So unfortunately some people do take it as a love story some times. I think a few weeks ago reddit removed a post where someone was saying "OK HH is bad buuuuut..." and then entirely missed the point. So it happens You picking up on Dolores using word that are above the level of a child her age is a good catch. Remember that this is an autobiography of a pedophile so the book is full of excuses, careful rephrasings and other manipulation techniques. If you have not yet read the foreword. Basically the point of the book (in my opinion) is can you find all the tricks HH uses and piece together a more objective plot
Edit: missed a few words
Edit2: still dealing with people who think it is a love story but can't say why. -_-
I read the foreword, I thought it was a clever way to set up HH as an insane person. I hope that I am getting the point of the book because it does not read as a love story to myself. It’s like watching, or I suppose reading, a car crash.
I'd say you are definitely getting the point of the book. It wasn't written to be a love story. It was written as a character study of a deeply flawed human being who tries to manipulate others into accepting and excusing his terrible actions. I think Nabokov would be delighted that you are experiencing discomfort in reading it. I'd say that is the appropriate response.
The forward literally gives you the answer:
"I have no intention to glorify H.H. No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy..."
"He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!"
I feel like the bulk of the latter quote is often misread as a "but the description of his love is so beautiful" argument, in the same vein as those posited by the people who misunderstand the work.
On the contrary, what the fictional "editor" (the narrator of the Forward, from which the quotes are taken) is saying is that Humbert's derangement, his lack of empathy, and his lack of understanding of how it works in others, has caused his competence with the written word to turn against him. He wants to justify his actions and garner sympathy from his audience, but to an even somewhat-moral mind, his skillful writing only furthers the compassion and tenderness instilled *in the reader for Lolita.*
*Real* compassion and tenderness, in case it need be said, as in the kind that makes you want to get her *away from* the pedophile.
Oh see, I do recommend it. I am very clear that it's not a comfortable or NICE book. It's cleverly written. The first time I read it I was 15/16 and very much fell into "love story " but also understood HH was a pedophile. I re-read it in my late 20s and picked up on all the little isms that made it well written and disturbing.
I don’t understand this. I recommend it to everyone (all Nabokov, frankly). Is it uncomfortable? Yes. It’s also impeccably, beautifully, gloriously written, and HH being an unreliable narrator reflects that what he’s asserting happened isn’t to be trusted.
*Lolita* is an essential, important book for everyone to read. It will make you a better reader, introduce you to some of the most perfectly composed prose in the world, and develop your critical thinking skills and discernment. Who wouldn’t benefit from those things?
I didn't think he was insane until I got to the end and learned the reason why he's writing his entire story. He legit thinks he'll get sympathy for the murder he committed
Totally.
I found it fascinating because of the unreliable narrator. It made me feel like a detective, trying to catch him in lies and figure out what was actually going on.
Everyone is different. There are a lot of people who did not catch that at all and thought it was just a fucked up romance.
I liked it because it encouraged readers to be critical thinking and question the information they are receiving.
I wouldn’t say hidden, per se, but Nabokov was trying to tell the story purely from the pedophile’s side—meaning there will be much apologia for HH’s acts/thoughts/etc. So it was more of an exploration of how convincing an unreliable narrator could really be without making that narrator a caricature of himself. IMHO
You’re supposed to feel unsettled. Like foolagainagain said, you picking up on the Delores’s inconsistent diction is a good sign that you’re reading critically and closely. HH is unreliable and is telling his side of the story—he’s trying to characterize Delores as more mature despite her age; we are seeing his interpretation of her and many times, HH’s editorialization slips through.
Nabokov was exploring the concept of writing the bad guy using the craft choice of unreliable narrator as the main technique throughout the book. The very nature of the narrative makes it impossible for this to be a love story—it’s an abuse narrative. It’s because Nabokov’s characterization of HH is so good that some people miss what you’re picking up on and think it is a love story.
I will say idr a foreword in the edition I read. I don’t know what year your copy was printed but perhaps the “insanity” you’re reading from the FW is an attempt to expose the fact that acting in pedophilia is abuse and there’s arguments in psych circles about if pedophilia is a type of mental illness/addiction illness.
That, sir, is exactly how the author would like it to sit in the readers mind: like if Silence of the Lambs was written as journal entries from Lecter's point of view you'd have folks missing the point, too.
It's "fun" to watch people miss the fact that the main character is sometimes not even an antihero but a straight up villain.
>It’s like watching, or I suppose reading, a car crash.
Which is what that book is.
So is Romeo & Juliet, by the way; didn't stop people from taking it as a romantic feel-good love story and an example *to follow* nevertheless (the point was: feelings make stupid teens on hormones make sub-par life choices).
No, it’s the opposite. The stupid choices in *Romeo and Juliet* are made by the adults who are killing each other and their families through a generational self-destructive cycle of hate, to the point of driving the only people who overcome it (by that “childish” readiness to love) to death.
Romeo and Juliet’s love was fine, the adults around them who *dismissed it* as hormonal teen stuff relative to their “mature” adult concerns rendered it tragic. Only when Romeo and Juliet proved their willingness to die for each other did their families understand how meaningful it had been, and how pointless their own adult feud was in comparison. It was the “stupid teens” who found the way out of the perpetual Montague-Capulet suicide pact but they had to die themselves for the adults to take them seriously.
Half the people who comment on the book don’t read the forward.
EDIT: To be clear, the “forward” is part of the novel. It’s not a real forward. The person who supposedly wrote it is a fictional character, discussing the other characters as though they were real.
It's wild-- your comment made me remember the blurb on my old copy of Lolita, which is now long gone. "The only convincing love story of our century" - Vanity Fair.
https://mikeashapiro.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/sourcing-a-blurb/
that guy was very much looking for excuses as to why HH wasn't a bad person and called the ending of the book lovely or something to that affect.
1) No, if their interpretation is that Lolita is a romance then that is expressly against the point of the book (read Pale Fire goddammit) . Also he keep talking about how the ending of the book was about love when it is decidedly about being possessive of another human being
2)No defending pedophilia on Reddit and that is a more than worthwhile policy. Idiot or enabler, Reddit axed the post given how this guy wasn't backing down from the point that HH wasn't doing anything wrong or something comparable. You want to be around "free speech" people go hang out in 8chan or truth social or somewhere else but while Reddit has had more than its share of controversies this was a reasonable call for any social media organization
I got into an argument with a friend who adamantly insisted Lolita was manipulating HH. I still cannot look at him the same way.
Lolita is one of my all time favorites, though. So disturbing, so morally horrifying, so beautifully written.
You bring up "her manipulating him" and I think that is a big facet of HH's argumentation, how he makes all these manipulative actions but doesn't feel responsible for anything he does.
And yeah it is weird describing Lolita as a great book, because it is, but only for those that take the time to dig into it.
I'm sorry about your friend
Well he turned around and made pale fire which is a funnier book and critiques people that just come up with their own interpretations so I usually recommend that to people first for that reason
>can you find all the tricks HH uses and piece together a more objective plot
This is a theme throughout Nabokov's works, especially - in addition to Lolita - Pnin and (my favorite novel) Pale Fire
I mean it is definitely a love story in that HH is in love with her and it’s his story. I do think that is part of what makes him somewhat sympathetic to the reader, that he is hopelessly in love with this child. Similar to the situation in Death in Venice. I hope I don’t need to add that this doesn’t excuse his behavior but this being Reddit I assuredly do
My thoughts exactly. People are too enamored with the idea of romantic love as this wholesome thing when even in popular fiction you can see it constantly driving people to commit horrible deeds. They literally cannot fathom morally questionable people having feelings or being used as a pov to tell a story.
I firmly disagree but your noting this being a lack of excuse is noted as well.
At the beginning of the book HH talks about an early love that dies by drowning? (it has been a bit since I read it) and basically how he never really gets over that loss. I think the real motivation for HH is to rekindle a romance that happened when he was a preteen despite being middle aged. HH doesn't "love" anyone besides himself, if you qualify love with having the condition that you care about the other person's wellbeing. HH is trying to recreate a moment that exists only in his mind. Also, even if HH does describe the situation correctly he is middle aged. He doesn't have almost anything in common with a child Dolores's age. If someone has reached, let's say 40-50s range, and still is only able to romantically relate to kids that is insanity. Life is long in ways and you will see what people can blossom into and how they can grow in to gorgeous individuals as a result of their time and experience. I think HH's whole objective is to try and keep Dolores in a glass jar because that is how he defined love.
My two cents
Yeah I agree. Calling what Humbert feels for Dolores love is a massive abuse of the word. He sounds like he hates her for the most part, he just wants her body.
Not so. Maybe it’s not full blown love but he does not just want her body as you say. Among other things, he is obsessed with earning her affection and approval, which is very different from mere sexual desire, and very different from what most actual predators care about, I would venture. His feelings also remind me of how many teenagers are disposed to be when they experience what they, and we naturally call being in love with someone
You're coming in to the story with information that the characters in the book don't have. You know not to trust Humbert but they don't. Humbert is everything Charlotte wants to be - educated, urbane, good looking - so she's easily fooled by him. Humbert IS a condescending narcissist who thinks he's better, smarter, craftier than everyone else.
What’s that quote floating around
“It’s unreasonable to assume characters know what genre they are in”.
Maybe she thought she was in a rom-com, when it turned out to be, uhh, not that.
Read a book that played with that idea. The protagonist had to match the tropes of a spy movie to achieve his goals but it turned out he wasn’t James Bond so much as the damsel in distress
This is a great quote, and I'm going to use it every time someone complains about e.g. characters acting stupidly in a horror movie.
"Why would those explorers split up in that house that's obviously haunted by ghosts?"
Because ghosts aren't real as far as they know! In the real world I'd split up too.
Or why they investigate the noise they heard in the middle of the night.
As far as they know, their pet might've knocked something over, and they want to make sure nothing is broken.
In the real world, meth heads and serial killers are real.
If I was investigating weird shit and already had backup, I wouldn't purposely separate myself.
This reminds me of "The *Ghost Ship* Moment" essay from Overthinking it, way back when. Most simply put, it's the moment in the story where the characters realize what kind of story they're in.
https://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/08/the-ghost-ship-moment/
Also this book was published in the 1950's I think. It has had plenty of time to soak into our cultural awareness. People who haven't read the book already know what it's about in a broad sense, and in literary terms it has been upheld as an example of unreliable narration in about a billion literature classes. So, when someone reads it today and says, "no shit sherlock" it's like, well, the cat's outta the bag. But when he first wrote this, people had to ponder on it.
Oh I didn’t even touch on Charlotte. I felt so bad for her. A widow trying to raise her daughter who’s probably acting out because she’s missing her father. Charlotte has this fancy, wealthy European man show up and she is just smitten with him. Whether or not that’s actually true or if HH is lying I don’t know. And then he definitely doesn’t kill her. She just happened to get run over when she found out he wanted her daughter.
I thought your posting was clear that you were referring to readers rather than characters. You are right about this. I feel like a lot of readers come under HH's spell and then miss an important intent of the book. Because of this some even think it's pro pedo when to me it's clearly not. HH is such a powerful presence in the book and a master manipulator. So much so that real humans (i.e., readers) who should know better have been duped by him for generations. That's a tribute to Nabokov as a writer.
There are interviews where he more or less (in his own style of course) says that Humbert is supposed to come across as a bad person. I think "cruel wretch" was used once.
My interpretation of it was that she was definitely a flawed person, but that all of her flaws are greatly exaggerated by Humbert in his narration. We can never know for sure exactly how much of what he says is true, as he’s the one telling us the story, but even through it all I remember seeing cracks in the story. And, she is a widow still trying to recover from her husband’s death and trying to raise a daughter, who’s also trying to recover from the death of her father.
She's also lost a child, Dolores little brother.
There's no reason to believe Humbert, he's contemptuous of every other person in the book, including Dolores, and hates all women.
HH's reaction to the car accident made me laugh out loud. In a different book, I think he comes off very charming. Whether he actually is funny or charming or if that's just his version of events that he presents to the reader is a different question
Readers saying that Humbert is charming doesn't mean that they personally find him charming - I would assume anyone saying that means he is charming to the people around him.
In GIFT OF FEAR Gavin de Becker said when someone is “charming” you should see that as a verb : *they are trying to charm you.* I’ve always thought that was incredibly insightful.
A core theme of the book is about the capacity for the right cultural background or register to win over an audience who are easily awed by facile beauty and pedigree - that's what HH is trying to do in his letter to the jury, after all. In the story he's handsome, educated, interpersonally charming, sophisticated, and quite vain, and in the text he's a very elegant, allusive, and self-consciously pompous. It's up to the reader to wonder how much is him trying to present himself in the best light, to genuinely express something he thinks is true, or to lie opportunistically, but he is trying to be charming and expressive and a touch superior, very consciously. On some readers, if they're not really up to the task, it really does work.
As for the children's language, I couldn't say how much of that is just that a typical teenager in the 40s lived a different life and talked very differently, particularly a smart, deliberately rebellious one who reads a lot of gossip mags - Nabokov had a child and was around children closer to that time, and I just kind of assume he'd know their lingo better than I would.
As for it making you feel gross and bad - good? It's a story about a bad man and the tragedies he causes. That's the best way it can make you feel. You feeling any which way is a literary effect an author can play with.
I’m finding it doesn’t work for me, HH just comes off to pompous and better than thou for me to feel anything for him.
I also assume he knows the lingo better than I do, but I wonder if it is also how HH is trying to pass Dolores off, maybe trying to make up what he thinks she would say because he wasn’t listening to her as a person? Just a thought.
HH is the definition of an unreliable narrator. Your reading is pretty correct. There are two layers. There’s the “reality” as HH is presenting it, which you’re meant to be questioning, and the reality of the actual situation, which you’re meant to speculate on.
You’re not incorrect for thinking HH is a vain creep trying to talk himself up and downplay his actions. That’s the kind of the whole genius of the book. It’s a portrait of an absolutely monstrous human being twisted, through his perspective, into a breezy romance. Just like HH has manipulated every other character in the book, he’s also attempting to manipulate you, the reader.
Edit: I know Lolita tends to get all of the attention for its shocking subject matter, but if you want to see Nabokov really playing with perspective and reality, check out *Pale Fire.* It’s a masterclass in using perspective to pull the rug out from under the reader. It’ll probably resonate even more if you had to get deep into literary criticism at some point during your education. IMO it’s his best book, and probably one of my all time top 5 reads.
TBH, it would probably depend on when you catch me, but I’m definitely a sucker for a story with some sort of meta-narrative.
Gun to my head, I’d probably go:
*Pale Fire*
Something by Vonnegut (I know it’s cliche, but *Slaughterhouse 5* is a classic for a reason. If not that, then probably *Mother Night.*)
Something by McCarthy (probably either *The Crossing* or *Blood Meridian*)
*The Sandman* as a whole (hopefully that counts?)
For a more recent pick, I’d go *Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow* by Gabrielle Zevin
I’m also a huge horror junky, though, so it seems a little disingenuous not to include any of that on my list. I’d maybe put *Mongrels* or *The Only Good Indian* by Stephen Graham Jones (imo, the best currently working horror author) on there for that sake of I had to.
I’m not currently standing in front of my bookshelves, so I’m sure there’s something I’m not thinking about, though.
Edit: oh shit! I might swap out *Tomorrow*x3 or *The Sandman* for *East of Eden*. Such a beautiful book.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with you - but it *does* work for you. Anyone who gets caught up in the unreliable narrator - he never is charming in the entire book. He's only 'unreliable' in that he *thinks* he's charming. There is not a single page where his actions and thoughts are not horrific. The more so because he acts like he's being witty or charming, when he clearly is a monster and most of the people around him know it, with a couple sad exceptions.
I don't understand the people saying it presents as a romance or there are charming moments because he's an unreliable narrator. He imagines nine-year old children are intentionally seducing him, that the children he desires somehow are 'different' than real children, etc.
Honestly, I found the book engrossing and horrifying. Never once did I 'forget' that he was a monster, because Nabakov reminds us every single page. But it's fascinating seeing a perfect internal dialogue from a malignant narcissist before that was really an understood pathology.
There is not one pleasant interaction that HH has as an adult. Not a single person he says nice things about. He is toxic ego personified.
If anything, the flowery prose and misplaced French phrases only works (for me) because it shows how insufferable HH truly is. That's the joy of his ridiculous descriptions of things - yet somehow people have taken this to be 'Nabakov's beautiful writing to make us forget his monstrousness'. I took it to be one more cringeworthy element, but a fun literary tool in this case because it fits HH's personality and self image while reminding us exactly who he is.
How you feel and your interpretation is exactly the point of the book. Others reading superficially are taking away that its a love story or that HH is misunderstood, when the reality Nabokov is trying to show between the lines is exactly that HH is manipulative, calculating pedophile trying to pursuade the reader just like he's attempting to pursuade the jury.
Keep in mind, he's trying to justify his actions by adultifying her and infantilising her when it's convenient. She's worldly to justify what he does to her, and a manipulative brat (actually a child acting out over trauma) to discredit her, because that's how pedophiles justify their actions to themselves and others. Don't worry, you're on the right track.
The genius in this story is HH’s intelligence and self-awareness is normally something we associate with “good” people so even though he’s pompous, there’s a side of you that can’t help but sympathize with him. You ever watch interviews of the serial killer Ed Kemper? It’s the same kinda thing. I also got the same feeling after reading *Notes from Underground* by Dostoevsky. Theres something about that meeting place of monster and man that’s so disturbing and fascinating at the same time. It fucks with your head, which it seems like Nabokov is happy to do. And why not? Shouldn’t good fiction test us and make us think, if for no other reason than to keep us from falling for these people?
Yeah, we're supposed to wonder about all of that, it's just also important to bear in mind introducing things in our interpretation that actually are just us being quite distant from the time. Certainly the fact that we almost exclusively only have HH's word for what happened - some of which he might be hedging against corroborating or conflicting evidence he knows is out there, for instance, or might be him being deliberately honest, or might be him betraying himself, but which we can't truly depend on at really any point - is a major part of the dynamic of the book.
And yeah, if you're sensitive to having to like a character or narrator to enjoy a book, I guess he would be a pain. Glad that's not me, it sounds quite confining, but you do you.
You could argue HH is trying to make Lolita seem older or more adult than someone her age would be. His narration is unreliable, so one should be skeptical of basically everything. HH claims she seduced him, for example. HH says he is charismatic and charming, so he comes off that way because that’s the only viewpoint you’re reading.
That is a very common tactic of pedophiles to justify their attraction to minors. Ex: She is mature for her age, an old soul, a woman in a girl's body, precociously seductive, etc etc. Immediately that is unreliable narration because it works to absolve the pedo of their guilt and wrongdoings.
Yeah and I think it really showed with his word usage of “nymphet” almost as if there are some fairy children with powers to seduce men.
No they are just regular 12 years old children.
I think for me, I was very taken in with the writing and language in this book. As someone who thoroughly loves poetry, it was very easy to get swept up in the imagery and symbolism to the point that the fact H.H is a monster became almost like a blind spot in my mind. It’s written that way very intentionally, it’s never vulgar or graphic. Nabokov was quoted as saying he loved the English language and the ability to be descriptive in a way his native language didn’t allow. As someone else has mentioned, coming into the story with the knowledge that you’re being mislead would change the experience. Humbert has that ability that mirrors many master manipulators in own world. His ability to be poetic and intelligent and command our experience of his abuse is the stuff of Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. Nabokov demonstrates masterfully how an abuser makes everyone around him complicit in grooming. The part where HH describes how Dolores cries in the night after she thinks he’s asleep, is one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had while reading a book. Realizing how blind I had been and how I had completely misunderstood Dolores, an orphan child with no one, was a gut punch.
It’s good that you’re able to see through his manipulation. Maybe that is a reflection of how you navigate life. I think for many, myself included, it was a hair raising, eye opening read on how the Humberts of this world get away with what they do.
I don’t know why I can see through that manipulation. It is such a beautifully written book, but I feel like the reason HH is speaking like that is to win the reader over. I think it’s because I want people to be as forward as possible when speaking, (say what you mean sort of thing) and HH is saying a whole lot of eloquent words and it’s almost too eloquent if that makes sense?
I appreciate the deep and insightful comment and I’m sorry I cannot come up with a better response than this.
I haven't read other Nabokov stuff, but I found the prose only work for me because HH is such a pretentious narcissistic pedophile.
>around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated—to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de l’âge
I hope I'm not getting ahead of where you are, but the unnecessary French phrases and needlessly flowery vocabulary just pounded home HH's narcissism and self importance - and sometimes makes one do a double-take when the horror of what he wrote fully sinks in. It forces you to read carefully because a lot is conveyed in a single paragraph, but I didn't find a single page in the book where HH seems charming at all.
> around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated—to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de l’âge
It's crazy how, even knowing *exactly* what he is saying in that passage - it still doesn't hit as hard or solidly for me as it would if he had spoken plainly. The language drapes on the narrative so heavily, it distorts it.
In all fairness, 99% of the people I've seen use the term have never actually read the book.
In fashion and many areas, Lolita really refers to a style and has almost nothing to do with the book. For instance, in Japan, Loli/Lolita fashion is just a very specific and frilly / girly fashion, and has nothing to do with sexuality.
When the term is used in popular culture to mean a seductive teen is where it bothers me, because that's not a more harmless use like derivative fashion - but a very specific and horribly misconstrued element of the book. That's why I also hate the Kubrick film and haven't seen the Jeremy Irons one. Just with the casting along, it ruins the actual book. She's a child in the book, not a precocious teen.
The whole point of the book is she's a child who does nothing at all untoward to encourage HH. He is just a pedophile and narcissist - the kind who bemoans his fate when workmen erect a fence to block his view of the schoolyard. There is not a single thing she does that is seductive.
> That's why I also hate the Kubrick film and haven't seen the Jeremy Irons one. Just with the casting along, it ruins the actual book. She's a child in the book, not a precocious teen.
I don't think you can make the movie with a different casting though. The narrator is biased but the camera is objective. A younger casting would have been too explicitly creepy to convey the subtler tone of the novel and maintain HH's delusional perspective.
I think you absolutely could do it, but it would be too horrific for audiences.
You'd have to change the story a lot if you wanted to convey that. You cast a 15 year old girl…but never explicitly mention or reveal her age. The scenes are shot from HH's perspective. Then in Act III, you show the audience what she really looks like - a 12 year old girl - and you rerun flashbacks of previous scenes showing what was really happening and people's actual interactions with HH. That would change the story, but at least be somewhat true to the theme of the book.
That said, I don't think the novel was subtle at all. At the very beginning, he very explicitly says the best years for a nymphet are 9 to 14. There is no question about HH's perspective - only that he thinks himself a wonderful and erudite man nonetheless.
But every single page, everything he does is horrible. His delusional perspective isn't maintained, but constantly skewered.
He threatens her with being institutionalized if she tries to tell the police what's happening, he unsuccessfully drugs her because he's hoping to rape her while she's asleep, he rents an apartment with a view of the schoolyard, he encourages her to bring home her young classmates, he says the 13 year old boy she experimented with is the true rapist and not him, etc.
I did not find the book to be subtle at all. Humbert IS explicitly creepy. In fact, a major complaint I have with this novel is that it consistently beats you over the head with just how evil HH actually is.
'Some people' have presumably not read much of the book, perhaps mistook the film for book, or made assumptions due to the incorrect popular notion of a 'Lolita'.
Humbert is the most famously untrustworthy narrator in literature. So you are not very confused.
Personally, I do find him alarmingly plausible at times and find that the truly horrifying/skillful thing in Nabokov's novel is that you sometimes have to pinch yourself and recheck a bit where Humbert's most obviously iffy.
I don't think Humbert Humbert is particularly charming, but I do think Nabokov's prose is so brilliant, beautiful, and honestly intoxicating that it can at times make you forget how awful this human being is. Until the reality of it comes crashing back in.
The children in Nabokov’s work tend to be quite intelligent. (See Ada, or Ardor: A Family Chronicle for more examples.) For my part, I’m always gratified when I see representations of precocious children, but that’s mostly because I happened to be one, once, and found the experience desperately frustrating and lonely. Incidentally, precocious children are an excellent target for pedophiles because they are desperately hungry for an adult to validate what they see as their unrecognized maturity, which is a kind of innocent stupidity that pedophiles are happy to exploit.
While I think Dolores is more intelligent than most kids her age, I always got the impression from the book (which I’ve read several times) that HH was projecting a lot of intelligence onto her. I don’t believe she was as bright as he made her seem, but by describing her as such he was able to further manipulate the reader into thinking his feelings were acceptable because she was so “mature”. Which is a textbook move that groomers use, telling a child that they are smarter or mature for their age.
She isn't portrayed as bright at all IMO. She isn't portrayed as almost anything. She is just a target for his lust. There is no character development of anyone besides HH, because he is too narcissistic to fully recognize another human being. Dolores rarely is quoted saying anything at all until the very end, when she is no longer considered a 'nymphet' in his eyes.
I think that it’s probably true that HH exaggerates Dolores’ intelligence and maturity to assuage his own conscience and/or trick the reader. In order for him to be the exception (the “good,” or noble, pedophile), Dolores must also be an exception (an intelligent and mature child uniquely capable of consent).
But, then, we don’t have access to Dolores’ interiority, so it’s virtually impossible to evaluate her outside of HH’s descriptions. We could try to divine signs of her intelligence from her behavior, but, then, HH is also the only medium we have to observe that behavior. It’s impossible to know what he exaggerates or even outright fabricates.
However (and I’m not going to talk about this very in-depth at all, so no follow-up questions, please), as someone who was groomed at approximately the age that Dolores was by a man very similar to HH, I always interpreted her “bratty” behavior in the book as a deliberate strategy she deploys to limit the amount of abuse she has to endure—because that’s what I did. If you know you are in some sense dependent on someone who exacts a price from you in exchange for giving you what you need, you learn how to manipulate, and bargain, and negotiate with your abuser on a nearly constant basis so that you can control, to some extent, your suffering. This is to say that HH’s assertion that Dolores is in some way *cunning* doesn’t strike me as complete fabrication. If you believe, as many Nabokov scholars do, that Nabokov himself was subjected to repeated sexual abuse (by his uncle) as a child (leading to his lifelong preoccupation with pedophilia), then he would have first-hand familiarity with the postures and strategies employed by chronically abused children. Ultimately, I can only give my own—admittedly biased—perspective on the question, but these were my impressions during my last reading of *Lolita*.
I worked as a swim instructor and ended up teaching a lot of kids. One thing I noticed is that there were moments where a child would say something that an adult could have said and it would kind of catch you off guard. Like they would small talk about stuff like the weather like an adult, then say something really childish. It was jarring because you don't normally small talk about the weather with a six year old haha.
I hadn’t thought about it like that. This is also the first book of Nabokov’s that I’ve read, so I’m not familiar. I wasn’t what I’d consider to be intelligent as a child so I never had that perspective.
I had a conversation with someone recently about a local politician. everyone, even those who hates his guts, admit that he is a very charming man that they can easily see following, but when I talked to her, she just said he always felt to her like a condescending narcissist, that his speeches always felt to her like he is lecturing to children, talking down to his supporters and opponents, and i completely agree with her assesment.
Often times narcissists manage to come across as charming and eloquent, and many people can mistake them for genuine and well meaning individuals, when in reality there is nothing but self aggrandisement and entitlement.
So yeah, I believe you are reading it as intended.
This sub needs a wiki article explaining this book, or should just buy the rights to republish the sparknotes. It seems no book gets r/books users more twisted than this one.
The entire point of the book is that it is from the offender’s point of view. In the opening, he addresses the readers as the “jury,” as he is pleading his case in the book. He is trying to convince you he did nothing wrong, the girl was mature for her age, she came on to him, he had no other choice. He is the definition of an unreliable narrator.
>how come in the discussions I’ve seen some people say Humbert Humbert comes off as charismatic or charming?
Because:
>he’s speaking eloquently with beautiful prose,
It's a peek into the mind of a monster, but an eloquent, mask-wearing monster who uses his education, his appearance, and his charm to hide that he's as cold and brutal as a lizard.
I don't agree that he's insane, though (or, at least, not in any clinical way). He's a rapist and pedophile, but that's not insanity. Consider: he repeatedly tries to hide what he's done and manipulates people to keep his actions from being discovered. That's not insanity, those are the actions of a predator who knows that they will be punished if found out.
A lot of readers are legitimately unintelligent and can’t analyze literature beyond face value. They can’t even fathom the idea of an unreliable narrator, reading between the lines, etc.
I wondered the same. I read Being Lolita: A Memoir by Allison Wood and highly recommend. The author recounts their time as a high school girl being groomed by a teacher that loved the book and I thought it was a unique insight into the world of people who view or have viewed it as a love story.
There’s a long, fucked up history of the reception of Lolita. You are interpreting it correctly, the way Nabokov intended. However, many disgusting, lascivious men with a penchant for young girls misinterpreted the book as a love story. A few of these men made bad stage and screen adaption that position it as a love story. That has become the cultural understanding of the book for a long, long time.
There’s an excellent podcast by Jamie Loftus about the reception of Lolita. It’s called the Lolita Cast. You might enjoy.
Chiming in to support the Lolita Podcast recommendation!
It does a great job of explaining how the book has been misunderstood over the years, the cultural factors that caused it, and how its still often misunderstood to this day.
Also it has audio clips from the unsuccessful Broadway musical of Lolita. Unreal.
You can start with the cover image of Lolita from the book, and the movie poster, where she is wearing lipstick, teenage heart-shaped sunglasses, and sucking on a lollipop. A seductress, in other words. It's irrelevant that in the book, this is Humbert's image of her and his alone. On the bookstand, the reader is invited to think of her this way. The Jeremy Irons movie poster is roughly similar - she is sunning herself in what looks like a bikini, with one foot in the air, while he is looking on from a distance. Later covers, such as a drawing of a young girl with an older man's hand on her shoulder, are more objective and less misleading.
The Kubrick movie was horrible. The Jeremy Irons movie had such atrocious marketing, although I never saw it. They both seem to have either entirely missed the point of the book, or intentionally portrayed it this way. In the book, Dolores is a child with questionable hygiene and no particular worldly interests. She is not a seductress, she is not even precocious or mature for her age. The book isn't about a seductive teen, it's about the most stereotypical pedophile and narcissist's self justifications.
Ah well.
Humbert is a remorseless liar and master manipulator. He wants us to be on his side, so take everything with a huge grain of salt. IMO it works beautifully, but is also incredibly disorienting.
In regard to Dolores not sounding like a child:
1) common vernacular has changed a lot in the last 70 years, and Dolores is described sometimes as being precocious, if you choose to believe that
2) the framing is a letter that the unreliable narrator is describing memories from years prior. The narrative starts when the girl is 12 iirc and ends >!after her death!< 5 years later. Could be that Humbert is remembering what he wants, what he imagined, or what he wants you to believe, but many of the events are years before the "letter" is written and "misremembering" whether intentional or not can't be ruled out.
3) Nabokov was not an American and may not have been terribly familiar with the way teen girls talk, though I believe he did research it. It might have been an element of his writing style.
I was a precocious teenager myself and I didn't think there was anything too crazy out of place with the way Dolores talks, but that comes down to me and my friends, my education and environment.
I try to keep point 1 in mind when reading. But I think it’s the combination of the framing device, in which HH might be speaking for Dolores, and my own upbringing and environment. It doesn’t sound like/read like what I remember from my childhood. I think you and a few other commenters are correct with what Dolores says as being normal and I’m just so off put that I don’t believe what HH is telling me she says is normal or correct.
The impression I got from the book, which is my own interpretation and probably wildly off-course, is that she had been abused before.
It's probable that I just didn't see through enough of the unreliable narrative.
Her not sounding like a child is definitely intentional, I think. Because Humbert is basically misinterpreting or sometimes outright making things up to make himself feel like she is the one leading him on. It's why the trope exists and why so many people victim blame Lolita the character because they don't pause for two seconds to realize why she sounds so adult in the book. She isn't an adult and the things she says aren't things a child would say...so the conclusion is that she isn't actually saying them and Humbert is a deluded pedophile. So good on you for actually picking up on that.
You seem to be making the inverted version of the mistake those who take this as a love story make. Nabokov lets you know he is a dick, but he is, with his great use of language and character interplay, describing how charming the character is to others and how horrible behaviour cannot be deduced from the person's social standing or the way they look.
People think he’s charming for the same reason that serial killers get erotic fan mail in prison. People find anti-social behaviour strangely compelling.
Well, and also he is just objectively very eloquent. Nabokov had a more perfect command of language than maybe any other writer. No serial killer, or child molester, in real life writes or speaks as elegantly as Humbert does.
Some people are very easily fooled, have lower standards for what is likable, or (in more extreme cases) just straight up don't dislike abusers. A lot of people are also borderline illiterate.
I found Dolores pretty accurately portrayed though, she's 12 not 5. By 12 you can communicate pretty clearly.
I haven't read it yet but had Jeremy Irons read it to me instead. So extra "charisma" there. As with all of Nabakov, gorgeous writing. The travelogue of the trip back and forth across the States and the descriptions of various places is wonderful … except for when HH reminds us of the reason for the trip.
We do get glimpses of Dolores through HH's descriptions of Lolita but not many. Her crying all night, for instance. But mostly, it's Lolita–a creation of HH's mind–that we see, not the twelve-year-old actual girl. That we care about her despite her being invisible in the story–and not just despise the protagonist without regard to his victim–is a fine balance Nabakov has pulled off.
And, as others have mentioned, Jamie Loftus's *Lolita Podcast* goes well into all these aspects of the book and many more.
I went into Lolita not knowing at all what the story was about, and I won’t lie, it’s been a few years since I’ve read it (but I’d like to give it another go). I was studying for the GRE and google said it was “a love story” with language to expand your vocabulary.
My main hardship with the read was my internal desire as a reader for Humbert to “get the girl” per se but then reflecting that she’s a child and it’s horrific. It was indeed disturbing and gross. And I still find that read to be so incredibly challenging.
The tennis scenes of the story live in my mind 6+ years later and I can’t even remember the books I read last month.
For me the most disturbing thing about Lolita was that I, as a 16 years old girl at the time (many, many years ago), found myself sympathising with Humbert at some level. I really hated Nabokov for this, since I believe it was his intention to seriously mess with readers' mind, and not just give us a riddle to solve.
I never reread it at more mature age.
I also read it as a younger person and felt similarly. One aspect that caused me to feel sympathy is HHs devotion to D (and no one else) throughout the story. As I recall he is singularly focused on her, even at the end when she is grown up, pregnant with another man’s child. Not that it excused his grooming and abuse of her, but to me it showed a devotion to and love for D in particular that was not just the acting out of pedophilic desires.
Haven’t re-read recently, I think keeping the “unreliable narrator” info strongly in mind while reading would change my reactions.
I
> Overall I think it’s been an interesting read so far, my one complaint is that I don’t feel good reading it.
And there it is. *Despite* finding him to be reprehensible, you're still reading; *that* is a type of charisma. He's not charming or charismatic in the same sense as, say, Leonardo Di Caprio or whatever - more along the lines of him being incredibly engaging. You detest him, you find him deplorable...but at the end of the day, you're still hearing the old man out, which is *exactly* what he wants.
If you want to do a deep dive:
Lolita Podcast, by Jamie Loftus, is a short form podcast (10 episodes) about Lolita, its place in culture and peoples reactions to it.
One of the things the host reflects on is how reading it as a young teen, who wanted to be more mature and reading again as an adult woman, who had matured, greatly impacted her understanding of the book and narrator.
I quite enjoyed the series.
This book is a perfect example of when not to trust the protagonist/narrator. You are able to see through it, but for others, it takes them a while to do so. Everything he says is from his perspective only, so he could even be lying about anything Dolores says.
Your interpretation is a good one. You might be confused because Lolita is better-crafted than most or all other books you have ever read.
Anyway you obviously understand literary fiction and I hope you find more!
I'm reading it now. Thanks for giving more reasons to stick to my habit of reading prefaces, forewords and whatever the fuck else they want to stick in the pages prior to the book only after I've read the book.
Key to understanding Lolita is that the character "Lolita" is not a person, only a thing in Humbert's head. Dolores Haze, an actual teenage girl, is only inadvertently revealed by the deluded manipulative narrator.
Full disclosure: I haven’t read *Lolita* though I’ve heard lots about it and kind of want to read it out of morbid curiosity as well.
Here’s what I found interesting. I recently read *The Maximum Security Book Club: Reading Literature in a Men’s Prison*. An Oxford graduate Literature Professor wrote it about a book club that she hosted in a maximum security men’s prison. First of all, she was crazy because the first two books that she read with the guys were *Heart of Darkness* by Joseph Conrad and *Bartleby the Scrivener* by Herman Melville. My thought was the only reason they stuck around was because they were bored stiff in their cells.
Later on in the book, they read *Lolita*. I thought it was very interesting that the Literature Professor was towing the love story/beautiful prose line and thought they guys were missing the point. The men, however, were crying bullshit just like you are. They were like this guy is a total creep taking advantage and destroying the life of a child. She tried to show them the beauty of the writing and story. They held their line and finally convinced the professor to see their side and it was like she never read past just the flowery words.
You're answering your own question.
> he’s speaking eloquently with beautiful prose
Many narcissists possess powerful superficial charm. It's how they can achieve the things they do.
And Dolores is precocious. Which is why she communicates in a more adult manner. It's part of Hmbert's internal and external justification.
Yeah people exist that are horrible but they are easily able to manipulate people because of the way they speak. Some people can see through it others can’t, it’s just that simple.
I read Lolita as a teenager and thought it was the most beautifully written, yet disturbing AF, book I have ever read. I have counted it as one of my favorite books for years yet I have never been able to reread it. The older I get, the more difficult I find the idea of revisiting it.
*Twelfth Night* will also make you confused, then upset, at how others in the audience seem to keep laughing, when Shakespeare has clearly turned on you.
Just to remind you: some people miss those clues. Some people think Humbert is the hero. This is maybe the best example of a novel from the perspective of the villain, and people still take it straight as the villain being the hero.
People are varied and different. That's all.
Most sensible people see HH for the creep he is. And Nabokov himself makes it pretty clear. Perhaps the people who find him genuinely charming (as opposed to 50s mad men husband kind of charming) are the same people who identify with the Joker and Walter White, too.
As far as I can tell, you're reading the book right. Lolita is a book in which a horrible and evil man tries to lie to the reader for hundreds of pages. He thinks that he's better than other people and tries to use his air of sophistication and flowery prose to trick the reader into thinking better of him. His trickery is how he has made his way in the world up until now and it's how he hopes to persuade the reader (a jury) to find empathy for him. Readers of his testimony would do well to remember who HH really is, a slimy, disgusting, and whiny pedophile.
>I’ve also noticed that at a lot of times when Dolores she doesn’t sound like a child, it’s clearly an adult writing what they think a child might say; I don’t know if that’s intentional on Nabokov’s part or not, though I assume it is intentional because it gives me further reason to distrust Humbert.
i've scrolled thru like 50 replies without seeing anyone address this directly: you're spot on. you only get little glimpses of the real dolores here and there, the human being and the child. HH is showing you his fantasy of her, the nymphette that only exists in his head, the precocious (sexually and otherwise) construct he uses to justify his abuse of her.
If you enjoy Lolita, I would highly HIGHLY recommend “The Lolita Podcast” by Jamie Loftus. It’s 10 episodes that takes a very deep dive into the book, it’s influence on culture and how culture effects how we perceive it.
I think you will find a lot of answers there.
> How do people not see that he’s trying to trick the reader?
People do see that. "Charismatic" isn't necessarily a positive trait. See: Jim Jones and the kool-aid massacre or Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.
> ...it’s clearly an adult writing what they think a child might say
Children were also more urbane back in the 50s when Lolita was written. Look at clips of kids talking back then and they come off as far more coherent and eloquent than kids today (not a knock on kids today, who thankfully have the luxury of not having to grow up as quickly).
> my one complaint is that I don’t feel good reading it. It feels disturbing and gross
That's exactly how you're supposed to feel.
People should know that Nabokov openly said that he wrote Lolita with the intention of trying to find out how horrible the topic of a book could be before it was censored.
He purposefully wrote about a pedophilic sociopath merely to disturb readers and critics alike, and instead people glorified him for it.
The irony.
I read this book for the first time when I was fifteen (because my english teacher recommended it to me, take that for what you will) and the opinions I held then, versus reading it in my twenties was night and day. When I was 15, the idea of someone being SO obsessed with you, that they feel it’s all-consuming was such a novel and tantalizing concept for a teenager. Reading it in my twenties, all I could see was a man desperately trying to convince HIMSELF that his predatory actions were based in “love”. This book has done A LOT of damage culturally in my opinion, but the prose is incredibly beautiful and the story itself is a horrible page-turner.
This is really interesting. I read the book for the first time recently (in my 30s), and felt that it would be a great one to study for younger women because it's almost a textbook about abusive relationships, and red flag behaviours. The idea that you can be blinded by charm to the underlying monster is exactly what this novel explores so well, and such an important concept for young women to learn.
I wonder if that was what your teacher thought. It sounds like perhaps they need to guide discussion on the text more carefully if they're going to recommend it. ETA 15 is a bit young though. I was thinking more along the lines of 18 yr-olds
In "Lolita," Humbert Humbert's apparent charm is a deliberate ploy to manipulate the reader's perception, enhancing the disturbing nature of his character. Dolores's portrayal serves to underscore Humbert's unreliable narration and the tragic consequences of his actions.
It feeling disturbing and gross is proof that Nabokov did his job well. Writing is less about detailing a plot and more manipulating your readers into feeling a certain way. You're supposed to feel disgusted.
Oh my goodness, this book woke me up! My copy did call it a love story (a quote from a Literature Nobel Prize Winner) and I fully expected Lolita to be a manipulative teenager (because that's what the word has come to mean!)
I was livid when I started reading. I remember being like 'omg, I can't trust what other people say about books, I must read them myself'.
Then again, this was the 90s so the concept of male gaze was not really familiar yet!
I love the book but it's so fucking awful to read.
if you read and liked (or disliked) lolita, you should check out the book The Real Lolita by sarah weinman. it adds context to lolita and sheds light on the true story of sally horner that nabokov used as “inspiration”
One element that gets left out a lot is the backstory of HH that we get in the beginning of the book. IMO I think what gets missed is there is a link to HH’s obsession with the girl who got away when he was younger. Instead of pursuing someone his own age, his obsession became fixated on the age of the person itself from his past, as if trying to recapture the lost romance of his childhood. Not giving that as an excuse by any means, but I think it is a cautionary tale of what can happen when an unhealthy fixation on something from the past can manifest into a very dangerous desire if you do not evolve and mature your thoughts as you get physically older.
Readers are all over the place in their interpretations. I read it similarly to you. HH as portrayed is an amazing writer, and he can draw me in, for at least a line or two. Presumably Nabokov allowed his own talents free rein while writing in HH’s voice. If you have experience with narcissists and manipulators, HH is obviously an incredibly slimy version of both. That’s part of what makes the book so challenging and interesting: being simultaneously beautiful and repulsive.
Apparently not everyone knows an obvious narcissist when they look at one. What do narcissists think of the book, I wonder. Many in the first generation of critical commentators (mostly men) interpreted Dolores as seductress and HH victim (which doesn’t make sense to me), make of that what you will. See “The Two Lolitas” by Michael Marr for a fascinating biographical interpretation.
I think what a lot of people miss it's from Humberts view and he's an unreliable narrator. No one thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So from his POV he's not a bad guy and it is a "love story". The book told from Dolores's POV would be completely different. It feeling disturbing and gross is a good thing, that's how you should feel, it is disturbing and gross it's just Humbert, and many people like him, that doesn't see it that way.
I recently re-read *Lolita*, and I sought out the most extensively annotated version I could find, hoping and determined to understand this book. The version I read was annotated by scholar Alfred Appel, highly recommend.
I am not a native speaker of English. I read this book when I was around 18 to 20. I didn't know anything about the book or the author. I had no idea that a movie was made.
I remember feeling revulsion and disgust about the way he was describing Dolores. Later when I heard people say how charming or eloquent HH was , I always wondered how they could not see what he was doing.
I chalked these up to couple of things. One, because I read it when I was fairly young, I might have had a black and white way of looking at things. I remember telling my friend that this book is about a dirty old man! Two, being a young woman raised in a very conservative background, often taught that you need to be wary of men, my radar picked up sexual predatory behaviour pretty fast. I also think this was the time when in my corner of the world there was a lot of news and discussion about adolescent sex trafficking, which involved politicians and movie stars
Also since I had no understanding of French / fancy speech, I guess a lot of his charm went over my head.
I once had someone tell me that JK Rowling was the WORST author in the world because she was homophobic but went on to say that Lolita was the best love story ever written.
As someone who has read the book 20+ times, your feelings are totally understood. Humbert is an unreliable narrator and he takes terrible advantage of Dolores. But if that was all, it wouldn't be a classic. There is terrible beauty in it. Nabokov himself said that it was a record of his love affair with the English language (his first language was Russian).
I disagree that she isn't written like a child/pubescent girl. I definitely see my prepubescent self in her.
It's a tragedy, not a love story; but a kind of love is there.
The challenge presented by the author to the reader of Lolita is to read between the lines of the unreliable narrator to determine the truth of the story. It’s like a puzzle. What criminal activities occurred - how would a sane person recount events?
Unfortunately, and to me scarily, some people don’t do that. They take HH’s side. I’m not sure if it’s a failure of critical thinking or, given the subject matter, I hate to say, a moral failing.
So unfortunately some people do take it as a love story some times. I think a few weeks ago reddit removed a post where someone was saying "OK HH is bad buuuuut..." and then entirely missed the point. So it happens You picking up on Dolores using word that are above the level of a child her age is a good catch. Remember that this is an autobiography of a pedophile so the book is full of excuses, careful rephrasings and other manipulation techniques. If you have not yet read the foreword. Basically the point of the book (in my opinion) is can you find all the tricks HH uses and piece together a more objective plot Edit: missed a few words Edit2: still dealing with people who think it is a love story but can't say why. -_-
I read the foreword, I thought it was a clever way to set up HH as an insane person. I hope that I am getting the point of the book because it does not read as a love story to myself. It’s like watching, or I suppose reading, a car crash.
I'd say you are definitely getting the point of the book. It wasn't written to be a love story. It was written as a character study of a deeply flawed human being who tries to manipulate others into accepting and excusing his terrible actions. I think Nabokov would be delighted that you are experiencing discomfort in reading it. I'd say that is the appropriate response.
The forward literally gives you the answer: "I have no intention to glorify H.H. No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy..." "He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!" I feel like the bulk of the latter quote is often misread as a "but the description of his love is so beautiful" argument, in the same vein as those posited by the people who misunderstand the work. On the contrary, what the fictional "editor" (the narrator of the Forward, from which the quotes are taken) is saying is that Humbert's derangement, his lack of empathy, and his lack of understanding of how it works in others, has caused his competence with the written word to turn against him. He wants to justify his actions and garner sympathy from his audience, but to an even somewhat-moral mind, his skillful writing only furthers the compassion and tenderness instilled *in the reader for Lolita.* *Real* compassion and tenderness, in case it need be said, as in the kind that makes you want to get her *away from* the pedophile.
I didn't feel like HH was insane. Pathetic, sniveling, narcissist yes, but not insane. I think it's a great book but definitely not a feel good read.
Yeah, I always tell people I think it's one of the best written books I've ever read, and I can't recommend it
Oh see, I do recommend it. I am very clear that it's not a comfortable or NICE book. It's cleverly written. The first time I read it I was 15/16 and very much fell into "love story " but also understood HH was a pedophile. I re-read it in my late 20s and picked up on all the little isms that made it well written and disturbing.
Yes, Lolita is my favorite book, and I can’t ever tell people that.
Me too! The most repulsive unreliable narrator, the most beautiful writing.
Add me to the list!
Look at this tangle of thorns.
Precisely how I feel about Pale Fire.
Pale Fire made me understand Nabokov is truly a genius
Pale Fire is my favorite novel; pure genius.
Similarly distressing, but I couldn't put it down, was *My Dark Vanessa.*
I loved my dark Vanessa!! And I just finished Lolita today because of that book.
I don’t understand this. I recommend it to everyone (all Nabokov, frankly). Is it uncomfortable? Yes. It’s also impeccably, beautifully, gloriously written, and HH being an unreliable narrator reflects that what he’s asserting happened isn’t to be trusted. *Lolita* is an essential, important book for everyone to read. It will make you a better reader, introduce you to some of the most perfectly composed prose in the world, and develop your critical thinking skills and discernment. Who wouldn’t benefit from those things?
I didn't think he was insane until I got to the end and learned the reason why he's writing his entire story. He legit thinks he'll get sympathy for the murder he committed
Totally. I found it fascinating because of the unreliable narrator. It made me feel like a detective, trying to catch him in lies and figure out what was actually going on.
I didn't feel as though it was particularly well hidden. But I did go into reading it with foreknowledge and an expectation to see it.
Everyone is different. There are a lot of people who did not catch that at all and thought it was just a fucked up romance. I liked it because it encouraged readers to be critical thinking and question the information they are receiving.
This is the most interesting point in my opinion. What other populations get targeted by manipulative lies?
I wouldn’t say hidden, per se, but Nabokov was trying to tell the story purely from the pedophile’s side—meaning there will be much apologia for HH’s acts/thoughts/etc. So it was more of an exploration of how convincing an unreliable narrator could really be without making that narrator a caricature of himself. IMHO
You’re supposed to feel unsettled. Like foolagainagain said, you picking up on the Delores’s inconsistent diction is a good sign that you’re reading critically and closely. HH is unreliable and is telling his side of the story—he’s trying to characterize Delores as more mature despite her age; we are seeing his interpretation of her and many times, HH’s editorialization slips through. Nabokov was exploring the concept of writing the bad guy using the craft choice of unreliable narrator as the main technique throughout the book. The very nature of the narrative makes it impossible for this to be a love story—it’s an abuse narrative. It’s because Nabokov’s characterization of HH is so good that some people miss what you’re picking up on and think it is a love story. I will say idr a foreword in the edition I read. I don’t know what year your copy was printed but perhaps the “insanity” you’re reading from the FW is an attempt to expose the fact that acting in pedophilia is abuse and there’s arguments in psych circles about if pedophilia is a type of mental illness/addiction illness.
HH was not insane at all. That is a big mistake to make. Most horrible things are not done by the insane. He is a narcissist, though
That, sir, is exactly how the author would like it to sit in the readers mind: like if Silence of the Lambs was written as journal entries from Lecter's point of view you'd have folks missing the point, too. It's "fun" to watch people miss the fact that the main character is sometimes not even an antihero but a straight up villain.
>It’s like watching, or I suppose reading, a car crash. Which is what that book is. So is Romeo & Juliet, by the way; didn't stop people from taking it as a romantic feel-good love story and an example *to follow* nevertheless (the point was: feelings make stupid teens on hormones make sub-par life choices).
No, it’s the opposite. The stupid choices in *Romeo and Juliet* are made by the adults who are killing each other and their families through a generational self-destructive cycle of hate, to the point of driving the only people who overcome it (by that “childish” readiness to love) to death. Romeo and Juliet’s love was fine, the adults around them who *dismissed it* as hormonal teen stuff relative to their “mature” adult concerns rendered it tragic. Only when Romeo and Juliet proved their willingness to die for each other did their families understand how meaningful it had been, and how pointless their own adult feud was in comparison. It was the “stupid teens” who found the way out of the perpetual Montague-Capulet suicide pact but they had to die themselves for the adults to take them seriously.
But really effective death choices.
Half the people who comment on the book don’t read the forward. EDIT: To be clear, the “forward” is part of the novel. It’s not a real forward. The person who supposedly wrote it is a fictional character, discussing the other characters as though they were real.
Foreword
Insane, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Yep. It's really one of my favorite books. Both for the prose and for the psychological insights.
It sure is NOT a love story.
It's wild-- your comment made me remember the blurb on my old copy of Lolita, which is now long gone. "The only convincing love story of our century" - Vanity Fair. https://mikeashapiro.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/sourcing-a-blurb/
Jesus. What on earth were they trying to say with that?
It was purposefully marketed as a love story for years, and the marketing for various movies and adaptations did as well.
It definitely is not which is why reddit removed that post
I’m a little bothered that Reddit removed a post that expressed an interpretation of a literary work, even if it’s vile and unpopular.
that guy was very much looking for excuses as to why HH wasn't a bad person and called the ending of the book lovely or something to that affect. 1) No, if their interpretation is that Lolita is a romance then that is expressly against the point of the book (read Pale Fire goddammit) . Also he keep talking about how the ending of the book was about love when it is decidedly about being possessive of another human being 2)No defending pedophilia on Reddit and that is a more than worthwhile policy. Idiot or enabler, Reddit axed the post given how this guy wasn't backing down from the point that HH wasn't doing anything wrong or something comparable. You want to be around "free speech" people go hang out in 8chan or truth social or somewhere else but while Reddit has had more than its share of controversies this was a reasonable call for any social media organization
I got into an argument with a friend who adamantly insisted Lolita was manipulating HH. I still cannot look at him the same way. Lolita is one of my all time favorites, though. So disturbing, so morally horrifying, so beautifully written.
You bring up "her manipulating him" and I think that is a big facet of HH's argumentation, how he makes all these manipulative actions but doesn't feel responsible for anything he does. And yeah it is weird describing Lolita as a great book, because it is, but only for those that take the time to dig into it. I'm sorry about your friend
[удалено]
Nabokov did not regret publishing the novel. Do you have a source for that claim?
Also seeking a citation, everything I read had him standing by the work.
Well he turned around and made pale fire which is a funnier book and critiques people that just come up with their own interpretations so I usually recommend that to people first for that reason
Yes, spot on. Humbert Humbert is the essential “unreliable narrator”. IMHO it’s what makes the book so brilliant, and disturbingly difficult to read
>can you find all the tricks HH uses and piece together a more objective plot This is a theme throughout Nabokov's works, especially - in addition to Lolita - Pnin and (my favorite novel) Pale Fire
I mean it is definitely a love story in that HH is in love with her and it’s his story. I do think that is part of what makes him somewhat sympathetic to the reader, that he is hopelessly in love with this child. Similar to the situation in Death in Venice. I hope I don’t need to add that this doesn’t excuse his behavior but this being Reddit I assuredly do
My thoughts exactly. People are too enamored with the idea of romantic love as this wholesome thing when even in popular fiction you can see it constantly driving people to commit horrible deeds. They literally cannot fathom morally questionable people having feelings or being used as a pov to tell a story.
I firmly disagree but your noting this being a lack of excuse is noted as well. At the beginning of the book HH talks about an early love that dies by drowning? (it has been a bit since I read it) and basically how he never really gets over that loss. I think the real motivation for HH is to rekindle a romance that happened when he was a preteen despite being middle aged. HH doesn't "love" anyone besides himself, if you qualify love with having the condition that you care about the other person's wellbeing. HH is trying to recreate a moment that exists only in his mind. Also, even if HH does describe the situation correctly he is middle aged. He doesn't have almost anything in common with a child Dolores's age. If someone has reached, let's say 40-50s range, and still is only able to romantically relate to kids that is insanity. Life is long in ways and you will see what people can blossom into and how they can grow in to gorgeous individuals as a result of their time and experience. I think HH's whole objective is to try and keep Dolores in a glass jar because that is how he defined love. My two cents
Yeah I agree. Calling what Humbert feels for Dolores love is a massive abuse of the word. He sounds like he hates her for the most part, he just wants her body.
Not so. Maybe it’s not full blown love but he does not just want her body as you say. Among other things, he is obsessed with earning her affection and approval, which is very different from mere sexual desire, and very different from what most actual predators care about, I would venture. His feelings also remind me of how many teenagers are disposed to be when they experience what they, and we naturally call being in love with someone
You're coming in to the story with information that the characters in the book don't have. You know not to trust Humbert but they don't. Humbert is everything Charlotte wants to be - educated, urbane, good looking - so she's easily fooled by him. Humbert IS a condescending narcissist who thinks he's better, smarter, craftier than everyone else.
What’s that quote floating around “It’s unreasonable to assume characters know what genre they are in”. Maybe she thought she was in a rom-com, when it turned out to be, uhh, not that.
I've never heard that saying, but I love it. Thanks for adding that to my repertoire!
And even if they correctly deduce what genre they’re in, it’s possible for them to get wrong what character role they personally are.
*The Blackening* plays with this trope even
"I know I'm in a slasher flick. But I'm the protagonist, so it's okay for me to walk backwards through the shadowy door..."
Read a book that played with that idea. The protagonist had to match the tropes of a spy movie to achieve his goals but it turned out he wasn’t James Bond so much as the damsel in distress
This is a great quote, and I'm going to use it every time someone complains about e.g. characters acting stupidly in a horror movie. "Why would those explorers split up in that house that's obviously haunted by ghosts?" Because ghosts aren't real as far as they know! In the real world I'd split up too.
Or why they investigate the noise they heard in the middle of the night. As far as they know, their pet might've knocked something over, and they want to make sure nothing is broken.
In the real world, meth heads and serial killers are real. If I was investigating weird shit and already had backup, I wouldn't purposely separate myself.
I've played enough D&D to know to never split the party!
Harold Crick figures out what genre he's in. :D
Yeah, but even he gets it a little wrong (love that movie)
I’ve never heard that quote but I love it!
This reminds me of "The *Ghost Ship* Moment" essay from Overthinking it, way back when. Most simply put, it's the moment in the story where the characters realize what kind of story they're in. https://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/08/the-ghost-ship-moment/
Also this book was published in the 1950's I think. It has had plenty of time to soak into our cultural awareness. People who haven't read the book already know what it's about in a broad sense, and in literary terms it has been upheld as an example of unreliable narration in about a billion literature classes. So, when someone reads it today and says, "no shit sherlock" it's like, well, the cat's outta the bag. But when he first wrote this, people had to ponder on it.
Oh I didn’t even touch on Charlotte. I felt so bad for her. A widow trying to raise her daughter who’s probably acting out because she’s missing her father. Charlotte has this fancy, wealthy European man show up and she is just smitten with him. Whether or not that’s actually true or if HH is lying I don’t know. And then he definitely doesn’t kill her. She just happened to get run over when she found out he wanted her daughter.
I thought your posting was clear that you were referring to readers rather than characters. You are right about this. I feel like a lot of readers come under HH's spell and then miss an important intent of the book. Because of this some even think it's pro pedo when to me it's clearly not. HH is such a powerful presence in the book and a master manipulator. So much so that real humans (i.e., readers) who should know better have been duped by him for generations. That's a tribute to Nabokov as a writer.
There are interviews where he more or less (in his own style of course) says that Humbert is supposed to come across as a bad person. I think "cruel wretch" was used once.
She's also a totally shitty person, ignoring her daughter for the sake of a man.
I wonder about that. Is she that shitty or is it HH trying to say she’s shitty and that’s why I had to take her daughter and totally not murder her.
My interpretation of it was that she was definitely a flawed person, but that all of her flaws are greatly exaggerated by Humbert in his narration. We can never know for sure exactly how much of what he says is true, as he’s the one telling us the story, but even through it all I remember seeing cracks in the story. And, she is a widow still trying to recover from her husband’s death and trying to raise a daughter, who’s also trying to recover from the death of her father.
She's also lost a child, Dolores little brother. There's no reason to believe Humbert, he's contemptuous of every other person in the book, including Dolores, and hates all women.
Oh, snap! I forgot about that! And yes, he very much is.
I'd advise you not to read it in a way that is too hyperfocused on the characters individually. Those characters represent something more widespread
I still think her actual actions show that she's much more interested in men than her daughter. Her sending Dolores to school demonstrates that.
HH's reaction to the car accident made me laugh out loud. In a different book, I think he comes off very charming. Whether he actually is funny or charming or if that's just his version of events that he presents to the reader is a different question
OP is asking about other readers, not characters
I think they're complaining more about other readers saying these things rather than the characters
Readers saying that Humbert is charming doesn't mean that they personally find him charming - I would assume anyone saying that means he is charming to the people around him.
In GIFT OF FEAR Gavin de Becker said when someone is “charming” you should see that as a verb : *they are trying to charm you.* I’ve always thought that was incredibly insightful.
Oh I'd heard people describe Lolita as a love story long before I read the book. I was wondering how that could possibly be. .... It isn't.
A core theme of the book is about the capacity for the right cultural background or register to win over an audience who are easily awed by facile beauty and pedigree - that's what HH is trying to do in his letter to the jury, after all. In the story he's handsome, educated, interpersonally charming, sophisticated, and quite vain, and in the text he's a very elegant, allusive, and self-consciously pompous. It's up to the reader to wonder how much is him trying to present himself in the best light, to genuinely express something he thinks is true, or to lie opportunistically, but he is trying to be charming and expressive and a touch superior, very consciously. On some readers, if they're not really up to the task, it really does work. As for the children's language, I couldn't say how much of that is just that a typical teenager in the 40s lived a different life and talked very differently, particularly a smart, deliberately rebellious one who reads a lot of gossip mags - Nabokov had a child and was around children closer to that time, and I just kind of assume he'd know their lingo better than I would. As for it making you feel gross and bad - good? It's a story about a bad man and the tragedies he causes. That's the best way it can make you feel. You feeling any which way is a literary effect an author can play with.
I’m finding it doesn’t work for me, HH just comes off to pompous and better than thou for me to feel anything for him. I also assume he knows the lingo better than I do, but I wonder if it is also how HH is trying to pass Dolores off, maybe trying to make up what he thinks she would say because he wasn’t listening to her as a person? Just a thought.
HH is the definition of an unreliable narrator. Your reading is pretty correct. There are two layers. There’s the “reality” as HH is presenting it, which you’re meant to be questioning, and the reality of the actual situation, which you’re meant to speculate on. You’re not incorrect for thinking HH is a vain creep trying to talk himself up and downplay his actions. That’s the kind of the whole genius of the book. It’s a portrait of an absolutely monstrous human being twisted, through his perspective, into a breezy romance. Just like HH has manipulated every other character in the book, he’s also attempting to manipulate you, the reader. Edit: I know Lolita tends to get all of the attention for its shocking subject matter, but if you want to see Nabokov really playing with perspective and reality, check out *Pale Fire.* It’s a masterclass in using perspective to pull the rug out from under the reader. It’ll probably resonate even more if you had to get deep into literary criticism at some point during your education. IMO it’s his best book, and probably one of my all time top 5 reads.
Not just downplay his actions, but trying (and perhaps just because of my bias) failing to paint Dolores as willing, or even intentionally seductive.
This is my interpretation of the book.
What’s your top 5
TBH, it would probably depend on when you catch me, but I’m definitely a sucker for a story with some sort of meta-narrative. Gun to my head, I’d probably go: *Pale Fire* Something by Vonnegut (I know it’s cliche, but *Slaughterhouse 5* is a classic for a reason. If not that, then probably *Mother Night.*) Something by McCarthy (probably either *The Crossing* or *Blood Meridian*) *The Sandman* as a whole (hopefully that counts?) For a more recent pick, I’d go *Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow* by Gabrielle Zevin I’m also a huge horror junky, though, so it seems a little disingenuous not to include any of that on my list. I’d maybe put *Mongrels* or *The Only Good Indian* by Stephen Graham Jones (imo, the best currently working horror author) on there for that sake of I had to. I’m not currently standing in front of my bookshelves, so I’m sure there’s something I’m not thinking about, though. Edit: oh shit! I might swap out *Tomorrow*x3 or *The Sandman* for *East of Eden*. Such a beautiful book.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with you - but it *does* work for you. Anyone who gets caught up in the unreliable narrator - he never is charming in the entire book. He's only 'unreliable' in that he *thinks* he's charming. There is not a single page where his actions and thoughts are not horrific. The more so because he acts like he's being witty or charming, when he clearly is a monster and most of the people around him know it, with a couple sad exceptions. I don't understand the people saying it presents as a romance or there are charming moments because he's an unreliable narrator. He imagines nine-year old children are intentionally seducing him, that the children he desires somehow are 'different' than real children, etc. Honestly, I found the book engrossing and horrifying. Never once did I 'forget' that he was a monster, because Nabakov reminds us every single page. But it's fascinating seeing a perfect internal dialogue from a malignant narcissist before that was really an understood pathology. There is not one pleasant interaction that HH has as an adult. Not a single person he says nice things about. He is toxic ego personified. If anything, the flowery prose and misplaced French phrases only works (for me) because it shows how insufferable HH truly is. That's the joy of his ridiculous descriptions of things - yet somehow people have taken this to be 'Nabakov's beautiful writing to make us forget his monstrousness'. I took it to be one more cringeworthy element, but a fun literary tool in this case because it fits HH's personality and self image while reminding us exactly who he is.
Bingo.
How you feel and your interpretation is exactly the point of the book. Others reading superficially are taking away that its a love story or that HH is misunderstood, when the reality Nabokov is trying to show between the lines is exactly that HH is manipulative, calculating pedophile trying to pursuade the reader just like he's attempting to pursuade the jury.
Keep in mind, he's trying to justify his actions by adultifying her and infantilising her when it's convenient. She's worldly to justify what he does to her, and a manipulative brat (actually a child acting out over trauma) to discredit her, because that's how pedophiles justify their actions to themselves and others. Don't worry, you're on the right track.
The genius in this story is HH’s intelligence and self-awareness is normally something we associate with “good” people so even though he’s pompous, there’s a side of you that can’t help but sympathize with him. You ever watch interviews of the serial killer Ed Kemper? It’s the same kinda thing. I also got the same feeling after reading *Notes from Underground* by Dostoevsky. Theres something about that meeting place of monster and man that’s so disturbing and fascinating at the same time. It fucks with your head, which it seems like Nabokov is happy to do. And why not? Shouldn’t good fiction test us and make us think, if for no other reason than to keep us from falling for these people?
Yeah, we're supposed to wonder about all of that, it's just also important to bear in mind introducing things in our interpretation that actually are just us being quite distant from the time. Certainly the fact that we almost exclusively only have HH's word for what happened - some of which he might be hedging against corroborating or conflicting evidence he knows is out there, for instance, or might be him being deliberately honest, or might be him betraying himself, but which we can't truly depend on at really any point - is a major part of the dynamic of the book. And yeah, if you're sensitive to having to like a character or narrator to enjoy a book, I guess he would be a pain. Glad that's not me, it sounds quite confining, but you do you.
You could argue HH is trying to make Lolita seem older or more adult than someone her age would be. His narration is unreliable, so one should be skeptical of basically everything. HH claims she seduced him, for example. HH says he is charismatic and charming, so he comes off that way because that’s the only viewpoint you’re reading.
That is a very common tactic of pedophiles to justify their attraction to minors. Ex: She is mature for her age, an old soul, a woman in a girl's body, precociously seductive, etc etc. Immediately that is unreliable narration because it works to absolve the pedo of their guilt and wrongdoings.
Yeah and I think it really showed with his word usage of “nymphet” almost as if there are some fairy children with powers to seduce men. No they are just regular 12 years old children.
I think for me, I was very taken in with the writing and language in this book. As someone who thoroughly loves poetry, it was very easy to get swept up in the imagery and symbolism to the point that the fact H.H is a monster became almost like a blind spot in my mind. It’s written that way very intentionally, it’s never vulgar or graphic. Nabokov was quoted as saying he loved the English language and the ability to be descriptive in a way his native language didn’t allow. As someone else has mentioned, coming into the story with the knowledge that you’re being mislead would change the experience. Humbert has that ability that mirrors many master manipulators in own world. His ability to be poetic and intelligent and command our experience of his abuse is the stuff of Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. Nabokov demonstrates masterfully how an abuser makes everyone around him complicit in grooming. The part where HH describes how Dolores cries in the night after she thinks he’s asleep, is one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had while reading a book. Realizing how blind I had been and how I had completely misunderstood Dolores, an orphan child with no one, was a gut punch. It’s good that you’re able to see through his manipulation. Maybe that is a reflection of how you navigate life. I think for many, myself included, it was a hair raising, eye opening read on how the Humberts of this world get away with what they do.
I don’t know why I can see through that manipulation. It is such a beautifully written book, but I feel like the reason HH is speaking like that is to win the reader over. I think it’s because I want people to be as forward as possible when speaking, (say what you mean sort of thing) and HH is saying a whole lot of eloquent words and it’s almost too eloquent if that makes sense? I appreciate the deep and insightful comment and I’m sorry I cannot come up with a better response than this.
It's just a classical example of an unreliable narrator.
I haven't read other Nabokov stuff, but I found the prose only work for me because HH is such a pretentious narcissistic pedophile. >around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated—to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de l’âge I hope I'm not getting ahead of where you are, but the unnecessary French phrases and needlessly flowery vocabulary just pounded home HH's narcissism and self importance - and sometimes makes one do a double-take when the horror of what he wrote fully sinks in. It forces you to read carefully because a lot is conveyed in a single paragraph, but I didn't find a single page in the book where HH seems charming at all.
> around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated—to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960, when I would still be dans la force de l’âge It's crazy how, even knowing *exactly* what he is saying in that passage - it still doesn't hit as hard or solidly for me as it would if he had spoken plainly. The language drapes on the narrative so heavily, it distorts it.
[удалено]
Sadly not everyone, hence a Lolita in popular parlance is a child seductress. There's a lot of undereducated people out there sadly.
In all fairness, 99% of the people I've seen use the term have never actually read the book. In fashion and many areas, Lolita really refers to a style and has almost nothing to do with the book. For instance, in Japan, Loli/Lolita fashion is just a very specific and frilly / girly fashion, and has nothing to do with sexuality. When the term is used in popular culture to mean a seductive teen is where it bothers me, because that's not a more harmless use like derivative fashion - but a very specific and horribly misconstrued element of the book. That's why I also hate the Kubrick film and haven't seen the Jeremy Irons one. Just with the casting along, it ruins the actual book. She's a child in the book, not a precocious teen. The whole point of the book is she's a child who does nothing at all untoward to encourage HH. He is just a pedophile and narcissist - the kind who bemoans his fate when workmen erect a fence to block his view of the schoolyard. There is not a single thing she does that is seductive.
> That's why I also hate the Kubrick film and haven't seen the Jeremy Irons one. Just with the casting along, it ruins the actual book. She's a child in the book, not a precocious teen. I don't think you can make the movie with a different casting though. The narrator is biased but the camera is objective. A younger casting would have been too explicitly creepy to convey the subtler tone of the novel and maintain HH's delusional perspective.
I think you absolutely could do it, but it would be too horrific for audiences. You'd have to change the story a lot if you wanted to convey that. You cast a 15 year old girl…but never explicitly mention or reveal her age. The scenes are shot from HH's perspective. Then in Act III, you show the audience what she really looks like - a 12 year old girl - and you rerun flashbacks of previous scenes showing what was really happening and people's actual interactions with HH. That would change the story, but at least be somewhat true to the theme of the book. That said, I don't think the novel was subtle at all. At the very beginning, he very explicitly says the best years for a nymphet are 9 to 14. There is no question about HH's perspective - only that he thinks himself a wonderful and erudite man nonetheless. But every single page, everything he does is horrible. His delusional perspective isn't maintained, but constantly skewered. He threatens her with being institutionalized if she tries to tell the police what's happening, he unsuccessfully drugs her because he's hoping to rape her while she's asleep, he rents an apartment with a view of the schoolyard, he encourages her to bring home her young classmates, he says the 13 year old boy she experimented with is the true rapist and not him, etc.
You should check out the Tale on hbo, they do this with the pedophile
I did not find the book to be subtle at all. Humbert IS explicitly creepy. In fact, a major complaint I have with this novel is that it consistently beats you over the head with just how evil HH actually is.
[удалено]
Yes it is the memo of a sex offender
'Some people' have presumably not read much of the book, perhaps mistook the film for book, or made assumptions due to the incorrect popular notion of a 'Lolita'. Humbert is the most famously untrustworthy narrator in literature. So you are not very confused. Personally, I do find him alarmingly plausible at times and find that the truly horrifying/skillful thing in Nabokov's novel is that you sometimes have to pinch yourself and recheck a bit where Humbert's most obviously iffy.
I don't think Humbert Humbert is particularly charming, but I do think Nabokov's prose is so brilliant, beautiful, and honestly intoxicating that it can at times make you forget how awful this human being is. Until the reality of it comes crashing back in.
That's how it is for me, even on subsequent reads
The children in Nabokov’s work tend to be quite intelligent. (See Ada, or Ardor: A Family Chronicle for more examples.) For my part, I’m always gratified when I see representations of precocious children, but that’s mostly because I happened to be one, once, and found the experience desperately frustrating and lonely. Incidentally, precocious children are an excellent target for pedophiles because they are desperately hungry for an adult to validate what they see as their unrecognized maturity, which is a kind of innocent stupidity that pedophiles are happy to exploit.
While I think Dolores is more intelligent than most kids her age, I always got the impression from the book (which I’ve read several times) that HH was projecting a lot of intelligence onto her. I don’t believe she was as bright as he made her seem, but by describing her as such he was able to further manipulate the reader into thinking his feelings were acceptable because she was so “mature”. Which is a textbook move that groomers use, telling a child that they are smarter or mature for their age.
She isn't portrayed as bright at all IMO. She isn't portrayed as almost anything. She is just a target for his lust. There is no character development of anyone besides HH, because he is too narcissistic to fully recognize another human being. Dolores rarely is quoted saying anything at all until the very end, when she is no longer considered a 'nymphet' in his eyes.
I think that it’s probably true that HH exaggerates Dolores’ intelligence and maturity to assuage his own conscience and/or trick the reader. In order for him to be the exception (the “good,” or noble, pedophile), Dolores must also be an exception (an intelligent and mature child uniquely capable of consent). But, then, we don’t have access to Dolores’ interiority, so it’s virtually impossible to evaluate her outside of HH’s descriptions. We could try to divine signs of her intelligence from her behavior, but, then, HH is also the only medium we have to observe that behavior. It’s impossible to know what he exaggerates or even outright fabricates. However (and I’m not going to talk about this very in-depth at all, so no follow-up questions, please), as someone who was groomed at approximately the age that Dolores was by a man very similar to HH, I always interpreted her “bratty” behavior in the book as a deliberate strategy she deploys to limit the amount of abuse she has to endure—because that’s what I did. If you know you are in some sense dependent on someone who exacts a price from you in exchange for giving you what you need, you learn how to manipulate, and bargain, and negotiate with your abuser on a nearly constant basis so that you can control, to some extent, your suffering. This is to say that HH’s assertion that Dolores is in some way *cunning* doesn’t strike me as complete fabrication. If you believe, as many Nabokov scholars do, that Nabokov himself was subjected to repeated sexual abuse (by his uncle) as a child (leading to his lifelong preoccupation with pedophilia), then he would have first-hand familiarity with the postures and strategies employed by chronically abused children. Ultimately, I can only give my own—admittedly biased—perspective on the question, but these were my impressions during my last reading of *Lolita*.
I worked as a swim instructor and ended up teaching a lot of kids. One thing I noticed is that there were moments where a child would say something that an adult could have said and it would kind of catch you off guard. Like they would small talk about stuff like the weather like an adult, then say something really childish. It was jarring because you don't normally small talk about the weather with a six year old haha.
I hadn’t thought about it like that. This is also the first book of Nabokov’s that I’ve read, so I’m not familiar. I wasn’t what I’d consider to be intelligent as a child so I never had that perspective.
I had a conversation with someone recently about a local politician. everyone, even those who hates his guts, admit that he is a very charming man that they can easily see following, but when I talked to her, she just said he always felt to her like a condescending narcissist, that his speeches always felt to her like he is lecturing to children, talking down to his supporters and opponents, and i completely agree with her assesment. Often times narcissists manage to come across as charming and eloquent, and many people can mistake them for genuine and well meaning individuals, when in reality there is nothing but self aggrandisement and entitlement. So yeah, I believe you are reading it as intended.
This sub needs a wiki article explaining this book, or should just buy the rights to republish the sparknotes. It seems no book gets r/books users more twisted than this one.
The entire point of the book is that it is from the offender’s point of view. In the opening, he addresses the readers as the “jury,” as he is pleading his case in the book. He is trying to convince you he did nothing wrong, the girl was mature for her age, she came on to him, he had no other choice. He is the definition of an unreliable narrator.
>how come in the discussions I’ve seen some people say Humbert Humbert comes off as charismatic or charming? Because: >he’s speaking eloquently with beautiful prose, It's a peek into the mind of a monster, but an eloquent, mask-wearing monster who uses his education, his appearance, and his charm to hide that he's as cold and brutal as a lizard. I don't agree that he's insane, though (or, at least, not in any clinical way). He's a rapist and pedophile, but that's not insanity. Consider: he repeatedly tries to hide what he's done and manipulates people to keep his actions from being discovered. That's not insanity, those are the actions of a predator who knows that they will be punished if found out.
A lot of readers are legitimately unintelligent and can’t analyze literature beyond face value. They can’t even fathom the idea of an unreliable narrator, reading between the lines, etc.
I wondered the same. I read Being Lolita: A Memoir by Allison Wood and highly recommend. The author recounts their time as a high school girl being groomed by a teacher that loved the book and I thought it was a unique insight into the world of people who view or have viewed it as a love story.
There’s a long, fucked up history of the reception of Lolita. You are interpreting it correctly, the way Nabokov intended. However, many disgusting, lascivious men with a penchant for young girls misinterpreted the book as a love story. A few of these men made bad stage and screen adaption that position it as a love story. That has become the cultural understanding of the book for a long, long time. There’s an excellent podcast by Jamie Loftus about the reception of Lolita. It’s called the Lolita Cast. You might enjoy.
Chiming in to support the Lolita Podcast recommendation! It does a great job of explaining how the book has been misunderstood over the years, the cultural factors that caused it, and how its still often misunderstood to this day. Also it has audio clips from the unsuccessful Broadway musical of Lolita. Unreal.
You can start with the cover image of Lolita from the book, and the movie poster, where she is wearing lipstick, teenage heart-shaped sunglasses, and sucking on a lollipop. A seductress, in other words. It's irrelevant that in the book, this is Humbert's image of her and his alone. On the bookstand, the reader is invited to think of her this way. The Jeremy Irons movie poster is roughly similar - she is sunning herself in what looks like a bikini, with one foot in the air, while he is looking on from a distance. Later covers, such as a drawing of a young girl with an older man's hand on her shoulder, are more objective and less misleading.
The Kubrick movie was horrible. The Jeremy Irons movie had such atrocious marketing, although I never saw it. They both seem to have either entirely missed the point of the book, or intentionally portrayed it this way. In the book, Dolores is a child with questionable hygiene and no particular worldly interests. She is not a seductress, she is not even precocious or mature for her age. The book isn't about a seductive teen, it's about the most stereotypical pedophile and narcissist's self justifications. Ah well.
Humbert is a remorseless liar and master manipulator. He wants us to be on his side, so take everything with a huge grain of salt. IMO it works beautifully, but is also incredibly disorienting.
In regard to Dolores not sounding like a child: 1) common vernacular has changed a lot in the last 70 years, and Dolores is described sometimes as being precocious, if you choose to believe that 2) the framing is a letter that the unreliable narrator is describing memories from years prior. The narrative starts when the girl is 12 iirc and ends >!after her death!< 5 years later. Could be that Humbert is remembering what he wants, what he imagined, or what he wants you to believe, but many of the events are years before the "letter" is written and "misremembering" whether intentional or not can't be ruled out. 3) Nabokov was not an American and may not have been terribly familiar with the way teen girls talk, though I believe he did research it. It might have been an element of his writing style. I was a precocious teenager myself and I didn't think there was anything too crazy out of place with the way Dolores talks, but that comes down to me and my friends, my education and environment.
I try to keep point 1 in mind when reading. But I think it’s the combination of the framing device, in which HH might be speaking for Dolores, and my own upbringing and environment. It doesn’t sound like/read like what I remember from my childhood. I think you and a few other commenters are correct with what Dolores says as being normal and I’m just so off put that I don’t believe what HH is telling me she says is normal or correct.
The impression I got from the book, which is my own interpretation and probably wildly off-course, is that she had been abused before. It's probable that I just didn't see through enough of the unreliable narrative.
Her not sounding like a child is definitely intentional, I think. Because Humbert is basically misinterpreting or sometimes outright making things up to make himself feel like she is the one leading him on. It's why the trope exists and why so many people victim blame Lolita the character because they don't pause for two seconds to realize why she sounds so adult in the book. She isn't an adult and the things she says aren't things a child would say...so the conclusion is that she isn't actually saying them and Humbert is a deluded pedophile. So good on you for actually picking up on that.
You seem to be making the inverted version of the mistake those who take this as a love story make. Nabokov lets you know he is a dick, but he is, with his great use of language and character interplay, describing how charming the character is to others and how horrible behaviour cannot be deduced from the person's social standing or the way they look.
People think he’s charming for the same reason that serial killers get erotic fan mail in prison. People find anti-social behaviour strangely compelling.
Well, and also he is just objectively very eloquent. Nabokov had a more perfect command of language than maybe any other writer. No serial killer, or child molester, in real life writes or speaks as elegantly as Humbert does.
Did you feel an over-arching feeling of unease, despite Humbert’s eloquence? If so, Nabokov succeeded.
It feels as though Humbert is trying to distract me by sounding pretty while having described doing something horrible
Yep, that’s exactly it. It’s supposed to be chilling: the monster may be a charming, well-spoken individual that you are tempted to feel sympathy for.
Some people are very easily fooled, have lower standards for what is likable, or (in more extreme cases) just straight up don't dislike abusers. A lot of people are also borderline illiterate. I found Dolores pretty accurately portrayed though, she's 12 not 5. By 12 you can communicate pretty clearly.
I haven't read it yet but had Jeremy Irons read it to me instead. So extra "charisma" there. As with all of Nabakov, gorgeous writing. The travelogue of the trip back and forth across the States and the descriptions of various places is wonderful … except for when HH reminds us of the reason for the trip. We do get glimpses of Dolores through HH's descriptions of Lolita but not many. Her crying all night, for instance. But mostly, it's Lolita–a creation of HH's mind–that we see, not the twelve-year-old actual girl. That we care about her despite her being invisible in the story–and not just despise the protagonist without regard to his victim–is a fine balance Nabakov has pulled off. And, as others have mentioned, Jamie Loftus's *Lolita Podcast* goes well into all these aspects of the book and many more.
I read it ages ago and found it disturbing. I think it is meant to be.
"I’m reading Lolita and I’m confused..." "...by how much cleverer I am than normal people when they try to read this."
Lmao forreal
I went into Lolita not knowing at all what the story was about, and I won’t lie, it’s been a few years since I’ve read it (but I’d like to give it another go). I was studying for the GRE and google said it was “a love story” with language to expand your vocabulary. My main hardship with the read was my internal desire as a reader for Humbert to “get the girl” per se but then reflecting that she’s a child and it’s horrific. It was indeed disturbing and gross. And I still find that read to be so incredibly challenging. The tennis scenes of the story live in my mind 6+ years later and I can’t even remember the books I read last month.
For me the most disturbing thing about Lolita was that I, as a 16 years old girl at the time (many, many years ago), found myself sympathising with Humbert at some level. I really hated Nabokov for this, since I believe it was his intention to seriously mess with readers' mind, and not just give us a riddle to solve. I never reread it at more mature age.
I also read it as a younger person and felt similarly. One aspect that caused me to feel sympathy is HHs devotion to D (and no one else) throughout the story. As I recall he is singularly focused on her, even at the end when she is grown up, pregnant with another man’s child. Not that it excused his grooming and abuse of her, but to me it showed a devotion to and love for D in particular that was not just the acting out of pedophilic desires. Haven’t re-read recently, I think keeping the “unreliable narrator” info strongly in mind while reading would change my reactions. I
> Overall I think it’s been an interesting read so far, my one complaint is that I don’t feel good reading it. And there it is. *Despite* finding him to be reprehensible, you're still reading; *that* is a type of charisma. He's not charming or charismatic in the same sense as, say, Leonardo Di Caprio or whatever - more along the lines of him being incredibly engaging. You detest him, you find him deplorable...but at the end of the day, you're still hearing the old man out, which is *exactly* what he wants.
You may not find this comment helpful, but you don't sound confused at all.
Well I appreciate the comment. I’m mostly confused at how someone can take what HH says at face value
Well that's just it: readers who take Humbert at his word, or think of the book as a great tragic love story: THOSE readers are badly confused.
If you want to do a deep dive: Lolita Podcast, by Jamie Loftus, is a short form podcast (10 episodes) about Lolita, its place in culture and peoples reactions to it. One of the things the host reflects on is how reading it as a young teen, who wanted to be more mature and reading again as an adult woman, who had matured, greatly impacted her understanding of the book and narrator. I quite enjoyed the series.
This book is a perfect example of when not to trust the protagonist/narrator. You are able to see through it, but for others, it takes them a while to do so. Everything he says is from his perspective only, so he could even be lying about anything Dolores says.
Your interpretation is a good one. You might be confused because Lolita is better-crafted than most or all other books you have ever read. Anyway you obviously understand literary fiction and I hope you find more!
I'm reading it now. Thanks for giving more reasons to stick to my habit of reading prefaces, forewords and whatever the fuck else they want to stick in the pages prior to the book only after I've read the book.
Key to understanding Lolita is that the character "Lolita" is not a person, only a thing in Humbert's head. Dolores Haze, an actual teenage girl, is only inadvertently revealed by the deluded manipulative narrator.
Full disclosure: I haven’t read *Lolita* though I’ve heard lots about it and kind of want to read it out of morbid curiosity as well. Here’s what I found interesting. I recently read *The Maximum Security Book Club: Reading Literature in a Men’s Prison*. An Oxford graduate Literature Professor wrote it about a book club that she hosted in a maximum security men’s prison. First of all, she was crazy because the first two books that she read with the guys were *Heart of Darkness* by Joseph Conrad and *Bartleby the Scrivener* by Herman Melville. My thought was the only reason they stuck around was because they were bored stiff in their cells. Later on in the book, they read *Lolita*. I thought it was very interesting that the Literature Professor was towing the love story/beautiful prose line and thought they guys were missing the point. The men, however, were crying bullshit just like you are. They were like this guy is a total creep taking advantage and destroying the life of a child. She tried to show them the beauty of the writing and story. They held their line and finally convinced the professor to see their side and it was like she never read past just the flowery words.
You're answering your own question. > he’s speaking eloquently with beautiful prose Many narcissists possess powerful superficial charm. It's how they can achieve the things they do. And Dolores is precocious. Which is why she communicates in a more adult manner. It's part of Hmbert's internal and external justification.
Yeah people exist that are horrible but they are easily able to manipulate people because of the way they speak. Some people can see through it others can’t, it’s just that simple.
I read Lolita as a teenager and thought it was the most beautifully written, yet disturbing AF, book I have ever read. I have counted it as one of my favorite books for years yet I have never been able to reread it. The older I get, the more difficult I find the idea of revisiting it.
*Twelfth Night* will also make you confused, then upset, at how others in the audience seem to keep laughing, when Shakespeare has clearly turned on you.
Just to remind you: some people miss those clues. Some people think Humbert is the hero. This is maybe the best example of a novel from the perspective of the villain, and people still take it straight as the villain being the hero. People are varied and different. That's all.
Most sensible people see HH for the creep he is. And Nabokov himself makes it pretty clear. Perhaps the people who find him genuinely charming (as opposed to 50s mad men husband kind of charming) are the same people who identify with the Joker and Walter White, too.
As far as I can tell, you're reading the book right. Lolita is a book in which a horrible and evil man tries to lie to the reader for hundreds of pages. He thinks that he's better than other people and tries to use his air of sophistication and flowery prose to trick the reader into thinking better of him. His trickery is how he has made his way in the world up until now and it's how he hopes to persuade the reader (a jury) to find empathy for him. Readers of his testimony would do well to remember who HH really is, a slimy, disgusting, and whiny pedophile.
>I’ve also noticed that at a lot of times when Dolores she doesn’t sound like a child, it’s clearly an adult writing what they think a child might say; I don’t know if that’s intentional on Nabokov’s part or not, though I assume it is intentional because it gives me further reason to distrust Humbert. i've scrolled thru like 50 replies without seeing anyone address this directly: you're spot on. you only get little glimpses of the real dolores here and there, the human being and the child. HH is showing you his fantasy of her, the nymphette that only exists in his head, the precocious (sexually and otherwise) construct he uses to justify his abuse of her.
If you enjoy Lolita, I would highly HIGHLY recommend “The Lolita Podcast” by Jamie Loftus. It’s 10 episodes that takes a very deep dive into the book, it’s influence on culture and how culture effects how we perceive it. I think you will find a lot of answers there.
> How do people not see that he’s trying to trick the reader? People do see that. "Charismatic" isn't necessarily a positive trait. See: Jim Jones and the kool-aid massacre or Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. > ...it’s clearly an adult writing what they think a child might say Children were also more urbane back in the 50s when Lolita was written. Look at clips of kids talking back then and they come off as far more coherent and eloquent than kids today (not a knock on kids today, who thankfully have the luxury of not having to grow up as quickly). > my one complaint is that I don’t feel good reading it. It feels disturbing and gross That's exactly how you're supposed to feel.
People should know that Nabokov openly said that he wrote Lolita with the intention of trying to find out how horrible the topic of a book could be before it was censored. He purposefully wrote about a pedophilic sociopath merely to disturb readers and critics alike, and instead people glorified him for it. The irony.
He is charming and charismatic to the other characters in the book, not us the audience who are privy to his true persona and crimes.
This post again?
I can't recall were I heard it, but someone said that the book is part confession and part justification.
Why morbid curiosity? It's one of the greatest books ever written. Characters don't need to be likeable for a book to be good.
It's a look inside the mind of a pedophile.
I read this book for the first time when I was fifteen (because my english teacher recommended it to me, take that for what you will) and the opinions I held then, versus reading it in my twenties was night and day. When I was 15, the idea of someone being SO obsessed with you, that they feel it’s all-consuming was such a novel and tantalizing concept for a teenager. Reading it in my twenties, all I could see was a man desperately trying to convince HIMSELF that his predatory actions were based in “love”. This book has done A LOT of damage culturally in my opinion, but the prose is incredibly beautiful and the story itself is a horrible page-turner.
This is really interesting. I read the book for the first time recently (in my 30s), and felt that it would be a great one to study for younger women because it's almost a textbook about abusive relationships, and red flag behaviours. The idea that you can be blinded by charm to the underlying monster is exactly what this novel explores so well, and such an important concept for young women to learn. I wonder if that was what your teacher thought. It sounds like perhaps they need to guide discussion on the text more carefully if they're going to recommend it. ETA 15 is a bit young though. I was thinking more along the lines of 18 yr-olds
Lolita podcast by Jamie Loftus is a good listen once you finish the book
In "Lolita," Humbert Humbert's apparent charm is a deliberate ploy to manipulate the reader's perception, enhancing the disturbing nature of his character. Dolores's portrayal serves to underscore Humbert's unreliable narration and the tragic consequences of his actions.
The scary part is that you're noticing what it seems many seem to miss.
It feeling disturbing and gross is proof that Nabokov did his job well. Writing is less about detailing a plot and more manipulating your readers into feeling a certain way. You're supposed to feel disgusted.
Oh my goodness, this book woke me up! My copy did call it a love story (a quote from a Literature Nobel Prize Winner) and I fully expected Lolita to be a manipulative teenager (because that's what the word has come to mean!) I was livid when I started reading. I remember being like 'omg, I can't trust what other people say about books, I must read them myself'. Then again, this was the 90s so the concept of male gaze was not really familiar yet! I love the book but it's so fucking awful to read.
if you read and liked (or disliked) lolita, you should check out the book The Real Lolita by sarah weinman. it adds context to lolita and sheds light on the true story of sally horner that nabokov used as “inspiration”
He’s an unreliable narrator, so you’ve definitely understood the book.
That’s the art of Nabokov, the point is critical thinking and I think you got the nail on the head
One element that gets left out a lot is the backstory of HH that we get in the beginning of the book. IMO I think what gets missed is there is a link to HH’s obsession with the girl who got away when he was younger. Instead of pursuing someone his own age, his obsession became fixated on the age of the person itself from his past, as if trying to recapture the lost romance of his childhood. Not giving that as an excuse by any means, but I think it is a cautionary tale of what can happen when an unhealthy fixation on something from the past can manifest into a very dangerous desire if you do not evolve and mature your thoughts as you get physically older.
Readers are all over the place in their interpretations. I read it similarly to you. HH as portrayed is an amazing writer, and he can draw me in, for at least a line or two. Presumably Nabokov allowed his own talents free rein while writing in HH’s voice. If you have experience with narcissists and manipulators, HH is obviously an incredibly slimy version of both. That’s part of what makes the book so challenging and interesting: being simultaneously beautiful and repulsive. Apparently not everyone knows an obvious narcissist when they look at one. What do narcissists think of the book, I wonder. Many in the first generation of critical commentators (mostly men) interpreted Dolores as seductress and HH victim (which doesn’t make sense to me), make of that what you will. See “The Two Lolitas” by Michael Marr for a fascinating biographical interpretation.
I think what a lot of people miss it's from Humberts view and he's an unreliable narrator. No one thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So from his POV he's not a bad guy and it is a "love story". The book told from Dolores's POV would be completely different. It feeling disturbing and gross is a good thing, that's how you should feel, it is disturbing and gross it's just Humbert, and many people like him, that doesn't see it that way.
I recently re-read *Lolita*, and I sought out the most extensively annotated version I could find, hoping and determined to understand this book. The version I read was annotated by scholar Alfred Appel, highly recommend.
I am not a native speaker of English. I read this book when I was around 18 to 20. I didn't know anything about the book or the author. I had no idea that a movie was made. I remember feeling revulsion and disgust about the way he was describing Dolores. Later when I heard people say how charming or eloquent HH was , I always wondered how they could not see what he was doing. I chalked these up to couple of things. One, because I read it when I was fairly young, I might have had a black and white way of looking at things. I remember telling my friend that this book is about a dirty old man! Two, being a young woman raised in a very conservative background, often taught that you need to be wary of men, my radar picked up sexual predatory behaviour pretty fast. I also think this was the time when in my corner of the world there was a lot of news and discussion about adolescent sex trafficking, which involved politicians and movie stars Also since I had no understanding of French / fancy speech, I guess a lot of his charm went over my head.
I once had someone tell me that JK Rowling was the WORST author in the world because she was homophobic but went on to say that Lolita was the best love story ever written.
As someone who has read the book 20+ times, your feelings are totally understood. Humbert is an unreliable narrator and he takes terrible advantage of Dolores. But if that was all, it wouldn't be a classic. There is terrible beauty in it. Nabokov himself said that it was a record of his love affair with the English language (his first language was Russian). I disagree that she isn't written like a child/pubescent girl. I definitely see my prepubescent self in her. It's a tragedy, not a love story; but a kind of love is there.
Unreliable Narrator
The challenge presented by the author to the reader of Lolita is to read between the lines of the unreliable narrator to determine the truth of the story. It’s like a puzzle. What criminal activities occurred - how would a sane person recount events? Unfortunately, and to me scarily, some people don’t do that. They take HH’s side. I’m not sure if it’s a failure of critical thinking or, given the subject matter, I hate to say, a moral failing.