Lolita
A number of emotions and ideas came up as I was reading Vladimir Nabokov’s controversial novel, Lolita. First, what is he trying to say? Should I look at this book in a psychoanalytic view and consider this work as a form of release? Does this mean Nabokov himself fancies pre-pubescent girls? Does this book elicit fear, as I try to remember my own pre-teen years? What is this book all about?
Lolita is about the account of an old man named Humbert Humbert and his ‘love’ towards the young Dolores Haze, the daughter of her landlady when he was invited to move to America. The book started with Humbert’s beginnings, including his discovery of the opposite sex, his first love Annabel, and how her death haunted him for several years. As he grows older he discovers that he has an eye for pre-teen girls, whom he calls as ‘nymphets’. He characterizes these ‘nymphets’ as young girls “between the age limits of nine and fourteen” (16) and who “reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac).” (16) These ‘nymphets’ are not necessarily good looking, however, they have that “elusive, shifty, soul-shattering, insidious charm” (17) that distinguish these young girls from other girls their age. In order to spot a ‘nymphet’, one must notice the “the slightly feline outline of the cheekbone, the tenderness of a downy limb, and other indices which despair and shame and tears of tenderness… the little deadly demon among the wholesome children; she stands unrecognized by them…” (17) The sight of these ‘nymphets’ knocks Humbert off his feet, with pictures of desire and lust playing inside his mind.
When Humbert moved to America, he met Charlotte Haze and her twelve-year old daughter, Dolores. Dolores is the nymphet of all nymphets, and Humbert spent a lot of time in torture for he cannot lay a finger on the young Lo (as what her mother calls her). But because of some events, Humbert found himself taking Lo away from the summer camp and traveling from the different states, and being more captivated in Lo’s beauty. He falls madly and obsessively in love with Dolores, his Lolita.
While this joyride seemed to be forever, the end of the novel is not joyous, and is nothing to be celebrated about. This idea already came forth the moment I picked up the book. I thought that it would be impossible for a thirty to forty-year old man to cohabitate with a twelve to thirteen-year old girl. While Humbert played as Dolores’ stepfather, he also took the part of being Dolores’ (aging) lover. While reading the book it also occurred to me that Humbert never grew out of his childhood love, Annabel. The rest of the novel is all filled with his thoughts of Dolores, but I assumed that his fascination for young girls all started with his love affair with Annabel during his childhood years.
During the early part of the novel, I cannot see any signs of love or affection between Humbert and Dolores. I believe that Humbert is just under Dolores’ spell, while she seems to be using Humbert for he has the money that can provide her with her basic necessities such as food, clothes, and shelter. In this sense Dolores’ age served both as an advantage and disadvantage to her, for she cannot do everything she wants for as long as she is under the guardianship of Humbert. At the end of the story, I still don’t think that Humbert fell in love with Dolores. When Humbert learned about Dolores’ whereabouts after their separation, he showed his utter disappointment upon seeing her “hugely pregnant. Her head looked smaller, and her pale-freckled cheeks were hollowed, and her bare shins and arms hand lost all their tan…” (269) It is true that Humbert asked Dolores to come with him, but I think it is not because of love, but his desperation of trying to re-live the days when he used to spend his time with Dolores. And even if Dolores decided to stay with him and leave her husband, it would be hard for Humbert to deal with her for she is obviously not the same ‘nymphet’ that he adored for a number of years.
As a reader, I am having a trouble where should I put Lolita in terms of literary genre. Is it an erotica? Pornography (is this a literary genre?) Tragedy, perhaps? While I cannot deny that the novel does elicits strong sexual (and sensual) feelings (I mean, it’s sex between a man and a woman, right?), I dismissed the idea right away, especially when I remembered that it’s sex alright — between a man and a girl old enough to be his youngest daughter. Yes, it’s modern social rules working on me.
Nabokov’s Lolita is full of madness and obsession. Each word gives us the gripping account of Humbert’s thoughts, plans, and feelings. I am not even sure if I am disgusted with the story or if I admire the expression of uncontrollable cravings in the novel. I didn’t get the answer to the questions I presented earlier in this article. However, I think Nabokov gave his readers like me a chance to interpret this novel the way we see it, and for me, Lolita is an example of fine literature that makes uses words intensely to present an equally powerful emotion of a man to his nymph, his Lolita.
Reference:
Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Lolita. New York: First Vintage International, 1989.
Related links:
Lolita at WikiPedia
Time Magazine All-time 100 Novels: Lolita
Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita : University of Arizona
Angela Solis grew up in the Philippines before moving in to Canada in 2003. She became a Canadian in 2006. Angela is 22 years old and an alumna of University of Manitoba with a degree in Psychology. She has been blogging since 2002. She maintains a 
December 28th, 2005 at 6:22 am
interesting read. gusto ko yung mga ganyang theme na novels. hehehe
December 28th, 2005 at 9:48 am
I’ve never read this book. But I’ve seen the movie, the one which starred Jeremy Irons and Melanie Griffith. He did a fine performance.
Interesting review.
December 28th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Lolita is a prism of a novel - you get assorted colors in different angles in different hues of light sources.
When I first red it way way back in high school, I thought it was pygmalion in disguised - a sort of protest for living as someone’s fantasy, which if you’re a woman, can be translated as a feminist middle finger to a man’s dream of a girl living under his shadows.
As to your question regarding it’s genre, I lumped Lolita in my ever growing pile of great eroticas. The linguist Nabokov pushed the thematic boundary of a novel in his unnative language (as F.Sionil Jose writing Ilocano in English, so is Nabokov evoking Russian in his English).
Most of Nabokov’s book dealt with subjects considered taboo then (incest, etc.), and paved the way for others to explore this taboos (just look at F.Sionil’s incestious novel Sin).
I noticed that you have the 1989 vintage edition, you might be interested in the annotated 1991 vintage edition.
P.S.
There are two versions of Lolita the movie. You might want to rent them both.
The 1962 Stanley Kubrick’s version is a good movie, but deviates so much from the book.
The 1997 Adrian Lyne’s version is more faithful to the novel, methinks.
Good day to you Angela,
Michael
December 28th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
you’re handyfemme? yay.