Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful
Review: I truly loved this book;it would be in my top 5 of all time.The atmosphere is masterful,so different to anything ive read and the language and method of description is simply brilliant.To think that Nabakov is writing in his 2nd language really boggles the mind.The central character Humbert Humbert is truly a pathetic specimen yet the reader inevitably identifies with him despite the horrendous predilections he has.Unbelievably,one is convinced he really,i mean really loves the 12 year old girl he is obsessed with.This novel and the way the language is used is nothing short of a brilliant satire,at times a ringing indictment of America and its gaudy self-important bland culture.I feel this is a true classic,as good as literature can be in terms of evoking reader response,imbuing a mood,using language and challenging the prevailing mindset of society.5 big stars.

Rating:
Summary: brilliant prose
Review: Nabokov's genius is even more bewildering when you consider that English is not his first (nor even his second, I think), language and that he moved to America well into his adulthood. This is the only thing by Nabokov I have ever read (but will not be the last unless I die suddenly in the next few days) and his prose is extraordinary. It's direct, biting, and yet as lyrical as poetry. This is a book that can be read many times without loss of richness.

The content of this book is notorious. It is also very touching. It's a perfect tragedy. Now then. Lolita is far from being a sugary sweet angel. She has had sex before, she is manipulative, self-contained, seductive, crass...but so clearly through the voice of Humbert (the older man) you can see how young she is, how horribly abused, and how he is slowly destroying her.

Why would anybody ever want to read such a thing? For two reasons (in my opinion). Firstly, as I mentioned above, because Nabokov is a great artist. Very few books I have read come close to his craftsmanship in terms of stringing words together.

Secondly because abuse happens. People will gain control over others and then not act in their best interests. It happens, it can be horrible, and so it makes sense to examine it as part of the human condition. On the cover of this paperback edition, Vanity Fair claims it is "the greatest love story of all time", which seems a little weird, given that this "love" is completely one-sided and involves assaulting, trapping, manipulating and destroying a young girl.

But don't get the wrong impression. The content is dark, but the mood of the book is surprisingly light; and there are distinct passages and descriptions that are downright beautiful.

There are a lot of books around, but very few of this quality. Really. Read it.

Rating:
Summary: What I thought as a High School Student
Review: I am 15 years old and in the 10th grade, and I am rather offended at another review suggesting me to find another book. I loved Lolita, and found it beautiful, haunting, disturbingly funny. I am a french student, but needed to aid of my expansive dictionary to help me with the french interjections.

I would suggest this to anyone interested in classic literature; for me, reading this was a right of passage. I gave Lolita a four out of five because although beautiful, the prose rather lagged in spots, and a few events did not click with the plot or seem at all plausible.

Rating:
Summary: A true original
Review: It took me a few years to finally get around to reading this book, and now I only wished I had read it sooner. This book contains something for everyone...sex, perversion, humor, crime, philosophy. The story is this: an aging European moves to America where he falls in love with an American nymphet, barely 12 years old; the book recounts their adventures and the corruption of each of them as their affair continues.

As Nabokov is Russian, I expected this book to be a bit more choppy since it is not written in his native language. But the most impressive thing about "Lolita" is Nabokov's absolute mastery of the English language. I would recommend keeping a dictionary nearby, I was constantly running into words I had never in my life heard of. Besides his amazing vocabulary, Nabokov is also able to write in a manner that truly manages to convey the inner emotions and thoughts of his characters. John Updike described his writing as "ecstatic"--I completely agree. I found myself underlining passages every couple pages or so, something I rarely do.

Another interesting facet of this novel is its dealing with a moral issue in a highly non-moral, non-judgmental way. Going into a story about child molestation, clearly I was expecting a cut and dry line between good/evil, right/wrong. However, at the end of the book I wasn't sure who was the corrupter and abuser...Humbert Humbert (old European) or Lolita...The larger theme of this novel is the clashing between old European and new American ideals, although Nabokov remains ambivalent about the 'winner.' In "Lolita," both are self-destructing at a furious pace.

My one criticism of this novel is its slow pace near the end of the book. It was difficult for me not to skim at parts. Also, it would be handy to know some French, I think. I just skipped all the French phases, of which there were plenty.

Overall, highly recommended; not necessarily light reading.

Rating:
Summary: A great and troubling book
Review: Lolita is both a great and troubling novel. It's difficult to imagine Nabokov writing anything of poor quality. His prose has a natural flow and an effortless sophistication that I have never seen in any other writer of the English language. He writes with grace and maturity that lend his prose a certain amount of authority. Once can hardly question the master, and this may be why I was seduced by "Lolita" the first time I read it.

During the first reading, I was swept away by the caricature of Humbert Humbert. His old world manner, his cool, self-justifying narrative, and his academic contempt for trendy concepts such as Freudian Psychology and Existentialism were humorous and refreshing. I was seduced by the characterization and language in the novel and hardly thought of it in realistic terms. This perspective was only reinforced by seeing the original film with Peter Sellers and James Mason. Like my first reading of the novel, the film had a gentle and irresistible current of humor that made it difficult to imagine the events actually occurring in the lives of real people.

The second time I read "Lolita" I had a far more troubling experience. I still enjoyed the novel's writing and characterization, but this time it struck me on a realistic level. I found myself empathizing with Lolita and imagining what the world must be like from her perspective as she traveled around the country in the company of a foster parent who habitually molested her. I was especially stunned by the scene in which Humbert first informs her that she cannot leave him and return to her mother because her mother is dead. Lolita storms out of the room but eventually returns to Humbert's bed and tearfully wraps her arms around him. When she does this, Humbert chillingly informs the reader that she simply had nowhere else to go. In that moment, I was suddenly immune to the charm of Humbert's narrative and enormously sad for Lolita.

Coincidentally, just after my second reading of Lolita, I saw the film with Jeremy Irons. Unlike the earlier version, the film treated the story in a blunt and realistic manner. The humorous characters and witty dialogs were overshadowed by a constant coldness and brutality throughout the film.

"Lolita" is a great novel, but we should be wary of how and why we appreciate it. Some readers and critics view Lolita as a tragic love story while others consider it a celebration of the open road. Some even argue that "Lolita" is a metaphor for the clash between European and American culture. "Lolita" may well be all these things and more, but it is also a much darker chronicle of the tormentor's mindset. Humbert's narrative is charming and full of old world conceit, but it is also a tool of disguise. Humbert self-consciously uses style to conceal the naked brutality of his craving and the harm it causes Lolita. He disguises himself as the doomed lover and portrays her as the tormenting muse.

We should praise Nabokov for this clever role reversal. It is a wonderful mechanism for employing style in an imaginative manner as Humbert alerts us in his opening monologue ("Can you stand my style!"). But while we can admire Nabokov's skill and imagination, we should not take Humbert at his word for who and what he is.

Rating:
Summary: just plain beautiful
Review: lolita is the most beautiful and touching novel i've ever read.

i generally come across 2 main problems that people have with it: 1) they find the subject of the book offensive or disgusting, and 2) they have trouble staying interested because of the slowish pace towards the end and copious descriptive passages, or because they cannot relate to the characters.

personally, i perceive neither of these problems in lolita. the first, i think, can be dismissed immediately: a serious reader should realize that the book in no way condones pedofilia or the relationship between humbert and his "nymphet." furthermore, lolita, though young, is by no means innocent; she manipulates humbert, and, it turns out, has had previous sexual experiences - in short, the story is not about a grown man corrupting an innocent child. moreover, the relationship between hum and lo is both tragic and beautiful, and though i am as disgusted as anyone by pedofilia, i found humberts lustful obsession with lolita to be the most touching and lyrically told love stories i have ever heard - all the more beautiful for its dark, cruel, and tragic nature. therefore, i find no moral qualm with the book, and have no sense of disgust when reading it.

as for the second complaint, i suppose it is a more subjective one, and therefore harder to argue against. i know that personally, i read through the book very quickly my first time, and was swept along from the first page to the last. the writing is consistantly gorgeous and helps draw you along (the descriptive passages are not at all tedious; they are extremely rich and enhance the story). i also found myself emathizing deeply with both humbert and lolita. i think that that is the key to defeating the second complaint: one must be willing to feel for the characters, to share in humbert's passion, to fall in love with lolita with him, to feel for her as she weeps in the night, to hate her as she tears humbert apart, to hate humbert as he tears her apart, above all to empathize with both. that does not mean you have to lust for a little girl like hum does, it just means you have to be willing to feel the strength of his lusting, loving passion, and you have to be willing to appreciate the beauty he sees in her.

if you read lolita estranged from the characters, i can see how it could get a little dull, though i think it would still have undeniably beautiful writing and endless layers of depth and complexity (the intricateness of the plot, the allusions, the psychological and emotional journey humbert undergoes, the questions of what love really is, what beauty is, how much of a victim lolita is, etc., etc., etc.). however, i would advise anyone thinking of reading lolita to do so with a willingness to see what we would normally see as disgusting as it is (ironically) portrayed: beautifully. feel for both characters as much as possible. dont forget the true nature of hum and lo's relationship, but dont be afraid to get lost in their ecstasies, sorrows, pains, and desires.

but however you plan on reading it, the most important thing is that you read it

Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest novels in English -- ever . . .
Review: "Lolita" entered the cultural vocabulary almost immediately upon the book's first appearance, as did the term the author invented to describe certain "bewitching" girls between the ages of nine and fourteen: nymphet. Many readers, I expect, pick this up expecting pornography. Of course, it's nothing of the kind. Shocking in many ways, yes, but not dirty. Even though Nabokov had a hell of a time getting it published at all. But American society in the early 21st century has become far more straitlaced, more puritanical than even in the mythically more idyllic 1950s, and I suspect this book shocks more readers now than it even did then.

Humbert Humbert (the narrator's adopted nom-de-perversion) is perfectly aware of his socially unacceptable sexual appetites. He tries, unsuccessfully, to control his perversion through marriage, attempts to identify its origins in a near love affair at the age of thirteen, calmly describes his series of breakdowns and bouts of insanity. But he so often seems to be the victim himself, it's hard to hate him. Given his predilections, Humbert is terribly naive about children, especially the psychology of adolescent girls, while Lo can be both endearingly innocent and shockingly slutty, "swearing at me," he says, "in a language that I never dreamed little girls could know, let alone use." But he learns just what he has taken on. "A combination of naivete and deception, of charm and vulgarity,... Lolita, when she chose, could be a most exasperating brat." And there follows a description of her mercurial temperament that any parent of teenagers will recognize instantly.

Humbert's early adventures are nothing if not varied. His involvement with an Arctic scientific expedition, however, was not a success, if only because there were no desirable young girls to observe. "Nymphets do not occur in polar regions." Throughout the book, Nabokov is a master of delightful and witty word-play, delivered in gorgeous style. Then, while searching for a small New England town in which he can hide out to pursue his academic research and writing. But Charlotte Haze, who offers him a rented room, turns out to have a luscious twelve-year-old daughter named Dolores -- Lo, Lola, Dolly,... but always Lolita to him -- and Humbert finds the focus for his unhappy life. He actually marries Charlotte just to gain access to the girl, and a few weeks later the mother is struck and killed by a car shortly after discovering just what it is her new husband is after. Lots of ironies here.

The precocious Lolita actually seduces middleaged Humbert as much as the other way around, but for her it's just a lark, a test of her sexuality, a temporary adventure. For him, it's the fulfillment of all his desires. His fantasies are more than fulfilled, but in the process, and especially during their year-long drive around the country, she becomes psychologically warped not only by his physical demands but by his manic possessiveness. And before she's fifteen, Lo has found a way to disappear. Humbert is crushed and spends the next several years searching for her, and for Quilty, the equally perverse playwright whom she allowed to spirit her away. And by the time he has found her again (married and pregnant), and takes bloody revenge on Quilty, Humbert has come to realize just what he has done to his beloved Lolita -- because, he discovers, he truly does love her.

Throughout, believe it or not, this is a very funny book. There's this, during their first long journey: "I deplore the Mann Act as lending itself to a dreadful pun, the revenge that the Gods of Semantics take against tight-zippered Philistines." Or, in the midst of a long, long list of tourist sites visited, "Mission Dolores: good title for book." There are also plenty of purely literary jokes -- to which the college student must pay attention but the ordinary reader need not -- including character-doubling (a parody of the traditional German doppelganger theme), the repeating of minor themes (the house/hotel room number, the dog in the street), and Humbert's playing with his own name (Hum, Humble Humbert, Humbug/Homburg). Even the irony that nearly everyone in the story dies, is funny in a slightly warped sort of way. The opening paragraph of this marvelous novel, by the way, is one of my favorites. Also by the way, the Introduction by Martin Amis to the "Everyman's Library" edition is excellent.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, Seamless, Seductive
Review: I owe my sudden interest in Nabokov to the autobiography, Reading Lolita in Tehran, a five star book that I've just recently finished. It's author, Nafisi, has a great deal of respect and admiration for the works of Nabokov. Her enthusiasm made me feel that I must be missing out on something good, and I decided to cure that posthaste. Lolita, being his best-known, seemed the logical starting point.

From the first paragraph I was smitten with Nabokov. He writes seamlessly, brilliantly, seductively. The depth of my admiration of Nabokov's literary skills continue to grow as I continued to read. This despite, or perhaps actually because of, the subject matter.

I'll take a small aside here to say that I do not feel that novels should be held morally responsible. I read death and violence and many of the other Seven Deadly Sins as much as anyone else--after all, I love a good mystery. Notwithstanding that view, I was still uncomfortable with Humburt's flagrant disregard of what is to me an unquestionable wrong--the violation of a child.

As I said, I love a good mystery, and yet I don't like to read from the point of view of the villain himself. I find it unsettling. I felt the same way being inside the mind of Humbert: disturbed, disgusted, perhaps even tainted. Such strong emotions conjured up solely by the power of Nabokov's persuasive writing. What higher compliment can I pay him?

So troubled was I by Humbert's treatment of Lolita, by the sway he held over me the reader, that I stopped half-way through the novel, saying I just couldn't finish it. But I had to. Despite my revulsion of Humbert, I HAD to continue reading. Nabokov had me so firmly in his grip that I was genuinely concerned for Lolita. I had to know what happened to this child robbed of her childhood. I had to know if she, who Humbert so causally dismissed as seducer instead of seduced, would be free of his tyranny. I had to know if Lolita, only seen through Humbert's eyes, would find a voice of her own.

I can't say that I "liked" this book--how could I enjoy reading about such merciless victimization?--but I can certainly say that Nabokov has won another fan.

Rating:
Summary: The Dark Side of Life
Review: The novel "Lolita" pulls you in from the very beginning. From a psychological viewpoint, it's interesting to hear in the author's own words his confession. Indeed, the book was originally titled "Lolita or the Confessions of a White Widowed Male." Even enjoying the story as an interesting novel, the angst and moral issues of Humbert is arresting, (pardon the pun.) In fact, you could almost imagine the book was actually written from prison.....Has anyone caught on yet? The book WAS actually written from prison, and from the secret thoughts of the pedophiliac. Thats because Lolita, Nabokov's most famous novel, was not really written by Nabokov. He was just chosen as the editor, to thoroughly make sure that no references to real people or places (with the express exception of the name Dolores, aka Lolita). I would have been set to applaud Nabokov's exquisite use of the English language, if he had actually written it.
To speak of the language, the narrative tone is full of perversion and romanticism, and everything else that can only be repeated so many times. And its mostly truth. The lyrical prose is interjected with French sayings. Being of a lazy nature, it was quite alot of effort to translate ALL of the sayings. Usually one or two sentences, most are just nonsensical murmurings. But if you want to be a purist, read with a translator close to hand.
Lolita will make you think, and laugh, sometimes feel disgusted, but mostly gain your sympathy as you weigh moral values and "modern" (1940-50s) culture. The first part is the best of the book. I hope you enjoy it.

Rating:
Summary: Complex and Compelling Read - Is It Important Literature?
Review: C.F. Stewart is a fellow Amazon.com reviewer. He has created one of the most popular "listmania" lists and had 27,000 plus reads of his list when I wrote this review. It is called "Read the most important modern English literature". His top 10 include Clockwork Orange, Lolita, The Grapes of Wrath, etc. Frankly there are a few there that I have not read on that list - but I have bought or am buying those books.

So I bought what I had not read and Lolita was one. Obviously Vladimir Nabokov is an excellent writer and the story just races along. He has an active imagination and the book is entertaining. It is more a story about the main character, the aging Humbert, than it is about Lolita, the object of his lust. The book is not erotic per se. I read the book once then skimmed it a second time and read the author's comments by Nabokov at the end. He said that many expected an erotic book and were disappointed with the read and stop part way through. But he acknowledges that the subject is taboo, but he still had a passion to write the book. He thinks that this subject, along with happy atheists, and mixed marriages were also taboo at that time. He wrote a short 30 page European version first in Russian, and later wrote this book while living in Ithica, NY around 1949.

Lolita is the object of his passion apparently still lingering from his youth. It is an interesting story, generally entertaining, and complex. Because of the subject it is not for everyone - she is under 13. It did not change my thinking or my own morals. I would recommend it as part of getting a general literary education, and I did laugh a few times during the read.

As a piece of literature it is a compelling read that is hard to put down once you start and well written - and I guess that is why many people like the book. Is it among the top 10? I guess that is subjective, but yes I would also recommend reading.

Jack in Toronto