Scan barcode
A review by mireanthony
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
challenging
dark
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I’ve been meaning to read this book for so long that I’ve gone from being Dolores’ age to nearly being Humbert’s. This dredged up a lot of feelings for me, both cathartic and agonizing. I would not recommend this book casually but I did enjoy it and I think it is rare in deserving its status as a literary classic. Of particular note to me is Nabokov’s statement in his afterward, written a few years after Lolita was published, for its relevance to certain views on fiction today:
There are gentle souls who would pronounce Lolita meaningless because it does not teach them anything. I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and... Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiousity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm.
To be flippant for a moment, I feel like this book belongs beside Catcher In The Rye, “Rick and Morty”, Fight Club, etc. with “media that demonstrates good taste if you’re marginalized but a glaring red flag coming from a cishet white man”. I just feel like the fundamental problem of identifying with a character that’s meant to be condemned and seeing him as the hero of the piece is the problem here. But then, this isn’t a hot or a new take, as people have been misunderstanding this book since it was first published, if other media I’ve seen around it is any indication.
Anyway. Great book, deserving of its recognition as a classic and a work of art, terrible villain as the protagonist, agonizing to read. My singular complaint is that the edition I have (second Vintage International edition, June 1997) does not have footnotes translating Nabokov’s usages of French. Pretentious dick (affectionate).
My only justification for reviewing a piece of controversial classic literature is that I am very bored and so far this year reading and writing about it has been a small bright spot for me.
There are gentle souls who would pronounce Lolita meaningless because it does not teach them anything. I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and... Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiousity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm.
To be flippant for a moment, I feel like this book belongs beside Catcher In The Rye, “Rick and Morty”, Fight Club, etc. with “media that demonstrates good taste if you’re marginalized but a glaring red flag coming from a cishet white man”. I just feel like the fundamental problem of identifying with a character that’s meant to be condemned and seeing him as the hero of the piece is the problem here. But then, this isn’t a hot or a new take, as people have been misunderstanding this book since it was first published, if other media I’ve seen around it is any indication.
Anyway. Great book, deserving of its recognition as a classic and a work of art, terrible villain as the protagonist, agonizing to read. My singular complaint is that the edition I have (second Vintage International edition, June 1997) does not have footnotes translating Nabokov’s usages of French. Pretentious dick (affectionate).
My only justification for reviewing a piece of controversial classic literature is that I am very bored and so far this year reading and writing about it has been a small bright spot for me.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Body shaming, Child abuse, Emotional abuse, Fatphobia, Incest, Misogyny, Pedophilia, Physical abuse, Rape, Kidnapping, and Death of parent