Nabokov's Lolita: My Ramblings
Ramblings, episode 2, because not a lot of my friends read classics and someone's gotta listen to me so why not all of Tumblr? Lolita, controversial, misunderstood Lolita, almost seems like Nabokov knew just how badly the book can be misinterpreted. Repeatedly, Nabokov acknowledges the reader within the book and guesses at their horror and reactions, and leaves — frankly — obvious signs that you are supposed to dislike Humbert Humbert, question a certain scene's validity, or worry for the safety of the 12 year old in the situation. Even so, many a person looked at me in horror when I said that is the book I was reading.
"Light of my life, fire of my loins...."
I'd like to begin by discussing just how much significance the writing style holds to understanding the book, and it lies in the writing style being distinctly hard to dissect.
Nabokov's book is intensely loving of the English language, and seems to bend it to his will to properly express either the disgusting nature of Humbert's sexual fantasies. In long twisting paragraphs, Nabokov often switches languages to express thoughts, and I think he does it often to make sure that the audience has to put conscious effort into properly understanding Humbert.
Either by having to manually translate those lines or read into subtext, the reader is forced to play closer attention to and feel Humbert's paranoia or fantasy, and the writing style imitates almost stream-of-consciousness writing in its constant and lengthy elaborations on certain select descriptions to show you just how much he's focused on that or by switching to French, something he does both audibly and in his mind.
This forces you to recognize with Humbert's thoughts, so even if you approach the book with the apprehensiveness or pre-concieved notion of who Humbert is as a person, you are forced to put yourself into his shoes — or thoughts, for lack of a better metaphor — to be able to fully and properly understand him and his motivations.
However, paradoxically, this kind of close examination or living the story through only Humbert's eyes because for better or for worse, he is the only narrator we have been given for the story, also makes the book seem deceptively simple. It's easy right? Focus on what Humbert says and you'll get the story.
Yes, if Humbert was a conscientious or even unbiased narrator. No, instead, you see how he will spend multiple paragraphs, sometimes pages describing how Lolita looks playing Tennis, or how the road curves, or his fantasies. But he glosses over any emotion he does not personally feel.
In a pivotal moment, the 12 year old runs from their shared house after screaming at Humbert that he had murdered her mother. This scene changes everything. They leave the town after this and go back on travel.
However, Lolita gets no dialogue. The fact that she accuses him of killing her mother gets no dialogue. Because Humbert controls the story. He knows and is well aware how that would make him look and how much it would reveal about how Lolita truly feels about their relationship. Humbert Humbert is not Lolita's lover. She hates him. If the dialogue was written out, if Humbert would allow himself to remember that day in full, he would never be able to recover.
So he doesn't, and he doesn't tell you. You have to read between the lines. So, the writing style both heavily helps you by forcing you to pay closer attention to the story, but the voice through which it is told is actively hindering you from it. It is a brilliant novel.
His genius bursts from the pages through which he balances how Humbert romanticizes the story while also laying out red flags to bright they should blind you if you read the way he intends you to (actively) for the reader to pick up on.
I have so much to say about this book that this barely grazes the first throught I had
Poor, poor Dolores Haze. Always cursed to be remembered as Humbert's Lolita and never by her actual name.
Nabokov was a genius.
