20240903 - 21:00
Lolita. Lo-lee-ta. Lo. Lee. Ta. Lo. Lola. Dolly. Dolores. Lolita.
A wiser man might have taken the notice given and turned around. I was perhaps coming in with too high expectations, but considering the discussions surrounding it, how could I not? Unfortunately, not only did reality not measure up, it makes the discussions seem absurd. It was, honestly, a bit shocking. Lolita is, if anything, controversial. Written from the eyes of a Pedophile, that most definite symbol of Evil, it is sure to bring up some heat. But, it says, here we are, expected to sympathize, to forget ourselves in the beautiful prose of Humbert, a most dignified man. Thus we might face the real tragedy, not of an abstract and absolute evil, but that of the violence and debauchery of our fellow man. Hitler suffered, too. Surely a most noble, just, and brave cause, only, it falls completely flat.
At the core of Lolita’s failure is the misunderstanding that holding 2 opposing views simultaneously is somehow “complex” or “deep”. Let me be first to say: it is not. Humbert is a pedophile, and through his actions Lolita’s mother dies, and Lolita is effectively kidnapped and continously raped for a span of years. This is enveloped in flowery language, in less-than-expected drama that such events might conjure up, and importantly, with a thin veil of “care”. This story certainly provides ample opportunity for the development of complex and controversial themes that are not often brought up, and its failure only hurts that much more for the possibilities that failed to deliver.
Humbert’s biggest fault is perhaps his self-awareness. He is aware of how he is hurting Lolita. It is a constant thread throughout the book. Simultaneously, he claims to care, even to love, Lolita. As an individual. The first problem is that his care is always second to his own selfish needs, in short, rape, which is the direct root of Lolita’s suffering. The care can thus never be anything but a thinly veiled excuse, a way to pat himself on the back. Which, sure enough, but again, Humbert’s biggest fault is his self-awareness. He is aware that he is the cause of her suffering. Yet he doesn’t problematize his claims of care, of love. This is even more evident as he claims to love Lolita, the individual, an individual who does not exist in the book as anything but the idealistic “pubescent concubine”, something he himself admits. He does not know Lolita as a person, a trait he shares with us as readers. He knows that he doesn’t, yet simultaneously he claims to love her. This, again, is not brought up in anything akin to a critical light. Holding opposing views simultaneously is NOT complex. It’s stupid.
Lolita is known for beautiful and lyrical prose, and it does indeed have its moments. Interestingly the prose is intervowen with the story, as it’s written by Humbert himself, who constantly justifies himself as a “Gentleman” and “Poet”. He is not a monster, he claims, he’s an old-world gentleman, a soft-eyed and sensitive scholar and poet. In the beginning, this justification, this almost fetishizing light in which he views himself, does actually work. His actions are consistent in a lack of violence, and as he claims, he is just a victim of unfortunate circumstance, of needs and desires that he never asked for. He is searching for their expression sure, but always in ways that minimize, that inhibits, the violence it implies. He searches for ways to drug Lolita with sleeping-pills, that he might get satisfaction without her being aware. It is interspersed with violent thoughts, like what would happen if he killed Lolita’s mother and got custody of her, but these thoughts linger only as daydreams, and is terribly consistent with the view he holds of himself. Then, around halfway through the book, Lolita’s mother unexpectedly dies in an accident, and everything changes. Humbert continues to isolate and rape Lolita for a period of years. He continues with his self-view, but his action no longer matches it, and, again, there is a very glaring hole where complexity should be. He does not acknowledge his change of actions, and does not betray any internal conflict. The second half of the book marks the downfall of Lolita: The person just as much as the book.
The fact that this book is filled to the brim with reviews of an “unreliable narrator” and thematized as a complex romance is in my opinion completely unjustifiable and frankly absolutely absurd. Humbert is painfully self-aware, constantly accurate in his telling of events. The only thing unreliable is perhaps the things he doesn’t tell. The reader learns very little about Lolita except in the context of Humbert’s fantasies, and later, actions, which works in favor of the story as Humbert is not “actually” interested in Lolita, but only the “nymphet”. That which we do learn is never in favor of their “relationship”, often very clearly not, and it takes very uncritical eyes to think that Lolita is interested in Humbert, including ignoring outbursts of very blatant accusations of rape, kidnapping, and brutal attacks on Humbert’s person. To honestly believe that a 13 year old child screaming rape to her (very) adult older is just a regular, complicated, lover’s squarrel, is, well, I think any adjectives in my repertoire fail to properly convey what that implies.
If this book managed to do one thing, it is to get me emotional enough to write a review. I could go on and on, but I think this captures the main issues, and the quotes to back it up is abundant in storage. I am unfortunately very disappointed with Lolita, and a bit scarred in trust of public opinion. Is flowery prose and controversial topics all that’s required? If so, I will leave as a last and ultimate quiz this excerpt.
the windshield wipers in full action but unable to cope with my tears.