“Words without experience are meaningless.”
December 16, 2015 4:29 AM Subscribe
Lolita Turns Sixty by Lolita Book Club [New Republic] Ten writers reconsider Nabokov’s novel, page by page.
Previously.
Though Vladimir Nabokov was living in America when he wrote Lolita, the novel was first published in Paris in 1955—by Olympia Press, whose list included many pornographic titles. On the sixtieth anniversary of Lolita’s first publication, we asked ten writers to reflect on their changing experiences with the novel in the course of their reading lives. Each day for five days, we are posting two reflections, each revisiting a section of pages from the book—we are using Vintage’s 2005 edition, a complete, unexpurgated text.
1. Alexandra Kleeman pp. 3-32The New Republic‘s original review of ‘Lolita’ from 1957.
2. Josephine Livingstone pp. 33-62
3. Doreen St. Felix pp. 62-93
4. Anna Wiener pp. 93-123
5. Moira Weigel pp. 123-154
6. Hannah Gold pp. 154-183
7. Hannah Rosefield
8. Gemma Sieff
9. Moira Donegan
10. Lidija Haas
Previously.
I haven't read Lolita in probably ten years. The first time I read it I liked it well enough but it didn't make a huge impression. Then I reread it a few years later and fell in love with the language and his control of the story. There is a lot to the book, and I should reread it again soon.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:34 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 5:34 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
So she's only 3 years younger than me. That makes me feel less creepy.
And speaking of creepy, I listened to Lolita on tape, read by Jeremy Irons. I think he was perfect.
posted by MtDewd at 5:36 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
And speaking of creepy, I listened to Lolita on tape, read by Jeremy Irons. I think he was perfect.
posted by MtDewd at 5:36 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I had the luck of reading Lolita in college in class with prof. Alfred Appel Jr., the editor of The Annotated Lolita. His knowledge of the book was amazing. He could quote it and cite page numbers from memory. Somewhere in it there's a mention of a magazine ad of a man in a bathrobe holding a breakfast tray and Humbert suggests he resembles that man - Appel found the exact ad.
My memory is a little hazy on this, but I swear he told us this story in class. Appel was in the military and had a copy of the original Lolita, in the Olympia Press edition. Olympia books all had a distinctive cover design, and were known to be mostly porn books. One of his platoon-mates, seeing the book, grabbed it, opened it, read the first paragraph, then tossed it aside in disgust exclaiming "aw shit, this ain't porn, it's goddamn lit-ratchur!"
posted by dnash at 5:50 AM on December 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
My memory is a little hazy on this, but I swear he told us this story in class. Appel was in the military and had a copy of the original Lolita, in the Olympia Press edition. Olympia books all had a distinctive cover design, and were known to be mostly porn books. One of his platoon-mates, seeing the book, grabbed it, opened it, read the first paragraph, then tossed it aside in disgust exclaiming "aw shit, this ain't porn, it's goddamn lit-ratchur!"
posted by dnash at 5:50 AM on December 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
I haven't thought much about Lolita, but I remember that I read it either right before or right after I read The Crying of Lot 49. It's clear that the latter is in many ways a meditation on the former, which is something I don't hear discussed a lot.
posted by OmieWise at 6:18 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 6:18 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
A novel that a few people suggest brought to the public attention the idea and significance of child molestation.
posted by Postroad at 6:23 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Postroad at 6:23 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think Lolita is probably the book with whom my relationship has changed the most over time; when I first read it (sometime around high school so not, like, Delores' age but still quite young) I thought it was kind of interesting and I, unfortunately, had a lot more interest in and sympathy for Humbert than for Delores, I think largely because of a lot of internalized patriarchy. I'd inadvertently accepted the idea that if older men wanted to do something that was okay and their wants were more important than other people's needs. I would have pushed back if anyone had said this explicitly, but it's how I felt as a young woman.
I read the book again in college and I was much more interested in the language; once again, I was seduced by Humbert into thinking that he wasn't so bad or that he deserved to get what he wanted because he was -- what? Male? Older? Educated? Privileged? I I didn't romanticize him or the relationship to the extent I had when I was younger but I still bought into his self-conception and the narrative idea that this was justifiable because, basically, he really, really wanted it and he used language and erudition to dazzle me into overlooking his flaws. Yeah, I thought he was bad, but he also convinced me he deserved special consideration. My father's book group read Lolita around the same time and I asked him about it and he said he didn't like it basically because he couldn't get over the central conceit and thought Humbert was just too awful. I talked to him about the difference between Humbert and Nabokov (Nabokov has empathy, Humbert doesn't) and how, you know, Art and Literature and but wasn't the writing beautiful and blah blah blah and at the time I really thought that I was reading the book in a "better" way than my dad and seeing something he didn't see but now that I'm older I think he was seeing something I didn't see.
I read the book a year or so ago, so when I was about thirty, and for the first time I was revolted. Yeah, the language was impressive, but for the first time, as an actual adult with more confidence and a greater understanding of the pressures I had felt as a young woman (who had some relationships with older men in positions of authority), I read Lolita and just thought "stop stop stop you creepy fucking asshole stop". His charm made Humbert worse, not better. His unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions was just so gross. What a horrible man he is! For the first time, I felt like I was actually seeing him properly, as a horrible, solipsistic man who used a facility with language to try to cover up the fact that he was not a complete human being. Realizing that I saw through his superficial charm to the horrible, manipulative man he actually is was a big deal for me, but I also realized that, while he was no longer able to seduce me, as a functional adult woman I also held absolutely zero interest for him. Like, other than as a person able to produce future children for him to seduce, I might as well not exist. To him I lack value as a colleague, or a friend, or a partner, or a human being. It was an unbelievably frustrating feeling, like even though I hate this man and don't want his approval I would never, ever be able to convince him that I had any value at all. The man is sickening and I can earn, at best, his contempt.
Thinking about the way my reading of Lolita changed as I got older also made me think a lot about how my view of myself, and my body, and my thoughts about what society expected of me, have changed over the years. I feel like I see a lot of these things more clearly now, but also like I'm assigned less value since I'm over thirty instead of barely eighteen. I also wonder if there's an extent to which what is valued is not just an eighteen-year-old's body but also her naivete and if the reason I'm seen as less valuable is not only because I'm less attractive but especially because I'm less easy to trick. I think Humbert and my initial reaction to him reflect a lot more of our actual society than I wish were true (especially the entitlement of privileged white men and how other people are taught to defer to them) and I'm glad that I'm at a point in my life where I can see that more clearly and where I'm not seduced or charmed by white men telling me they deserve whatever they want because they're the only ones who count. I also wonder how I'll feel when I read the book when I'm fifty.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:30 AM on December 16, 2015 [61 favorites]
I read the book again in college and I was much more interested in the language; once again, I was seduced by Humbert into thinking that he wasn't so bad or that he deserved to get what he wanted because he was -- what? Male? Older? Educated? Privileged? I I didn't romanticize him or the relationship to the extent I had when I was younger but I still bought into his self-conception and the narrative idea that this was justifiable because, basically, he really, really wanted it and he used language and erudition to dazzle me into overlooking his flaws. Yeah, I thought he was bad, but he also convinced me he deserved special consideration. My father's book group read Lolita around the same time and I asked him about it and he said he didn't like it basically because he couldn't get over the central conceit and thought Humbert was just too awful. I talked to him about the difference between Humbert and Nabokov (Nabokov has empathy, Humbert doesn't) and how, you know, Art and Literature and but wasn't the writing beautiful and blah blah blah and at the time I really thought that I was reading the book in a "better" way than my dad and seeing something he didn't see but now that I'm older I think he was seeing something I didn't see.
I read the book a year or so ago, so when I was about thirty, and for the first time I was revolted. Yeah, the language was impressive, but for the first time, as an actual adult with more confidence and a greater understanding of the pressures I had felt as a young woman (who had some relationships with older men in positions of authority), I read Lolita and just thought "stop stop stop you creepy fucking asshole stop". His charm made Humbert worse, not better. His unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions was just so gross. What a horrible man he is! For the first time, I felt like I was actually seeing him properly, as a horrible, solipsistic man who used a facility with language to try to cover up the fact that he was not a complete human being. Realizing that I saw through his superficial charm to the horrible, manipulative man he actually is was a big deal for me, but I also realized that, while he was no longer able to seduce me, as a functional adult woman I also held absolutely zero interest for him. Like, other than as a person able to produce future children for him to seduce, I might as well not exist. To him I lack value as a colleague, or a friend, or a partner, or a human being. It was an unbelievably frustrating feeling, like even though I hate this man and don't want his approval I would never, ever be able to convince him that I had any value at all. The man is sickening and I can earn, at best, his contempt.
Thinking about the way my reading of Lolita changed as I got older also made me think a lot about how my view of myself, and my body, and my thoughts about what society expected of me, have changed over the years. I feel like I see a lot of these things more clearly now, but also like I'm assigned less value since I'm over thirty instead of barely eighteen. I also wonder if there's an extent to which what is valued is not just an eighteen-year-old's body but also her naivete and if the reason I'm seen as less valuable is not only because I'm less attractive but especially because I'm less easy to trick. I think Humbert and my initial reaction to him reflect a lot more of our actual society than I wish were true (especially the entitlement of privileged white men and how other people are taught to defer to them) and I'm glad that I'm at a point in my life where I can see that more clearly and where I'm not seduced or charmed by white men telling me they deserve whatever they want because they're the only ones who count. I also wonder how I'll feel when I read the book when I'm fifty.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:30 AM on December 16, 2015 [61 favorites]
That's a interesting experience Mrs. Pterodactyl. Thanks for sharing.
I've read Lolita three times now, once at age 17, again at 23, and most recently at age 30. I'm currently 34 and with each reading, I walk away with a new interpretation or discovery. I know that it wasn't until the third reading of Lolita that I noticed how grubby and dirty Lolita is, simple things such as the way Nabokov describes her. I was so focused in earlier readings on the relationship itself that I missed the way that these characters occupy the physical space they are set within. It's definitely an interesting reading experience.
I think this novel is too seductive at times and many readers are often tricked into interpreting the story in a way that is prepackaged/marketed. It is a novel that almost requires multiple reads. Humbert is not a reliable narrator, but he is deceptively charming in his own manic way. It's disturbing to even write about him in this way but that is how he comes across to me. Whenever I talk a bout this novel with someone who has not read it, I describe it as a horror novel.
Sidenote: Mrs. Pterodactyl, are you familiar with Tampa by Alissa Nutting?
posted by Fizz at 6:58 AM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've read Lolita three times now, once at age 17, again at 23, and most recently at age 30. I'm currently 34 and with each reading, I walk away with a new interpretation or discovery. I know that it wasn't until the third reading of Lolita that I noticed how grubby and dirty Lolita is, simple things such as the way Nabokov describes her. I was so focused in earlier readings on the relationship itself that I missed the way that these characters occupy the physical space they are set within. It's definitely an interesting reading experience.
I think this novel is too seductive at times and many readers are often tricked into interpreting the story in a way that is prepackaged/marketed. It is a novel that almost requires multiple reads. Humbert is not a reliable narrator, but he is deceptively charming in his own manic way. It's disturbing to even write about him in this way but that is how he comes across to me. Whenever I talk a bout this novel with someone who has not read it, I describe it as a horror novel.
Sidenote: Mrs. Pterodactyl, are you familiar with Tampa by Alissa Nutting?
Celeste Price, a smoldering 26-year-old middle-school teacher in Florida, unrepentantly recounts her elaborate and sociopathically determined seduction of a 14-year-old student. Celeste has chosen and lured the charmingly modest Jack Patrick into her web. Jack is enthralled and in awe of his eighth-grade teacher, and, most importantly, willing to accept Celeste’s terms for a secret relationship—car rides after dark, rendezvous at Jack’s house while his single father works the late shift, and body-slamming erotic encounters in Celeste’s empty classroom. In slaking her sexual thirst, Celeste Price is remorseless and deviously free of hesitation, a monstress of pure motivation. She deceives everyone, is close to no one, and cares little for anything but her pleasure.It's a bit of a reversal and there are many allusions and parallels to this story and Lolita.
posted by Fizz at 6:58 AM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mrs. Pterodactyl, that's a great comment. If you don't mind me asking, have your views of Nabokov changed over time, as well? Do you question his motives more as you get older? Or is it more that you feel you're able to see his motives more clearly now than you were when you were younger?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:58 AM on December 16, 2015
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:58 AM on December 16, 2015
Mrs. Pterodactyl, are you familiar with Tampa by Alissa Nutting?
I am not! I am also a former elementary and middle school teacher so student/teacher relationships have an extra level of horror for me, both in that the in loco parentis aspect of teaching is something I took very seriously and any thought of violating that really upsets me and in that, dearly as I loved my kids, middle schoolers are kind of the worst so, while that book looks absolutely fascinating, I'm not sure I can bring myself to read it.
Mrs. Pterodactyl, that's a great comment. If you don't mind me asking, have your views of Nabokov changed over time, as well? Do you question his motives more as you get older? Or is it more that you feel you're able to see his motives more clearly now than you were when you were younger?
Thank you! This is something I sort of hadn't thought about -- I think when I was younger I was less able to distinguish between the author and the narrator, and then for a while I was just impressed with his literary abilities. I think a) Nabokov's motives b) whether these are justified and c) whether they were achieved are really interesting and complex questions!
I THINK (though obviously I could be wrong) that I now have a decent perspective on what he was doing with Lolita; I think he was trying to demonstrate to us how easily we could be seduced by a charming sociopath who did basically the worst thing imaginable and the real joke/horror is how many people would continue to make excuses for him.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the choice to write the book; I feel very strongly that representation is not automatically commentary and that, even if it IS commentary, that doesn't necessarily outweigh the fact that it's also a representation (like the idea that there's no such thing as an anti-war movie; you can put it out there as commentary but on some level it still reinforces the cultural narrative). I think it was a fascinating choice to write AND, you know, did the world really need a book that's basically just a man trying to justify his child molestation? It may be ironic commentary but that doesn't mean the world's a better place because it exists, even if it is an amazing work of art, right? But on the other hand it is a really impressive book, so...can you justify having written it? Can you justify reading it? The existence of the book raises a bunch of really interesting questions without even having to read it but, again, just because it raises fascinating questions about the role and nature of art doesn't make it right. It's tricky because refusing to read the book on principle potentially makes you prudish but justifying Humbert's behavior sort of makes you reprehensible so is there even an okay way to respond to this book?
Overall I just sort of don't know. I THINK I get what Nabokov was doing by writing it and I think I kind of understand a potential trap he was laying for readers (is it even possible to appreciate this as literature without being a terrible person? Does trying to maintain that sort of critical distance actually MAKE you a terrible person?) but maybe I'm completely wrong! I'd say that's how I interpret the meta-point of the book right now, but I'd be fascinated to hear what other people think.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:35 AM on December 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am not! I am also a former elementary and middle school teacher so student/teacher relationships have an extra level of horror for me, both in that the in loco parentis aspect of teaching is something I took very seriously and any thought of violating that really upsets me and in that, dearly as I loved my kids, middle schoolers are kind of the worst so, while that book looks absolutely fascinating, I'm not sure I can bring myself to read it.
Mrs. Pterodactyl, that's a great comment. If you don't mind me asking, have your views of Nabokov changed over time, as well? Do you question his motives more as you get older? Or is it more that you feel you're able to see his motives more clearly now than you were when you were younger?
Thank you! This is something I sort of hadn't thought about -- I think when I was younger I was less able to distinguish between the author and the narrator, and then for a while I was just impressed with his literary abilities. I think a) Nabokov's motives b) whether these are justified and c) whether they were achieved are really interesting and complex questions!
I THINK (though obviously I could be wrong) that I now have a decent perspective on what he was doing with Lolita; I think he was trying to demonstrate to us how easily we could be seduced by a charming sociopath who did basically the worst thing imaginable and the real joke/horror is how many people would continue to make excuses for him.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the choice to write the book; I feel very strongly that representation is not automatically commentary and that, even if it IS commentary, that doesn't necessarily outweigh the fact that it's also a representation (like the idea that there's no such thing as an anti-war movie; you can put it out there as commentary but on some level it still reinforces the cultural narrative). I think it was a fascinating choice to write AND, you know, did the world really need a book that's basically just a man trying to justify his child molestation? It may be ironic commentary but that doesn't mean the world's a better place because it exists, even if it is an amazing work of art, right? But on the other hand it is a really impressive book, so...can you justify having written it? Can you justify reading it? The existence of the book raises a bunch of really interesting questions without even having to read it but, again, just because it raises fascinating questions about the role and nature of art doesn't make it right. It's tricky because refusing to read the book on principle potentially makes you prudish but justifying Humbert's behavior sort of makes you reprehensible so is there even an okay way to respond to this book?
Overall I just sort of don't know. I THINK I get what Nabokov was doing by writing it and I think I kind of understand a potential trap he was laying for readers (is it even possible to appreciate this as literature without being a terrible person? Does trying to maintain that sort of critical distance actually MAKE you a terrible person?) but maybe I'm completely wrong! I'd say that's how I interpret the meta-point of the book right now, but I'd be fascinated to hear what other people think.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:35 AM on December 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
P.S. Fizz thank you so much for making this post! Basically the only think I like more than reading books is telling people what I think so I am really grateful for this! Seriously, it's really thoughtful and interesting and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss literature with MeFites.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:39 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:39 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Rereading Lolita at age 37 was kinda shocking -- because that's Humbert's age when he met Dolores Haze. I was officially Creepy Older Man age.
It probably helped (?!) that at 37, I could more easily see how much of a creepy scumbag Humbert was, under his narrative charm, than I did at 20. Ugh. Brilliant book, but I'm pretty sure I don't need to read it again.
(That this puts it in the same class as Grave of the Fireflies is giving me no small amount of pause, as I type this.)
posted by Quasirandom at 7:40 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
It probably helped (?!) that at 37, I could more easily see how much of a creepy scumbag Humbert was, under his narrative charm, than I did at 20. Ugh. Brilliant book, but I'm pretty sure I don't need to read it again.
(That this puts it in the same class as Grave of the Fireflies is giving me no small amount of pause, as I type this.)
posted by Quasirandom at 7:40 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Something I think a lot about is how Nabokov's commitment to his narrative project-- to only allowing us to observe and judge from Humbert's point of view-- keeps Dolores voiceless, and what that means for the treatment of the young female victim in literature (Humbert being almost temperamentally incapable of hearing her). I am reading Mary Gaitskill's new novel now; I know Lolita is a major influence on her writing, perhaps the biggest influence, and many of her characters seem like attempts to bring voice to that silenced perspective, not just Dolores herself but all the unheard Lolitas of our culture.
posted by thetortoise at 7:55 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 7:55 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another anecdote I think I remember from Prof. Appel - who knew Nabokov, and also I believe had studied under him at Cornell. Anyway, this says something about Nabokov's writing methods. He was speaking to some other writer, who asked him if he ever had that common writer's experience "where the characters seem to take over and move things in different directions than the writer expected." Nabokov answered "why no, I should think that would be perfectly horrible!"
I think this shows in the meticulousness of his craft. I've only read two Nabokov books but in both I think a huge pleasure of them is noticing how he's doing what he's doing. Like how Humbert's mother dies in a two-word parenthesis. "(picnic, lightning)." Or, another moment that sticks with me, where Humbert writes that he implored Dolores to "come live with me, and die with me, and everything with me (words to that effect.)" - the way the "words to that effect" pulls the rug out from the whole sentence.
Anyway, if you want the Nabokov experience without the creepy child molestation stuff, I highly suggest Pale Fire. Especially if you've ever done much reading of academic writing about literature, because it's kind of a massive skewering of the genre.
posted by dnash at 8:21 AM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
I think this shows in the meticulousness of his craft. I've only read two Nabokov books but in both I think a huge pleasure of them is noticing how he's doing what he's doing. Like how Humbert's mother dies in a two-word parenthesis. "(picnic, lightning)." Or, another moment that sticks with me, where Humbert writes that he implored Dolores to "come live with me, and die with me, and everything with me (words to that effect.)" - the way the "words to that effect" pulls the rug out from the whole sentence.
Anyway, if you want the Nabokov experience without the creepy child molestation stuff, I highly suggest Pale Fire. Especially if you've ever done much reading of academic writing about literature, because it's kind of a massive skewering of the genre.
posted by dnash at 8:21 AM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
When I read Lolita at age 30, I was charmed and delighted by Humbert. Omg the dude made multi-language puns! He had his whole life figured out! I found myself very badly wanting his approval.
Then he started telling Dolores' story, and by the time she had absolutely nowhere else to go, I was a different person, far more likely to suspect the motives of charming, educated, impressive people.
Nabokov's use of language, narrative and point of view is almost without peer. I should read Lolita again soon.
posted by infinitewindow at 8:44 AM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Then he started telling Dolores' story, and by the time she had absolutely nowhere else to go, I was a different person, far more likely to suspect the motives of charming, educated, impressive people.
Nabokov's use of language, narrative and point of view is almost without peer. I should read Lolita again soon.
posted by infinitewindow at 8:44 AM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Agree wholeheartedly dnash about 'Pale Fire'. (I feel as though I know Prof Appel due to doing my dissertation on Nabokov, and spending many an hour in the Mitchell Library in Glasgow reading his stuff. Reading Michael Wood and Appel write about Nabokov- and I used to think that constituted 'work'.)
With regards to whether Nabokov was 'right' morally (few would bother to contest his right 'aesthetically') in the writing of Lolita... I confess to have not read the novel in 10 odd years, and I look forward to rereading it with my current mindset/maturity so the following comments are given to me by a younger me-
I'd argue that Nabokov is very aware of the silencing of Dolores, or Mrs Richard Schilling as she is referred to in the Foreword that mentions she died on Christmas Day, aged 17, giving birth to a stillborn girl. That most readers are seduced by Humbert's narration so much that it normally takes a few reads to click that "Lolita" is indeed Mrs Richard Schilling, that we have allowed ourselves to be spun a story by a liar, our focus on the true tragedy occluded up by this blowhard narcissist.
Whether Nabokov was making a 'moral' point in this (or playing a cold intellectual game to reward close reading) is, as ever with Nabokov, left as an exercise for the reader. My feeling moons ago was that he was on the side of the angels, that he was all too aware of the story he wasn't telling, I'm looking forward to re-reading some point soon.
posted by Gratishades at 9:10 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
With regards to whether Nabokov was 'right' morally (few would bother to contest his right 'aesthetically') in the writing of Lolita... I confess to have not read the novel in 10 odd years, and I look forward to rereading it with my current mindset/maturity so the following comments are given to me by a younger me-
I'd argue that Nabokov is very aware of the silencing of Dolores, or Mrs Richard Schilling as she is referred to in the Foreword that mentions she died on Christmas Day, aged 17, giving birth to a stillborn girl. That most readers are seduced by Humbert's narration so much that it normally takes a few reads to click that "Lolita" is indeed Mrs Richard Schilling, that we have allowed ourselves to be spun a story by a liar, our focus on the true tragedy occluded up by this blowhard narcissist.
Whether Nabokov was making a 'moral' point in this (or playing a cold intellectual game to reward close reading) is, as ever with Nabokov, left as an exercise for the reader. My feeling moons ago was that he was on the side of the angels, that he was all too aware of the story he wasn't telling, I'm looking forward to re-reading some point soon.
posted by Gratishades at 9:10 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
> It is a novel that almost requires multiple reads.
All Nabokov's novels require multiple reads, and (as he himself said) any novel worth reading requires multiple reads. I don't understand how people can read a (good) book once and cross it off their list and say "OK, done that one!" That's not how art works.
> is it even possible to appreciate this as literature without being a terrible person?
I find that a very odd question; the implication seems to be that one should only appreciate literature about nice people doing nice things, which I'm sure you don't believe.
posted by languagehat at 9:14 AM on December 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
All Nabokov's novels require multiple reads, and (as he himself said) any novel worth reading requires multiple reads. I don't understand how people can read a (good) book once and cross it off their list and say "OK, done that one!" That's not how art works.
> is it even possible to appreciate this as literature without being a terrible person?
I find that a very odd question; the implication seems to be that one should only appreciate literature about nice people doing nice things, which I'm sure you don't believe.
posted by languagehat at 9:14 AM on December 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
any novel worth reading requires multiple reads
When I was an elementary school librarian and kids would say "We read that before!" when I pulled out The Very Hungry Caterpillar or whatever, I'd tell them "Vladimir Nabokov says you have to read a book seven times to have read it once" which may or may not be literally true but was close enough for three-year-olds.
I find that a very odd question; the implication seems to be that one should only appreciate literature about nice people doing nice things, which I'm sure you don't believe.
No, of course I don't actually believe that! I enjoy all sorts of books about unpleasantness! But I think this raises a slightly different question because Humbert is using his words to gain our approval. If we do indeed approve of his writing, does that in some way mean we are accepting him? As thetortoise mentions above, the book is really presented just as Humbert's voice; it represents Humbert. If we like IT, do we like HIM? I do think it's possible to enjoy this book without being a terrible person AND I think the book is constructed so that this is a reasonable question to ask in a way that it normally wouldn't be.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:41 AM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
When I was an elementary school librarian and kids would say "We read that before!" when I pulled out The Very Hungry Caterpillar or whatever, I'd tell them "Vladimir Nabokov says you have to read a book seven times to have read it once" which may or may not be literally true but was close enough for three-year-olds.
I find that a very odd question; the implication seems to be that one should only appreciate literature about nice people doing nice things, which I'm sure you don't believe.
No, of course I don't actually believe that! I enjoy all sorts of books about unpleasantness! But I think this raises a slightly different question because Humbert is using his words to gain our approval. If we do indeed approve of his writing, does that in some way mean we are accepting him? As thetortoise mentions above, the book is really presented just as Humbert's voice; it represents Humbert. If we like IT, do we like HIM? I do think it's possible to enjoy this book without being a terrible person AND I think the book is constructed so that this is a reasonable question to ask in a way that it normally wouldn't be.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:41 AM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Part of the conflict I have with Lolita is that it's so incredibly well written. Nabokov is absolutely on his game and his ability to make Humbert charming works and that's distressing. He's describing Dolores' body and I'm thinking "This should not be so good. This should disgust me and it does, but there's a part that's compelling because he's too good a writer and I don't want this to be compelling".
He was too good. If he'd been a little worse a writer then the book would be easier to re-read.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:12 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
He was too good. If he'd been a little worse a writer then the book would be easier to re-read.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:12 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Whether Nabokov was making a 'moral' point in this (or playing a cold intellectual game to reward close reading) is, as ever with Nabokov, left as an exercise for the reader. My feeling moons ago was that he was on the side of the angels, that he was all too aware of the story he wasn't telling, I'm looking forward to re-reading some point soon.
Having read many of his lectures and interviews, I think Nabokov knew what he omitted. Despite his reputation as a distant aesthete, moral rhetoric pervades those writings. His commentary on Lolita in particular makes it clear that he regarded Humbert Humbert as a thoroughly loathesome and evil man. I think he wrote Pnin because he needed to take breaks from writing in Humbert Humbert's voice, but I can't remember where I read that.
I should read Lolita again. I last read it in high school. I would probably get more out of it now than I did then.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:16 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having read many of his lectures and interviews, I think Nabokov knew what he omitted. Despite his reputation as a distant aesthete, moral rhetoric pervades those writings. His commentary on Lolita in particular makes it clear that he regarded Humbert Humbert as a thoroughly loathesome and evil man. I think he wrote Pnin because he needed to take breaks from writing in Humbert Humbert's voice, but I can't remember where I read that.
I should read Lolita again. I last read it in high school. I would probably get more out of it now than I did then.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:16 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It is a reasonable question. At the time it was published, the critics who gave it good reviews did so very much on the interpretation that it was a moving love story and that Humbert Humbert was sympathetic.
Just about the lone voice against this interpretation was Nabokov himself, who shot down an interviewer that tried to say Humbert Humbert was "sympathetic". Nabokov said no, he was a villain who had "the ability to appear sympathetic".
Because Humbert Humbert's crimes were completely syntonic with the moral standards of the time, the "literate" interpretation of the book was that the systematic rape of a 12-year-old girl should be taken as art, not pornography, which is the right interpretation for all the wrong reasons. I recommend reading the review by Dorothy Parker if you want to get the normal-writer opinion on it. It's pretty disturbing.
One of Nabokov's biggest hates was moralistic art, and more than that the idea that art had any obligation to push a moralistic stance. The reader is just expected to know that raping a 12-year-old girl is bad, and if you didn't know that it was squarely your responsibility, not his.
In principle I agree with that; in practice, though, I'm remembering an anecdote where a trick-or-treater knocked on Nabokov's door dressed as Lolita and he was incredibly disturbed that anyone would think that was okay. Because the reality was that readers couldn't clear even the low bar of Child Rape Is Bad and given Nabokov's opinion of The Masses I doubt he expected better from them. So maybe it's a bit like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?
On the other hand, the book is an accurate portrayal of that predatory narcissistic mindset, which really hadn't been done before outside of porn with its concomitantly opposite locus of sympathy, so if it's truthful what else would I want? A clunky warning from the author that by the way, guys, raping 12-year-olds is wrong and you're not trying to encourage it? In a preface, or perhaps in a denouement where a police inspector steps in as the author avatar and declaims a sermon as he arrests Humbert? I'd say the truthfulness was enough and that it isn't wrong to read this book just as it wasn't wrong to write it.
posted by tel3path at 10:20 AM on December 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
Just about the lone voice against this interpretation was Nabokov himself, who shot down an interviewer that tried to say Humbert Humbert was "sympathetic". Nabokov said no, he was a villain who had "the ability to appear sympathetic".
Because Humbert Humbert's crimes were completely syntonic with the moral standards of the time, the "literate" interpretation of the book was that the systematic rape of a 12-year-old girl should be taken as art, not pornography, which is the right interpretation for all the wrong reasons. I recommend reading the review by Dorothy Parker if you want to get the normal-writer opinion on it. It's pretty disturbing.
One of Nabokov's biggest hates was moralistic art, and more than that the idea that art had any obligation to push a moralistic stance. The reader is just expected to know that raping a 12-year-old girl is bad, and if you didn't know that it was squarely your responsibility, not his.
In principle I agree with that; in practice, though, I'm remembering an anecdote where a trick-or-treater knocked on Nabokov's door dressed as Lolita and he was incredibly disturbed that anyone would think that was okay. Because the reality was that readers couldn't clear even the low bar of Child Rape Is Bad and given Nabokov's opinion of The Masses I doubt he expected better from them. So maybe it's a bit like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?
On the other hand, the book is an accurate portrayal of that predatory narcissistic mindset, which really hadn't been done before outside of porn with its concomitantly opposite locus of sympathy, so if it's truthful what else would I want? A clunky warning from the author that by the way, guys, raping 12-year-olds is wrong and you're not trying to encourage it? In a preface, or perhaps in a denouement where a police inspector steps in as the author avatar and declaims a sermon as he arrests Humbert? I'd say the truthfulness was enough and that it isn't wrong to read this book just as it wasn't wrong to write it.
posted by tel3path at 10:20 AM on December 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
I read Lo Lola Lolita in 1963 when I was 13. It was informative, and caused me to draw closer to other people my age, and just older, to hear what their first sexual experiences were like, how these intimacies established. This was Europe in the early sixties. One girl discussed how much she enjoyed her piano lessons. By the time a year passed I had already read all of Pearl Buck's books, by another year passing I had read all of Tennessee Williams works to date. So Nabakov, I'll have to read him again, if only to find traces of who I was at the time of the first reading. We were military overseas, library, twice a month seven books. I still remember his setting of scene and the way I perceived the room, the atmosphere of it.
posted by Oyéah at 10:41 AM on December 16, 2015
posted by Oyéah at 10:41 AM on December 16, 2015
I don't think it's an immoral book (if there is such a thing; I lean toward Wilde's opinion on that one). I think I've talked about this on here before, but I found it deeply upsetting to read, and I had to dig pretty far into the criticism to find anything considering that a valid response; the art vs. pornography argument was so strangely predominant for so long. I felt very unsophisticated at the time I first tried to read it (I was in college) and just didn't talk about the book very much, thinking both that I couldn't understand Nabokov and that everyone else was somehow wrong about it. Now that I'm older I'm much more inclined to defend my response, and interestingly enough that has changed my relationship to the book; I see the way I read it (placing Dolores' self at the center rather than Humbert's version of her; attempting to extrapolate who she is from the text) as just fine, one of a great number of possibilities Nabokov allows for. I still want to punch anybody who calls it a love story, though.
posted by thetortoise at 10:42 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thetortoise at 10:42 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
[reads a book in which an obviously insane man kidnaps and rapes a prepubescent girl] damn! what a love story!!!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:50 AM on December 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:50 AM on December 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
> Humbert is using his words to gain our approval. If we do indeed approve of his writing, does that in some way mean we are accepting him? As thetortoise mentions above, the book is really presented just as Humbert's voice; it represents Humbert. If we like IT, do we like HIM? I do think it's possible to enjoy this book without being a terrible person AND I think the book is constructed so that this is a reasonable question to ask in a way that it normally wouldn't be.
I... don't understand this. Humbert did not write the book; Nabokov did. There is no Humbert: he is a fictional character in Nabokov's book. I feel like it's insulting even to type those sentences out, because I know you know that, but given those basic facts, I cannot make sense of what you say. If you like the book, you are liking a great book by a great writer. There is no Humbert to like (in the sense you seem to mean).
posted by languagehat at 11:04 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I... don't understand this. Humbert did not write the book; Nabokov did. There is no Humbert: he is a fictional character in Nabokov's book. I feel like it's insulting even to type those sentences out, because I know you know that, but given those basic facts, I cannot make sense of what you say. If you like the book, you are liking a great book by a great writer. There is no Humbert to like (in the sense you seem to mean).
posted by languagehat at 11:04 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Even Nabokov, though, was aware that he was using beautiful language to talk about terrible things, and to be caught up in the prose for its aesthetic qualities while losing sight of the meaning is a bit dangerous. Humbert's goal as narrator is to do just that: to immerse us and convince us so fully of his point of view that it becomes impossible to entertain any other possibility (which-- so he claims-- is the case for him with Lolita), and his hypnotic voice is part of that. Humbert's goal is not Nabokov's goal, of course, but I think it's a real question if Nabokov achieved that ventriloquism too well for many readers. A novelist maybe isn't responsible for his readers' misunderstandings, but it's not an accident that Lolita is one of the most misunderstood books.
posted by thetortoise at 11:15 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 11:15 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
My memory is a little hazy on this, but I swear he told us this story in class. Appel was in the military and had a copy of the original Lolita, in the Olympia Press edition. Olympia books all had a distinctive cover design, and were known to be mostly porn books. One of his platoon-mates, seeing the book, grabbed it, opened it, read the first paragraph, then tossed it aside in disgust exclaiming "aw shit, this ain't porn, it's goddamn lit-ratchur!"
posted by dnash at 5:50 AM on December 16 [12 favorites +] [!]
Emanuel Haldeman-Julius ran a publishing house that used to put out classics with the titles changed to be more racy in order to get young men to read more of them.
posted by ocschwar at 11:17 AM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe I'm explaining myself poorly (definitely a possibility) and I think some other people have maybe articulated my point better than I am doing, like when It's Never Lurgi says:
I'm thinking "This should not be so good. This should disgust me and it does, but there's a part that's compelling because he's too good a writer and I don't want this to be compelling".
It is disgusting! How do we feel about getting over that disgust just because the writing's so good? Are we comfortable with the aspect of ourselves that is willing to cut the narrator and/or the book that slack?
I guess what I'm basically saying is that what Humbert does is gross and horrible (with which I think everyone here agrees). If you enjoy the book, if you find it engaging and compelling, you are being engaged and compelled by one of the worst things. To like the book, you either need to accept that you like a book that is a (yes, fictional) paean to child rape OR you need to distance yourself from the fact that the book is a paean to child rape. Maybe there's another option I'm missing but for me, there will always be a level of discomfort in reading the book because that's what it's about.
I mean, again, obviously I know it's fictional. I know Nabokov knows better (in one of my classes in college we talked a bit about the differences between Nabokov's screenplay of Lolita, in which the stage directions express sympathy, and the novel, in which the only voice belongs to Humbert). I DO think it's possible to like the book and CERTAINLY to appreciate the book as art, but I also think, you know, it's an actual question worth considering, how we feel about liking and/or appreciating a book that glorifies child rape and is written entirely from the perspective of a child rapist, even a fictional one, who is using his facility with language to woo us into accepting what he has to say.
I know that as a rule I take fictional stuff more seriously than a lot of people (and believe, to a certain extent, in the reality of fictional characters and even events, for a given value of "believe") so maybe I read this differently (and I do tend to have a LOT of sympathy for fictional characters) but, even as I do in fact agree that it's possible to like and/or appreciate this book, I also think the book, by existing, raises this question and if someone wants to say "I'm not okay with liking that book because the entire thing is about a man justifying his repeated rape of a little girl" then I think that's also a valid point.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:34 AM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm thinking "This should not be so good. This should disgust me and it does, but there's a part that's compelling because he's too good a writer and I don't want this to be compelling".
It is disgusting! How do we feel about getting over that disgust just because the writing's so good? Are we comfortable with the aspect of ourselves that is willing to cut the narrator and/or the book that slack?
I guess what I'm basically saying is that what Humbert does is gross and horrible (with which I think everyone here agrees). If you enjoy the book, if you find it engaging and compelling, you are being engaged and compelled by one of the worst things. To like the book, you either need to accept that you like a book that is a (yes, fictional) paean to child rape OR you need to distance yourself from the fact that the book is a paean to child rape. Maybe there's another option I'm missing but for me, there will always be a level of discomfort in reading the book because that's what it's about.
I mean, again, obviously I know it's fictional. I know Nabokov knows better (in one of my classes in college we talked a bit about the differences between Nabokov's screenplay of Lolita, in which the stage directions express sympathy, and the novel, in which the only voice belongs to Humbert). I DO think it's possible to like the book and CERTAINLY to appreciate the book as art, but I also think, you know, it's an actual question worth considering, how we feel about liking and/or appreciating a book that glorifies child rape and is written entirely from the perspective of a child rapist, even a fictional one, who is using his facility with language to woo us into accepting what he has to say.
I know that as a rule I take fictional stuff more seriously than a lot of people (and believe, to a certain extent, in the reality of fictional characters and even events, for a given value of "believe") so maybe I read this differently (and I do tend to have a LOT of sympathy for fictional characters) but, even as I do in fact agree that it's possible to like and/or appreciate this book, I also think the book, by existing, raises this question and if someone wants to say "I'm not okay with liking that book because the entire thing is about a man justifying his repeated rape of a little girl" then I think that's also a valid point.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:34 AM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Having not previewed: I think maybe thetortoise once again articulated my point better than I did.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:35 AM on December 16, 2015
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 11:35 AM on December 16, 2015
He was too good. If he'd been a little worse a writer then the book would be easier to re-read.
And less worth reading.
posted by FatherDagon at 11:50 AM on December 16, 2015
And less worth reading.
posted by FatherDagon at 11:50 AM on December 16, 2015
Humbert's goal is not Nabokov's goal, of course, but I think it's a real question if Nabokov achieved that ventriloquism too well for many readers. A novelist maybe isn't responsible for his readers' misunderstandings, but it's not an accident that Lolita is one of the most misunderstood books.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that too many people read Humbert as being Nabokov's voice, and that that is Nabokov's responsibility?
posted by OmieWise at 11:53 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that too many people read Humbert as being Nabokov's voice, and that that is Nabokov's responsibility?
posted by OmieWise at 11:53 AM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that too many people read Humbert as being Nabokov's voice, and that that is Nabokov's responsibility?
I'm saying that people sometimes read the book without paying much attention to its elisions and to Humbert's deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that is, the reality within the book, that he is abusing Dolores/Lolita) and missing things like this:
posted by thetortoise at 12:09 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm saying that people sometimes read the book without paying much attention to its elisions and to Humbert's deliberate misrepresentation of reality (that is, the reality within the book, that he is abusing Dolores/Lolita) and missing things like this:
Or, another moment that sticks with me, where Humbert writes that he implored Dolores to "come live with me, and die with me, and everything with me (words to that effect.)" - the way the "words to that effect" pulls the rug out from the whole sentence.And that this situation is a little more complicated than the typical one of people not reading a big work of literature well if they're in a hurry, because this misreading is built into the voice of the book. It's commonly recognized now that Humbert is unreliable and something of a monster, but this must have seemed less obvious when the book came out, going by the reviews and interviews of the time. This is not to say that the work is any kind of failure but that it's more challenging than it appears and has sort of a weird status for reasons that aren't merely circumstantial but artistic as well.
posted by thetortoise at 12:09 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I see the way I read it (placing Dolores' self at the center rather than Humbert's version of her; attempting to extrapolate who she is from the text) as just fine, one of a great number of possibilities Nabokov allows for.
I didn't get to Lolita until this year, when I listened to the Jeremy Irons narrated audiobook (which was an incredible performance). I really knew nothing about it, except "adult man lusts after young girl." I found myself at first accepting Humbert's tale as a fairly trustworthy account from an admitted hebephile. Humbert is so open about his sexual inclinations and states them so matter-of-factly that for a while I assumed I felt he could be relied on. But soon enough it became clear that he's misrepresenting Dolores' response to him; at least exaggerating her attraction to him. By the last third of the book I didn't know if I could trust anything at all--and he's clearly delusional at that point. It's hard to tell when he falls fully into unreality, or whether he was always living a complete fantasy. I gave up trying to extrapolate much of anything about the actual Dolores from the text, other than that there is a Dolores.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I didn't get to Lolita until this year, when I listened to the Jeremy Irons narrated audiobook (which was an incredible performance). I really knew nothing about it, except "adult man lusts after young girl." I found myself at first accepting Humbert's tale as a fairly trustworthy account from an admitted hebephile. Humbert is so open about his sexual inclinations and states them so matter-of-factly that for a while I assumed I felt he could be relied on. But soon enough it became clear that he's misrepresenting Dolores' response to him; at least exaggerating her attraction to him. By the last third of the book I didn't know if I could trust anything at all--and he's clearly delusional at that point. It's hard to tell when he falls fully into unreality, or whether he was always living a complete fantasy. I gave up trying to extrapolate much of anything about the actual Dolores from the text, other than that there is a Dolores.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The original movie (and James Mason) lays bare Humbert's creepiness with striking clarity for a movie of that era. In fact, the whole movie as a meditation on the hidden sleaze of Eisenhower America is pretty much pitch-perfect.
posted by blucevalo at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by blucevalo at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
> Even Nabokov, though, was aware that he was using beautiful language to talk about terrible things, and to be caught up in the prose for its aesthetic qualities while losing sight of the meaning is a bit dangerous.
Sure, but that applies to any good book about bad things. Of course I understand the general point, but I don't understand why it applies to Lolita any more than to any of a literally uncountable number of other works of art. That's why I said "the implication seems to be that one should only appreciate literature about nice people doing nice things"; if there's something "wrong" (in this odd sense) with Lolita, the same thing is wrong with everything from Hogg's Confessions of a Justified Sinner to pretty much everything Houellebecq writes (as far as I can make out from reviews). I mean, the unreliable-and-evil narrator is a staple of fiction; why put the burden on Nabokov?
> A novelist maybe isn't responsible for his readers' misunderstandings
> It's commonly recognized now that Humbert is unreliable and something of a monster, but this must have seemed less obvious when the book came out, going by the reviews and interviews of the time.
A novelist definitely isn't responsible for readers' misunderstandings, either when the book came out or at any later time. How is this even a question?
posted by languagehat at 2:38 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure, but that applies to any good book about bad things. Of course I understand the general point, but I don't understand why it applies to Lolita any more than to any of a literally uncountable number of other works of art. That's why I said "the implication seems to be that one should only appreciate literature about nice people doing nice things"; if there's something "wrong" (in this odd sense) with Lolita, the same thing is wrong with everything from Hogg's Confessions of a Justified Sinner to pretty much everything Houellebecq writes (as far as I can make out from reviews). I mean, the unreliable-and-evil narrator is a staple of fiction; why put the burden on Nabokov?
> A novelist maybe isn't responsible for his readers' misunderstandings
> It's commonly recognized now that Humbert is unreliable and something of a monster, but this must have seemed less obvious when the book came out, going by the reviews and interviews of the time.
A novelist definitely isn't responsible for readers' misunderstandings, either when the book came out or at any later time. How is this even a question?
posted by languagehat at 2:38 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I should have added, and I regret forgetting to add, that Peter Sellers' Clare Quilty/Dr. Zempf is nothing short of a masterpiece.
posted by blucevalo at 2:56 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by blucevalo at 2:56 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
But soon enough it became clear that he's misrepresenting Dolores' response to him; at least exaggerating her attraction to him.
I disagree, and this is the internet argument about Lolita I will have until the end of time, but I think we have to accept that the events and dialogue in the book happened exactly as Humbert claims they did. Otherwise, there's no actual story. It's the the emotional context and content of scenes that is being misrepresented.
So sure, yes, I'll accept that Dolores initiated a sexual act with Humbert, which is the main scene I fight with everyone on the internet about...but only after he'd been grooming and sexualizing her for a year, which he cleverly elides over, presenting her as unaware of any of it.
And that's part of what makes the book so interesting to me. It's an excellent example of how people can objectively have the same experiences, but our self-centered perspectives can warp reality to the point where Humbert's version of a particular experience is unrecognizable from Dolores's version. The meta-narrative of Lolita is that this process of creating meaning through personal interpretation also happens when we read novels, including Lolita.
posted by capricorn at 3:51 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I disagree, and this is the internet argument about Lolita I will have until the end of time, but I think we have to accept that the events and dialogue in the book happened exactly as Humbert claims they did. Otherwise, there's no actual story. It's the the emotional context and content of scenes that is being misrepresented.
So sure, yes, I'll accept that Dolores initiated a sexual act with Humbert, which is the main scene I fight with everyone on the internet about...but only after he'd been grooming and sexualizing her for a year, which he cleverly elides over, presenting her as unaware of any of it.
And that's part of what makes the book so interesting to me. It's an excellent example of how people can objectively have the same experiences, but our self-centered perspectives can warp reality to the point where Humbert's version of a particular experience is unrecognizable from Dolores's version. The meta-narrative of Lolita is that this process of creating meaning through personal interpretation also happens when we read novels, including Lolita.
posted by capricorn at 3:51 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Look, I am the last person on earth to suggest that art should be about nice people doing nice things. Some of you may be aware that I occasionally, when there's nothing else to do, leaf through the fictitious adventures of a certain cannibalistic serial killer. I'm always the one answering the charges of "OMG violence against women!!!" with "he's a cannibalistic serial killer the entire show is about that why are you shocked that he's not a vegan pacifist". And Lolita has been one of my favourite books since my teenage years.
But there are a few things about Lolita that do raise questions about the responsibility of the author. I fully understand that it's not a politically ir morally didactic work and that Nabokov didn't give a shit about politics or moral didacticism. And nevertheless, what Nabokov did was write us a glass case example of why violation of consent, objectification, and subjugation of a young girl's life to the male gaze was bad, oppressive, and bad.
The problem is that at the time, the hegemony of rape culture was shouting too loudly for anyone to hear what he was really saying. It's also true that the book has been taken - by superficial readers, true, but also by a raft of critics many of whom were not unsophisticated readers - as an endorsement of HH's viewpoint. simply because that's how any normal person would have taken it. I read this as a teenager in the 80s and I can assure you, consent culture was not even invented until well after the 80s and I took the book at face value like everyone else. i may have been a stupid kid but I was a stupid kid who was a product of my culture just like all those highly sophisticated adult critics who should have known better.
And, rape is a systematic threat for girls in our culture. So the fact that the overwhelming majority of the audience took it as pro-pedophilia had to be something Nabokov would anticipate. There's a reason why so much child porn is brandnamed "Lolita" no matter how much of a distortion that is. I know he didn't care about hoi polloi misunderstanding his work, and I know he wasn't responsible for it, and I know it was the readers' fault and not his, and I wouldn't suggest he had any moral duty to do one single thing differently.
But IDK I'm guessing he wouldn't have done the equivalent with, say, an unreliable narrator who would likely be mistaken by a huge majority of readers as an advocate for the Bolsheviks. A Bolshevik and a child molester are both oppressors, but one of these had the ability to harm an adult Nabokov and the other didn't.
It's late and I'm tired and I'm expressing myself badly and like I said - wouldn't suggest Nabokov had any obligation to change a thing, it was a great and necessary book, it spoke political and moral truths while disavowing both politics and morals and it exposed something in society that had been hidden. Just... The questions people have about it aren't stupid or retrograde. These questions are completely worth raising and at the same time, don't really have an answer.
posted by tel3path at 4:23 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
But there are a few things about Lolita that do raise questions about the responsibility of the author. I fully understand that it's not a politically ir morally didactic work and that Nabokov didn't give a shit about politics or moral didacticism. And nevertheless, what Nabokov did was write us a glass case example of why violation of consent, objectification, and subjugation of a young girl's life to the male gaze was bad, oppressive, and bad.
The problem is that at the time, the hegemony of rape culture was shouting too loudly for anyone to hear what he was really saying. It's also true that the book has been taken - by superficial readers, true, but also by a raft of critics many of whom were not unsophisticated readers - as an endorsement of HH's viewpoint. simply because that's how any normal person would have taken it. I read this as a teenager in the 80s and I can assure you, consent culture was not even invented until well after the 80s and I took the book at face value like everyone else. i may have been a stupid kid but I was a stupid kid who was a product of my culture just like all those highly sophisticated adult critics who should have known better.
And, rape is a systematic threat for girls in our culture. So the fact that the overwhelming majority of the audience took it as pro-pedophilia had to be something Nabokov would anticipate. There's a reason why so much child porn is brandnamed "Lolita" no matter how much of a distortion that is. I know he didn't care about hoi polloi misunderstanding his work, and I know he wasn't responsible for it, and I know it was the readers' fault and not his, and I wouldn't suggest he had any moral duty to do one single thing differently.
But IDK I'm guessing he wouldn't have done the equivalent with, say, an unreliable narrator who would likely be mistaken by a huge majority of readers as an advocate for the Bolsheviks. A Bolshevik and a child molester are both oppressors, but one of these had the ability to harm an adult Nabokov and the other didn't.
It's late and I'm tired and I'm expressing myself badly and like I said - wouldn't suggest Nabokov had any obligation to change a thing, it was a great and necessary book, it spoke political and moral truths while disavowing both politics and morals and it exposed something in society that had been hidden. Just... The questions people have about it aren't stupid or retrograde. These questions are completely worth raising and at the same time, don't really have an answer.
posted by tel3path at 4:23 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
A novelist definitely isn't responsible for readers' misunderstandings, either when the book came out or at any later time. How is this even a question?
I don't think it's a given at all that it's not a question if there's a convincing argument that the misunderstanding has done real harm in the world. I'm just not convinced this is true of Lolita - or if it is there are probably a number of people who should take more blame than Nabokov.
posted by atoxyl at 12:47 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think it's a given at all that it's not a question if there's a convincing argument that the misunderstanding has done real harm in the world. I'm just not convinced this is true of Lolita - or if it is there are probably a number of people who should take more blame than Nabokov.
posted by atoxyl at 12:47 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The questions people have about it aren't stupid or retrograde. These questions are completely worth raising and at the same time, don't really have an answer.
Oh, I agree that the questions aren't stupid or retrograde and that they are worth raising; I strongly disagree, however, that they "don't really have an answer."
> I don't think it's a given at all that it's not a question if there's a convincing argument that the misunderstanding has done real harm in the world.
You might want to rethink that. People have misunderstood all sorts of works, from the Bible on down to "Gimme Shelter," and caused real harm in the world; to blame the artist for people's misunderstanding is not only unfair but puts one in the same camp as politicians who use art as a whipping boy. Artists have to be free to create whatever they need to create, and they should also be free of expectations that their creations will be somehow salutary. Art is art, life is life, and people who confuse the two are confused.
posted by languagehat at 8:03 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, I agree that the questions aren't stupid or retrograde and that they are worth raising; I strongly disagree, however, that they "don't really have an answer."
> I don't think it's a given at all that it's not a question if there's a convincing argument that the misunderstanding has done real harm in the world.
You might want to rethink that. People have misunderstood all sorts of works, from the Bible on down to "Gimme Shelter," and caused real harm in the world; to blame the artist for people's misunderstanding is not only unfair but puts one in the same camp as politicians who use art as a whipping boy. Artists have to be free to create whatever they need to create, and they should also be free of expectations that their creations will be somehow salutary. Art is art, life is life, and people who confuse the two are confused.
posted by languagehat at 8:03 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
This seems like a really weird conversation to me. When I read A Modest Proposal for the first time as a young kid, I completely missed the satire. I thought it was seriously about eating babies.
Are you really saying that if I went out and killed a baby as a result it would be Swift's fault at all?
posted by OmieWise at 9:50 AM on December 17, 2015
Are you really saying that if I went out and killed a baby as a result it would be Swift's fault at all?
posted by OmieWise at 9:50 AM on December 17, 2015
OmieWise - no, but going out and killing babies isn't really a systematic threat in society - at least, killing them for food isn't. Whereas girls get abused by older men all the time. Furthermore, the satirical nature of a text that is disguised as an apologia for an older man abusing a young girl was completely missed by a society in which everyone already agreed that older men were entitled to abuse young girls.
I'm NOT expressing an expectation that Nabokov's creation should have been salutary, though it so happens that I do think it was salutary. I'm actually AGREEING with art for art's sake here.
As apolitical as Nabokov insisted he was, he still wasn't above consistent and intentional positive representation of Jewish characters - having lived in Berlin between the wars, with a Jewish wife. He was also absolutely consistent in portraying homosexual men as foppish and villainous, if not as child molesters themselves. So he wasn't as apolitical as he wanted to be, or perhaps he would frame these things as purely a matter of taste. And since Nabokov was at his clumsiest when he was writing politically instead of authentically, I guess he proved himself right there.
Supposing a woman reader is confused about whether or not what she just read was an endorsement of the abuse of her younger self, is it enough to say "art for art's sake, you have no grounds for taking this personally"? Likewise, saying "but it's really not about what everyone thinks it's about" might also be cold comfort, I'm guessing. I know that there are readers who feel strongly that the book was written at their expense regardless of authorial intent, and I don't blame them, even though technically I could argue that they're reading the book "wrong" (and I say this as someone who does think it's possible to read a book "wrong"). If artists can create whatever art they want, then surely readers can be allowed any reaction they want (short of Tumblrteen social justice hate campaigns or government censorship, of course, but nobody here is proposing anything such).
posted by tel3path at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm NOT expressing an expectation that Nabokov's creation should have been salutary, though it so happens that I do think it was salutary. I'm actually AGREEING with art for art's sake here.
As apolitical as Nabokov insisted he was, he still wasn't above consistent and intentional positive representation of Jewish characters - having lived in Berlin between the wars, with a Jewish wife. He was also absolutely consistent in portraying homosexual men as foppish and villainous, if not as child molesters themselves. So he wasn't as apolitical as he wanted to be, or perhaps he would frame these things as purely a matter of taste. And since Nabokov was at his clumsiest when he was writing politically instead of authentically, I guess he proved himself right there.
Supposing a woman reader is confused about whether or not what she just read was an endorsement of the abuse of her younger self, is it enough to say "art for art's sake, you have no grounds for taking this personally"? Likewise, saying "but it's really not about what everyone thinks it's about" might also be cold comfort, I'm guessing. I know that there are readers who feel strongly that the book was written at their expense regardless of authorial intent, and I don't blame them, even though technically I could argue that they're reading the book "wrong" (and I say this as someone who does think it's possible to read a book "wrong"). If artists can create whatever art they want, then surely readers can be allowed any reaction they want (short of Tumblrteen social justice hate campaigns or government censorship, of course, but nobody here is proposing anything such).
posted by tel3path at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Supposing a woman reader is confused about whether or not what she just read was an endorsement of the abuse of her younger self, is it enough to say "art for art's sake, you have no grounds for taking this personally"? Likewise, saying "but it's really not about what everyone thinks it's about" might also be cold comfort, I'm guessing.
But it seems to me like you're mixing up aesthetics and therapy, which can't do either any good. Of course a woman who was abused as a girl is going to have a bad reaction to novels on the subject, just as someone who was in an elevator accident is going to have a bad reaction to elevators. The reactions in each case have nothing to do with novels or elevators and need to be addressed in each individual case according to the individual. I hope I'm not coming off as indifferent to the horrors of sexual abuse—I am just pushing back strongly against the idea that Nabokov (or any author) is in any way responsible for them, or for a reader's reaction to them. Of course "readers can be allowed any reaction they want," but surely you'll agree that not every reaction to a work of art is meaningful on any level beyond that of individual psychology.
posted by languagehat at 10:52 AM on December 17, 2015
But it seems to me like you're mixing up aesthetics and therapy, which can't do either any good. Of course a woman who was abused as a girl is going to have a bad reaction to novels on the subject, just as someone who was in an elevator accident is going to have a bad reaction to elevators. The reactions in each case have nothing to do with novels or elevators and need to be addressed in each individual case according to the individual. I hope I'm not coming off as indifferent to the horrors of sexual abuse—I am just pushing back strongly against the idea that Nabokov (or any author) is in any way responsible for them, or for a reader's reaction to them. Of course "readers can be allowed any reaction they want," but surely you'll agree that not every reaction to a work of art is meaningful on any level beyond that of individual psychology.
posted by languagehat at 10:52 AM on December 17, 2015
I'm not mixing up aesthetics and therapy. If anything, you're saying that a reader's experience of being Lolita invalidates that reader's reaction to the book if that reaction falls short of complete approval. This is not at all what I'm getting at.
Conversely, would a homosexual male reader be mixing up aesthetics and social justice if he detests Nabokov because of the way Nabokov wrote about him and his tribe? Actually, yeah, but that wouldn't mean they were wrong.
posted by tel3path at 11:01 AM on December 17, 2015
Conversely, would a homosexual male reader be mixing up aesthetics and social justice if he detests Nabokov because of the way Nabokov wrote about him and his tribe? Actually, yeah, but that wouldn't mean they were wrong.
posted by tel3path at 11:01 AM on December 17, 2015
Supposing a woman reader is confused about whether or not what she just read was an endorsement of the abuse of her younger self, is it enough to say "art for art's sake, you have no grounds for taking this personally"? Likewise, saying "but it's really not about what everyone thinks it's about" might also be cold comfort, I'm guessing.
Well of course. What you suggest above, though, is that Nabokov bears responsibility for this misreading, where I don't think that's justified. Your other examples, I think, tend to support my view. They are examples of Nabokov reasonably betraying his own views about something, rather than, as is the case with Lolita, the reader being confused about what those views are. It isn't that art is apolitical, I have a particular loathing for Leni Riefenstahl, it's that 1) art may have virtues beyond politics, and 2) art is not simply auto-biographical. Despite the misreadings of Lolita, I am not aware of anyone convincingly arguing that Lolita is a representation of what Nabokov thought of as appropriate.
I think a comparison with another MeFi favorite, Stoner, by John Williams, is instructive. It's a very good novel, technically accomplished, and it's also pretty gross in its fairly rank misogyny. It's not a novel about misogyny, it's a novel in which women are horrid or demeaned as a matter of course. In other words, it's a novel for which a strong argument can be made that it betrays Williams' own misogyny. Elaine Showalter recently argued this in the Washington Post, making a much more nuanced argument about the responsibilities of art.
posted by OmieWise at 11:03 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well of course. What you suggest above, though, is that Nabokov bears responsibility for this misreading, where I don't think that's justified. Your other examples, I think, tend to support my view. They are examples of Nabokov reasonably betraying his own views about something, rather than, as is the case with Lolita, the reader being confused about what those views are. It isn't that art is apolitical, I have a particular loathing for Leni Riefenstahl, it's that 1) art may have virtues beyond politics, and 2) art is not simply auto-biographical. Despite the misreadings of Lolita, I am not aware of anyone convincingly arguing that Lolita is a representation of what Nabokov thought of as appropriate.
I think a comparison with another MeFi favorite, Stoner, by John Williams, is instructive. It's a very good novel, technically accomplished, and it's also pretty gross in its fairly rank misogyny. It's not a novel about misogyny, it's a novel in which women are horrid or demeaned as a matter of course. In other words, it's a novel for which a strong argument can be made that it betrays Williams' own misogyny. Elaine Showalter recently argued this in the Washington Post, making a much more nuanced argument about the responsibilities of art.
posted by OmieWise at 11:03 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I find the discussion of the appropriateness (for lack of a better word) of Lolita to be really interesting, and not nearly so black and white as some here. Nothing is black and white. It's fun to disagree and see things from the perspective of others. I highly recommend Lolita and consider it one of my favorite books, but I also completely understand those who feel Nabokov walks a razor's edge.
The argument that it's the reader's responsibility to understand the satire behind A Modest Proposal is solid. Point well taken. But one could just as easily point to the fact that while The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was originally written as a parody, to claim that its authors have no responsibility for the real-world effects of that work would be too glib.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:49 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The argument that it's the reader's responsibility to understand the satire behind A Modest Proposal is solid. Point well taken. But one could just as easily point to the fact that while The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was originally written as a parody, to claim that its authors have no responsibility for the real-world effects of that work would be too glib.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:49 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Rebecca Solnit in Literary Hub: Men Explain Lolita to Me
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Can we talk about the capsule essays a bit? Kleeman's, at least, is so sharp. This is great:
It could be said that in these early pages Nabokov signals his intent to craft a more honest portrayal of a female character than any before: A portrayal in absentia, one which has the reader peering anxiously through the gaps in Humbert’s account for glimpses of the incidental girl, the one who resists appropriation by narrator and reader alike.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:36 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It could be said that in these early pages Nabokov signals his intent to craft a more honest portrayal of a female character than any before: A portrayal in absentia, one which has the reader peering anxiously through the gaps in Humbert’s account for glimpses of the incidental girl, the one who resists appropriation by narrator and reader alike.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:36 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
And then the latest one talking about how he backhands her in the face, how he brings her books in the hospital but what she wants is all her clothes so she can escape. How at 14, she's already getting old for him.
I remember reading a meta somewhere about Lolita actually being a haze, a mirage, a heat-distortion on the highway that you can never catch up with. I've got to try and find that one.
posted by tel3path at 1:39 PM on December 17, 2015
I remember reading a meta somewhere about Lolita actually being a haze, a mirage, a heat-distortion on the highway that you can never catch up with. I've got to try and find that one.
posted by tel3path at 1:39 PM on December 17, 2015
> This is not at all what I'm getting at.
Well, I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. At any rate, I agree with OmieWise.
posted by languagehat at 2:05 PM on December 17, 2015
Well, I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. At any rate, I agree with OmieWise.
posted by languagehat at 2:05 PM on December 17, 2015
Well, I agree with (Arsenio) and Rustic, as well as with Alexandra Kleeman in particular though all the analyses are spot on.
posted by tel3path at 2:48 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by tel3path at 2:48 PM on December 17, 2015
But one could just as easily point to the fact that while The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was originally written as a parody, to claim that its authors have no responsibility for the real-world effects of that work would be too glib.That's an absolutely ridiculous way to characterize the origins of Protocols.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:54 PM on December 17, 2015
That's an absolutely ridiculous way to characterize the origins of Protocols.
Well, it was written as a parody (or at least, that's a leading theory regarding its origin). Just not the good kind of parody -- it was written by antisemites as a bit of an inside joke for other antisemites. Which is getting to the heart of our discussion here, isn't it? If the argument is that it's completely on the public to divine the intent of a work of a fiction, and there is no onus on the authors, then the authors of the PotEoZ are blameless. Because, hey, obviously they wrote it as a joke and didn't intend for it to be taken seriously!
Obviously I don't believe that, and am only using that work as an extreme example to make a point that it's okay to consider whether or not an author should (philosophically/morally) write certain works when we discuss the value and quality of those works.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:01 PM on December 17, 2015
Well, it was written as a parody (or at least, that's a leading theory regarding its origin). Just not the good kind of parody -- it was written by antisemites as a bit of an inside joke for other antisemites. Which is getting to the heart of our discussion here, isn't it? If the argument is that it's completely on the public to divine the intent of a work of a fiction, and there is no onus on the authors, then the authors of the PotEoZ are blameless. Because, hey, obviously they wrote it as a joke and didn't intend for it to be taken seriously!
Obviously I don't believe that, and am only using that work as an extreme example to make a point that it's okay to consider whether or not an author should (philosophically/morally) write certain works when we discuss the value and quality of those works.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:01 PM on December 17, 2015
I'm aware that there's a theory that Protocols descends from a now-lost earlier text that was expressly comic and not meant to be a persuasive forgery.
It still seems a really bizarre thing to discuss Protocols as a parody, in the context of asking what onus is on authors to be proactively wary of potential ugly misreadings of their work, because, firstly, even the 'parodic' ur-Protocols would have been expressly anti-semitic in authorial intent (so there's no misreading), and secondly because the Protocols that we now know of, and lead to so many pogroms etc, is simply a different text.
posted by kickingtheground at 8:18 PM on December 17, 2015
It still seems a really bizarre thing to discuss Protocols as a parody, in the context of asking what onus is on authors to be proactively wary of potential ugly misreadings of their work, because, firstly, even the 'parodic' ur-Protocols would have been expressly anti-semitic in authorial intent (so there's no misreading), and secondly because the Protocols that we now know of, and lead to so many pogroms etc, is simply a different text.
posted by kickingtheground at 8:18 PM on December 17, 2015
He was speaking to some other writer, who asked him if he ever had that common writer's experience "where the characters seem to take over and move things in different directions than the writer expected." Nabokov answered "why no, I should think that would be perfectly horrible!"
Yes, that's a great famous dismissal by Nabokov! "My knowledge of Mr. Forster’s works is limited to one novel, which I dislike; and anyway, it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of hand; it is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves."
posted by anothermug at 8:38 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yes, that's a great famous dismissal by Nabokov! "My knowledge of Mr. Forster’s works is limited to one novel, which I dislike; and anyway, it was not he who fathered that trite little whimsy about characters getting out of hand; it is as old as the quills, although of course one sympathizes with his people if they try to wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them. My characters are galley slaves."
posted by anothermug at 8:38 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Artists have to be free to create whatever they need to create, and they should also be free of expectations that their creations will be somehow salutary. Art is art, life is life, and people who confuse the two are confused.
I totally concur with this. And of course Nabokov himself also thought of the two things as being totally distinct.
posted by anothermug at 8:43 PM on December 17, 2015
I totally concur with this. And of course Nabokov himself also thought of the two things as being totally distinct.
posted by anothermug at 8:43 PM on December 17, 2015
" Art is art, life is life, and people who confuse the two are confused."
God I felt this way halfway through the worst book written in modern times, 'Ada'.
posted by clavdivs at 9:33 PM on December 17, 2015
God I felt this way halfway through the worst book written in modern times, 'Ada'.
posted by clavdivs at 9:33 PM on December 17, 2015
I've always viewed the book as one of the most insightful scathing indictment of a society at a particular point in time. Yikes! Nabokov savages late 50's post WWII (US)American society, values, culture and relationships. I alternated between wincing and laughing throughout. His use of language as a cudgel is staggering. I loved the book and recommended it to anyone who I thought would like a thoroughgoing critique of (US)America at that time. Naked cynicism, exploitation, infantilism all painted with a brush of (US)American exuberance and exceptionalism. While Humbert is chasing Quilty around the country Care packages were still being delivered to Europe post WWII for heaven's sake. Presents a "colorful picture" of relationships to say the least and it struck me all the characters, and "scenery" were metaphors for the gritty underbelly of post war US reality.
My interests were shaped by sociology and, ah, I've generally applied a view of analysis of interpersonal or even international relationships as coldly exchange based relationships. This book revealed that to a illuminating if not nauseating degree.
posted by WinstonJulia at 7:07 AM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
My interests were shaped by sociology and, ah, I've generally applied a view of analysis of interpersonal or even international relationships as coldly exchange based relationships. This book revealed that to a illuminating if not nauseating degree.
posted by WinstonJulia at 7:07 AM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
God I felt this way halfway through the worst book written in modern times, 'Ada'.
I don't understand how you could possibly dislike Ada. Ada is a beautiful romance novel set in an alternate version of America about two siblings who have an illicit love affair throughout space and time. What's not to love?!
posted by Fizz at 7:57 AM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't understand how you could possibly dislike Ada. Ada is a beautiful romance novel set in an alternate version of America about two siblings who have an illicit love affair throughout space and time. What's not to love?!
posted by Fizz at 7:57 AM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Structure, timing, improbable themes.
But love, well.
posted by clavdivs at 2:45 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
But love, well.
posted by clavdivs at 2:45 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Bibliographing: Rebecca Solnit Doesn't Explain Lolita to Anyone
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:52 AM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:52 AM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's a terrific response, I hope people read it.
posted by languagehat at 12:06 PM on December 26, 2015
posted by languagehat at 12:06 PM on December 26, 2015
« Older The Depth of Simplicity | Cards Against Humanity Survey Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It is not my favourite Nabokov novel. That would have to be a toss up between Ada or Ardor: A Family Chronicle or The Real Life of Sebastian Knight. But Lolita will always be very dear to me. It's a novel that taught me to not be afraid of what others think about a particular work of art. To not let that completely dictate my impression or way of approaching any literary work.
posted by Fizz at 5:12 AM on December 16, 2015 [6 favorites]