Natalie's review

I think you didn't quite engage with the point of the novel...perhaps try again in a few years.

I hear you- I've been halfway through this book for five years.

Thank you for your condescending comment.

How exactly was that condescending? I was just saying that I've been reading the book for years because I haven't enjoyed it enough to finish it.

I was responding to Jill, not you. You weren't condescending at all, Salma. :-)

I agree - get thee hence, Jill, to a place where thou canst read and reread Harry Compass or the Golden Potter or whatever makes you hot and cynical. Or maybe just wait a few years.

I think that Jill probably just skimmed the review instead of reading it, although I could be wrong.

In the actual review I think I made it clear that some reviews of the book *and* the book jacket itself seemed to have misinterpreted the book as a love story where the reader sympathizes with Humbert, but to me that's clearly not what the book is about.

And what the book *is* about -- just punishing Humbert -- is not as groundbreaking or moving as the misinterpretation is. It's rather cut and dry: here's a pedophile, pedophilia is bad. Since I was expecting something much more, this made the book disappointing to me. On the whole it wasn't even thought-provoking. I had no moral dilemmas to wrestle with because there weren't any: Humbert was just a terrible guy who got his. This is what makes me feel the book is over-hyped. Some people love to see bad guys get punished and that's fine, but it's not my thing since I tend to like books that raise difficult moral questions. I thought that's what this book would be and it's not, which is also fine, but I'd rather other like-minded people not be mislead and disappointed like I was.

I can appreciate that it has an unordinary narrator and some clever prose, but I don't find much of interest beyond that. If Humbert and Lolita had actually been mutually in love, and if Humbert had not treated her terribly or fantasized about, oh, raping their grandchildren, then there would have been much more to think about. That wasn't Nabokov's purpose as far as I can tell, though, which is fine. I just don't think it deserves the hype it gets.

I do see what you're getting at. To me, and it's been about 10 years since I've read it, Lolita was about the utter beauty of the prose juxtaposed with the constant tension of an ugly relationship. Since I didn't go into it expecting the presentation of moral issues, I didn't feel disappointed on that front. ...

Humbert fantasized about raping their grandchildren?? Ewww...

Yeah! It's pretty messed up. I can understand why someone who enjoys the "punish the bad guy" kind of book would like that, because that's where he becomes just unquestionably terrible... that kind of reader can't wait for him to get his, I would imagine.

But for me that was the point in the book where I thought, "Okay, we are firmly in morally dark territory and there's just nothing for me to think about anymore." When there was nothing redeemable left about him the story just got boring to me.

Wow, this sounds so awful that I'm actually intrigued...lol

Natalie,

While I liked your review, and can sympathize with the issue of over-hyped books in a very general way, I find that there is perhaps a deeper interpretation than that of god-awful HH getting just what he deserved.

The fact that he wants to impregnate Lolita, have sex with the children of that union onto the grandchildren, speaks to the depth of his depravity, yes, but he is a man driven on by compulsion. HH is disgusted by his lust, and in various spots throughout the narrative, and most especially towards the end, deeply regrets the life he has ruined with his actions. That doesn't make it okay - regret almost never does, however heartfelt and honest.

Also, just because he is a selfish man does not mean that he has not loved Lolita. He has loved her, selfishly. He has cherished her, wanted her happiness, agonized over the lack of (positive) feeling she has for him. He has just done all of those things selfishly, doing nothing but acknowledging the way she feels while keeping his own visceral interests first and foremost. The idea of love being inherently unselfish is I think a modern invention, and does not match with many people's realities and experiences. HH does not take some sort of sadistic pleasure from Lolita's tears while he is effectively raping her, but is compelled in a way that we may perhaps not understand. It's not okay, but it is real.

One other thing that I thought arguable in your review: you suggest that if Lolita had perhaps fallen in love with HH, and had had with him from then on a consensual relationship, that you may have them been driven to question your morals regarding pederasty. I do not think that those two things follow logically. What if Lolita had fallen in love with a man several years her senior? Does that mean that she is old enough to be involved in a consensual sexual relationship? Our ideas of childhood are very much tied in with an assumption of innocence, most especially sexual innocence. I think these are all things very much worth questioning, especially in today’s greatly over-sexed society where voluptuous dolls (see Bratz) have become the norm in child play. I do not think that Lolita reciprocating feelings for HH would effectively solve this problem, or simplify it in any way.

Thanks for your comment Mariam. :-) I can definitely see where you're coming from, especially in regards to how his own actions disgust himself at times.

I think what you said here is true: "The idea of love being inherently unselfish is I think a modern invention, and does not match with many people's realities and experiences." However, to me, it's largely semantics to classify his feelings for Lolita as "love" or not. For example, if you have a definition of love which can include negative and abusive relationships, it is fair to say he "loved" her. My definition is more narrow: I personally reserve "love" for the more positive and less selfish end of the spectrum, so instead of saying that he "loved" Lolita, I say he "lusted" for her and was "obsessed" with her and "abused" her. I also do not think to call it "love" because he was only attracted to her physically -- her personality irritated him -- and I've always felt that "love" was more than physical attraction. However, I admit it's possible to define love to include those feelings as well. I don't feel that any definition is more right than another, I'm just explaining how I was using the term. :-)

Whether we call his feelings "love" or not, though, he's still an awful guy. Whether or not "rape," "lust," "disdain for her personality," "the desire to engage in incest with their progeny," and "selfishness" fall under the umbrella of "love" is irrelevant, I feel, because his feelings and actions are the same no matter what we call them. We seem to agree that his actions were wrong and selfish, but disagree on whether he is worth feeling something for.

One thing I'm not sure if we agree on or not... you say that he wanted her to be happy, but in a selfish way. To me, that's not wanting her to be happy, it's wanting her to be happy *with him,* and largely so it would not be so difficult to get sex out of her. (The pages that come to mind here are the ones where he reveals that he's had to start bribing her, because this is the only part where I can recall his lamenting her unhappiness for any appreciable length. There may well be other parts I've forgotten.) To me, it's somewhat of a stretch to call that concern for her happiness, although it's true on some technical levels. The real proof that he doesn't care about her happiness, though, comes from his jealousy. If Lolita is happy with anyone who isn't him, he gets upset. It's true that normal people get jealous sometimes, and it's true that in a way, there is a small selfish component to the love that anyone feels for another person. I feel like HH is far worse than all that, though, all things considered. The kind of "concern for happiness" he has for Lolita is the kind that only a sociopath has.

It's also true that he doesn't enjoy Lolita's tears specifically, but it's still not enough to make him stop raping her. He would be an even more awful person if he did enjoy the tears, but the way I look at it, there is always a way in which someone could be more awful. To me, HH wasn't Hitler, but he was still beyond my sympathy. Anyone who would force himself on another person is beyond my sympathy, really.

I guess the way I look at things, everyone has impulses to do bad things sometimes. Some people have these impulses more than others, and some people's impulses urge them to take far more immoral actions than others' impulses do. To me, what determines if someone is a good person (or even just an "okay" person) is the extent to which they act on or ignore those impulses. I place less importance on what their impulses are as long as they don't act on them.

So, for example, there is an extent to which I could feel sorry for a pedophile. Namely, I feel sorry for the ones that struggle with it every day, but never act on it. These kinds of people are not selfish and do not hurt other people, and the strength it takes to do that is admirable. I'm reminded of a news story from some time in 2007 where a man was very open about his attraction to children, and writing about it helped keep him from acting on it. Authorities were at a loss for what to do with that man, and so am I. In some ways, that man is a stronger person than others who have weaker impulses.

Additionally, to wade into murkier waters -- and to address your last paragraph -- I would find it easier to feel sorry for a pedophile whose "victim" (here the term is more ambiguous) seemed to be genuinely in love with the pedophile. So lets say that Lolita genuinely enjoyed the sex and felt that she was in love with HH. You're absolutely correct that it would not mean that Lolita is mature enough for such a relationship, and it would still be wrong for HH to take advantage of her. (I hate those Bratz dolls! They encourage children to act more adult than they actually are.)

However, at least to me, it's *less* wrong than what HH actually does to Lolita in the book. It would be easier to feel some sort of sadness for HH if Lolita was happy with him, because he would not be faced with constant reminders that Lolita did not want the relationship. For example, Lolita would be happy to spend time with him and have sex with him. She would not try to run away from him or cry while they had sex. It would show that HH actually cares about Lolita's happiness in a less selfish, albeit still misguided, way. In other words, it would be more understandable that HH would have fodder for mentally justifying the relationship. To justify it at all is still very wrong, but it's less wrong than what happens in the book.

On the whole, I would be able to feel sadness for his character then. There is a threshold somewhere, I guess where it becomes obviously unconsensual instead of only statutory, where it is no longer possible for me to feel that way.

As far as interpretations of the book go, you may well be right; perhaps it isn't about punishing HH, and instead I really am supposed to feel something for HH because of what his compulsion leads him to do. Your comment is much better at articulating that interpretation than others I have read, and it seems more plausible now. So thank you. :-)

However, I *personally* just can't feel that way toward someone who is so selfish that he would knowingly ruin another person's life, who doesn't have the strength to be a better person even when his own actions disgust him. Essentially, for me to feel sorry for HH we'd have to move him several shades back from the immoral end of the spectrum. If he was less of a rapist, if he was more concerned with Lolita's feelings, there would be enough humanity in him for me to connect with.

Instead, he seemed sociopathic. The only time I had some doubts of this was when he was remembering his childhood girlfriend, and even then it seemed like a selfish, sexual thing. Sociopaths aren't worth pity because they don't feel any kind of concern for other people unless it's rooted in selfishness. Also, all pedophiles are not sociopaths -- see: the man I mentioned above.

That's why the punishment interpretation made more sense to me, because it was unfathomable to me that anyone could feel something for HH. Now I'm not sure what Nabokov had in mind, to be honest; it's not certain that HH was a sociopath, it just seemed like it to me. Other people are certainly capable for feeling more for HH, and other people would definitely enjoy seeing HH punished more than I would. Either way, though, it just doesn't connect with me, as is inevitable with books. I know that I've loved a lot of books that other people haven't, so I'll just respect that other people got something from Lolita even though I didn't. :-)

I agree with Jill's comment.

Also, this review reminds me of the time I tried to look at a particular famous painting and there were crowds of people standing in front of it, not really looking or feeling, but announcing resentfully: "it's overrated" -- taking away the opportunity to really experience the painting for him or herself (and others) by jumping in with this expectation.
Whomever rates it doesn't really matter. It's understanding the book, the power of the words -- and, like any art form, not everyone has to like it.

How in the world am I saying anything different? I didn't personally enjoy the book, but I'm not precluding anyone else of their opinion. And where could you possibly get the impression that I "jumped in" with the impression that it's overrated? I stated explicitly that I read the book because it sounded like something I would like, that it would live up to expectations. Before I read the book I was predisposed to enjoy it, not reject it. I gave it a more than fair chance and I still did not like it.

In fact, for you to agree with Jill's comment that I should read it in a few more years -- implying that everyone *must* like the book or else it is a flaw of their understanding -- is hypocritical. You're saying that if I don't like something that you like, that my opinion is invalid. If it were truly acceptable to you that "like any art form, not everyone has to like it," you wouldn't have written off my opinion as someone "not really looking and feeling." You would have instead correctly realized that it's subjective and that people like and dislike different things.

Someone can be "really looking and feeling" and be disappointed, or have it not resonate with them while it does resonate with someone else. Similarly, something can unintentionally resonate with someone who misunderstands it to mean something else. In short, understanding and resonance are two different issues. It's incredibly pretentious to act as if anyone who dislikes something you enjoy "doesn't get it."

Good points -- I was just reacting to the expectations that are set up by "Them," that make us look at something with outside expectations. I know art in any form is really personal, that's really what I was trying to say. I didn't mean to get on my high horse!

I apologize, that's actually more clear to me now.

In that sense you're right; my expectations of the book were colored by what other people had said about it. And even though my expectations were high rather than low as a result, I was probably *more* disappointed than I would have normally been because, to me, it didn't live up to what other people had said about it.

It probably would have been more enjoyable had I gone in with no expectations whatsoever, which is something I regret. Unfortunately, especially with popular books that everyone talks about, it's difficult (at least for me) to forget everything I've heard about it beforehand. :(

Natalie, this is a very interesting discussion. I read "Reading Lolita in Tehran," without having read Lolita, and since then, of course, I've been toying with the idea of reading "Lolita."

From the discussion here, it seems that the review on your book cover, the one that called it "the only convincing love story of our time," was VERY MISLEADING. I wonder if there is someone out there who can explain THAT review? It sounds like the book consists of very elegant prose written about a man with a life-shattering and perverse, obsessive-compulsive, criminal trait. Intriguing, yes, but how is that the most convincing love story of our time?

If I ever read this book, I'll be thankful for having read this discussion and for not expecting a fantastic love story where (apparently) there isn't one. Why couldn't the publishers have been more honest and said something like, it's a book about a man with one of the most vile of neuroses, elaborated in glittering prose? That's something I'd read, and it sounds like it would be more truthful to the nature of the book.

***

UPDATE: Now I have read more reviews about Lolita. Apparently some people really do feel it was a love story, even though the love was only one-sided. (So far I haven't seen anyone arguing that Lolita loved HH back.) From the reviews, even though HH was selfish and abusive during the his 2-year relationship with Lolita, people feel that HH changed, and he manifests true love toward the end of the book, when he tries to win Lolita back, no matter what, and even if it's just as friends or something. So the impression I get is that his love for Lolita transcended his pedophilia, and he actually still wants to be with her, even though she is out of his age range (older than 16!!!) and pregnant ... no longer a nymphette. So from the sound of it, the love story is HH's transformation from selfish, obsessive pedophile to true lover at the end. However, maybe not, maybe he still is a pedophile at the end. I'm not sure because I didn't read anything hidden due to spoilers. This is just the interpretation I've picked up from some of the reviews.

I must say: the more I read, the more intriguing this book sounds! Natalie, thank you for developing this intelligent and lively discussion. It has certainly added to the mystery and intrigue surrounding this book. However, I don't want to overly hype the book for anyone, including myself, since I haven't read it yet! We'll see. I've seen enough opposing opinions now .... I'll go in with an open mind, without high or low expectations.

Hi Rachel!

After discussing his back and forth with people, I'm still puzzled by it. I've found a YouTube clip a few months ago that was an old interview with Nabokov himself and even he referred to it as "love" and said something to the effect that love can be a lot of things.

Personally, I find that so broad a view of love as to be meaningless. Since Nabokov himself is good with using words precisely, I can only think that he would not call it "love" if he meant something else narrower and more nefarious -- like "obsession" -- by it. I'd certainly agree that sometimes people do terrible or misguided things when they're in love, but I feel like there should be a linguistic line drawn somewhere or it doesn't mean anything at all anymore. However blurry a line it might be, it's certainly well before obsessive pedophilia and rape. Language is only useful insofar as it communicates something successfully, and like you noted, that review is misleading because it implies something entirely different than what the book is actually about.

I think what it boils down to is that some people have views of the world that are very open to including just about anything under the umbrella of love, and that's why they say Lolita is about love. To me, it makes love an empty word that no longer has a use in conversation since it conveys nothing. I guess I look at it from a utilitarian point of view. When it comes to what people actually mean by "love" in Lolita, usually it turns out that I have no substantive disagreement with them, only a semantic one. It seems like the whole conversation could be avoided if they just used a more precise word. It would also mean that people who read the book would have a better idea of what they're getting.

I think it is more edgy and controversial to call it "love," though, which is probably part of the reason it subsists. Whatever we call it, it doesn't change the meaning of what actually happened in the book though, so I think it's rather silly. But to each their own, I guess!

Hi Natalie: That's funny, I posted my update at the same time as you were posting this response. Thanks so much! As you can see from my update above, I did get some more insight into this idea of "love" in Lolita by reading some more goodreads reviews. What do you think about this idea of HH being reformed and having learned the meaning of true love by the end of the book? Well, maybe I should stop reading this thread for now; perhaps your answer would give away too much of the ending for me. :) Now I am quite interested in this book!

That might be what they're thinking. In that case, though, I completely disagree; I didn't get that impression from the end of the book at all, haha. If anything, he seemed worse to me in a lot of ways, like he felt like he *owned* her.

If you end up reading it, let me know what you think at the end. :-)