Scan barcode
hollidayreadswithme's review against another edition
4.0
For more of my reviews, check out my book blog at www.readingreckless.wordpress.com
The Real Lolita is the true crime non fiction book about the true origin of Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. I have tried on three separate occasions to read that book. I own it, but I’ve never finished it, in either it’s novel or movie form.
Sarah Weinman does a deep dive into the 1948 case of Sally Horner (Real name : Florence Horner) which she says is the basis for the Lolita narrative. Sally Horner was aged 11 when she was put on a bus to Atlantic CIty by her mother Ella by the behest of Frank LaSalle. Ella had never met the man, just speaking briefly on the phone with him, as he told her that he was taking a vacation with his wife and children and had room for Little Sally to come along. Upon dropping Sally off at the train station, she didn’t see any family around the middle aged man, nor did he come out to greet her. Ella would not see Sally until 21 months later.
The link between the work and the case has been talked about previously in a number of news articles and magazines, however this book seems to be the only real account of the life of Sally Horner told by documents and accounts told by friends and relatives.
The chapters hop back and forth between the account of Sally’s abduction and abuse and the writing and subsequent publication of Lolita, as well as the adamant refusal to give credence to the claims of his pilfering of the true story for his novel.
This was extremely well written. Weinman told Sally’s story with reverence and tact. The issues with publication detailed in the book could have been left out. The reason being that it had nothing to do with the content of the book.
Here is where I disagree and am confused by Weinman’s line of logic. By her own research and admission, Nabokov started writing about inappropriate relationships before he emigrated to America. In fact, he started writing Lolita before Sally Horner was even taken in 1948. It’s interesting to me that the question posed and the answers given both err on the side of conspiracy.
Is the point of the book to give Sally a voice because her life was cut so short after such a brutal and harrowing experience? Well, no because there isn’t much to garner from the media from that time and most of the people with first hand accounts are dead.
Or is the point to demonize Nabokov for writing a book like Lolita?
In the last few chapters, Weinman makes the point that without a book like Lolita, there wouldn’t have been the popular culture perversion of grown women dressing up in baby doll clothing. I would pose the question: without lolita, would we be as aware of sexual predators in our society? By talking about this, Nabokov gave a voice to something sick and perverse but also told the world that there are people like that in our world.
Is it Nabokov’s fault that pop culture took the book at face value and ascribed sexuality to children instead of seeing the issues with it?
I have heard that I should read Rust and Stardust for a more fleshed out account of Sally Horner’s life, fictitious as it is.
The Real Lolita is the true crime non fiction book about the true origin of Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. I have tried on three separate occasions to read that book. I own it, but I’ve never finished it, in either it’s novel or movie form.
Sarah Weinman does a deep dive into the 1948 case of Sally Horner (Real name : Florence Horner) which she says is the basis for the Lolita narrative. Sally Horner was aged 11 when she was put on a bus to Atlantic CIty by her mother Ella by the behest of Frank LaSalle. Ella had never met the man, just speaking briefly on the phone with him, as he told her that he was taking a vacation with his wife and children and had room for Little Sally to come along. Upon dropping Sally off at the train station, she didn’t see any family around the middle aged man, nor did he come out to greet her. Ella would not see Sally until 21 months later.
The link between the work and the case has been talked about previously in a number of news articles and magazines, however this book seems to be the only real account of the life of Sally Horner told by documents and accounts told by friends and relatives.
The chapters hop back and forth between the account of Sally’s abduction and abuse and the writing and subsequent publication of Lolita, as well as the adamant refusal to give credence to the claims of his pilfering of the true story for his novel.
This was extremely well written. Weinman told Sally’s story with reverence and tact. The issues with publication detailed in the book could have been left out. The reason being that it had nothing to do with the content of the book.
Here is where I disagree and am confused by Weinman’s line of logic. By her own research and admission, Nabokov started writing about inappropriate relationships before he emigrated to America. In fact, he started writing Lolita before Sally Horner was even taken in 1948. It’s interesting to me that the question posed and the answers given both err on the side of conspiracy.
Is the point of the book to give Sally a voice because her life was cut so short after such a brutal and harrowing experience? Well, no because there isn’t much to garner from the media from that time and most of the people with first hand accounts are dead.
Or is the point to demonize Nabokov for writing a book like Lolita?
In the last few chapters, Weinman makes the point that without a book like Lolita, there wouldn’t have been the popular culture perversion of grown women dressing up in baby doll clothing. I would pose the question: without lolita, would we be as aware of sexual predators in our society? By talking about this, Nabokov gave a voice to something sick and perverse but also told the world that there are people like that in our world.
Is it Nabokov’s fault that pop culture took the book at face value and ascribed sexuality to children instead of seeing the issues with it?
I have heard that I should read Rust and Stardust for a more fleshed out account of Sally Horner’s life, fictitious as it is.
erikajay's review against another edition
2.0
You definitely need to read Lolita before reading this book. I would’ve liked this book more if the focus truly was on Sally Horner and not on proving that Nabokov knew about Sally while writing Lolita. Since he mentions Sally in Lolita, there really doesn’t seem to be much to argue about there.
There doesn’t seem to be much source material on Sally’s kidnapping, nor comments from Nabokov on Sally, so there is a lot of fluff in this book. It should’ve been about half as long. Apparently this book was expanded from an article written by the author and I think it should’ve stayed that way.
There doesn’t seem to be much source material on Sally’s kidnapping, nor comments from Nabokov on Sally, so there is a lot of fluff in this book. It should’ve been about half as long. Apparently this book was expanded from an article written by the author and I think it should’ve stayed that way.
linnaboobooks's review against another edition
4.0
The rest behind the rating is because I appreciate the extra information both about Nabokov and his wife Vera in relation to his novel, as well as more importantly the story of Sally Horner. I heard of her briefly before in relation to her influence of Lolita but not more than short recaps of information and getting to know the details of the before, what we know of the during, and the after. And it's heartbreaking to know what happened to this young girl throughout that time.
kaleymph's review against another edition
4.0
I think a lot of “true crime” authors could take notes. The way the author went about this, and was honest about what they did and did not know. The sources.
Also, comparing the novel to the actual case. This was awesome. It’s unfortunate what happened though, or course. And as a mother, generally terrifying.
Also, comparing the novel to the actual case. This was awesome. It’s unfortunate what happened though, or course. And as a mother, generally terrifying.
madeleinegeorge's review against another edition
4.0
In 'The Right to Sex', which I read yesterday, there was a chapter devoted to teacher/professor-student relationships and the bounds of consent. What I found fascinating was Srinivasan's argument that the failure there is not one of consent, but rather of pedagogy; the theory being that in establishing a sexual relationship-- between two consenting adults (as in collegiate occurrences) or one adult and one child-- the fundamental aim of education and the pure platonic patterns of instruction are violated. This is, of course, in addition to all the power and political pressures that are present there as well, but all the same. It was an angle I hadn't considered, but one that rang true and clear all the same.
After that, I was tempted to reread Lolita, but decided against it because I didn't want to.
Instead I decided to read Weinman's beautiful piece-- and I'm very glad I did. Uniting historical recreation and brilliant reporting (a lá Helen Macdonald), she traces the true-crime case of Sally Horner as it develops alongside Nabokov and his writing + publishing of Lolita. In this excavation, Horner's life is reclaimed from it's double-appropriation: first as she was indelibly tied to the fate of her abuser and then as she was immortalized by V.N. without sufficient recognition. Sally's life was tragically short and unimaginably brutal. But Weinman brings her to life with salient prose, meticulous research, and compassionate sensitivity. Where she was finally rescued from the hands of her kidnapper, her story has now been wrested from the bitter hands of history as well.
a PS on Lolita
It's a novel that everyone-- whether they've read it or not-- has an opinion on. Both filmed versions received meager box office returns (which... who thought putting it on screen would be a good idea? who)((even w Jeremy Irons, but we're moving past that)), as did the aborted musical.
I've read Lolita, but nothing else of Nabokov's. I knew very little (and suspected I wanted to know even less) about the writing process of it. If anything, though, Weinman's dig into their history, both his and his wife's, somewhat lessens the visceral, nervous knot that forms in the throat when attempting to imagine it. The fact that his decade-long compulsion seems to have been a literary and not a physical one is a small comfort, but a welcome one nonetheless.
After that, I was tempted to reread Lolita, but decided against it because I didn't want to.
Instead I decided to read Weinman's beautiful piece-- and I'm very glad I did. Uniting historical recreation and brilliant reporting (a lá Helen Macdonald), she traces the true-crime case of Sally Horner as it develops alongside Nabokov and his writing + publishing of Lolita. In this excavation, Horner's life is reclaimed from it's double-appropriation: first as she was indelibly tied to the fate of her abuser and then as she was immortalized by V.N. without sufficient recognition. Sally's life was tragically short and unimaginably brutal. But Weinman brings her to life with salient prose, meticulous research, and compassionate sensitivity. Where she was finally rescued from the hands of her kidnapper, her story has now been wrested from the bitter hands of history as well.
a PS on Lolita
It's a novel that everyone-- whether they've read it or not-- has an opinion on. Both filmed versions received meager box office returns (which... who thought putting it on screen would be a good idea? who)((even w Jeremy Irons, but we're moving past that)), as did the aborted musical.
I've read Lolita, but nothing else of Nabokov's. I knew very little (and suspected I wanted to know even less) about the writing process of it. If anything, though, Weinman's dig into their history, both his and his wife's, somewhat lessens the visceral, nervous knot that forms in the throat when attempting to imagine it. The fact that his decade-long compulsion seems to have been a literary and not a physical one is a small comfort, but a welcome one nonetheless.
oofie's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
The Real Lolita talks about two different stories: that of Vladimir Nabokov and his book, Lolita, and that of Sally Horner, whose story the author argues largely inspired the famous Lolita.
Sally Horner was kidnapped at age eleven, taken across the country, and routinely raped and abused for two years before she was able to escape from her captor, Frank La Salle. There's not a lot on her, unfortunately. She never testified in court or wrote of her experiences, so there isn't a lot we necessarily know. And then she died in an accident only two years after returning to her former life. Her story is tragic and really all too short, and the author makes a compelling case for how it mirrors a lot of Dolores' story in Lolita.
There is some exposition on Nabokov as well. The author talks about his cross country trips, his interest in butterflies, his life before and after Lolita is published, and then there are some notes of his as well, such as other famous crimes of the time, which he had written for Lolita.
Overall, I wish there was more on Sally, but I don't think that that's the author's fault. She just largely has faded into history without acknowledgment, and I'm really glad that she at least got this book. I think the author made a compelling case for Sally's story being the basis of that of Lolita. I enjoyed reading this book overall.
Sally Horner was kidnapped at age eleven, taken across the country, and routinely raped and abused for two years before she was able to escape from her captor, Frank La Salle. There's not a lot on her, unfortunately. She never testified in court or wrote of her experiences, so there isn't a lot we necessarily know. And then she died in an accident only two years after returning to her former life. Her story is tragic and really all too short, and the author makes a compelling case for how it mirrors a lot of Dolores' story in Lolita.
There is some exposition on Nabokov as well. The author talks about his cross country trips, his interest in butterflies, his life before and after Lolita is published, and then there are some notes of his as well, such as other famous crimes of the time, which he had written for Lolita.
Overall, I wish there was more on Sally, but I don't think that that's the author's fault. She just largely has faded into history without acknowledgment, and I'm really glad that she at least got this book. I think the author made a compelling case for Sally's story being the basis of that of Lolita. I enjoyed reading this book overall.