Hundred Book Challenge #2 “Lolita” by "Vladimir Nabokov

So, what has become of my hundred book challenge? It's was back in May when I posted the first of this series and wrote about “A Clockwork Orange” and now we are knocking on the door of a new year. Have I stopped reading? No. After finishing “A Clockwork Orange” I ripped my way through Vladimir Nabokov's “Lolita” and started on “A Dance to the Music of Time” which happens to be not a single novel but a cycle of 12 novels. I've been pretty much washed up in that world for most of the year. I also got blindsided by Stephen King's new novel and am nearly done listening to “The Corrections.” Because of this I entirely forgot, with my moving and changing jobs, to write about “Lolita.”

Well, that's not entirely true. The problem is that “Lolita” is a tricky novel to talk about. It's (in)famous to everyone because of its subject matter- that is a sexual relationship between a middle-aged man and a prepubescent girl. I may have been purposefully avoiding writing about it. It's an uncomfortable book, but maybe not for the reason you may think.

 Unfairly labeled as an erotic novel, the actual depictions of sex are almost non-existent. No, this novel is uncomfortable because it seduces the reader just as much as the narrator, Humbert Humbert, seduces 12-year-old Dolores and it's just as effective. That is to say, the book is a thing of pure beauty, light humor and total horror.

 As a narrator, Humbert is -almost- impossible not to love. He is witty, clever, funny and charming. Written in the form of a self-described fictional account of the life of the narrator, the book has you laughing even while your skin crawls. He is also a hebephile and goes to great length to explain exactly what sort of girl he likes. These passage are pure slime, but pretty slime still.

 There is much to say about this novel from a feminist point of view- how the desire of a man dehumanizes women and so forth, but that's not how I read it. I read it from the point of view of a man. Really, I think this is not a story of sexual conquest. It's a story about obsession. The obsession Humbert has towards Lolita is the same sort of thing anyone faces once their entire life's purpose can be boiled down to a single thing.

 This may be somewhat tangental, but the story really reminded me of people I used to go to church with. I'm an active, practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and one thing about our church is how many facets there are to our faith. Growing up, however, I encountered several people who would cling to one particular point of doctrine or practice to the point of obsession. They would pick one point and never deviate from that religious location. In the end, these people all seemed to face an ironical punishment for their obsession. A woman obsessed with family history ended up losing her living family because of it. A man obsessed with eating healthy ended up with vitamin and protein deficiencies. A man obsessed with missionary work ended up scaring people away from the church. It's not unless you accept life as a wide banquet of opportunity to you get any real joy out of one specific dish.

 Of course, Humbert's obsession is fundamentally evil and that's where the analogy falls apart. Still, perhaps there is a lesson there as well. What small hint of a shadow living in our periphery would grow to be a monster if we allow it to step out into the open? What small lust or anger or pride or other deadly sin that we stifle would become our obsession if we gave it just the smallest bit of growing room?

 A couple of things:
1. I found it almost impossible to read this book in public or research it on the Internet. The term "Lolita" is so connected to pedophilia that I was afraid a FBI team would raid my house at any moment.

2. The infamous reputation of this book is not, I think, totally fair. I think the stories you hear of an evil erotic novel knee-jerk reactions from people who never read the thing.