Why I haven’t read Lolita

I posted a Twitter poll recently, by way of unburdening myself of the following opinion about Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, the book about a middle aged man who has a love affair with a 12-year-old girl. Here is the question:

How many of you, like me, always found it bizarre and even a little hard to believe that a book about a pedophile and his victim—Lolita—should wind up being a classic for the ages? Never could read the damned thing. Just ugh. Can I finally say that now?

In another tweet I elaborated slightly:

Supposedly highfalutin “art” that sympathetically portrays monsters of all sorts always struck me as deeply pathological. Natural Born Killers, The Collector, Pan’s Labyrinth…and Lolita…all trash. All pretentious and pernicious garbage.

How does it improve us? Not at all.

While most of my followers agreed with me (maybe not surprising), I thought I would explain my view on this a little less briefly, for the sake of those literature lovers who think it is weird and surprising—if not positively philistine of me—that I would judge a book without reading it. So here goes.

I am not totally ignorant about the book. I watched the 1997 movie adaptation. I read the first chapter or so, and flipped through the rest at various times over the years, trying and every time failing to persuade myself to read it. It has always left me sick to my stomach. A great deal of this has to do not just with the subject of the book, but the sort of glowing praise people give it, people who, it is perfectly obvious, would never dare to judge the book on its moral content, because that sort of things is just not done. Not anymore.

I’ve read much more about the book, over the years. I’m passingly familiar with what is said about it. Moreover, I have consumed my fair share of clinical and mostly nonjudgmental portrayal of criminals, monsters, and twisted characters of various kinds. John Fowles’ book The Collector was one I read as a graduate student. It’s a book about a young man who kidnaps and holds an art student in his basement; she eventually dies of illness, and he gets away with his crime and learns nothing. I read it to the end and I simply could not believe that it was a popular or well-regarded book. I regarded it as wholly without merit.

I wholly reject the notion that art is a self-contained, closed system, that we must simply accept the latest ejaculations of a morally corrupt art world as being profound and worthy of contemplation. I think the dictum “art for art’s sake” is a canard that serves as cover for an art world mired in corruption.

If depictions of evil are thought to have any merit at all, it will be for one of three reasons: stylistic excellence, profound insight into human nature, and the tendency to edify or uplift us—to improve us.

Now, it is common (but completely puzzling to me) to suppose that stylistic excellence is enough to make some work of art noteworthy. But to my mind it clearly is not enough. Graduate schools are full of all sorts of brilliant wordsmiths whose work is immediately forgotten because they just don’t have anything interesting to say.

But Lolita, we’re told, isn’t just beautifully written—an assessment I’m afraid I don’t share, by the way, based on what I’ve read. It is also supposed to give us dark but necessary psychological insight into the mind of a pedophile. That may be so; I’m not going to gainsay such claims, because I haven’t read the book and I wouldn’t be able to say for sure without reading it. Let’s stipulate that Nabokov has plumbed those depths.

But what I will say is that mere clinical insight, as opposed to moral perspective, into some dark corner of human nature does not make for great or classic art. It might be useful for law enforcements and psychologists, perhaps, if it is a faithful portrayal of this sort of evil. It is a bizarre quirk of cultural life in the modern period that otherwise intelligent, sober people have thought such psychological perspective was enough to justify us taking some art seriously. On my view, it isn’t enough; it never has been. There is no classic art that does not take an essentially moral (not to say moralistic; that’s different) perspective on any evil it portrays. Perhaps Fowles, for example, laid bare the soul of a kidnapping madman (I couldn’t say), but what he didn’t have was an interesting moral perspective on such a madman.

It would be revolting enough if such clinical depictions of evil were characterized as important art. But lift the curtain back just a bit and you will find all sorts of appalling admissions that people find such art thrilling or titillating. For example, one not infrequently sees the comment (as, for example, here) that readers sympathize with Humbert Humbert, the antihero of Lolita.

Hence it really looks as though this kind of art is basically degrading to its more enthusiastic consumers. They like the degradation. Maybe it is comforting to them, or exciting; I wouldn’t be able to say. All I can say is that I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

For me the sine qua non of good art, the one absolutely necessary (if not sufficient) requirement, is the tendency to uplift or improve us effectively. We are made better people for having seen it. But in the case of Lolita, and in the other examples I cited, it actually does the opposite of what good art is supposed to do, on my view. A merely clinical or sympathetic portrait of evil—if that’s really all it is—tends to deaden the soul of its audience. It’s a bad influence. I actually wonder if it can really appeal only to people who actually like such bad influences, or who believe them not really to be so bad.

It is not that I think all art should be “moralistic,” like parables, fables, Sunday School lessons, and 19th century children’s literature. That is not the point at all. There is a profound difference between being really uplifting or edifying, on the one hand, and merely didactically inculcating (through obvious example to emulate) various moral or religious principles. I am a big fan of Shakespeare’s tragedies, which do lay bare the evil in man’s soul, but which also edify the reader or audience by indicating, in what is ultimately an exquisitely beautiful and satisfying way, that such evil will be justly repaid, why it is indeed evil, and how the world can move on in spite of it. Those are important lessons, too; we need not just to understand evil, we need the tools, moral and emotional, to fight it. Good art provides us some of those tools in a very basic and necessary way.

The reason we do and should assign our children to read classics is to teach them by inspiring example many moral principles that our lives might be too humdrum to illustrate. For example, I’ve been reading David Copperfield to my son lately. He, as as American middle-class boy, has no way of knowing what it might be like to live through a period of absolute poverty and bereavement (as David does when working for Murdstone and Grinby) and yet retain a sense of dignity and decency. Having read those pages, however, he will begin to have some inkling of that sort of life, sympathy for those going through it, and admiration for those who stay basically decent as David does.

If a modernist writer took up the same subject, the book would not be appropriate for children, because David would be shown helpless in the face of molestation by Grinby and violence by Murdstone, and he would ultimately become a nasty piece of work with no way out. Also, Little Em’ly would become a whore and the Micawbers would die in the gutter; and nobody would learn any lessons. And it would be hailed as a great work of literature because it provides such an unflinching, realistic look at the life of the poor.

That is, of course, just one example. Great literature is absolutely full of examples. It is why most of us read it. Most of us have no interest whatsoever in reading literature and consuming other art as mere psychologists or clinicians. We love a good story because we care about characters we relate to, showing what we, too, might want to do in their interesting or exciting situations.

More generally, we consume art as a way to appeal to and develop our sense of what life is really like, what it ought to be like, on the best view. What the purveyors of modern art do is substitute “sophisticated” or “edgy” for “best” and then proceed to convince themselves that art that essentially celebrates monstrous behavior is fine art.

So that’s why I haven’t read Lolita. I don’t care if hoity-toity people tell me Nabokov was a brilliant stylist, or that he had insight into the criminal mind, or the modern mind. I regard criminality and twisted modernism as things to avoid, fight, or repair—certainly not to examine clinically or lovingly.




, ,


Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

5 responses to “Why I haven’t read Lolita”

  1. Kk Valentine Smitj

    Film industry and Art world complicit as in actual a part of mind control programs. All the uplifting Art is hard to access. The filth is widely available. Even good books are corrupted in film. Nice blog , thanks! Kk

  2. Eddie

    I don’t think you can judge art through the kind of lens you’re using.

    I haven’t read Lolita either, maybe for similar reasons….I saw one or more of the movies a long time ago….I found it uncomfortable to watch……and sleazy in a not-good way. But the book’s probably still good art.

    Art doesn’t have a moral obligation. It doesn’t exist to instill good values in our kids, as much as I want them to have good values.

    The genre you’re condemning is material from what Jung called the shadow self. Deep inside each of us is there is buried somewhere a capability of behaving in the most disgusting, reprehensible ways one can imagine. Lolita is about sexual obsession and taboos.

    Humans really do act like that. It’s Reality Literature.

    Hard to look at? Yes
    Should it be glorified? No.

    Should it be censored? No.

    What I really hear you saying is that we shouldn’t tolerate pedophilia, and we shouldn’t glorify art that might make it look more human and therefore more acceptable.

    I agree that far.

    But Nabokov was a literary genius, and his work speaks for itself. I don’t have to defend it….and I wouldn’t, anyway… I’m persuaded he no longer cares.

    But the book is art and it has its own life now. If there is a long term future it will no doubt fall in and out of favor….maybe fall out and stay out. I don’t know.

    But artists won’t quit making art that shows man’s shadow side. And they shouldn’t stop, in my opinion.

  3. Timothy Usher

    I will guess that your impression of what the book would be like if you ever read it has been unduly prejudiced by the film, which by necessity highlights the plot and cannot reflect the literature aspect. Nabakov is not Hemmingway or Austen; it’s not “this happend, then this happened;” rather the storyline and often thin character development serves as an excuse to for Nabakov to write, and the results at their best are a hall of mirrors thick with allusion. If you are expecting salacious details, you will be disappointed for there are none. Humbert Humbert begins as a parody of Hesse’s Harry Haller (Steppenwolf) adapted to Nabakov’s own experience of the United States, which is the real subject of the book to the extent that there is one. The twist is that Haller’s lost love for a (then-) young woman becomes the memory of a younger girl with reference to Poe’s Annabel Lee. It’s just a game for Nabakov, it interests him so he runs with it. Perhaos you would feel better about Pale Fire, where the narrator Charlses Kinbote also a professor of literature in exile, is gay; scandalous then, but not today. Nabokov wasn’t gay, either. I would say that Pale Fire is a better book, and that’s high praise – thoe who enjoyed Lolita should pick up Pale Fire and be amazed as Nabokov’s mastery of the English language reaches its greatest height. The central theme of Pale Fire is the afterlife, the very theme upon which Lolita concludes (“And this is the only immortality you and I may share”)

  4. James Henry

    I haven’t read “Lolita” and don’t plan to, but I have read Nabokov’s “Pale Fire” and found it very moving and uplifting, but in a gruesome way.

    If you aren’t familiar with “Pale Fire”, it is a novel in the form of a poem with an academic’s commentary through an introduction and footnotes. The poem and the commentary are juxtaposed in such a way to, in my opinion, illustrate a very important and subtle message about life and the afterlife: The evil is incredibly distracting, showy, and loud while the good is sublime, simple, and sincere. By the end of the book, I think Nabokov hopes that the reader feels that sick feeling that comes from being distracted by evil and then looks back at the what they just read and realizes that they were distracted from the true beauty and goodness of the book. The title itself hints at this, being pulled from Shakespeare, “The moon’s an arrant thief, | And her pale fire she snatches from the sun”.

    Writing this all out, I think you could argue that “Pale Fire” is about how modern man doesn’t appreciate Dicken’s “David Copperfield” as much as he should.

    1. Timothy Usher

      The title itself hints at this, being pulled from Shakespeare, “The moon’s an arrant thief, | And her pale fire she snatches from the sun”.

      That is neither the only Shakespeare reference in the title nor the most important one:

      “The glow-worm shews the matin to be near | and gins to pale his uneffectual fire.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *