Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Tragic and Provocative, Poignant, Nekulturniy
Review: Lolita. The word itself causes strange visions to swirl in arabesques inside to heads of almost any civilized person today, so caveat emptor: like plankton, innumerable rumors have reproduced passionately around Lolita for decades, and we all know the nature of a rumor. Beware even the frams provided by the author, the epilogue and the preface by "suave" and FICTIONAL John Ray, PhD.Yes, it is the story of a pedophile, the besotted, megalomaniacal professor and poetaster Humbert Humbert, tries in vain to mesmerize Lolita into being his lover, as his soul is seared and boiling like a steak from the emotional wounds suffered by the loss of Annabel in his childhood, dragging her across the country and back lavishing her with gifts, in an attempt to concvince. Unfortunately, like Plato says, when form is combined with matter it is inherently flawed(cf Republic), and his vision is ruined by the fact that Lolita is a normal girl, emotionally purloined by humbert's gefahrlich and actually quite obsequious(and unrelenting) passions. And while we feel obvious sympathy for Lolita and her scarlet sobs in the suffocating night for her lost childhood, Nabokovs greatest acheivement in the book(a curious combination of discomfort and humor, and finally heartrending) is to make the reader cross the shimmering but thorny raspberry-fields from their own lives to fiction(just as the author intended) to feel sympathy for Humbert(who truly is a pitiable character, all wrapped up in the threadbare black robes of his own-really quite Sumner-esque-and self-imposed longings, inner torment and Muscatel). All of this is written in a style that has injested the essence of poetry, has drunk deeply as the anodyne that is Poetry should be, an absorbed it like champagne, drunkenly preserving it and putting it in long careful brushtrokes on the pages, communicating real emotions, ones we can feel, with it's jiggling, etiolated, purely ALIVE words. The subject matter is naturally disconcerting, but, as Mr. Nabokov himself says,"We are all adults here"-except perhaps for the reader who was disappointed at having his or her onanistic oceanside fastasy of the book shattered like poor Lo's childhood-the real prurient tittilation here is absconded in gorgeous(and thankful) lieu of true emotion, which is what the ever asthetical Valdimir Nabokov had intended. Bon Voyage! Good bye and good luck! Hast du eine Ahnung, Saubauer! Join Humbert and Lo on their immortal, celestial journey, I promise you will not be disappointed!

Rating:
Summary: Perverse, yet a masterpiece
Review: Lolita is certainly one of my three favorite books. There'ssomething about it that weaves a web of enchantment, mesmerizing thereader. The language is absolutetly gorgeous, so beautiful. It gives me such a deep respect for the English language; i never could have imagined that prose could be so exquisite! The plot is perverse, true, but that's the topic. It really is fascinating, though, to see from this perspective. Lo was such an annoying brat, but still endearing somehow. And Humbert-- well, he was such a pedophile, but so pathetic that you had to feel sorry for him. Somehow the story is tender, despite the lust and unromantic sex. Was it a love story? I don't know; I'm still unclear on the definition of love. Sometimes it seems like it might be. But love or not, it is poignant. I just wish there wasn't so much French in there!

Rating:
Summary: Beautifully written
Review: Look past the uncomfortableness of the topic to see that Nabokov has written a most beautiful love story.

Rating:
Summary: Lyricism with a loathsome protagonist
Review: I'm sorry if this review flies in the face of a literary community which is mad for Nabokov. There is no doubt that Nabokov's literary technique is ample evidence of his genius: his style is simply lyrical. The words are prose that capture the essential beauty of poetry. However, his central figure is, at heart, a loathsome and pathetic figure. Yes, the structure is cunning of the madman trying to come to grips with his pederosis. But the structure doesn't save us from wincing at his affliction and the humiliating, debilitating extremes to which it drives him. I loved the words. However, as much as I wanted to admire his wit, charm and intelligence, ultimately he was a detestable protagonist. Nabokov valued that his readers make a spirited flight in connecting with his writing: I believe that he failed in this critical criterion, too. The story seemed so contrived with its implausible twists and turns,and cute names for characters, streets, towns and hotels, I was almost never became lost in the story itself. The divergent critical observations that the tale symbolized Europe corrupting America, or vice-versa, struck me as bunk. Ah, but the streaming of the poetry of the words and their lyrical quality made the book well worth reading in itself. The novel is over-rated despite the flashes of lyrical genius evident by its creator. I know: it's heresy but parents with daughters will tend to be less inclined to sympathize with a brilliant pedophile even as an anti-hero, even one as articulate as Nabokov's.

Rating:
Summary: my review
Review: nabokov's mastery can be inspiring-- and deflating. a gift to this lifetime.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful!
Review: This is one of my favorite books. It was wonderfully written, Nabokov was a genius. I was 18 when I first read this book a year ago, and at first I was genuinely disgusted, but at the same time, intrigued. My grandfather almost passed out when I found out I was reading it. He read it back when it first came out and was banned in the USA. His exact words were "Why are you reading that? It's just a story about a dirty old man." However, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It is truly a love story, however one sided. Humbert genuinely loved "Lolita", and he understood that his feelings would never be accepted by her, her mother, or the society in which they lived. When he finally DID consomate the relationship with her, he was plagued by guilt, and paranoia. I don't want to reveal the end to anyone who hasn't read it, but you can definately see the mental anguish of Humbert in the end. I reccomend this book to anyone. It is superb.

Rating:
Summary: What's all the hype about this?
Review: This is a good book, but I don't see where it's profound. There's a difference between well written description of deviancy, beauty and obssession that applies to one strange guy, opposed to saying something subtle. I see here a surface treatment of things with flowery and manic language. I don't know why the Modern Library calls it the 4th best book of the 20th century. Heart is a Lonely Hunter, for example, is much more profound.

If you know why "Lolita" is so great, send me email, I'd like to hear it

Rating:
Summary: porn, poetry and pyrotechnical language
Review: If you've only heard of "Lolita" from its reputation as being "pornographic", you are in for a surprise when you read it. Yes, it involves a lecherous, middle aged man chasing after a 12 year old "nymphet". Yes, it is deeply disturbing and makes one queasy at times. It is also a brilliant, funny, witty, literary rollercoaster which will delight you and dazzle you with the beauty of language. Nabakov can make words jump through hoops you never even knew existed, while he explores the dark realms of obsession and longing.

The narrator, Humbert Humbert, is a fascinating construction. As readers, we find ourselves simultaneously repelled by his actions and sympathetic to his yearning. We are utterly charmed by his wit, intelligence and verbal acrobatics, sometimes to the point where we lost sight of what he's doing to his object of desire, Lolita.

I would suggest that all readers reaquaint themselves with the concept of the "unreliable narrator" before they sink into Humbert's hypnotic web of logic. When you find yourself sympathizing with Hum about Lolita's "cruelties", try to remember that you are seeing everything through his twisted and self-serving lens. Humbert has rationalized his behavior so deeply and reports it to us so entertainingly, that we find ourselves accepting his interpretations of people and events at face value. However, we must remember that Hum is capable of the most monsterous of deceptions (note how long it takes him to inform Lolita of her mother's demise), and of self deceptions. Read between the lines. Question his reading of events. Pay attention when his reporting is at odds with his interpretations of them. As one example, Humbert tells us that he was seduced by Lolita, giving us the impression that she was sexually mature and a willing partner. Contrast that with his throwaway mentioning of her "performing" for him in exchange for treats, and watching television as he took his pleasure in her. And don't ignore Lolita sobbing each night, as he seems to do.

Nabokov has created a connundrum for us as readers. He uses the most glorious tricks and delights of the English language to tell his tale of self-deception and rationalization masquerading as "love". Look beyond the circus to the grime beneath it, and appreciate the mastery that gives us both.

Rating:
Summary: The Most Compelling Defence a Criminal can give
Review: I'm quite astonished by the number of people who either forgive or consider "Lolita" a love story (Vanity Fair even wrote something to that effect on the cover of the Vintage edition). After all, the readers are only given Humbert's narrative - he appropriates the events as he writes, and his victims such as Lolita, Quilty, and Charlotte (indirectly) had no agency to voice/present themselves across the text without Humbert's mediation. I guess this goes to show just how "Lolita" is so brilliantly written - one man's sin is transcended (in some readers' perspective) into love - had Humbert presented this book as his defence argument in trial, the jury would be swayed.

Rating:
Summary: Not disturbing - sad
Review: I heard this was a disturbing novel - it's sick, it's twisted they told me - they missed the point. The novel is very well crafted with even the minor details significant: we have an author who wastes not one word in this, his most important work. He achieves the impossible, a sympathy for the paedophile, and and a critical view of the victim (was she really?). He places the reader in a very uncomfortable position of doubting the very essence of an evil crime. I always felt the ending did not do the story justice, in my opinion it was somewhat lazy; however, if I had to recommend three books, this would be one. Every person deserves to have their thoughts challenged and this is one book that achieves that extraordinarily well. The answer to the question is of course she was.