Warning: This work has been rated 16+ for mature content.
What
I find in Russian author Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel Lolita is not,
despite what a modern reader might infer, a moral novel. It does not
condemn hebephilia nor does it condone the practice. Instead, I see
an author utilizing his signature tools to great effect. These
include literary trickery, flowery language and the use of
suggestion. It is this which sets his writing apart from others in
the 20th Century, and it is no surprise that Lolita is his most
controversial and well known of his novels. At once, it is a
confession and a road trip novel, structured along the lines of a
tragedy to mask the events which unfold.
Born
in 1899, Vladimir Nabokov was raised in a prosperous family in St.
Petersburg, until the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Nabokov was forced
into exile on several occasions in his life. In fact, this led to him
being labelled as an émigré novelist, often involving
characters exiled and trying to habituate to new surroundings. The
protagonists of his Russian novels- such as Mary, The Gift, Glory,
Despair- are outsiders to their respective societies. Nabokov himself
went to Trinity College, England, before moving to Germany where he
wrote his Russian novels. Again, he was forced to move in 1938
because of the rising Nazi Party and their anti-Semitic Nuremburg
Laws (his wife, Vera, was Jewish). He only stayed in Paris for about
two years, until the Nazi occupation of France, in which he moved to
America in 1941. This change of scene also meant a change of
language. Starting from The Real Life of Sebastian Knight and Bend
Sinister, Nabokov would write his novels in English from now
on.
Lolita
was born out of a short story from 1939, The Enchanter, but instead
of the pseudo-charm of Humbert Humbert in the finished project, this
predator is creepy, often compared to a spider. In this short story,
he fails to seduce the young girl and kills himself. Lolita, to an
extent, can been analysed to represent Nabokov's loss of Russia, and
the narrator's attempt to regain lost love through any means
possible. After losing his first love when he was 14, before he got
the chance to consummate their relationship, Humbert becomes
constantly stuck in the past- literally, he is only sexually
attracted to young girls, whom he dubs "nymphets". These
"nymphets" are between the ages of 9-14, often painted as
sexually promiscuous and mystical. The majority of readers- as I
sometimes did- will feel uncomfortable reading his descriptions of
Dolores' legs and body, even divulging into laws about consent and
trying to justify his obsessions. Try reading that on a busy London
Underground train.
The
themes of Lolita are common in previous Nabokov's novels. Humbert's
aspiring adultery on Charlotte Haze, Dolores' mother, mirrors King,
Queen, Knave and Laughter In The Dark. Yet, Lolita is also about
cruelty, and the ways one justifies their cruelty for a common good.
Although he indulges in Dolores, she is the one who speaks the least.
Nabokov merely hints at her emotions, mainly because of Humbert's
unreliable narration. This trick is pulled off in such a way, through
his first person perspective to his rather romantic and delusional
language, that at times I question the events of the novel. I am
constantly left in the dark over Humbert's true intentions, and the
events that happen outside of his perspective. Given Nabokov's
notorious secrecy, and love of riddles and games, how can one truly
understand Lolita other than the author?
The
language of the novel, as with Nabokov's other novels, is simply
beautiful, in stark contrast to the rather distressing subject
matter. Take the famous opening lines, for example:
"Lolita,
light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the
tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to
tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in
the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in
slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line.
But in my arms she was always Lolita. Did she have a precursor? She
did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no
Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In
a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita
was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a
murderer for a fancy prose style. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple,
noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."
We
are led to believe, right away, that his mission is a romantic one.
Take the rather hyperbolic language, the combination of "sin",
"fire", "soul", or what about the clever
wordplay? The insistence of counting on a "murderer for a fancy
prose style"? How can one not be seduced by this language? The
flowery, pretentious language masks the horror of Dolores' abuses and
softens the blow of her rape. The fact that this is technically
meta-fiction, the novel's format being a confession for court,
contributes to a sense of realism despite the fantastical claims that
Humbert was in love with Dolores.
Lolita
was first published by French publishing company Olympia Press in
1955. It would not be until 1958 where both America and England would
agree to publish Lolita, given its incredibly controversial subject
matter. Even today, some readers tend to attribute Humbert's thoughts
and actions with that of Nabokov's, insisting that the novel reflects
the novelist. However, this is fairly reactionary, as Nabokov
seemingly toys with Humbert, setting him up for several falls.
Nabokov, however, is not a moral writer. As mentioned before, he does
not condemn Humbert's desires but does not condone them either. His
sitting on the fence makes his viewpoint more dangerous to a reader.
It's easier to side with a partisan than an all-rounder.
Alas,
Lolita's legacy should not be the thoughts of a "dirty old man",
but a game of deception of what is and is not real. It is a chess
game that Nabokov will always win, as he went to his grave not fully
explaining Lolita. Perhaps it never was meant to be.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
Hello BirthdayHangman,
Iv'e never tried this, reviewing a review, huh. Personally I have never read the book Lolita nor have I heard of it. It definitely sounds interesting, not something I would read, but interesting none the less.
I like how you explain Nabokov's life and how it most likely affected the writing of Lolita. Your humor throughout the review is also well received. Especially in such a dark topic as pedophilia. I also enjoy the formality of your language, which is good for a book review.
Overall this was a fine review as far as I could tell. As always keep writing
-Incohesive Scribbles
Hello and Happy Review Day! This might be interesting... reviewing a review. I'll give it a go.


Your language is really formal and detailed, I like it. The introduction (or beginning, if you want to call it that) is awesome and made me want to find out more about the novel (which I have never heard of but will now consider reading).
The second paragraph is well written. When you started mentioning some events in his life I was worried that you wouldn't link them back to his writing style or the novel. But you did!
Try reading that on a busy London Underground train.
The touch of humour is great. Your review sounds very serious, so it's a good idea to add something which brings a smile to the reader's face.
The insistence of counting on a "murderer for a fancy prose style"? How can one not be seduced by this language?
This is not a personal nitpick, but incase this is an assignment I thought I should mention it. Some teachers don't use of questions in formal writing, so you may want to check that.
The end of your review wrapped everything up nicely. I can tell you've put a lot of work into this and edited it well, because I can't find anything wrong with it.