# Nabokov's Lolita: A Well-Written Book on Pedophilia?



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Anyone read this book?

The way it is written is rather beautiful. Vladimir Nabokov writes almost poetically (is he INTP).

HOWEVER, this book comes across to me as straight up entering the mind of a pedophile. Sort of disturbing.

What do you guys think?

Please, no spoilers!


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Look up what Pedophilia is. Lolita is a nymphette, who is sexually aware. Though naive. But who isn't?

Honestly, a boring story beyond its theme. He hit the nail on the head with the theme though. It covers for the rest.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

It's disturbing and fascinating at the same time, or at least it was from my perspective.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> It's disturbing and fascinating at the same time, or at least it was from my perspective.


Isn't it based on lost, young love? He is trying to echo that feeling, through Lolite. 

And that is what it brought me back to. Even though the book generally bored me. It reminded me of the first glimpse of adult love and sexuality. That truly is a magical moment. Right around 12-13.... I can still remember it. You liked girls before then, but something changes. But a childish mind cannot really appreciate, or put it into justice. That is the magic. The intellectualisation of it. Applying the power and wisdom, along with the passion, of an adult to it. That somehow robs it of its innocence, but still reminds us of it. It takes an adult to communicate that to us at this age. 

Because it has been lost... because adults have put it down. Nabokov brought it back up. lol. Which was weird. And cross wired so many emotions. Innocence with sex, etc.. He mixed two worlds, that should not be mixed. That's why I said most of the story is boring bullshit. It's the cross wiring of the adult and childish emotions, which give it power, and make it creepy. 

Brilliant idea. He tapped into something special. There is something magical about that time, of sexual becoming. But it has never been done justice by the adult mind.


----------



## BlissfulDreams (Dec 25, 2009)

Yes, it's about entering the mind of a pedophile, but just because something is disturbing does that mean it has to be taboo? Prior to Lolita, there wasn't really anyone looking to explore that. It doesn't glorify pedophilia. It doesn't try to be explicit and shocking. It explores the idea that people do the things that they do, whether they are honourable or horrifying, because they can justify themselves in their thoughts. Nabokov tried to make the reader sympathize with Humbert and the thought that such a person can be sympathized with is the unsettling and disturbing part. Nabokov also carefully crafted his prose and English wasn't even his first language. So it is literature in its truest sense.

I find all the tv shows that feature psychopaths who enjoy torturing their victims and show explicit violence to be much more disturbing.


----------



## angeleyes (Feb 20, 2013)

It's a story of obsession. A man who is the victim of his own appetites.


----------



## Arthur Boo Radley (May 5, 2014)

Haven't read the book but I've watched the film. The one where Jeremy Irons was playing Humbert. Yeah, it's disturbing, I didn't like it. I might feel differently about the book though.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

BlissfulDreams said:


> Yes, *it's about entering the mind of a pedophile,* but just because something is disturbing does that mean it has to be taboo? Prior to Lolita, there wasn't really anyone looking to explore that. It doesn't glorify pedophilia. It doesn't try to be explicit and shocking. It explores the idea that people do the things that they do, whether they are honourable or horrifying, because they can justify themselves in their thoughts. Nabokov tried to make the reader sympathize with Humbert and the thought that such a person can be sympathized with is the unsettling and disturbing part. Nabokov also carefully crafted his prose and English wasn't even his first language. So it is literature in its truest sense.
> 
> I find all the tv shows that feature psychopaths who enjoy torturing their victims and show explicit violence to be much more disturbing.


No, it isn't. It actually makes you see nuance. People who keep repeating "pedopheila" don't get it. The guy isn't a pedophile.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm not too far into it, so it's very interesting to read the responses.

It just seems so complex and beautifully written. Nabokov is nothing short of genius, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if he was met by a lot of heat from readers who read him as a pedophile. 
@_FearAndTrembling_, ah, good point. I guess there is a fine line between "pedophilia" and trying to replicate a past experience of young love. Still disturbing though.

His prose though is remarkable. As disturbing as the content may be, I'd continue reading solely because I enjoy Nabokov's writing style (and it also makes me question the book I'm currently writing and if it's worth continuing and publishing -- nowhere near the level of Nabokov. Nowhere even close).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

There is a significant distinction though. A pedofile is attracted to pre pubescents. Lolita, as Nabokov coined or popularized, was a "nymphette". She had hit puberty. So, it isn't pedofelia. A nymphette, by definition, has hit puberty. 

As I mentioned, Lolita was also sexually "aware". She wasn't just physically turning into a woman, her psyche was aware of it too. She was sexual. She knew what was happening. She wanted to attract men. She knew what her body was... 

And that is what makes it so dicey. That fine line. It is scummy. But more along the lines of a teacher banging a student, which is in the newspaper daily, both sexes.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

The second half lost my interest. It was very difficult for me to sympathize with Humbert Humbert... To me he was quite the opposite actually. To me he was an unsympathetic antagonist, which is why the book didn't work for me, unfortunately. The way Nabokov plays with words can be magical sometimes. The only good thing about it is its style and the first half of the book, imo. I'm pretty sure Nabokov was INTP.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

There's a philosophical term, it really annoys me that I can't remember it, that deals with this kind of uncertainty in change of states. 

It is very prominent in the abortion debate. Nobody can pinpoint the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human. It is a judgement call. It is philosophical. The philosophy of becoming. 

And this is where Lolita shines. It splits it right down the middle, right in the change of states that is so hard to define. If he were going after a 9-10 year old, clear pedo. Less interesting. Going after a 16-18 year old. Frowned upon, sure, but not uncommon, and somewhat understandable. Also, less interesting. But he hits that sweet spot. Like the guy who split an arrow, with another arrow. It is equal on both sides, but touches neither. So, if you see it as a pedo, you miss the point. Nabokov is mucking around in the nuanced, grey area, that cannot be defined.


----------



## 66767 (Oct 24, 2013)

The topic of ephebophila intrigues me enough as it is, but Nabokov's prose is pristine and pulchritudinous. Kudos to the the translator as well, for being able to retain the beauty in his words. That being said, I have not finished the book, actually--only gotten to page 70 or so--but I plan to pick up where I left off this summer. I have seen the film adaptations, though. I mean, my feelings toward Humbert as a protagonist are ambivalent. In a way, I can understand how the death of his darling Annabel triggered his unhealthy predilection for pubescent girls, but that root cause can only justify so much shittiness in his actions. Like really, he couldn't have told Lolita the truth that her mom died? For pete's sake, that's her _mom_. It is not in his position to be lying by omission like that. Actually, no, he did straightforwardly lie and said she was at the hospital. 

As for his non-platonic relationship with Lolita, I won't delve much into that since issues of morality and societal rules and whatnot will arise. 

But yeah, I need to finish this book...


----------



## cheburashka (Jan 4, 2013)

hi hi! lolita is one of my favorite novels, not because of its theme, but because of its brilliant style! nabokov is quite an author! i loved the way he would zoom in on certain characters, such as my personal favorite line, something about "blackheads on the wings of his nose" which of course we all know what it looks like, but to script it in such a way! *(there will be spoilers ahead, watch out)*
anyway, humbert is a case of an unreliable narrator. he takes outrageous scenes (such as when feeling no remorse at charlotte's death, living with charlotte for the sake of being with lolita alone, and completely manipulating her emotions... drugging lolita with sleep medicine, and testing the sleep medicine on charlotte first...or the ending scene, in which he fought with the nude quilty and ended up shooting him and then leaving as if it were completely normal) and puts them into a calm and understandable voice. the reader finds themselves being compelled by humbert's actions, when they are actually repulsive actions. humbert even has the reader sympathize with him as he is being arrested, as if there is any sympathy to be had with such a man. furthermore, nabokov did this intentionally. he said somewhere along the lines of, "humbert's name was just a running name at first, but after writing the novel i found that this name fit him perfectly, and so kept it" ... to say that the name "humbert humbert" represents a character perfectly is so cruel, but rather funny as well! i agree! and ugly and funny name to fit a disgusting man.
on a further note, though lolita was sexually-aware, she was still unhappy living with humbert, and often took stances against him. she even gave up living with him and instead lived with quilty, which was an awful life. and still she said she would rather go back to it than live with humbert again. had humbert not entereted lolita's life she possibly would have lived normally, but her being was altered by him incredibly and the life she ended up with was not the one that she had the potential for. we often are inclined to see charlotte or lolita as bad characters, which we dislike, but that is simply another trick that nabokov plays with his narrative. they are completely normal human beings, and to vilify them or say that what humbert did was not wrong, we are simply falling into this literary trap. 
but a brilliantly written trap at that! seeing as english is not nabokov's first language, this literary success astounds me. he writes like a genius and i am always in awe when i read his english works. it is my goal to one day be able to write at least a sentence as well as he composed entire novels.


----------



## cheburashka (Jan 4, 2013)

enscorcelled97 said:


> The topic of ephebophila intrigues me enough as it is, but Nabokov's prose is pristine and pulchritudinous. Kudos to the the translator as well, for being able to retain the beauty in his words. That being said, I have not finished the book, actually--only gotten to page 70 or so--but I plan to pick up where I left off this summer. I have seen the film adaptations, though. I mean, my feelings toward Humbert as a protagonist are ambivalent. In a way, I can understand how the death of his darling Annabel triggered his unhealthy predilection for pubescent girls, but that root cause can only justify so much shittiness in his actions. Like really, he couldn't have told Lolita the truth that her mom died? For pete's sake, that's her _mom_. It is not in his position to be lying by omission like that. Actually, no, he did straightforwardly lie and said she was at the hospital.
> 
> As for his non-platonic relationship with Lolita, I won't delve much into that since issues of morality and societal rules and whatnot will arise.
> 
> But yeah, I need to finish this book...


this novel was actually originally written in english! truly incredible, wouldn't you say? nabokov was a master of several languages, and he translated lolita into russian later on. it is his first american success i believe?


----------



## 66767 (Oct 24, 2013)

essiechan said:


> this novel was actually originally written in english! truly incredible, wouldn't you say? nabokov was a master of several languages, and he translated lolita into russian later on. it is his first american success i believe?


Wow, I had no idea, or maybe I had come across this somewhere when I researched the book via wikipedia and just simply forgot, but wow, he's a genius. That's incredible.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

The narrator is unreliable and romanticizes evil. You are supposed to be drawn into his world just like he was drawn into his fantasies. It shows you the fallibility of humans, and submerses you in a beautiful, rotting illusion. You aren't supposed to be convinced he's in the right, but it does teach you something about being a human being. You should be moved & repelled.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

babblingbrook said:


> The second half lost my interest. It was very difficult for me to sympathize with Humbert Humbert... To me he was quite the opposite actually. To me he was an unsympathetic antagonist, which is why the book didn't work for me, unfortunately. The way Nabokov plays with words can be magical sometimes. The only good thing about it is its style and the first half of the book, imo. I'm pretty sure Nabokov was INTP.


That makes sense, but I don't think you're really supposed to sympathize with him. Nabokov wasn't condoning the narrator's actions.


----------



## Uncouth Angel (Nov 26, 2011)

I haven't read the book in its entirety, but from what I understand, Nabokov despised his narrator, Humbert Humbert, and definitely did _not_ intend for his book to be the go-to apologia for pederasty. Of course, that didn't stop the novel from garnering one of the most misguided fanbases of all time.


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

The book is amazingly well written... and it is about pedophilia. However, it doesn't condone the behavior whatsoever.


* *




In fact, at the end of the novel, it makes it very clear that Humbert destroyed Lolita more effectively than the man who actually kidnapped her and tried to force her into pornography (Quilty).


----------

