Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" is a masterpiece, but should it have been published?
Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” is, perhaps, one of, if not the most, controversial novels of all time. Often viewed as a classic of modern literature, it is also heralded as a depraved look at the worst human qualitites.
As far as I’m concerned, both are understandable perceptions of a novel that is equal parts flawed and beautiful.
“Lolita,” put in a way that is appropriate for a student article, is about a man under the pseudonym of “Humbert Humbert” and his relationship with a pubescent girl.
There are a great number of interpretations of the work and its major themes, from the selfish nature of passion to the ability of media to alter one’s perception of events (I align with the latter). Nevertheless, the actual content of Nabokov's “masterpiece” is the center of all the controversy.
To put it bluntly, “Lolita” is told from the perspective of a predator. In all contexts, Humbert Humbert uses and abuses the women in his life, even from a very young age.
For the uninformed or morally questionable reader, it can come across as though Nabokov condones the actions his main character performs. I doubt this is the case; to me, it seemed as though it was used as a catharsis for the author, who frequently wrote on such topics and is thought by many to be a victim of child abuse, himself.
There is a constant feeling throughout the novel that, through thinking in the same way as those who allegedly hurt him, Nabokov is allowing himself to let go of his potential trauma. The relief of it almost glitters on the pages.
Nevertheless, “Lolita” is nothing if not revolting. Where some may find catharsis, others will see a disgusting investigation into a subject that should not be touched with a 100-foot pole. For those people, the very act of reading the novel may be traumatic, itself.
It does not help that Nabokov makes little attempt in the actual writing to assert his intentions. There is only a brief foreword to discuss the subject with any level of sensitivity. The rest of the book is an entirely one-sided exploration of events by a character who is perhaps the most infamous unreliable narrator in literary history.
In the wrong hands, it could convince a predator to take action. In even worse hands, it could convince a child that their “relationship” has an equal balance of power.
Nabokov was an amazing writer, and that shows in his prose throughout the novel. There is no point in the novel where the writing takes a dip in quality – every facet was so thoroughly planned, edited and executed that it is difficult not to applaud the majesty with which the book exhausts itself. Similarly to the phrase “every frame a painting,” every sentence is a poem. It is truly a bitter pill to swallow when reconciling this wonderful writing with the nature of the events it portrays.
“Lolita,” put shortly, is an amazing novel that explores some of the most depraved moral aspects of humanity. It is well-written, well-structured, fascinating and poetic. It will forever be remembered as Nabokov’s masterpiece, the most personal and cathartic work he produced in his life. I’m just not sure if it should have ever been published.
Rating: 3/10
Comments