This is a long post. A bit longer than required for this
assignment. I thought that it was best to write
everything down at once since I never wish to discuss this topic ever again.
Thank you.
 |
http://gracefulslumber.blogspot.com/
2012/06/lo-lee-ta.html |
Lolita,
a novel written by Vladimir Nabokov, was published in 1955 in Paris and 1958 in
New York. Lolita is famous for many different reasons, such
as a subjective and unreliable narrator,
sophisticated prose, and controversial topic of the narrator's relationship
with an underage girl, nicknamed Lolita. Before writing about a significant
quote and its influences throughout the novel, I would like to summarize the
style and literary aspects of the novel.
One of
the most significant aspects of the novel is the use of language, by the author
and the narrator. The author has added a fictional foreword to the novel, am
introduction by a doctor from Massachusetts about the art and psychiatry of the
novel. This fictional doctor creates several thoughts for the audience: a
reassurance that this is a study of psychiatry instead of a simple sordid tale,
a warning about the dangers of society and such depraved people, and how the
narrator is both intriguing and horrifying in his story. The narrator used
advanced language and vocabulary,
descriptive metaphors and analogies, and sympathetic pleas to garner the
audience's attention and compassion. Though the subjects of the novel are
controversial and sordid, some readers were distracted by the narrator's
seemingly good nature and sophistication. Throughout the text, the narrator
speaks directly to the audience and the fictional jury about his emotions and
thoughts. He floridly speaks about remorse and realizations about his sins.
This use of language is the most complex aspect of the novel since the reader
must be vigilant about the point of view and the potential lies. Another motifs is the narrator's constant
references to art and history.
 |
http://gracefulslumber.blogspot.com/
2012/06/lo-lee-ta.html |
The
narrator references European history and art as an explanation for his
behavior, his aesthetic ideals, and as justification for his crimes. The
narrator creates the word "nymphets" for the young girls he watches.
Even a horrid nick-name receives an elaborate description and history:
"Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to
certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true
nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac)" (13). Another
example is when Humbert first addresses the jury: "Ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple
noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns" (5).By
referencing these myths and histories, the narrator is assuring the audience of
his education and knowledge. The audience wonders if Humbert is as horrid as
people might propose. Perhaps the situation was misunderstood and this novel is
in fact the "love story" that people celebrate?
At this
point, I will introduce the quote that affected my entire reading of
"Lolita" and reveals the twisted complexity and intrigue of the
story. After addressing the jury and
describing his history, Humbert writes:
My very photogenic mother died
in a freak accident (picnic, lightning)
when I was three, and, save for a pocket of warmth in the darkest
past,
nothing of her subsists within the hollows and dells of memory, over
which, if you can still stand my style
(I am writing under observation)...(6).
 |
| http://spoilersliterature.blogspot.com/2011/06/lolita.html |
This seems an unusual quote to describe the entire novel. It
arrives early in the plot, before the narrator even meets Lolita. But this
quote alone affected my entire perception of the story. First "My very
photogenic mother died in a freak accident (picnic, lightning) when I was
three." This struck me as very odd. What a way to describe one's mother
and her death. "My very photogenic mother" speaks of a kind of
emotional detachment. He can appreciate her beauty, but takes very little note
of how he learns of it and what emotions may have been displayed. It is
unlikely he remembers her appearance at three years old, so he most likely
learned of her from family and photographs. While his family or history is not
a focus in the story, I was surprised he did not detail further. And just as I
contemplated this though, he refutes with "and save for a pocket of warmth
in the darkest past, nothing of her subsists within the hollows and dells of
memory." Well. This hardly feels like a real emotional approach to any
topic. This language is meant to impress and evoke emotion, with little felt on
his part. Were you sympathetic when you read it? Did you consider how lost and
alone he felt without the mother's love ? Well, this is the kind of emotional
manipulation that the narrator casts throughout the story. This is what the
reader must wade through in order to gain some semblance of the real plot and
events. The events, of course, are fictional, but the real issue is how we
receive the facts. The reader does not learn this story from any other point of
view, only Humbert. And Humbert frequently stops to appeal to the audience and
jury and make elaborate poetry or descriptions.
Once again, the narrator himself informs the reader : "if you can still
stand my style." Not only his style, but a reminder. "I am writing
under observation." The reader, you, are receiving one side of the story.
His side of the story. He is writing under observation and in prison. He has
good reason to be ....selective about his writings. At any point he can
incriminate and damn himself. From this
point forward, the reader must sift through his florid writings and
fabrications to see the real story. And the real Humbert and the real story are
hideous things.
I
finish this novel with a shudder down my spine and an almost physical sickness
in my stomach. And this illness only grows worse when I hear other readers
comment on how "charming" or "intriguing" the narrator was
before his "descent into madness." My curiosity about other reader's
reactions led to some research about banning this novel from Advanced Placement
English classes in high school. While this is not about banning the novel or
preserving it for a study in literature, one student's response to the issue
was startling. I will not cite the source or anything similar. The responses on
this website were entirely anonymous. This is what the student wrote:
People
are still people, diseased with a love for younger people or not. Humbert is a
nice gentleman to me. He is not a beast. I would be friends with Humbert. I
think that he’s intellectual, humorous, and a genuinely great guy.
 |
| http://able2know.org/topic/136827-1 |
The use of language and the manipulation of the facts and
perspective allow the narrator to carefully tailor the story we receive. He is
deceptive and some readers may not realize the depth of his lies. This man was
mad long before his meeting with Lolita and this sordid affair. This is not a
love story, in any way, shape, or form. This is a foray into the sick mind of a
twisted, corrupt man. A man who is willing to murder, kidnap, drug, blackmail,
manipulate, threaten, and harm for his own selfish desires. He tries to justify
himself through his descriptions, his historical references, his different
perspective, and his desperate calls of redemption and love. Is this story an
excellent study in the manipulation of language in literature for a specific
purpose? Yes. Definitely. Is it a story I enjoyed reading? No.
Is there
anything I learned? I could find something to learn, if I looked hard enough.
But frankly, I'm too disgusted too continue any train of thought about this
novel and will never look at or read this story again. Good bye.
