I finished Lolita about an hour ago, and while it might normally make sense to sit on a finished novel for a bit before writing about it, this is not such a novel. Nabokov, or perhaps Humbert Humbert, leaves me with a sense of restlessness, and I'm hoping discussing the book will calm that.
I noticed there was an older entry about Lolita in the archives, in which the author says how she doesn't understand why she hadn't read the novel sooner. When I first picked up Lolita, it was with similar thoughts. I had sat through a 300 lvl Lit course where it constantly came up, it had been mentioned in numerous conversations with friends, and I had been talking about reading it since high school. But now that I've finished it, I'm glad I waited, because I don't think I would have approached or understood the book in the same way then as I did now.
Nabokov creates in Lolita the autobiography of a man who society would teach us to deplore, yet through this very narrator he creates a turmoil of morals and emotions in the reader. This is because throughout Lolita we don't completely hate H. Humbert, we don't view every occurrence as absolutely wrong and disgusting. Instead we find ourselves sympathizing, aroused (the back of my book quotes Vanity Fair in saying that it is āthe only convincing love story of our generation.ā), and confused but trying to understand. I want to applaud Nabokov on one hand, and sob at his feet and beg him to give me back my sense of order, on the other.
Perhaps it is because H. H. is so completely overwhelmed by his passion/love for little Lo that we can't seem to hate him or blame him for how wrong it all went. And with the way it all ends (which I won't give away, for my fellow late readers, though be warned that there are some slight, predictable spoilers ahead), it's almost as if we can argue that no true harm was done. But is this possibly true? A question I found myself asking over and over again once I had delved into Part 2 of the novel was what was worse: how disturbing Part 2 feels as Lo becomes increasingly disinterested and Humbert more forceful and manipulative, or, that Part 1 didn't feel disturbing because it seemed so much like Lolita wanted it? It felt like a rape victim blaming debate, only I was struggling to maintain my feminist stance. And that's Nabokov's true genius of this novel, that we are so enmeshed in Humbert Humbert's mind that we have trouble reminding ourselves that Dolores Haze is only a 12 year old girl, or perhaps more accurately, that children are never quite sure of what they really want and make mistakes that adults (H. H.) are supposed to help them navigate. But who is the first manipulator of the situation? Is there anyone who can be said to make the ultimate decision that leads down the dark road of their travels? It's up to the reader to pick a side, if they even can. Maybe it's easier to fall onto societal conventions and call up the classic laws of consent, as a lawyer's defense against ourselves. (Thanks, Nabokov, here's some applause for my confusion.)
Overall, though, Lolita had to be one of the most infuriating and beautiful pieces of literature I'd read in a good while. It left me crushed and pining. It made me reexamine pieces of myself, my life, and ideals we hold. Who is it that said the only love worth having is the maddening kind? Because that is what Lolita is all about, the kind of love for things we shouldn't have, the kind of love that breaks you down.
Edit : Just watched the film (1997) as well, and I figured I'd throw in my opinion of that too...
1.) it's better if you've read the novel, since it'll illuminate some things on a deeper, more complex level and get you to think a lot more.
2.) I'm still feeling torn emotionally and morally, though I have to say that the directorial decisions (and script, which I hear was written by Nabokov?) definitely showed Dolores's point of view in a very interesting, and somewhat helpful, way.
3.) Also, the film makes some decisions at the end, both in keeping with the novel and differing from it, that are beautiful and heartbreaking. (No, I don't mean the silly epilogue, I mean the goodbye scene in Coalmont.)