I finished reading Nabokov’s “Lolita.” Started it in the original English, sporadically switched to the Russian translation, and fully switched to it in the second part.
In brief: it’s Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” in prose due to the convoluted plot and “Leon” for its straightforwardness.
Indeed, the novel’s title features what is essentially a secondary character. The novel is not really about Dolores Haze. Essentially, it’s Humbert’s confession, as Humbert himself titled this book within a book.
I must admit, it feels like I missed half of the subtext, surely so obvious to more sophisticated readers.
Did Quilty exist? Was there an Annabel Lee? And overall, can Humbert be trusted? Is there anyone good in the novel at all?
“Lolita,” like the “The Defense” I read before it, is largely about form, not plot. It’s about “how,” not “what.” Why does Nabokov remind me of Lynch here? Because both seem to overestimate their audience – reader and viewer, respectively. They believe that the intricacies and minutiae cannot only be noticed but also not fail to be seen how beautifully they come together into a pattern and change, like a prism, a generally simple plot.
I was “re-reading” “The Defense” while listening to the audiobook on a drive from New Orleans. 12 hours. For instance, I noticed a reference to the very ending of the book (which you simply don’t know at first reading) at the very beginning, and then essentially a foreshadowing of what the plot would end up like — a book in a book, which is part of the plot (trying to avoid spoilers here). As the author himself wrote: “A book should not be read — it can only be re-read. A good reader, a choice reader, an active and creative reader, is a re-reader.”
Well, now “Pnin” is next in line. Wish me luck — its complexity promises an even bigger challenge. And after that, I might dare to take on “The Gift” — I foresee drowning there altogether.
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 