NPPF -- Pale Fire vs. Lolita

[The Great Quail]

> 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_.

I think it is a mischaracterization to reduce Humbert to a "twisted little
child molester." That's too simplistic: it's too easy to demonize him in
that way. There is a genuine sexiness to "Lolita" -- and yes, I know you are
seeing everything through Humbert's eyes -- that would not be there if
Dolores Haze were, say, 7 years old. There's an erotic nexus between the
two, even despite the fact that Lolita is underage and essentially being
coerced. 

Part of the power of Humbert's obsession comes from the fact that it is
fixed in a very queasy zone, where sexuality is developing and therefore
open to ambiguity. No matter how well Nabokov wrote, reading about a
"rationalized" fixation for a pre-pubescent child would be very different
than reading Humbert's fixation with budding "nymphets." Does this mean I
think it's healthy or all right? No, of course not. Humbert is still a
terrible man, and of course his relationship with Lolita was abusive. But I
do feel it to be different from child molestation.

Regarding Kinbote's sexuality, I think there is nothing sexy at all about it
-- and certainly not because he's gay. He is pathetic and self-involved,
viewing men and boys as mere objects. As has been suggested here today, his
pornography is the poem itself, his erotic thrill is insinuating himself
deeper into Shade's life, attempting to merge with his art....

--Quail