Wonderful way to inaugurate this series! The catcalling story reminded me of the great Laurie Anderson’s brilliant 1970s photography project, “Fully Automated Nikon,” where she turned her camera on men who’d catcalled her. The photos, on display, included brief captions of what the men said and how they reacted to her attention (usually not well, rarely with humor). In her case and in the case of this artful essay, art for the win!
Unbelievably high bar to set with the first in a series ... whoa, mighty analysis and writing by @samantha childress An excellent first choice, Mikey, and one that truly sets the pulse racing for what comes next. But, first, this ... brilliant. Fiction needs extremes ... part of the point is to explore the edges through loathsome creations like Humbert. Good writing should twist and turn our emotions. It is not writing by numbers ... the reason Lolita makes it onto so many 'must read' or 'Top Books' lists is because it is a beautifully written text about the most jarring of intentions. It is so important to read how the timing of a read coincided with experiences that shape us as humans. These miles walked in another's shoes are part of the journey of understanding we need to go through. Bravo, Samantha. The quality here augurs well for what follows.
You have absolutely nailed the crucial aspect here: the juxtaposition between the sumptuous prose and the despicable character. Allows us to learn the lesson that Sam so artfully identified for us, that brilliance doesn’t mean not evil, without having to endure someone like that in real life. Fiction allows us live 1000 lives and learn things we would never have otherwise.
Loved Lolita. One thing I've learned--and one idea I very much respect--is the separation of Art from Artist, and the sacrosanct nature of Art as such. In other words: Yes, HH was a despicable character. And yet, as you said yourself, he was brilliantly rendered. I look forward to a time in the future where readers can again appreciate Art for its own sake without there having to be a Morality Test associated. That's not to say I think you're "wrong." (How could I say that? It's your opinion, which you have every right to.) I'm just saying, If we condemned every despicable character in literature, then and now, we'd have little Art left. Hey, if nothing else Lolita has been making us argue, fight, debate etc for generations now. Thanks for the piece.
I haven't read this because it's always felt like it would be "too much" or "too close". I can totally relate to the feeling of naivety, of being a young woman and feeling like some sort of prey, but also the making of excuses because, back then at least, that type of behaviour (cat calling/blatant approaching/following) seemed somehow normal, or even flattering. I can't say I'll be rushing to read it now either, 😅😂 but I do appreciate the self interrogation and honesty here. Bravo 👏
Think the lesson Sam alludes to, that being clever doesn’t necessarily mean not evil, is an incredibly valuable one. The power of fiction is that we can learn lessons like this without having to go through the painful experience ourselves.
I like the reading and rereading of concealed male evil, especially as something that grows clearer and more vile with greater perspective.
But I wonder if there’s more to be said about the book’s use of aestheticization to objectify Lolita (Dolores, poor Dolores). It’s something more particular to Humbert, compared to other predators. He makes the child into a perverse artwork for himself by both allusions and his seductive prose, which is a horrible use of artistic appreciation (no doubt something Nabokov actually believed and held against him). She’s unreal this way, which is part of the narrative delusion.
A book that is, in my view, very worthy of reading despite its uncomfortable subject matter. Samantha's review is superb - taking us from then to now, and showing how our response to the novel can change over time. I think there is a debate to be had about how much you know about a certain period of time and how much of that experience or knowledge you bring to a reading. Fascinating stuff! A darn good inaugural post for sure.
Yes, her takedown was well written, but it so reeks of woke, revisionist history. Someone could, and probably has, taken down the Iliad as a grotesque war story glorifying violence.
What I love about the book is how Nabokov showed Humbert Humbert’s experience so well that I knew I was being sucked in by a madman. I agreed with much of what he said, then caught myself. “Wait, what am I thinking?!?!?” That is the genius of the book and, I believe, the real scandal upon its publication. That we, the reader, sympathize is as much a scandal as anything. We see (and shock) ourselves.
Bravo Samantha! Brilliant inaugural post. Stirs up so much that so many of us have pushed through. My own experience with "Lolita" is that I never read it, because I lived it. Not as a pre-teen, thankfully, but many times over as a young woman navigating the complicated waterways of the Hollywood film industry right out of college, then as a young journalist and entrepreneur living and traveling in Spain, Italy, and Malta (and Malta was a hell of a pot of stories, in 3 days I had enough for 3 books), and then as a thankfully escaped plaything of a well-known composer (by then I'd grown up enough to see through the narcissism). By the time Weinstein and Epstein rolled around, their big bellies exposed, been there done that and it felt so good to be so much stronger. Up to us now to raise our daughters—and sons—with a healthy swig of the wisdom we won so harshly.
‘Ambient heaviness’ Samantha, yes. I know it, felt it, can remember it. Many women and girls know it too well and really any person in a vulnerable state is a potential target for manipulation and harm. I think it’s the memory of these feelings that makes me decide not to read Lolita.
It’s interesting to read your reflections from two different times in your life and to conclude that Nabokov’s message is a warning; a statement about the damage can be done when people walk by. In all instances and situations we can and should play a role in shaping our culture and caring for others.
Jeremy Irons read Lolita to me on audio. Sort of like commuting to work with Hannibal Lector or watching a cat contemplating prey. Through the actor’s plummy, arch tones we meet HH making his confession;it’s not clear to whom, and it initially seems candid, self-aware and honest. Slowly, however, it turns into an apologia, a justification. He was first lying next to her in an exquisite state of erotic contemplation. You briefly wonder if this self-induced dopamine trance will be the theme, that technically his conduct wasn’t actually rape. When he awakes to find her mounting him, the implication is that although his fantasies have been realized it was passive. And then, what man could help himself? And so it goes until it’s time for remorse, which goes only to the incidental harm he inflicted. At last, we see his honesty as false, a collection of truths to conceal that he would do it all over.
What a skyrocket post to inaugurate the series! Thank you for this. I became an admirer of Nabokov over Lolita, as I admired Milton in a college course when I learned that smooth-tongued Satan was a sympathetic character in Milton’s hands. That helped me understand what to make of Humbert Humbert. In those days, I could admire the writers for the feat of making evil attractive, even when every good sense rebels against it. Lately, I think of Lolita with discomfort. Did a Humbert Humbert need to be created? I appreciate the complex double-sense of the novel in this post.
Love the tie in with Milton. Now I want to read Paradise Lost again. Milton is such an underrated genius these days. His essays on freedom of speech are up there with the best of any political writing
A favorite of mine as well yet there must be a good decade between now and my last read.
I’m intrigued by the idea that the passage of time may change the experience, as how could it not for any number of books, but this one feels uniquely worth re-examining across various phases of life.
Wonderful way to inaugurate this series! The catcalling story reminded me of the great Laurie Anderson’s brilliant 1970s photography project, “Fully Automated Nikon,” where she turned her camera on men who’d catcalled her. The photos, on display, included brief captions of what the men said and how they reacted to her attention (usually not well, rarely with humor). In her case and in the case of this artful essay, art for the win!
Ah that project sounds awesome, will have to look that up.
Unbelievably high bar to set with the first in a series ... whoa, mighty analysis and writing by @samantha childress An excellent first choice, Mikey, and one that truly sets the pulse racing for what comes next. But, first, this ... brilliant. Fiction needs extremes ... part of the point is to explore the edges through loathsome creations like Humbert. Good writing should twist and turn our emotions. It is not writing by numbers ... the reason Lolita makes it onto so many 'must read' or 'Top Books' lists is because it is a beautifully written text about the most jarring of intentions. It is so important to read how the timing of a read coincided with experiences that shape us as humans. These miles walked in another's shoes are part of the journey of understanding we need to go through. Bravo, Samantha. The quality here augurs well for what follows.
You have absolutely nailed the crucial aspect here: the juxtaposition between the sumptuous prose and the despicable character. Allows us to learn the lesson that Sam so artfully identified for us, that brilliance doesn’t mean not evil, without having to endure someone like that in real life. Fiction allows us live 1000 lives and learn things we would never have otherwise.
Fiction allows us to live a 1000 lives. Yes!
Loved Lolita. One thing I've learned--and one idea I very much respect--is the separation of Art from Artist, and the sacrosanct nature of Art as such. In other words: Yes, HH was a despicable character. And yet, as you said yourself, he was brilliantly rendered. I look forward to a time in the future where readers can again appreciate Art for its own sake without there having to be a Morality Test associated. That's not to say I think you're "wrong." (How could I say that? It's your opinion, which you have every right to.) I'm just saying, If we condemned every despicable character in literature, then and now, we'd have little Art left. Hey, if nothing else Lolita has been making us argue, fight, debate etc for generations now. Thanks for the piece.
Michael Mohr
"Sincere American Writing"
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Michael, can I interest you in potentially featuring here with a guest post of your own?
Thanks MM for being brave enough to write your rebuttal.
You may be called a Nazi now.
I haven't read this because it's always felt like it would be "too much" or "too close". I can totally relate to the feeling of naivety, of being a young woman and feeling like some sort of prey, but also the making of excuses because, back then at least, that type of behaviour (cat calling/blatant approaching/following) seemed somehow normal, or even flattering. I can't say I'll be rushing to read it now either, 😅😂 but I do appreciate the self interrogation and honesty here. Bravo 👏
Think the lesson Sam alludes to, that being clever doesn’t necessarily mean not evil, is an incredibly valuable one. The power of fiction is that we can learn lessons like this without having to go through the painful experience ourselves.
💯
What an auspicious, bite sized beginning! And somehow so much less intimidating for me to follow up on.
Paradoxical yet true.
Thoughtful, meaty, cogent, and weighty yet not. It’s gorgeous.
Agree, Sam really nailed it!
I like the reading and rereading of concealed male evil, especially as something that grows clearer and more vile with greater perspective.
But I wonder if there’s more to be said about the book’s use of aestheticization to objectify Lolita (Dolores, poor Dolores). It’s something more particular to Humbert, compared to other predators. He makes the child into a perverse artwork for himself by both allusions and his seductive prose, which is a horrible use of artistic appreciation (no doubt something Nabokov actually believed and held against him). She’s unreal this way, which is part of the narrative delusion.
Perverse artwork is a great way of putting it. Useful reminder that art isn’t always necessarily ‘good’ in a moral sense
A book that is, in my view, very worthy of reading despite its uncomfortable subject matter. Samantha's review is superb - taking us from then to now, and showing how our response to the novel can change over time. I think there is a debate to be had about how much you know about a certain period of time and how much of that experience or knowledge you bring to a reading. Fascinating stuff! A darn good inaugural post for sure.
So impressed by Samantha’s ability to pack so much into so concise an essay
Yes, her takedown was well written, but it so reeks of woke, revisionist history. Someone could, and probably has, taken down the Iliad as a grotesque war story glorifying violence.
What I love about the book is how Nabokov showed Humbert Humbert’s experience so well that I knew I was being sucked in by a madman. I agreed with much of what he said, then caught myself. “Wait, what am I thinking?!?!?” That is the genius of the book and, I believe, the real scandal upon its publication. That we, the reader, sympathize is as much a scandal as anything. We see (and shock) ourselves.
Bravo Samantha! Brilliant inaugural post. Stirs up so much that so many of us have pushed through. My own experience with "Lolita" is that I never read it, because I lived it. Not as a pre-teen, thankfully, but many times over as a young woman navigating the complicated waterways of the Hollywood film industry right out of college, then as a young journalist and entrepreneur living and traveling in Spain, Italy, and Malta (and Malta was a hell of a pot of stories, in 3 days I had enough for 3 books), and then as a thankfully escaped plaything of a well-known composer (by then I'd grown up enough to see through the narcissism). By the time Weinstein and Epstein rolled around, their big bellies exposed, been there done that and it felt so good to be so much stronger. Up to us now to raise our daughters—and sons—with a healthy swig of the wisdom we won so harshly.
Sorry you had to go through that, Birgitte- but glad you’ve come out the other side
‘Ambient heaviness’ Samantha, yes. I know it, felt it, can remember it. Many women and girls know it too well and really any person in a vulnerable state is a potential target for manipulation and harm. I think it’s the memory of these feelings that makes me decide not to read Lolita.
It’s interesting to read your reflections from two different times in your life and to conclude that Nabokov’s message is a warning; a statement about the damage can be done when people walk by. In all instances and situations we can and should play a role in shaping our culture and caring for others.
Exactly right
Jeremy Irons read Lolita to me on audio. Sort of like commuting to work with Hannibal Lector or watching a cat contemplating prey. Through the actor’s plummy, arch tones we meet HH making his confession;it’s not clear to whom, and it initially seems candid, self-aware and honest. Slowly, however, it turns into an apologia, a justification. He was first lying next to her in an exquisite state of erotic contemplation. You briefly wonder if this self-induced dopamine trance will be the theme, that technically his conduct wasn’t actually rape. When he awakes to find her mounting him, the implication is that although his fantasies have been realized it was passive. And then, what man could help himself? And so it goes until it’s time for remorse, which goes only to the incidental harm he inflicted. At last, we see his honesty as false, a collection of truths to conceal that he would do it all over.
I might have to download the Irons version. Nothing like an actor to bring it to life
I have to say I bristled at the thought of Hannibal Lector in the passenger seat.
What a skyrocket post to inaugurate the series! Thank you for this. I became an admirer of Nabokov over Lolita, as I admired Milton in a college course when I learned that smooth-tongued Satan was a sympathetic character in Milton’s hands. That helped me understand what to make of Humbert Humbert. In those days, I could admire the writers for the feat of making evil attractive, even when every good sense rebels against it. Lately, I think of Lolita with discomfort. Did a Humbert Humbert need to be created? I appreciate the complex double-sense of the novel in this post.
Love the tie in with Milton. Now I want to read Paradise Lost again. Milton is such an underrated genius these days. His essays on freedom of speech are up there with the best of any political writing
Ugh there’s nothing so satisfying and delicious as reading the writing of a reader 🤤
That is so lovelily put
A great inaugural post! On my class trip to Italy one of my classmates had brought Lolita with her and was telling me about it
An Italian class trip eh....a story to be continued right here, very soon!
This was fantastic! I can't imagine going into Lolita without realising what it was - must have been quite a journey!
A favorite of mine as well yet there must be a good decade between now and my last read.
I’m intrigued by the idea that the passage of time may change the experience, as how could it not for any number of books, but this one feels uniquely worth re-examining across various phases of life.