolting. If you ever do read it I would love to hear what you take away from it in this regard. Maybe I’m missing something because of my own views (admittedly lacking compassion).
It makes pedophilia seem so dangerous, the urges as compulsive as a serial killer, that the only cure would be total isolation from society. Right now we only have prison for that.
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 agree with you Daniel. There’s a certain amount of recklessness required for good art. If you blow it with a character, there’s far more to talk about and learn from than if you had never written it to begin with.
I think you've convinced me to read this. I skimmed a bit of the spoilers, but wow is that prose good.
Hooray! It’s a really, really amazing book!
Had the same effect on me, Nathan.
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.
I understand that. I get a lot out of untouchable subjects. It’s probably why I’m drawn to horror, though I can’t say I recommend my approach or reading habits to other people. I like working my way through difficult subjects. Which can also make me a wet towel to an extent. “I just read this book about the holocaust,” isn’t great conversation material at parties. But I find myself questioning motive and morality and good and evil so much that I’m just as drawn to the dark as I am to the light if that makes sense. In the end, if you don’t get a lot out of it, I don’t know if it’s worth the pain.
i do get a lot out of it, i just don't like what it involves going through to get there
Yes. I break up these stories with a lot of nonsense. Because they’re so difficult. For me, it was The Girl Next Door. I haven’t been able to shake that. It’s honestly altered me in some way. I stopped it (audiobook) partway and had an inner discussion. “Do you want to go there? Really?” Finishing it ended up being better than not. I needed the little sliver of redemption in the end. Because it had already wounded me. And then I read Lolita and took that lesson with me. I feel you though. Im not always ready or willing.
🫣 Thanks for your insights, Shaina.
Hi Terry,
Having now read Lolita, I wanted to return to this post. (Thanks Shaina for the insightful article.)
It's an incredible, fascinating read, not just due to Nabokov's language, but also through living through the increasingly self-awareness (in my opinion) of Humber Humbert's condition. I would go so far to say that it is a masterpiece of literature (though that has of course been said of it many times by many others anyway).
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 🙏
Hey Winston,
Just to let you know that I recently read the book after reading this post.
It is an *incredible* read. Nabokov's command of English is astounding. I've never highlighted passages of a book so much as this one.
It's also a fascinating read in terms of the shift and change that occurs in Humber Humbert. The afterword by Nabokov himself is also well worth reading.
Thank you for the follow up, Nathan! That is very compelling indeed.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to respond with such a well thought out comment.
Reading is a primary way to grow compassion, but I have to say that Lolita does not provide a compassionate view. If anything, getting inside the mind of Humbert Humbert is more revolting. If you ever do read it I would love to hear what you take away from it in this regard. Maybe I’m missing something because of my own views (admittedly lacking compassion).
It makes pedophilia seem so dangerous, the urges as compulsive as a serial killer, that the only cure would be total isolation from society. Right now we only have prison for that.
Yet I purchased a copy at a church festival book fair. Go figure.
Really!?