week 7/ Lolita

There is strong motif of cruelty that runs through Lolita. Not only does Nabokov himself use cruelty in regard to his characters, but also manages to make his characters do cruel things themselves. While this may seem the same thing, and sometimes is in Lolita, Nabokov manages to separate this fine line. His characters cruel actions seem only to echo their pathetic and meaningless lives, made all the more potent by Nabokov's exemplar prose.

My first example comes from the almost comic relief of Claire Quilty's presence in this novel. His entire life seems to be based on the comic opposition, or emphasis, of Humbert Humbert's sexual deviancy. Quilty is depicted as a pedophile of undaunted means and rather than struggling with his illicit tendencies as Humbert does, he revels in them. Even his death is comical and surreal. Quilty seems to be present in this novel only to juxtapose Humbert character.

Nabokov tends to play with his characters. Not only is Quilty seen as a supporting comic character, but Humbert's entire plight--which is the basis of the book--is used as a playground for Nabokov's imagination. In several interviews he has stated that his characters don't take on a life and personality of their own, they are simple playthings for him to manipulate.

Humbert as a character is cruel not only to Lolita, but also his first wife Valeria, and his second wife Charlotte. Though his cruelty isn't seen as just that because the novel is written from his point of view, the facts are that Humbert was not a nice person. He struggled with his pedophelia, yes. He had a moral code that he tried to stick to, yes. But as a person, Humbert Humbert was not a nice person. Nabokov simply enhances this aspect of his personalty to turn Humbert into a manic and obsessive lover, to the point that Humbert ends up killing Quilty for the same crime that he, himself, has performed on Lolita.

Life, and the meaning of death, are ridiculed to the point of being almost meaningless in this novel. Annabel dies before they can really even consumate their relationship, Valeria ends up dying in a lab mishap, Charlotte gets run over after she becomes useless, Quilty gets shot out of revenge and Humbert himself dies meaninglessly. The only real tragedy in this entire book is the shattered life of Lolita, and thoguh her life has been forever marred by Quilty and Humbert, she manages to forgive them both.

Not only did Nabokov play with the morals of his characters, but he also humiliated them. Their most improtant morals, customs, beleifs and even their lives are used to tell this tragic tale.

week 6/ Lolita

This is the second of two posts on the novel "Lolita". For this post I'd like to focus on the second half of the dilemma of reading the novel; if one focuses solely on the subject, then one demeans and abolishes the novel.

A superior reader, I would think, could overlook just about any subject for the sake of the writing. They could take the book at face value and evaluate it in the simplest of manners; by it's grammatical correctness. Though this is not the highest level of reading, it's certainly an interesting way to interpret Nabokov's "Lolita". "Lolita" is written in such a high style of language that the reader has trouble actually following the physical events of the novel.

Nabokov is playing with more than just the emotions of the reader. He also makes several analogies to other authors and poets, like his character of Annabel that mirrors that of Edgar Allen Poe. Or the fact that this novel has the feel of a Shakespearean drama. Or the way that it turns into a shoot-em-up western or a film noir towards the end.

Taking into account all of these factors one can see that not only did Nabokov write in a very elevated style, but he also played with the events of the story. In this way, the elevated reader can not only enjoy the elevated writing style and the effects that has on the reader, but they can also amuse themselves over the various subplots and puns (the prevalence of the hunter theme, for example).

The main character, Humphrey, has the distinct ability to persuade his reader--and condemner--that his emotions, and therefore his actions off those emotions, were pure and not meant to harm. While this is not the truth, the reader still has trouble distinguishing between the truth and what's written; especially when it's written by an man who professes to duping the other characters. What can the reader believe?

The reader can believe that this novel is a masterwork of the English language. It can twist people's emotions to the author's bidding and therefore skew the true meaning of events; just like regular communication between two individuals can. In a way, this novel is a perfect study of the imperfection of communication and the perfection of language. Both are essential , and yet both corrupt the other.

One cannot condemn this novel based solely on the content. In fact, this novel functions off the severity of the content. If not for such a controversial subject then the author could not show off the power of the English language. Nabokov relies on the reactions of his readers to finish off the reading experience of this novel.