“Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov
A novel hard to read and harder to write about.
There are a few debates about literature and art that remain perennial and appear to be gathering many storms, particularly in the contemporary context. Does an artist have a social responsibility in what they write? How much can the envelope be pushed in the name of literature? And of course, arguably the most potent one- can one separate the art from the artist?
This controversial novel succeeds in posing all of the above questions and at the same time so many more.
Recent evidence has indicated that Nabokov himself was a despicable person who allegedly committed acts just as bad as his protagonist Humbert Humbert. Further, this novel also begs the question of adding the excuse of “product of its time” to the mix.
What cannot be denied though is that in 2023, a work like this, and several more from a similar standpoint, have to face the music.
The Subject of Art
Good art is supposed to make one feel uncomfortable. To take it a step further, I agree with John Green’s stance that the best of books should have the power of shaking one’s worldview.
Having said that, Lolita takes the word uncomfortable to a completely different realm. It is difficult to not constantly scream at the protagonist and feel disturbed by his thoughts and actions. When his intent does not scandalize, it is the annoying manner in which his thoughts flow that disrupts any attempt at joy.
All of this, of course, is what makes it a compelling piece of literature.
This is where the thin line must be carefully etched. In the era of cancel culture, extremes are all too easily embraced with nuance and multitudes being kicked off a cliff (if not driven pointlessly around America much like the characters of the novel). A work can be disturbing and at the same time readable. It is conceivable that a novel or a stance you disagree with also champions some of the most daunting prose in living memory.
Simply put, things can be other things.
The Question of Authorial Intent
Nabokov’s afterword in the edition that I read, sheds a lot of light on the writing process of this novel. I would urge anyone who would wish to rise beyond a one-dimensional hate for this work to read it in order to reread the novel in a slightly different light.
Then of course there are those theories that try to absolve the novel’s premise- the narrator is unreliable, if not deranged, that the culture of the time demanded such a work, that one must sympathize with issues, the author’s own childhood may be permeating into the work, and so on and so forth.
Do delve into the different interpretations of the same work and then wonder whether there exists such a thing as objectivity after all.
Interestingly, the character of Lolita too seems to have risen beyond certain cultural frameworks, as I was amused to hear her name referred to in this popular Bollywood song. I wonder if the songwriters read the book.
Lastly, for my stance, the novel reminds me of Nadine Gordimer’s excellent and just as disturbing novel The Conservationist. Akin to Lolita, this novel too features a protagonist with deplorable views and deeply disturbing actions, set against the frame of postcolonial South Africa. But it succeeds in giving the reader a powerful picture of those times and from a compelling, if not disturbing authorial voice.
Going a step further, both these works echo the same format of questioning that is often posed to William Shakespeare’s Othello and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness: Is it a racist work or a work about racism?
Do read the novel despite what some scandalized voices may tell you- it is healthy to be utterly disturbed and through it form one’s own stance rather than parrot that of others. Do follow this newsletter and keep reading. As you can see, consistency has descended on the uploads, but how regularly can it be kept up?
See you next Sunday?