Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov was first published in 1955. Immediately it became infamous for its highly controversial content: a middle-aged man’s sexual infatuation with a twelve-year-old girl. This novel certainly possessed the shock factor to bring it to the attention of many readers at the time of its publication, and it has continued to stay in the limelight. Today, over fifty years since its publication, Lolita has become what many would call a classic.
With such a reputation behind it, I began this novel with high expectations. For years I’ve heard about this tale, its innovative form, its captivating subject matter and its ability to capture the reader. I was sadly disappointed. Yes, the novel certainly is shocking, but that alone wasn’t enough to win me over.
The narrator, Humbert Humbert, is the key figure of this novel, but he isn’t a reliable source. Throughout the novel he gives the reader cause to question his retelling of events. By doing this, Nabokov allows the reader to take a step back from the narrator, a separation which makes judging his actions much easier.
Humbert Humbert retells the sad events of his youth, and specifically, of his first love, Annabel Leigh. Although he loved this girl passionately, while he too was also little more than a child, their love was never consummated. A turn of events eliminates that possibility, and the lost chance is something that seriously affects our narrator. He does continue on with his life though; he becomes a literature teacher and even marries, but he is unable to make these things last. His marriage fails, he ends up going through a series of odd jobs and we witness him wandering aimlessly through life until he meets Dolores Haze.
Dolores is the twelve-year-old daughter of the woman whom owns the house in which Humbert is renting a room. While he cannot stand her mother, the insipid Charlotte, he is powerfully drawn to Dolores. Soon we understand that this connection is stemming from his lost love as a young boy and is manifesting it in this unrealistic and pedophiliac attraction to this young girl.
Humbert relishes in his attraction to the young Dolores, Lolita, as he calls her. He loves everything about the young “nymphet” from the peach fuzz on her legs to the androgynous form of her developing chest, everything about her young body attracts him. As we follow Humbert’s account of his attraction to his Lolita, we witness him following her about the house, making excuses to brush against her, hoping for chance encounters.
What is interesting about this novel is Nabokov’s ability to create a character whose actions are so despicable, so corrupt, but whom we also feel compelled to follow. Although we know that we can’t trust this narrator, it is as though we want to be led by the hand through his twisted thoughts. Certainly I can understand how this can be perceived as quite the controversial novel, however, what I cannot understand is why this is placed so often on classics lists. Yes, Nabokov has created an interesting dichotomy for his reader, but is the narrator and the language so developed that it should be placed among the likes of Steinbeck, Austen, and Woolf? No, I wouldn’t say so. In terms of literary achievement I wouldn’t say that this is an outstanding success. Interesting? Yes. Incredible? Well, that’s debatable. While this is definitely a book worth reading, I don’t personally think it would be on any of my top ten lists.
I read Lolita two summers ago and was completely sucked in from page one. Nabakov’s prose is brilliant and poetic, which would be an accomplishment for any English writer, but is simply mind-boggling for a man who learned it as a second language. He totally shows up Steinbeck, Austen and Woolfe by going “Oh, your native language is supposedly the most difficult for foreigners to pick up? BAM. Just wrote a masterpiece with it. Yawn.” And, as you mention in your column, Humbert Humbert is the greatest character you love to hate.
I disagree with your conclusion- that the book is not a classic- and I’m not entirely sure how you came to it. You really only mention the merits of the book and then say you prefer the works of other classic authors… as if there is somehow a limit to the number of authors we’re allowed to have on that list? I would’ve liked to see more concrete arguments against this book.
I read Lolita two summers ago and was completely sucked in from page one. Nabakov’s prose is brilliant and poetic, which would be an accomplishment for any English writer, but is simply mind-boggling for a man who learned it as a second language. He totally shows up Steinbeck, Austen and Woolfe by going "Oh, your native language is supposedly the most difficult for foreigners to pick up? BAM. Just wrote a masterpiece with it. Yawn." And, as you mention in your column, Humbert Humbert is the greatest character you love to hate.
I disagree with your conclusion- that the book is not a classic- and I’m not entirely sure how you came to it. You really only mention the merits of the book and then say you prefer the works of other classic authors… as if there is somehow a limit to the number of authors we’re allowed to have on that list? I would’ve liked to see more concrete arguments against this book.
Truelsen consistently misspells Nabokov’s name throughout the piece that is, I must say, a disgrace to critical argument. “Nabakav.” This alone makes me think poorly about its author, supposedly a “graduate” student (in another dimension, apparently, where laziness replaces rigor). Woolf–not, as she writes, “Woolfe”–is another obvious and unforgivable error. Before “reading between the lines” (the title of Truelsen’s block of articles) I suggest that Truelsen pay closer attention to the words on the page. And, obviously, to the author’s name. (On a side note, I shudder at the laughable and distressing fact that the author’s name has the word “true” in it.)
To her readers: Read Lolita for yourself and make your own determination. I absolutely adore and cherish it as a classic.
Thank you for pointing out the incorrect spelling of the names. They have been corrected.
– Leticia Rodriguez, arts editor
Dear literature grad student with a blog,
If you are reading Lolita for shock value, you should not be getting your degree in literature.
Signed, someone who didn’t get a degree in literature and read Lolita because it is excellent writing.