In a message
dated 08/01/2008 15:13:11 GMT Standard Time, spklein52@HOTMAIL.COM writes: Nabokov himself called Lolita “a vain and cruel wretch,”
A.Stadlen observed:
??? HH in fact.
SK's quoted article
added: "But it also possible for different readers to read the same book, savor
the same words, and yet emerge with varying interpretations and ways of
appreciating the work."
JM: Thank
God!
Nabokov,
as usual, allowed this situation to appear as ambiguous and
enticing as possible.
Either he,
or Van, once described Proust's Albertine as a vain, vulgar
woman, devoid of particular charms. Why not admit that sexually
precocious Lolita (VN's character knew quite a lot for her age, at
that age, at that small town) could be a common pubescent girl,
perhaps even a cruel wretch HH
envisioned as an enthralling nymphet whom all
other male adults would also covet?
And yet,
whatever Lolita's vanity or depravity, it would
still be any adult's duty to resist to her
advances and keep from further mischief - whereas HH apparently
did not.
So
what? This is not only what the novel "Lolita" is about, even if
it stimulates a common reader's sense of moral superiority
along other diverse "empathetic"
feelings...