Reader #1: A 30ish young woman in a turquoise silk head scarf. I was impressed by her calm and reserve given the rage I myself was feeling as our N-train made local stops through lower Manhattan.
Reader #2: A tall, lanky fellow with neatly gelled Don Draper hair and ribbed beige socks showing above his wingtips. He took notes in the margins—like the people in that New York Times article about taking notes in the margins.
Who is the more typical Lolita reader? Clearly #2. I can’t tell you how many disaffected English major type dudes I’ve met in New York who cite this as their favorite book. It’s always disturbed me, slightly.
What disturbs me even more is… the Vanity Fair quote on the cover, which reads “The only convincing love story of our century.” It’s a worthy book, sure, but not a love story.
Further reading for fans (and the cherry atop our cake of disturbance): Living Dead Girl by Elizabeth Scott is essentially Lolita from the little girl’s perspective. Marketed as YA, but definitely more suitable for adults.
Interesting perspective, and I have to agree. I thought the NYTimes article was interesting, and made me a little sad. I too am a margin writer.
ReplyDeleteHa, I'm reading Lolita right now. The edition with the Vanity Fair blurb on the back. I'm an English m.a but I don't have a Don Draper haircut :)
ReplyDeleteLittle known fact: Nabokov was an evolutionary biologist of some repute in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard.
ReplyDeleteI would argue it is a love story, although a completely effed up one. And I wouldn't quail too much over English majors citing it as their favorite novel - it's a stunningly perfect novel, actually. Even if one is troubled by the content, it's gorgeous in terms of craft. Maybe ask what their other favorites are in order to determine whether you should really be creeped out or not. ;)
ReplyDeleteOh, and as the person who posted the above comment, maybe I should mention that I'm a 31 year old woman.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a valid point, Anonymous, and an argument can certainly be made supporting the notion that Lolita is, in fact, a love story. My objection is that this assumes a definition of love I personally reject. I've always preferred to view it as an exploration of psychosis in the vein of Crime and Punishment.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it would be wrong to judge Lolita purely on the basis of disturbing content, and I wouldn't want my comments to discourage others from reading a book which you rightfully identify as both stunning and gorgeous (couldn't quite bring myself to write "perfect"...)
I think I'm in a minority of people who weren't crazy about the writing, and I'm actually a little surprised that no one else has called me out on this. My opinion is just that—an opinion, informed by little more than my own tastes and experience. I hope people will tell me when they disagree, and so much the better if heated quibbling ensues. Books make excellent launchpads for discussion, no?
Ah, but I think that love (in various forms) is often a kind of psychosis in itself! But your point is taken. And to each his/her own! :)
ReplyDeleteI meant to link to my blog in that last one. I don't usually like the whole anonymous thing as I'm a firm believer in not saying anything on the internet that I wouldn't say to someone's face.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Lolita is not my favorite book. I don't love it. I just recognize how great it is.
It's funny you compare Lolita to both Living Dead Girl and Crime and Punishment. Nabokov hated Dostoeyvsky's overly sentimental writing. I suspect he would dislike this Elizabeth Scott's work as well.
ReplyDeleteFar be it from me to liken Nabokov to Dostoevsky! If Raskolnikov and Humbert Humbert were brought to life and placed in a room together I'm sure they would loathe one another—that is if they could let go of their own issues long enough to form any meaningful impressions.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's fair to say that the similarities between Living Dead Girl and Lolita begin and end with subject matter. The sub-heading "Further Reading for Fans" is a bit obtuse, but intentionally so, mind you.