The Annotated Lolita: Revised and Updated by Vladimir Nabokov
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This is actually two reviews in one (What a deal!) as I read the Annotated Lolita and frankly the annotations deserve some words, too.
First a caveat about expectations. On one hand, Lolita is hailed as one of the great works of 20th century literature,
so in that sense my expectations were high. On the other hand, I usually hate anything that could be construed as "lit-ret-chaw." so my
expectations were very very low.
First the good. There are parts of Lolita that are very very good. For the most part the writing is excellent.*
There is lots of word play, puns, spoonerisms, and neologisms. Parts of the book are very very funny, parts are downright heartbreaking.
The threads that span the novel (both internal: such as Quilty's subtle but pervasive presence,
and the external: the continual Poe and Joyce-ian themes.**) are both interesting and sufficiently apparent that (although I apprecaited having the notes to crib from)
I could pick up on most of them easily. The annotations, for the most part are clear. A pretty good balance is struck
between purely textual notes: all of the french is translated, as are most of the obscure words***, and contextual ones.
The best part about the annotations is that the author of them knew Nabokov and held him in high esteem. There is
genuine affection in the notes about what he consideres particularly brilliant wordsmithing or particularly innovative manipulation of the reader.
It's fun to read writing that is passionate, and both Lolita and the annotations are passionate if nothing else. It's also kind of hilarious to have the annotator mention and allusion and then have to admit that Nabakov declared to have intended none.
Then the bad. Parts of Lolita are really really boring. There is only so much you can read about the loveless manipulations
of a pedophile before it starts to grate on you. I'm sure this is some brilliant literary trick by Nabokov to echo the
them of imprisonment within the reader: "As Lolita is imprisoned so too shall you be imprisoned." Maybe it's brilliant but
it's not much fun to read. Likewise, even some of the word play gets wearing. I really liked the idea of Quilty's cryptic motel ledger references,
but seriously? Dr. Gratiano Forbeson, Mirandola, NY?**** Really? that's the best you could come up with? Really?
The worst part of the novel is that for a novel that proclaims to be about Lolita, she's really not much of a character is she? Again, I get that this is partially intentional, Humbert Humberts
tragedy is that he could not help but uttler smother the thing he loved, but it also means that the reader is left wondering just what the fuss is all about.
As for the annotations, well, come on, there was bound to be some bullshit in there somewhere.
Some of the references (not to the mention the conclusions drawn from them) are pretty obscure. Meanwhile, some of the themes were explored in excrutiating detail. (Butterflies, anyone?)
While others are given pretty thoroughly short shrift.
And, for proper dramatic form, the ugly: The book is about sexual slavery and sex abuse. Yuck! If Lolita were a more
finely drawn character, then perhaps we could make some sense of her experience. Is her initial consent, as presented by Humbert real?
Is there any affection for Humbert from Lolita? Likewise, the annotation which are content to ramble for pages and pages on things like allusions to french, english, and russian literature, butterflies, fairy tales, greek mythology, celtic legends, 19th century painting, popular music, prostitution, every conceivable slang for penis, and the full pallet of colors used by nabokov,
have almost nothing to say about the dynamic between Humbert and Lolita. WHAT?!?! Kind of makes me think they do not make for such a thorough treatment of the book after all.
One more interesting (if not so ugly observation): The thing that everyone thinks of when they think of Lolita is Humbert and Lolita's cross country road trips: the roadside motels and cheesy
tourist attractions. These two scenes take up, what 3 chapters in the novel? I rather wonder why that is? Maybe because
we're prefer to put on the rose colored glasses and talk about the defining american experience rather than how it's kind of awful that Humbert pays Lolita to continue to abide persistent
sexual molestation.
* No, in fact, I do not take it as a given that one of the most celebrated works of literature from the last 100 years would have good writing. Why do you ask?
** One of the aspects of lit-ret-chaw, that I actually like are the veins that transcend a single authors work. A character who is created by one author can be alluded to and given to life by another--in this sense all of the "great" books exist in the same bizarre universe.
*** Actually this got kind of irritating, too. I know what "lavender" is, thanks.
**** Dr. Gatiano is a reference to Commedia Dell'arte adn Mirandola is (according to Nabakov no less) a minor character in a different italian play. What a...uh...rogue that Quilty is.
View all my reviews
