I suppose if the only literary mechanism were to create sympathy on the narrator, the literary world would be much poorer. There are books with multiple narrators, some of whom are unreliable. The whole "epic" approach in theatre is based on not identifying with the actors. Thus you should not be deterred by the unpleasant narrator and miss this really engaging language and narrative. Nabokov is a non-native English speaker but possibly one who uses the language best.
Love your micro-review. I've tried coming up with a few of those in the past. My favorite is a three-word review for a book that tortured me: Hallmark Does Homer.
I never read Lolita for the reasons you describe. I've read that the book is written in such a way that the reader is supposed to feel sympathy for the narrator, and I'm just not interested in cultivating sympathy for perverts. But I suppose I should see for myself.
a three word review?! I am not worthy etc etc. I thought I was doing well with getting it down to SIX!
From the little I read, I didn't feel sympathy, I felt sick. But I'm willing to give it another go given what others, like Claudia and Raina, have said
I confess to be permanently and unassailably in love with words. So your quote from a Russian Beauty 'the crickets stridulated, the branches swayed, an occasional apple fell with a taut thud,' had me hooked immediately Onomatopoeia always! But my current hell is caused by recognising that perhaps the readership for it has waned? That question has me by a ball-and-chain. I am immobilized by it!
I expressed that badly. Rather that evocative immersive writing is considered now passe; the brief, the elusive, the precis, is more likely to be read by the hasty Twitter generation. Poetry rather than poetic prose, and yet contemporary poetry is often flat and 'clever' and must ( in the eyes of the poetic gatekeepers) be about the ornery business, not Dylan Thomas-like. There are always exceptions but that was the gist. I must dig out a poem that expresses that!
Seems to me that Thomas Mann's A Death in Venice fits in here somewhere, too. Brilliant writing, disturbing content. Sometimes if we love the beauty of words, we can make allowances? I have read that one more than once. I like this conversation, Terry. Thanks for starting it.
I've never read 'Lolita', but I found your review fascinating, Terry! I'm not sure I'll be seeking out the book any time soon.
It's so interesting - often I'll love the story being told in the novel I'm reading, but hate the writing, and often I'll find the absolutely opposite to be true. But when impressive storytelling AND impressive writing come together, though, THAT is what I'm after. Surprisingly rarer than I'd like it to be!
You’re absolutely right, Sharron. Gosh, I’m so behind on my reading - there are so many wonderful words to read right here. I hope I’ll catch up before too much longer! 😘
I can appreciate the writing in a lot of his other books, but besides Pale Fire (I recommend! How have none of the other commenters mentioned it?!) and Lolita I didn't find his other books particularly engaging. I read most of them in my late teens though, so perhaps I should give them another go.
I read it many years ago and your six-word review sums up why I got rid of it in a recent shelf cull. I fully appreciate his brilliant writing, but I know I won’t reread it. I loved Nabokov’s Pnin, that’s a wonderful read. And will search out it his short stories, thanks.
Thanks, Trilety. Mind you, from other people's comments, especially those of Claudia and Shaina, I feel I should give it another go. Are you minded to?
Oh their comments are interesting and good to know! I don’t plan on giving it another try mainly because there are so many other books that strike me. Tho his memoir that someone brought up sounds interesting. Loved all the comments and look forward to your review if you try reading Lolita again! Really did enjoy the ladies’ perspectives here. I’m reading Solenoid by Cartarescu currently and it’s addictive
If you find Nabokov squirmingly distasteful, as many do, then be sure to avoid William Burroughs. Although he is also brilliant, he was probably a murderer (his wife), and as someone who definitely lived according to his own moral/amoral code, his influence was significant and literature would be the poorer for his absence. His appalling example removed other writer's inhibition but I'm not sure it inspired copycat behaviour such as heroin addiction or spousal killing. Bukowski, a gentler man perhaps, but he also could be deeply unsettling. My own taste allows me the occasional sick text, but not on the basis of literary skill. It has to show me something I wouldn't have understood otherwise. Personally I don't mind dark, twisted, shocking, work so long as it's rationed - I have a limit. No Country For Old Men was a book I always intended to read, but I saw the film first, and it left me feeling so totally hollowed out afterwards, with the unshakeable sense that the whole world was hopeless. I wish I'd read the book first, but I can't now, however good the author, in case it's even bleaker.
I'm with you on all these points, Dean, except that I've not read Burroughs -- he just didn't appeal. I have a very low tolerance level for sick stuff. For example, after reading The Comfort of Strangers I decided to not read another McEwan novel again for a long time, if ever. (Review here: https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/review-the-comfort-of-strangers). I agree about tolerating it if one can gain understanding of something. But even so...
Apr 13, 2023·edited Apr 13, 2023Liked by Terry Freedman
If you’re not going to read Lolita, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND his memoir, Speak, Memory instead. There is a single paragraph about punts on the Cam that might be the greatest paragraph ever written in English (humbly opinioned). And no lusting after preteens.
Extraordinary. I had the unique experience of being in conversation with literary giant Herbert Gold while he was one of my professors one summer. I will never forget Gold or Nabokov. Please write more!
Yes, recommended. I really enjoyed him as a person and certainly as a teacher. He is one of those inspired presences and his understanding of Nabokov was great.
Oh no, you should read the whole book! The last part is written from the girl’s perspective. I read Lolita when I was 15 years old. It’s one of the best books I ever read. Extremely controversial but I wouldn’t expect anything else when the story is written from the perspective of a sick person. It taught me a lot as a young girl, especially that I need to protect myself.
At a very unconscious level it made me aware of the fact that a young woman’s body is an object of sexual desire and that a man’s interest in a young girl may have a sexual connotation. It was a bit of a sexual education that girls don’t really get.
In my case, I grew up with men. But I think that generally adults find it awkward to teach a young girl what sexuality means for her. Perhaps especially because a young girl can be such an object of desire.
Great review! I love the concept of boiling it down to 6 words.
Oddly enough I just posted my own review of Lolita yesterday. https://kindlinghorror.substack.com/p/a-vile-love. It’s such a difficult read. Beautiful language, monstrous content. I made it a point to finish and I’m glad I did. The first part was the most disturbing-reading through pages of his obsession with a child...I think finishing the book helps round out the story. Less about his fantasies and more plot if that makes sense.
I must say I haven't read Lolita myself but its on my TBR. I think the whole point of the book is that grown up Humbert Humbert lusting after a 12 year old girl *is* disgusting! The beautiful writing is there to distract you, much like how virtually all the covers feature a white, "sexy", young girl or similar meant to inspire... the fire in your loins... Nabokov was against this marketing strategy, I've heard, as it misses the point of the book. But I guess marketing is marketing...
Haven't read it, partly because it's always been low down on the TBR pile and partly because I figured I'd also find it very uncomfortable.
But ... It seems I should read _some_ Nabokov! Thanks.
Completely unrelated, but last year I tried to finally tackle Gravity's Rainbow. I got halfway. I want to finish it, but I honestly found it a slog. Intricate prose, but I found myself spending about five minutes per page just trying to parse what was going on.
I can see the value in re-reading the book (which is what all the "How to read Gravity's Rainbow" guides say. But the fact that you need a guide to read a book suggests something about the density/difficulty) to extract all the meaning. There's a lot of meaning. I can respect that, but I also have to respect my time and there are just too many books. I will return to it at some point.
I also just don't think the subject matter speaks to me as much as it might to others.
"Did not finish; could not parse." How many books have I abandoned for this very reason.... I am glad I am not the only one who finds the tedium outweighs the message. Thanks for your candor, Nathan.
I suppose if the only literary mechanism were to create sympathy on the narrator, the literary world would be much poorer. There are books with multiple narrators, some of whom are unreliable. The whole "epic" approach in theatre is based on not identifying with the actors. Thus you should not be deterred by the unpleasant narrator and miss this really engaging language and narrative. Nabokov is a non-native English speaker but possibly one who uses the language best.
Thanks Levent. Yes, you're absolutely right. I love Nabokov's writing, so I will go back to Lolita. Cheers
Love your micro-review. I've tried coming up with a few of those in the past. My favorite is a three-word review for a book that tortured me: Hallmark Does Homer.
I never read Lolita for the reasons you describe. I've read that the book is written in such a way that the reader is supposed to feel sympathy for the narrator, and I'm just not interested in cultivating sympathy for perverts. But I suppose I should see for myself.
a three word review?! I am not worthy etc etc. I thought I was doing well with getting it down to SIX!
From the little I read, I didn't feel sympathy, I felt sick. But I'm willing to give it another go given what others, like Claudia and Raina, have said
I confess to be permanently and unassailably in love with words. So your quote from a Russian Beauty 'the crickets stridulated, the branches swayed, an occasional apple fell with a taut thud,' had me hooked immediately Onomatopoeia always! But my current hell is caused by recognising that perhaps the readership for it has waned? That question has me by a ball-and-chain. I am immobilized by it!
Thanks for commenting, Philippa. Do you mean that the readership for writing that uses beautiful words and onomatopoeia has waned?
I expressed that badly. Rather that evocative immersive writing is considered now passe; the brief, the elusive, the precis, is more likely to be read by the hasty Twitter generation. Poetry rather than poetic prose, and yet contemporary poetry is often flat and 'clever' and must ( in the eyes of the poetic gatekeepers) be about the ornery business, not Dylan Thomas-like. There are always exceptions but that was the gist. I must dig out a poem that expresses that!
Oh yes I see what you mean. I'm sure you are right about that
Seems to me that Thomas Mann's A Death in Venice fits in here somewhere, too. Brilliant writing, disturbing content. Sometimes if we love the beauty of words, we can make allowances? I have read that one more than once. I like this conversation, Terry. Thanks for starting it.
That was another book I didn't like at all. Sleazy in my opinion. Some of the writing was ok, but it really wasn't my cup of tea at all.
I have spent a lot of time in Venice. Maybe the way he experienced that city made a difference to me? Not sure.
Hmm, that's very likely I'm sure
I've never read 'Lolita', but I found your review fascinating, Terry! I'm not sure I'll be seeking out the book any time soon.
It's so interesting - often I'll love the story being told in the novel I'm reading, but hate the writing, and often I'll find the absolutely opposite to be true. But when impressive storytelling AND impressive writing come together, though, THAT is what I'm after. Surprisingly rarer than I'd like it to be!
There IS Jim Cummings ( All Day Long) who gives us both. In my humble opinion.
You’re absolutely right, Sharron. Gosh, I’m so behind on my reading - there are so many wonderful words to read right here. I hope I’ll catch up before too much longer! 😘
so do I
That makes two of us.
You've nailed it, Rebecca: when the two come together, wow that is amazing and wonderful. Yes, and too rare I agree.
I can appreciate the writing in a lot of his other books, but besides Pale Fire (I recommend! How have none of the other commenters mentioned it?!) and Lolita I didn't find his other books particularly engaging. I read most of them in my late teens though, so perhaps I should give them another go.
I keep meaning to read Pale Fire. I've heard that it's wonderful.
I read it many years ago and your six-word review sums up why I got rid of it in a recent shelf cull. I fully appreciate his brilliant writing, but I know I won’t reread it. I loved Nabokov’s Pnin, that’s a wonderful read. And will search out it his short stories, thanks.
Thanks, Claire. They are definitely worth reading.
Yes! Sold. Cuz I had exact same experience as you with Lolita.
Thanks, Trilety. Mind you, from other people's comments, especially those of Claudia and Shaina, I feel I should give it another go. Are you minded to?
Oh their comments are interesting and good to know! I don’t plan on giving it another try mainly because there are so many other books that strike me. Tho his memoir that someone brought up sounds interesting. Loved all the comments and look forward to your review if you try reading Lolita again! Really did enjoy the ladies’ perspectives here. I’m reading Solenoid by Cartarescu currently and it’s addictive
I've heard of that but not felt the urge to read it yet. I don't know anything about it tbh
Interestingly enough, it was recommended to me by someone who first got me to try and read Lolita! So it all comes full circle!
How strange! 😁
If you find Nabokov squirmingly distasteful, as many do, then be sure to avoid William Burroughs. Although he is also brilliant, he was probably a murderer (his wife), and as someone who definitely lived according to his own moral/amoral code, his influence was significant and literature would be the poorer for his absence. His appalling example removed other writer's inhibition but I'm not sure it inspired copycat behaviour such as heroin addiction or spousal killing. Bukowski, a gentler man perhaps, but he also could be deeply unsettling. My own taste allows me the occasional sick text, but not on the basis of literary skill. It has to show me something I wouldn't have understood otherwise. Personally I don't mind dark, twisted, shocking, work so long as it's rationed - I have a limit. No Country For Old Men was a book I always intended to read, but I saw the film first, and it left me feeling so totally hollowed out afterwards, with the unshakeable sense that the whole world was hopeless. I wish I'd read the book first, but I can't now, however good the author, in case it's even bleaker.
I'm with you on all these points, Dean, except that I've not read Burroughs -- he just didn't appeal. I have a very low tolerance level for sick stuff. For example, after reading The Comfort of Strangers I decided to not read another McEwan novel again for a long time, if ever. (Review here: https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/review-the-comfort-of-strangers). I agree about tolerating it if one can gain understanding of something. But even so...
But would Lolita be great without it’s uncomfortable plot? I really don’t know.
I think the writing is lovely, DESPITE the plot. But you pose an interesting question, Jillian.
If you’re not going to read Lolita, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND his memoir, Speak, Memory instead. There is a single paragraph about punts on the Cam that might be the greatest paragraph ever written in English (humbly opinioned). And no lusting after preteens.
Thanks, James. I've had it in mind to read his memoir for quite a while. You've encouraged me to bump it up the TBR list!
Extraordinary. I had the unique experience of being in conversation with literary giant Herbert Gold while he was one of my professors one summer. I will never forget Gold or Nabokov. Please write more!
Amazing. I'm afraid I haven't read Gold. You would recommend then?
Yes, recommended. I really enjoyed him as a person and certainly as a teacher. He is one of those inspired presences and his understanding of Nabokov was great.
Oh no, you should read the whole book! The last part is written from the girl’s perspective. I read Lolita when I was 15 years old. It’s one of the best books I ever read. Extremely controversial but I wouldn’t expect anything else when the story is written from the perspective of a sick person. It taught me a lot as a young girl, especially that I need to protect myself.
*book moves up TBR pile*
That's really interesting Claudia. Thanks for sharing your perspective and experience.
Thanks for sharing your view. I’ll have to move this up in my tbr list!
👍
You won’t regret it! But prepare to be shaken.
Thanks for the warning 😁
I reckon Claudia is Nabokov's PR agent 🤣
They should hire me!
😁
Oh ok, Claudia. I didn't know that. In that case I will try again. Thanks for your comment
Yes, I was quite shocked when I got to read her perspective. Because he was so convinced that it was love…
I'm interested to know how it helped you as a young girl. Did it depict what forms manipulation can take?
At a very unconscious level it made me aware of the fact that a young woman’s body is an object of sexual desire and that a man’s interest in a young girl may have a sexual connotation. It was a bit of a sexual education that girls don’t really get.
A fact that I have always found astonishing
In my case, I grew up with men. But I think that generally adults find it awkward to teach a young girl what sexuality means for her. Perhaps especially because a young girl can be such an object of desire.
Great review! I love the concept of boiling it down to 6 words.
Oddly enough I just posted my own review of Lolita yesterday. https://kindlinghorror.substack.com/p/a-vile-love. It’s such a difficult read. Beautiful language, monstrous content. I made it a point to finish and I’m glad I did. The first part was the most disturbing-reading through pages of his obsession with a child...I think finishing the book helps round out the story. Less about his fantasies and more plot if that makes sense.
Great to know Shaina. Will have a read of your review too.
Thanks, Shaina. Your comment dovetails with Claudia's. I shall have to read it. Thanks for yr comment and the link. I'm heading over there now
I must say I haven't read Lolita myself but its on my TBR. I think the whole point of the book is that grown up Humbert Humbert lusting after a 12 year old girl *is* disgusting! The beautiful writing is there to distract you, much like how virtually all the covers feature a white, "sexy", young girl or similar meant to inspire... the fire in your loins... Nabokov was against this marketing strategy, I've heard, as it misses the point of the book. But I guess marketing is marketing...
I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, but it makes sense. Apparently it was based on a real life situation
Haven't read it, partly because it's always been low down on the TBR pile and partly because I figured I'd also find it very uncomfortable.
But ... It seems I should read _some_ Nabokov! Thanks.
Completely unrelated, but last year I tried to finally tackle Gravity's Rainbow. I got halfway. I want to finish it, but I honestly found it a slog. Intricate prose, but I found myself spending about five minutes per page just trying to parse what was going on.
Was the 5 minutes per page worth the effort?
Yes, and no.
I can see the value in re-reading the book (which is what all the "How to read Gravity's Rainbow" guides say. But the fact that you need a guide to read a book suggests something about the density/difficulty) to extract all the meaning. There's a lot of meaning. I can respect that, but I also have to respect my time and there are just too many books. I will return to it at some point.
I also just don't think the subject matter speaks to me as much as it might to others.
What I meant to add before hitting comment was: would love a nano review of Gravity's Rainbow.
Here's mine:
Did not finish; could not parse.
The best book review ever! 🤣
Haha I didn't expect my flippant comment to garner so many likes!
Definitely a great one that's for sure 😂
"Did not finish; could not parse." How many books have I abandoned for this very reason.... I am glad I am not the only one who finds the tedium outweighs the message. Thanks for your candor, Nathan.
Thanks Sharron.
Agree with Terry that "The tedium outweights the message" being an lovely, concise message.
Love your expression: the tedium outweighs the message. Absolutely.
Yes, definitely a great summary of what is the matter with so many authors.
Ah yes Pynchon and Nobokov!
I've never got very far with Pynchon. I've tried, on the grounds that I 'should', but he's too worthy for me if you see what I mean.
Understand completely. I appreciate Pynchon like I appreciate some of James Joyce. At a safe distance. My own limitations come into play.
OMG, I attempted to read Ulysses around 10 times. I think that the furthest I got was page 50... 😵💫
I keep promising myself to try
"At a safe distance": 🤣
I've never read it, but your review is great. Why not post it on your own substack, along with your previous comment as the commentary?
Hmm, perhaps I will, thanks Terry.