Finally finished reading Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
” Just like the old man in that book by Nabokov” is a line from the Police classic ‘Don’t Stand So Close To Me‘ and was my first ‘hearing’ of this work. Next was the fact that ‘Lolita’ meant “a sexually precocious young girl” as stated in the dictionary …and what I just recently came to realize is a term that never existed before Nabokov. Lastly, I hacked my way through two-thirds of Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, and she discusses this and other classics that I haven’t read. I think that’s part of the reason why I never did finish her book. It’s also the reason why I wanted to read Lolita, and when I came across an unabridged version in a second hand bookstore – I picked it up.
I’m not going to discuss what other people have said about it. It’s a controversial work (or was?) and probably elicits as many opinions as there are readers. I did come across one post where a reader described his understanding of the book through a forty year journey in his own life. He read it in his 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s and came across with a different ‘understanding’ on each read. I think that makes a lot of sense, as the reader takes away from a book (a good book at least) what ever it is that he or she brings in to it. The same can be said for music. Listening to a song when you’re younger will present you with different ’sounds’ than when you’re older. You’re going to grab different details depending on the time in your life. And this also explains why every person can come away with a different reading. There is no ‘correct’ interpretation in a sense, but rather an interpretation depending on your purpose and experience as a reader.
I’m going to reread it eventually. I found my interest peaked during the first third, wane during the second and then peak again in the last. I also took a look at the 1997 hollywood adaptation (with Jeremy Irons) and found myself reading, then catching up through the movie. Of course the movie omits substantial amounts of the story, but I suppose that’s expected when you have to condense such a broad work into a two hour time frame. Although I give the story the clichéd ‘two thumbs up’, what I’d like to touch on instead, are certain remarks in the closing statement about the book by the author himself.
In the afterword, Nabokov makes two statements that I found interesting -
“As far as I can recall, the initial shiver of inspiration was somehow prompted by a newspaper story about an ape in the Jardin des Plantes who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature’s cage.” pg 282.
“Whether they found it pornographic or not did not interest me. Their refusal to buy the book was based not on my treatment of the theme but on the theme itself, for there are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: a Negro-White marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, an dies in his sleep at the age of 106.” pg 285
Regarding the first statement, what I found remarkable about this drawing (there is debate as to whether the drawing actually occurred and that Nabokov ‘made up’ this event …but it’s rather pointless to concern oneself with this because the importance is with the idea the author himself believes) was the idea that the ape could not envision anything further than the bars. This animals ‘mentality’ was limited to what was ‘primarily’ before him …not the crowds, the trees or the other animals, but instead the basic ‘in your face’ concept of what he sees, thinks about, and concerns him/herself with …through every captive day. The bars are the basic and simple view of a basic and simple animal …which to me represents the underlying primal vision of Nabokov’s main character, Humbert. (some have suggested that the caged ape is instead Lolita …”Lo a young captive” and Humbert “bought a bunch of bananas for [his] monkey [lolita]” – but there are other ape references that suggest the opposite as well …”she placed her trembling little hand on my ape paw” (pg 235) or “Show me your badge instead of shooting at my foot, you ape, you.” (pg 271) for example)
Humbert is both driven and consumed by this ‘basic’ vision …for when his ‘true love’ was lost during his childhood, he carried that hurt/despair/desire with him throughout his adult life. He could not put it aside. It engulfed him so completely that he could only act from it – letting it control both his adult relationships and his reasoning. He was no more above this impulse than an ape noticing its cage. Although Humbert was thoroughly schooled, educated and refined in social graces, he still surrendered to that primary, almost instinctual image/vision of love. It was an influential moment in his early life that set him on this path, and he was never able to escape its grasp as an adult. He knew at times he didn’t ‘fit’, and often lived his life between the lines of societal norms.
Which brings me to Nabokov’s second statement regarding taboo themes. Racism (in this case between White and Negro) is also based on a primal urge/emotion …the fear of something different or unknown. It too can be instilled at a young age, and when passed down or reinforced through tradition, it’s not uncommon for these early footings to persist into adulthood. To subsist naturally with adulthood and eventually society. Ditto for religion. A religious child rarely breaks from their initial learnings/teachings. They may stray occasionally, and they may grow to become prominent and respected adult figures, but their religious constitution persists, and they could no more conceive of a normal life occurring without God as a racist can envision a normal/healthy family existing across different genealogies.
Why (in America/Canada/the West) is a misguided sexual relationship taboo in much the same manner as a ‘Godless’ existence or the possibility of a happy/successful inter-racial family? Nabokov directs this question to American publishers – but of course publishers are typically the ‘mesenger’ for their readers …the people, and unfortunately the question is still largely unanswered more than fifty years later.
Lolita explores and addresses this ‘third theme’. Nabokov uses Clare Quilty to illustrate the monstrous extreme near which Humbert himself cautiously treads. He gives his character that opportunity to control what so completely dominates his life, eventually silencing that ’sound’ of Lolita, and allowing him to reshape his future.
“And soon I realized that all these sounds were of one nature….” (pg 280)
Religion and race are also of one nature …and their divergent extremes, no matter how eloquently displayed, can be equally monstrous.
But that’s the Baritone Doctor for ya – and he’s looking to preform more of his ‘magic’ throughout the summer. Lucky Baritones.
