There are some authors who are somewhat predictable in their writing style and content – e.g., Willa Cather, Charles Dickens, and John Steinbeck are such authors. It’s not that they write the same book over and over, but you generally know what to expect when you pick up one of their books. Then there are authors who are unpredictable and every book is an adventure. Vladimir Nabokov, Margaret Atwood, and Kurt Vonnegut are such authors. I enjoy Nabokov, even though his most famous book is a controversial and disturbing read … Lolita. Pale Fire and Pnin are two other Nabokov books that I will mention here.
Lolita. Before I read Lolita, I had heard the book described as erotic literature, a tragicomedy, and even a love story. Let’s be clear, this is about a pedophile who kidnaps and repeatedly rapes a 12-year-old child. Calling Humbert Humbert a protagonist is offensive – he may be the narrator and lead character but the term protagonist (in my opinion) connotes a sense of relatability and standard-bearer. He is neither of those things. He is a selfish, violent man who abuses and takes advantage of people.
On the technical side, this is a beautifully written book. The writing is fluid and, in many ways, seductive. The pacing of the story and the character development are both so well done – I felt like I could see the story unfold. The content of the book has been called erotic, but I did not find it to be. Similarly, there has been a long-standing debate about whether this is about sex or love. In reality, it is about violent sex with a child and, perhaps, calling it some kind of erotic/love story reflects the extent to which some people will go to blame the woman/girl for the unconscionable behavior of a man. The version I read included a badly done Foreword that not only laid out the overall structure of the book but seemed to promote Humbert’s account of all that happened and also gave away key plot points.
From Humbert’s perspective (and it is from his perspective that the story is told), it is sex and love. He has an obsession for Lolita, but his actions are selfish. He needs the physical/sexual contact and is not concerned with her experience. In fact, he views it as positive for her, despite the fact that she cries frequently after sex and is often sullen and moody, suggesting that she would rather be anywhere else. However, the book is about unhealthy obsession and coercion. Even setting aside the changing times and increased knowledge we have now about how such a relationship affects a child in the short- and long-term, this is not some great love affair. I’m really surprised to see it sometimes characterized this way because, although Lolita seems to go along with Humbert and sometimes even seems supportive of having sex with him, she is overall an unwilling victim of this man’s obsessive feelings for her. It is important to remember that we hear the story from his perspective – it can never be forgotten that he is an unreliable narrator.
Told from Lolita’s perspective, it would have been a story of survival and the confusing relationship between a child and those upon whom she depends. Lolita is a flirt and not a particularly easy child. She sometimes says and does outrageous things and is physically pretty expressive with Humbert, to whom she has a child’s attraction. This is taken by him to mean that she wants to be his lover. She refers to their relationship as rape – in part to express her feelings and in part to annoy him. She is forced to go along with it until she is able to extricate herself from the situation. Her life is essentially a series of unfortunate and horrible experiences. I wanted Lolita to find happiness and move forward.
In his mind, she initiates the relationship. My take: he sees what he wants to see and disregards anything that doesn’t fit his view of the relationship as wonderful, loving and mutually beneficial. It is a fascinating character study of a man whose life view is so myopic that it all centers around this girl. What is even more frightening is that he also keeps looking at other little girls, even when he’s with Lolita, and talking about what happens when she gets “too old”.
Pale Fire. This book was really wonderful – unlike anything I’ve read before. As with Lolita, this book has a narrator with an agenda of his own. In this case, Charles Kinbote has come as a lecturer at a small college in Appalachia – he comes from “the land of Zembla” and is a great fan of John Shade, a poet and professor at the college. He moves in next door to the poet and his wife, Sybil, and seeks to become John’s friend. John, in his sixties, has recently suffered a heart attack and, as he recovers, writes a 999-line autobiographical poem called Pale Fire. John dies shortly after finishing the poem and Charles intercedes to prepare the poem for publication and writes a foreword and commentary, which is in fact the main text of the novel.
I enjoyed reading the poem, which is not necessarily a great poem, but is interesting. It describes John’s childhood, marriage, wife, daughter, and his life through to his heart attack. The most poignant section is about his daughter, who commits suicide at age 23. Hazel is not a particularly attractive girl/woman and doesn’t appear to be compelling, but it is lovely to read her father’s thoughts in the poem: “She was my darling: difficult, morose – but still my darling”. This reminded me of a summer job when I was in college – at a day camp for kids. Most of the kids were cute and energetic 5-year-olds, but a few were “difficult and morose” already. I thought of their parents and wondered how they viewed their children – what did they see – did they see beauty (like John) or were they disappointed? I have often wondered what kind of adults they became.
While John writes his poem, Charles regales him with the story of the deposed king of Zembla, who is being hunted by assassins, and the history of Zembla. Charles believes that John is actually writing a poem about this adventure, rather than about John’s own life. As he reads the poem for the first time, he is angry and disappointed, but then in rereading he decides that the poem is actually a cleverly disguised version of the Zembla king’s flight from his country! This interpretation makes for some really fun reading, as the most innocuous lines, phrases or even individual words send Charles into fantastical descriptions. A stand of trees must refer to forest in Zembla; the mention of a stream must refer to a river in Zembla. Interspersed in the king’s own story is the story of the assassins who are moving ever closer to Charles, as it becomes apparent that Charles is in fact the deposed king.
One question I had when reading was: is this all purely Charles’ imagination or in the fictional world that includes John et al., is there a country named Zembla? In other words, is this like me saying I’m the Queen of Norway (which exists) or the Queen of, well, Zembla? The book sort of keeps these options alive – the question is, how crazy is Charles anyway? Did he invent a more exciting life or a whole new world for himself? Since he is the narrator, it’s hard to say because a) he is the one providing the information and b) he believes what he is saying! To some extent, the level of craziness really doesn’t matter. John seems entertained by Charles, so that lets the reader also be entertained by the rather outrageous story and contemplate what it’s like to be a deposed ruler scraping out a living while recalling the glory days.
Pnin. I really love the way Nabokov, in both this and Pale Fire, is able to be amusing but not mean or cynical when dealing with a fairly ridiculous character. It’s obvious that he likes his characters and isn’t trying to score cheap points at their expense. And he writes so beautifully. Pnin is an odd duck, but he is so sincere and persistent that he’s charming and just elicits protective feelings. He is a Russian emigree who comes to teach at a small college in NY state – essentially, he is a combination of Nabokov and one of his colleagues who were teaching in American colleges in the 1950s.
Unfortunately for Pnin, academic politics are not his forte and he ends up getting the short end of the stick. Of course, there are the predictable language issues – not getting names quite right, etc. – but Pnin also is something of a bull in a china shop in dealing with people. Those who don’t take the time to get to know him find him ridiculous; those who take the time to know him see sweetness and enthusiasm. His clumsiness at times is due to excitement about a subject or a person or an event. He likes to bring together different people so that conversations are new – he doesn’t like to repeat things, but wants to always move forward, e.g., he keeps moving to new rooms every year. On the other hand, he likes coziness: “his spaces” in the library, etc. and “his people” who seem to understand him in some way.
The book is actually a series of short stories published in The New Yorker that kept Nabokov afloat while the recently published Lolita was the source of controversy and was banned in some places. Critics have noted that it is not exactly a novel, nor does it read like a collection of short stories; it has a bit of an odd flow. I would agree with this criticism, as the chapters don’t really flow together as a narrative, but they do reference each other. I could have happily read about Pnin and his (mis)adventures for many, many more chapters. He is a delightful character!
