|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vladmir Nabokov rejoiced in oxymorons. The pious and the perverse, the comic and the tragic, the physical and the spirtual; in his magical use of language the seemingly inconsistent come together with delightful ease. When it comes to weaving a tapestry of conflicting emotions, Nabokov is an exceptionally gifted wordsmith. And his magnum opus, Lolita, an unsettling but riveting tale of a middle-aged professor’s obsession with a teenage girl, is the very apotheosis of his teasing prose and comic brio. Lolita, Nabokov’s most controversial and popular book, is often hailed as one of the greatest works of 20th century literature. But 50 years ago, this tale of incest and lust had no takers in the publishing world. It was a much-rejected manuscript, it’s author trying desperately to make it see the light of the day. "Would you be interested in publishing a time-bomb that I have just finished putting together?" asked Nabokov of New Directions; a publishing house that he expected would publish his work. The answer was an emphatic ‘no.’ Lolita was shown the door by three more American publishers till Olympia Press, a publishing house in France known for its risqué titles, consented to publish it with a rider that Nabokov put his name on the book. The book did not cause a flutter and it seemed destined for obscurity until Graham Greene included it in one of the three best books he had read that year. However, not all critics shared his views. It was denounced by critics as "repulsive", "sheer unrestrained pornography" and "dull and pretentious." It was banned in France, and later, reluctantly, published in America in 1958. But, Lolita was in the news and, hence, in demand. Sales soared and for six months, Lolita sat pretty on the bestsellers list. Now, as it celebrates 50 years of publishing, it has inspired two films, one ballet opera, one biography of Nabokov and one of his wife, Vera Nabokov. Why is Lolita such a page-turner? . After all, plainly put, it is a dark story of chronic molestation and sexual exploitation. Sadism and scheming cruelty is the central motif in the book. It’s narrator, Humbert Humbert, is cruel to boot and the relish he takes in his puckerish amorality is disquieting, to say the least. He, almost ecstatically, puts to the readers his case for paedophiles asking " the community to allow them to pursue their practically harmless, so called aberrant behavior without the police and the society cracking down upon them". At least, his own plans are not "practically harmless". He marries Charlotte so that he can enjoy the company of her daughter, Lolita. Later he plans to drug both in the night so that he can fondle and love his Lolita without her disturbing him He also plans to kill his wife by drowning her while they are both enjoying a swimming session. What he does to Lolita is unforgiving. In a way he snuffs innocence out of her, forcing her out of nature, forcing her into woman hood, when she is just an adolescent. The way he delights in his depravity is indeed repulsive and perverse. Depressing? . But, it has enthralled readers for 50 years, making itself a run-away success. How?
But can language supplant art with morality. Do artist have a cart blanche to write, paint sing anything and call it great art. Just as Nabokov, if M.F Hussain were to paint a middle-aged man having sex with a 12 year old, would it be called great art? Will society condemn it as perverse work of a dirty old man or would it be hailed as an imaginative piece of art. Enduring or repelling, high art or smutty trash. Lolita is also riddled with these dilemmas and the dividing line is not always clear. Lolita is, to borrow a phrase from a critic , like sleeping with a pervert and waking up with a professor. |
Nabokov’s masterful
control over language might provide an answer. Sinister yet funny,
vicious yet humorous; Nabokov’s endlessly suggestive and playful
language might have saved Lolita from being dubbed as cheap
pornography. Humbert’s rhetorical gifts are many! . The untrammelled
wit and the impossibly racy prose which he uses, comparing sometimes his
lust to art with zestful verve, leaves the reader dumb-founded and
agape. Even at the most poignant or tragic moments, his deft use of
language can leave a smile on your face, leaving you surprised at your
own insensitivity. Lolita might be one of the few books where
language provides the demarcating line between high and low art. In a
lesser writer than Vladmir Nabokov, Lolita could have been a huge
disaster.