NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita

[Jasper Fidget]

What I like about _Pale Fire_ is its playground quality: with so many
interconnections and winding secret passages, reading it is a big game, and
not like reading a novel at all.  In a real sense, _Pale Fire_ *is* the
puzzle.  _Lolita_ is more of a traditional "novel", and while it has many of
the same playground aspects, it reads better I think as a novel than as a
game.  For all their similarities, I think these two books are very
different at heart.

As for having sympathy with Humbert: perhaps the persona Humbert creates for
himself (and the reader) can be sympathetic, but that's the big trap of the
novel (since we see through Humbert's eyes, and he doesn't show us
everything): the man himself, the character behind the voice, is a twisted
little child molester -- something that must be kept in mind when reading
_Lolita_.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of The Great Quail
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:59 AM
> To: The Whole Sick Crew
> Subject: NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita
> 
> 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