Michael Finocchiaro's Reviews > Lolita
Lolita
by
by
Michael Finocchiaro's review
bookshelves: fiction, classics, american-20th-c, favorites, novels, made-into-movie
Jul 16, 2016
bookshelves: fiction, classics, american-20th-c, favorites, novels, made-into-movie
Read 2 times. Last read February 8, 2017 to February 13, 2017.
Astoundingly beautiful prose, a self-aware psychotic narrator who is both unapologetic and yet disgusted by his crime...so many themes in this book, so much symmetry (342).
Humbert Humbert knows he is both brilliant and insanely obsessed with pre-pubescent girls. He tortures his psychiatrists "cunningly leading them on; never letting them see [he] knew every trick of the trade" (P. 34). He becomes a lodger with Ms. Haze, a widow, and sees his nymphet in her yard, "a blue sea-wave swelled under [his] heart and, from a mat in a pool of sun, half-naked, kneeling, turning about on her knees, there was my Riviera love peering at me over dark glasses." (P. 39) He obsesses over Lo listening - in his fateful diary - to details as minor as "the staccato sound [a toilet paper roll makes] as it turns." (P. 49). The text is both reprehensible and hilarious, the writing always being of a sublimely dreamy quality. Was Roth inspired by this scene when he wrote of Nathan Zuckerman hunting around the room of Amy Bellette in The Ghost Writer?
Fate throws HH and his Lo together (no spoilers, I promise). HH holds a reformatory existence over her as a ransom for the naughtiness he extracts. There are a few epic road trips:
"As we pushed westward, patches of what the garbage-man called 'sage brush' appeared, and then the mysterious outlines of table-like hills, and then red bluffs ink-blotted with junipers, and then a mountain range, dun grading into blue, and blue into dream, and the desert would meet us with a steady gale, dust, gray thorn bushes, and hideous bits of tissue paper mimicking pale flowers among the prickles of wind-tortured withered stalks all along the highway; in the middle of which there sometimes stood simple cows, immobilized in a position (tail left, eyelashes right) cutting across all human rules of traffic." (P. 153)
How did Nabokov pull this off? He arrived in the US in 1941 and conceived Lolita during a drive out in the Western US in 1955 (otherwise how could you explain the precision and realism of the above sentence?) This being his third work in a non-native English language (translated by him back to Russian in 1965 - parenthetically are there any Russophones reading this post that have read both the English and Russian Lolitas? What is the Russian one like?)
I love this description of an otherwise nondescript gas station in the middle of nowhere:
"I stared in such dull discomfort of mind at those stationary trivialities that looked almost surprised, like staring rustics, to find themselves in the stranded traveler's field of vision: that green garbage can, those very black, very whitewalled tires for sale, those bright cans of motor oil, that red icebox with assorted drinks, the four, five, seven discarded bottles within the incomplete crossword puzzle of their wooden cells, that bug patiently walking up the inside of the window of the office." (P. 211)
I could only dream of aspiring to write descriptions like that, and English is my native language. Pure genius.
There is a lot of tennis in the novel, particularly towards the end leading me to wonder if DFW was a huge Nabakov fan (being similarly obsessed with the sport.) Here is a description of chess that certainly must have given DFW some inspiration:
"I saw the board as a square as of limpid water with rare shells and stratagems rosily visible upon the smooth tessellated bottom, which to my confused adversary was all ooze and squid-cloud." (P. 233)
There is a wonderful little poem near the end:
"The moral sense in mortals is the duty
We have to pay on mortal sense of beauty." (P. 283)
The central problem in the novel is of course HH's seduction of Lo and her sometimes complicity (rebelling against the mother who never loved her). But both he and Lo are aware that he is a sham:
"It had become gradually clear to my conventional Lolita during our singular and bestial cohabitation that even the most miserable of family lives was better than the parody of incest, which, in the long run, was the best I could offer the waif." (P. 287)
Nabokov insisted that there is no moral to this novel - it is neither a condoning nor condemnation of incest. That kind of judgmental attitude would clearly have ruined the text. That being said, we clearly see that HH is a hopeless pervert and a predator, a father's worst nightmare- and we see how Lo ends up - lost, but defiant to the end.
The topic is, of course, extremely taboo, but Nabakov’s gift to get inside HH’s head and show us how dark and twisted his rationale is, as well as the clear damage it causes to Lolita serves to condemn the aspect of using one’s intellectual and physical power as well as a way of subjugating a young victim to predation. That this particular victim revealed her inner strength in both the struggle and the capitulation is what makes it great literature. If we contrast this with Boris Vian’s I Spit on Your Graves from 1946, where raping little girls is just a way of blowing off steam and rebelling against the system, we see that Lolita and HH are self-conscious characters whereas the first-person protagonist in Vian is just a licentious, violent psychopath with zero guilt or restraint and with no conscience other than some racist, pseudo-socialist ideals.
Lolita is a novel of extraordinary power and beauty in which Nabokov challenges us to read beyond our disgust and fear and live uncomfortably in HH's mind for 300 beautifully written pages. Hard to forget and impossible to ignore, it is Nabokov's greatest contribution to literature imo.
Humbert Humbert knows he is both brilliant and insanely obsessed with pre-pubescent girls. He tortures his psychiatrists "cunningly leading them on; never letting them see [he] knew every trick of the trade" (P. 34). He becomes a lodger with Ms. Haze, a widow, and sees his nymphet in her yard, "a blue sea-wave swelled under [his] heart and, from a mat in a pool of sun, half-naked, kneeling, turning about on her knees, there was my Riviera love peering at me over dark glasses." (P. 39) He obsesses over Lo listening - in his fateful diary - to details as minor as "the staccato sound [a toilet paper roll makes] as it turns." (P. 49). The text is both reprehensible and hilarious, the writing always being of a sublimely dreamy quality. Was Roth inspired by this scene when he wrote of Nathan Zuckerman hunting around the room of Amy Bellette in The Ghost Writer?
Fate throws HH and his Lo together (no spoilers, I promise). HH holds a reformatory existence over her as a ransom for the naughtiness he extracts. There are a few epic road trips:
"As we pushed westward, patches of what the garbage-man called 'sage brush' appeared, and then the mysterious outlines of table-like hills, and then red bluffs ink-blotted with junipers, and then a mountain range, dun grading into blue, and blue into dream, and the desert would meet us with a steady gale, dust, gray thorn bushes, and hideous bits of tissue paper mimicking pale flowers among the prickles of wind-tortured withered stalks all along the highway; in the middle of which there sometimes stood simple cows, immobilized in a position (tail left, eyelashes right) cutting across all human rules of traffic." (P. 153)
How did Nabokov pull this off? He arrived in the US in 1941 and conceived Lolita during a drive out in the Western US in 1955 (otherwise how could you explain the precision and realism of the above sentence?) This being his third work in a non-native English language (translated by him back to Russian in 1965 - parenthetically are there any Russophones reading this post that have read both the English and Russian Lolitas? What is the Russian one like?)
I love this description of an otherwise nondescript gas station in the middle of nowhere:
"I stared in such dull discomfort of mind at those stationary trivialities that looked almost surprised, like staring rustics, to find themselves in the stranded traveler's field of vision: that green garbage can, those very black, very whitewalled tires for sale, those bright cans of motor oil, that red icebox with assorted drinks, the four, five, seven discarded bottles within the incomplete crossword puzzle of their wooden cells, that bug patiently walking up the inside of the window of the office." (P. 211)
I could only dream of aspiring to write descriptions like that, and English is my native language. Pure genius.
There is a lot of tennis in the novel, particularly towards the end leading me to wonder if DFW was a huge Nabakov fan (being similarly obsessed with the sport.) Here is a description of chess that certainly must have given DFW some inspiration:
"I saw the board as a square as of limpid water with rare shells and stratagems rosily visible upon the smooth tessellated bottom, which to my confused adversary was all ooze and squid-cloud." (P. 233)
There is a wonderful little poem near the end:
"The moral sense in mortals is the duty
We have to pay on mortal sense of beauty." (P. 283)
The central problem in the novel is of course HH's seduction of Lo and her sometimes complicity (rebelling against the mother who never loved her). But both he and Lo are aware that he is a sham:
"It had become gradually clear to my conventional Lolita during our singular and bestial cohabitation that even the most miserable of family lives was better than the parody of incest, which, in the long run, was the best I could offer the waif." (P. 287)
Nabokov insisted that there is no moral to this novel - it is neither a condoning nor condemnation of incest. That kind of judgmental attitude would clearly have ruined the text. That being said, we clearly see that HH is a hopeless pervert and a predator, a father's worst nightmare- and we see how Lo ends up - lost, but defiant to the end.
The topic is, of course, extremely taboo, but Nabakov’s gift to get inside HH’s head and show us how dark and twisted his rationale is, as well as the clear damage it causes to Lolita serves to condemn the aspect of using one’s intellectual and physical power as well as a way of subjugating a young victim to predation. That this particular victim revealed her inner strength in both the struggle and the capitulation is what makes it great literature. If we contrast this with Boris Vian’s I Spit on Your Graves from 1946, where raping little girls is just a way of blowing off steam and rebelling against the system, we see that Lolita and HH are self-conscious characters whereas the first-person protagonist in Vian is just a licentious, violent psychopath with zero guilt or restraint and with no conscience other than some racist, pseudo-socialist ideals.
Lolita is a novel of extraordinary power and beauty in which Nabokov challenges us to read beyond our disgust and fear and live uncomfortably in HH's mind for 300 beautifully written pages. Hard to forget and impossible to ignore, it is Nabokov's greatest contribution to literature imo.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Lolita.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 1, 1990
–
Started Reading
January 4, 1990
–
Finished Reading
July 16, 2016
– Shelved
July 19, 2016
– Shelved as:
fiction
November 18, 2016
– Shelved as:
classics
November 18, 2016
– Shelved as:
american-20th-c
November 18, 2016
– Shelved as:
favorites
November 21, 2016
– Shelved as:
novels
February 8, 2017
–
Started Reading
February 8, 2017
–
6.79%
"A second or third re-read of Nabakov's most likeable and detestable character. Need some humor and this is one of the funniest, most fucked-up books I have ever read!"
page
25
February 9, 2017
–
27.17%
"HH is such a sleazebag but fuck if Nabakov does not write the shit out of this book! And in his second language! Awesome if repulsive."
page
100
February 11, 2017
–
54.35%
"Forgot how slow this book got in the middle. Another 100 pages..."
page
200
February 13, 2017
–
Finished Reading
May 11, 2017
– Shelved as:
made-into-movie
Comments Showing 1-36 of 36 (36 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
William
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Feb 13, 2017 05:09PM
An extraordinarily powerful tale. Primal, immutable, relentless... Thank you for the review, Fino.
reply
|
flag
You've really captures the hypnotic power of the language of this persuasive but shocking novel.
(One minor point: it's surely not incest, because they are not related by blood. It's paedophilia and statutory rape of a minor, isn't it?)
(One minor point: it's surely not incest, because they are not related by blood. It's paedophilia and statutory rape of a minor, isn't it?)
He is legally her step-father and he rejoices in the incestuous nature of the seduction. Any more detail would be a spoiler (because indeed there is a bit of ambiguity there as with Everything about HH!)
Thanks Cecily!
Thanks Cecily!
Truly an outstanding work of literature. I am likewise baffled at Nabokov's complete command of the English tongue.
Read your outstanding review again today. Especially topical in light of Epstein and his monstrous cohort.
I'm 67 years old now and in all my life, I've never thought about setting anyone on fire. Until now.
I'm 67 years old now and in all my life, I've never thought about setting anyone on fire. Until now.
Terrific review Michael. The 1962 movie, starring James Mason, Peter Sellers, and Sue Lyon is stunning, well made, and a classic. It was in black and white, but may have been colorized by now. On Amazon, 2.99 to rent, 13.67 to buy. I recommend it highly.
Wow, I think I may have watched in decades ago but should probably view it again! Thanks for the compliment Denise!
Denise wrote: "Terrific review Michael. The 1962 movie, starring James Mason, Peter Sellers, and Sue Lyon is stunning, well made, and a classic. It was in black and white, but may have been colorized by now. On A..."
Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Already an astounding director at this early stage.
Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Already an astounding director at this early stage.
A beautiful, insightful review of the classic "Lolita". The heart of human beings is strange and filled with passions, some of them perverse. For literature to reflect the human experience it has to be free to explore many topics people want censored. Social denial has made it (still) almost impossible for people who have experienced taboo to receive help. Shame is a gripping social cement. Because of this I think no topic should be out of reach of the writer's pen.
@William, that’s right! It was an early Kubrick with some of the most epic driving shots!
@MJ yes, to a degree, when there is some self-analysis and some measure of guilt. But, it can also be taken to a more grotesque, and in my view, a more enabling, justificatory extreme such as in J’Irai Craché Sur Vos Tombes by Boris Vian where women and little girls are treated purely as objects.
@MJ yes, to a degree, when there is some self-analysis and some measure of guilt. But, it can also be taken to a more grotesque, and in my view, a more enabling, justificatory extreme such as in J’Irai Craché Sur Vos Tombes by Boris Vian where women and little girls are treated purely as objects.
Great review Michael! I was both awed and repelled by this book. HH is so unlikeable but the prose is so brilliant I can never decide whether or not I "like" this incredible piece of literature.
Of course you are right about some literature having an "enabling" effect on people with a psychopathic orientation. After years of researching incest and seeing the common, horrible commonness of it and how it is almost impossible to prosecute successfully I have become furious at the indifference and denial I see. Sometimes it takes a book like Vian's to shake people up. I don't know where to draw the line because shoving it underground just increases sex trafficking and more sex crimes. I have spent most of my life recovering from assaults. And yes, I would have liked to burn up those who hurt me.
I am glad when someone like you (naturally there is only one you) is willing to do a review on Lolita because you WILL analyze it carefully and come back with an important answer to my comment and it brings the topic out for discussion.
I am reading a book by a psychiatrist who treats women with Dissociative Identity Disorder (which I will review) and it reveals the cost of sexual assaults graphically..
Sex is an important topic, What concerns me is the psychopaths who abuse children, not sexuality in general. Thanks for your response, it was thoughtfully written.
I am glad when someone like you (naturally there is only one you) is willing to do a review on Lolita because you WILL analyze it carefully and come back with an important answer to my comment and it brings the topic out for discussion.
I am reading a book by a psychiatrist who treats women with Dissociative Identity Disorder (which I will review) and it reveals the cost of sexual assaults graphically..
Sex is an important topic, What concerns me is the psychopaths who abuse children, not sexuality in general. Thanks for your response, it was thoughtfully written.
William wrote: "Denise wrote: "Terrific review Michael. The 1962 movie, starring James Mason, Peter Sellers, and Sue Lyon is stunning, well made, and a classic. It was in black and white, but may have been coloriz..."
YES ! Thank you for reminding me, that makes it all the more special ! Have a wonderful day !
YES ! Thank you for reminding me, that makes it all the more special ! Have a wonderful day !
Brilliant review Fino!
You selection of the excerpts made me think deeply about the main takeaway of not using your intellectual prowess to justify antics bordering on crime
You selection of the excerpts made me think deeply about the main takeaway of not using your intellectual prowess to justify antics bordering on crime
Love your review. Read this last year -- it completely captivated me. You're right that it would have been ruined by any kind of moral judgement. The brilliance of it is the cognitive dissonance -- HH is both likeable and despicable, the story is both sexy and perverted, the writing itself both so compellingly beautiful and squirmingly uncomfortable. I love that Nabokov was committed to remaining ambiguous about it and never spelled anything out the way people wanted.
Tanks Patty! I like that he challenges us to challenge his deeply flawed narrator and our own conceptions of power and sexuality.
Thank you Michael, for not only your review but the discussions you encouraged by being here throughout the comments. The comments and discussions here have helped me to think I could go back to the book I could not finish. I am also hoping the annotated version will help further with the literary part of the writing.