.jpg)
Salient: Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Vol. 24, No. 9. 1961
Defending Lolita Again
Defending Lolita Again
Prompted by R.J.P.'s letter published in Salient No. 7, I will try to establish one or two points arising from A Defence of Sex in Literature" of Salient No. 5.
First, to set R.J.P.'s mind at rest—has it never occurred to him that there may be some people at Vic. who, last year, were in some country where Lolita' was not a banned book?
My observation that the judges who condemned "Lolita" lacked a sense of humour is very simply justified by the fact that they banned the book—that they regarded it as an indecent document. I insist that this book cannot possibly be regarded as indecent, by anyone who has a normal kind of homely sense of humour.
For this book is essentially "homely"—its realism and pathos are made more vivid by the intimate details of everyday life that are usually completely ignored in literature. Humbert and Dolores have their little "family" jokes—private jokes, usually lavatorial, just as any family anywhere in the world. And why should these, and similar incidents, not be included in the book?
R.J.P. mistakes my meaning in the words "all rather amusing." I do not say that these incidents are amusing in themselves—they could be most distressing—But—and this is my main point—it Is Nabokov's delightful treatment of the situation that frees it from all shadow of indecency—and turns it into (forgive a clumsy expression) naive bathos.
—Jancist.