NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita

[The Great Quail]

David writes,
 
> I agree with you about feeling sympathy with Humbert, despite his predatory
> nature.  He even succeeded in causing some arousal.  And that sympathy, along
> with all the comedy, is what makes *Lolita* work.

Exactly. In many ways, I think "Lolita" is certainly a subversive and
"dangerous" book. It is so damn appalling attractive. Or attractively
appalling. Or something. And yes, it *is* sexy, too -- and I have known
women to agree with that as well. In "Lolita," Nabokov touches on a few
uncomfortable nerves -- but as Rorty reminds us in his intro to PF, we need
to remember that Dolores cries at night, too.

> Now I?m going to throw out a zinger: Unlike *Lolita*, whose surface story
> stands on its own feet, the ?surface? story of*Pale Fire* is unsatisfying.

Actually, I agree with you 100%. I think in many ways the *idea* of PF is
more attractive than the actual novel itself. Mind you, it is enjoyable, and
well-written, and marvelously inventive, and multi-layered, and funny, and
all that: but in my opinion, "Lolita" is the better book. Both the story and
characters are more compelling. As you insightfully observe, without the
existence of an internal "puzzle," neither "Pale Fire" nor "Ada" would be as
engaging as they are....

--Clare Quailty