Aesthetic Bliss???

Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

Lolita is a book club selection to be discussed at our early February meeting. I was nervous about reading the novel - I was vaguely familiar with the subject matter, and not looking forward to it. However, it was not as graphic as I feared, though every page was filled with the perverted thoughts and actions of Humbert Humbert.

First of all, I now understand why so many readers include Lolita on their Deserted Island book list: http://booklust.wetpaint.com/page/Desert+Island+Books. There is SO MUCH there, that I'm sure I missed more than half of Nabokov's references and allusions and understood less than half of those I caught. I also thought someone must have put together a "Lolita Dictionary" with all of Nabokov's new words and phrases. I googled it and found nothing. His use of the English language, especially considering it's not his native language, is amazing. His language fit his subject: I'd describe it as "juicy" and almost "voluptuous." Some have claimed that Lolita "was the record of [Nabokov's] love affair with the English language," although he would substitute "romantic novel" for "English language" for the statement to be "more correct." (p. 318)

I also found myself amused as I read...yes, it's actually funny, and I'm almost embarrassed to say so. I chuckled when he referred to himself and Charlotte as "Hum and Mum" with regard to Dolores. Also, his description of the "waterfalls" in the hotels brought a giggle. There are more.

Yet, the story is so sick and disturbing. It is horrific. Dolores has no hope.

Irony - I only have a glimpse of the depth of irony in the novel. In the author's note at the end, Nabokov says, "For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm." (p. 317) What irony that sich a hideous story could hold aesthetic bliss - but it somehow does.

To me, this story is about giving up, having no power, in the struggle to keep the "laws of humanity." Humbert knows that his lusts are immoral. In the beginning, he attempts to curb them through his marriage to Valeria, but with no real success. (Or does he even try...I'm still struggling with grasping the irony!) Throughout the story, he never tries to justify himself. He continually refers to his "accursed nature" which "could not change." (p. 259) Driving away from the murder scene, it occured to Humbert, "that since I had disregarded all laws of humanity, I might as well disregard the rules of traffic. So I crossed to the left side of the highway and checked the feeling, and the feeling was good. It was a pleasant diaphragmal melting, with elements of diffused tactility, all this enhanced by the thought that nothing could be nearer to the elimination of basic physical laws than deliberately driving on the wrong side of the road. In a way, it was a very spiritual itch." (p. 308) The laws of humanity do exist, as do the rules of traffic. Humbert disregards these rules...humanity's rules he is too weak in his own power to keep due to the strength of his temptation, his lust. The traffic rules he deliberately disobeys.

But for the grace of God, there go I? Nabokov presents a character that, horrifying though he is, I can relate to, sad to say. This is disturbing to me, yet true. Humbert is human - fallen, as I am. I know I am capable of the same atrocities, but for the grace of God, whether I know it or not. It is God whose grace keeps me from being as bad as I could possibly be. And it is God's Spirit which strengthens me in the face of temptation - to judge, gossip, complain, to be greedy, materialistic, idolatrous, etc. And it is the grace and mercy and forgiveness of God that restores me when I fail.

I don't think I'll take this in my book bag to the deserted island, but I can appreciate those who will.