.ReviewTime.
(Lolita By Vladimir Nabokov)
Nabovok’s Lolita presents an excellent character study for writers. Mr. Humbert is an utterly despicable character to someone who has never read the novel. He’s a pedophile, a rapist, and just kind of pathetic. To someone who has read the book (specifically someone who has just recently read it), however, Humbert Humbert is a likeable man. His character makes for an exasperating predicament; the reader is disgusted with Humbert at times, but is oddly enough willing to overlook his sexual interactions with twelve year-old Dolores Haze. The novel is thought, by writer for Vanity Fair, to be one of the most compelling love stories of its century. Now, if Lolita is the most convincing and honest love stories of 1900’s (and let’s note that the article was written before that century was over and is strictly based on one person’s opinion), then I’m a bit confused. I’d have to ask, “What does love actually mean to us?”
The problem with this question is the word, “us.” I’m referring to everyone who is not a pedophile, and let us not forget that individuals with this fetish are human beings as well (Nabokov certainly didn’t). What the author presents to us is not a “fetish” as we would like it to be, and not even a preference. Humbert does not choose to lust over adolescent women, in fact he tries avoid his feelings for them. Pedophelia is in his genetic makeup; it is unavoidable. The way we see Humbert is quite similar to how we might see the protagonist in E.M. Forster’s Maurice, or any gay character in modern literature. Just as Maurice cannot avoid his feelings for males no matter how hard he attempts to suppress them, Humbert is unable to discontinue his attraction to young girls. Likewise, “we” believe that lesbian women only have sexual preference for other women, and, finally, bi-sexuals for both sexes. In an odd way, Humbert’s inclination makes sense to the reader who does not want to see themself as a pervert, but is trying to understand the perversion in their own language. The reader thinks to his/herself, “I suppose I only have sexual preference for people in my acceptable age group, so this is plausible.” It is another case of the “norm” attempting to define “deviance.” This was my train of thought as I was reading the novel; I could relate to him because I was not like him, but have my own inclinations toward women and older men so perhaps…perhaps Humbert is normal?
In reality, he is not. In reality, Humbert Humbert possibly caused the character Lolita a great deal of childhood trauma. Her mother passed away early on in the novel and she was left with a man who seduced her, kidnapped her, and was overwhelmingly abusive psychologically, physically and sexually. She was married and with child by age seventeen. This is the horror that underlies the novel throughout. It is because we believe Humbert cannot change his love for this “nymphet” that it is somehow acceptable, but Nabokov is honest and allows us awareness of the character’s actions. I would venture to say that Lolita is such a “compelling” love story because of its inherent perversity. Without the underlying uneasiness that the reader feels, the novel would be similar to Madame Bovary; I would be nauseated with the flowery language. Apologies to those who like Madame Bovary, but I hate the novel. The only thing redeeming, and actually satisfying about it, is the end. I was (sadistically) elated when Bovary repeatedly vomited after taking arsenic. Afterward I was thinking, “YES! DEATH TO ROMATICISM!”
And, in this way, Lolita is actually quite similar in more ways than its language. Nabokov, in a sense, murders romanticism or at least the image we might have for an average romantic relationship. The main difference is that Flaubert tortures us through the entire book until the end, which is the only passage I can bare to read. Nabovok, so to speak, vomits all over us throughout the book, so that we don’t have to wait until the very end to be satisfied. By allowing us to be horrified and in love at the same time, we don’t tire of Humbert’s obnoxious poetry and ramblings. As odd as it may sound, this combination is what does make a real love story. Sorry Flaubert, you were not as crafty as a Vladimir. Perhaps you should have worked on it. What Nabokov understood is that most of us fail at love. Until we find any kind of solid partner, there is that underlying horror that our relationships will end. That sentiment of doom, perhaps, is what Vanity Fair was referring to.
The problem with this question is the word, “us.” I’m referring to everyone who is not a pedophile, and let us not forget that individuals with this fetish are human beings as well (Nabokov certainly didn’t). What the author presents to us is not a “fetish” as we would like it to be, and not even a preference. Humbert does not choose to lust over adolescent women, in fact he tries avoid his feelings for them. Pedophelia is in his genetic makeup; it is unavoidable. The way we see Humbert is quite similar to how we might see the protagonist in E.M. Forster’s Maurice, or any gay character in modern literature. Just as Maurice cannot avoid his feelings for males no matter how hard he attempts to suppress them, Humbert is unable to discontinue his attraction to young girls. Likewise, “we” believe that lesbian women only have sexual preference for other women, and, finally, bi-sexuals for both sexes. In an odd way, Humbert’s inclination makes sense to the reader who does not want to see themself as a pervert, but is trying to understand the perversion in their own language. The reader thinks to his/herself, “I suppose I only have sexual preference for people in my acceptable age group, so this is plausible.” It is another case of the “norm” attempting to define “deviance.” This was my train of thought as I was reading the novel; I could relate to him because I was not like him, but have my own inclinations toward women and older men so perhaps…perhaps Humbert is normal?
In reality, he is not. In reality, Humbert Humbert possibly caused the character Lolita a great deal of childhood trauma. Her mother passed away early on in the novel and she was left with a man who seduced her, kidnapped her, and was overwhelmingly abusive psychologically, physically and sexually. She was married and with child by age seventeen. This is the horror that underlies the novel throughout. It is because we believe Humbert cannot change his love for this “nymphet” that it is somehow acceptable, but Nabokov is honest and allows us awareness of the character’s actions. I would venture to say that Lolita is such a “compelling” love story because of its inherent perversity. Without the underlying uneasiness that the reader feels, the novel would be similar to Madame Bovary; I would be nauseated with the flowery language. Apologies to those who like Madame Bovary, but I hate the novel. The only thing redeeming, and actually satisfying about it, is the end. I was (sadistically) elated when Bovary repeatedly vomited after taking arsenic. Afterward I was thinking, “YES! DEATH TO ROMATICISM!”
And, in this way, Lolita is actually quite similar in more ways than its language. Nabokov, in a sense, murders romanticism or at least the image we might have for an average romantic relationship. The main difference is that Flaubert tortures us through the entire book until the end, which is the only passage I can bare to read. Nabovok, so to speak, vomits all over us throughout the book, so that we don’t have to wait until the very end to be satisfied. By allowing us to be horrified and in love at the same time, we don’t tire of Humbert’s obnoxious poetry and ramblings. As odd as it may sound, this combination is what does make a real love story. Sorry Flaubert, you were not as crafty as a Vladimir. Perhaps you should have worked on it. What Nabokov understood is that most of us fail at love. Until we find any kind of solid partner, there is that underlying horror that our relationships will end. That sentiment of doom, perhaps, is what Vanity Fair was referring to.
0 comments:
Post a Comment