Lolita

Rating:
Summary: sad and hilarious
Review: Humbert Humbert is absolutely pathetic and he knows it; he spends much of the book mocking himself, though he full well knows that his yearning for Lolita must in some measure be depraved. His explanations of himself and his thoughts are imbued with an intellectualism herealizes is futile, but he attempts to show thathe is not a monster but a weak man gripped by a passion he must fullfill at any cost.

Rating:
Summary: Lolita--Possibly the greatest MYSTERY of all time
Review: The ultimate mystery is that of life. In Lolita Nabakov tackles this tangled mess some call existence with an incomparable poetic flourish. I wonder, was this book easy for him to write? You cannot but respect this novel for the genius it so modestly and humbly, Humbertly offers...... (Yes, modesty is an undeniable quality of Nabakov's character, Humbert).

With Humbert as his voicebox, the author delves into the depths of human emotions impossible for the culturally confined member of the world fraterntity to fully feel, never mind express. It requires the shattered vision of a "psychopath" to follow-through and wholly surrender to his desire, plausibly at its core the desire of Everyman.

Lolita is a vehicle, like the pages of the book itself, through which a man of superior learning and refined sensibilities fulfills the only duty any human ever really owes himself: to be faithful to the force that keeps us all alive. The objective source of motivation is irrelevant, although Nabakov has tricked us into assuming otherwise by choosing the most universally offensive sin known to man: as Lo so bluntly says, "The word is incest." Don't you see, that this is only to underscore the central study of bare-boned raw craving, the light of our souls, the spirit that mysteriously brings us to consciousness in the morning, in fact manages to get us out of bed--in other words, what no one can live without. Of course not; it is doubtful that Humbert did either.

The source is different for almost everyone, but I believe that whatever it is for you, your feeling for it can be none other than love. Love, that wonderful and terrible state of moment which forever eludes definition. Well, Nabakov gives an outstanding effort. Perhaps its only flaw, and it an unavoidable one I'm afraid, is that his work is not more easily understood.

My love, you might say, is for the occasional cerebral caress, and this book could continue to offer that at least twelve readings over. Thank you, Vladimir, for sharing your thoughts.--Lisa D'Arco

Rating:
Summary: Lolita is an artistic triumph
Review: Oh, please. "Humpbert Humpbert"? "Hubert"? "No plot"? "Not badly written?" GOD! Were these people reading the same novel I've read four times? Each time I read it, I uncover new depths and beauty. "Old Europe corrupting New America"? Have you read Nabokov's introduction to his own novel? "Not badly written"? Ha! Well, I'm sorry that the "plot" didn't include graphic descriptions of sexual activity; Nabokov works in metaphor and symbol.

Rating:
Summary: lolita was a nymph in 12 years and she love her teacher
Review: a young girl lolita , she love her teacher and make a relationship with him , he was a bove 40 years old , when she was a nymph with 12 years old

Rating:
Summary: Sick story or psychological drama?
Review: It's obvious that the main character of the story, Humpbert Humpbert (!), has a problem discerning reality from fantasy. Several times in the book, he mentions being in a sanitorium of one sort or another. The story is not a question of his mental stability, but more of an in-depth look at what "love" really is.

Some will take issue because the love interests are all young, prepubescent girls. However, if you read the story with the understanding that he cannot discern the difference between the love of little girls and the love of adult women, it becomes clear.

It is a fascinating book, leaving you feeling for the main character, faults and all.

Rating:
Summary: A loquacious, lolling LOVE story
Review: Yes, H.H. is sick. Yes, he is perverse. Yes, at times he is sadistic. Yes, he is ignoble, a monster, and all other horrible things that should be jailed, put away, and never allowed to see the light of day.

But those who read this novel without finding the love story contained within have allowed themselves to entirely miss the point. And so have those who claim it to be "dirty" or "exploitave" of children should read the book PERIOD. And those who feel this novel is misogynistic are conveniently forgetting that H. H. is contemptuous of ALL of the characters within, including himself and his relations, regardless of race, creed, OR GENDER. Oh, of course, he dwells on certain women, but that's because the people he spends the most time with in this novel ARE women. And he certainly dedicates quite a bit of time to denigrating Quilty; let us not forget that!

We must first also realize that Lolita is not only about a middle-aged man's decidedly unhealthy obsession with a teenaged girl. Lolita is also the tale of two (stylized and heavily stereotyped, of course) civilizations colliding, the "hypercivilized" Europe and the "barbaric" America (postwar). It is also a fable about the conflict between the overly analytical mind and the entirely emotional one (people who have studied psychology can probably elucidate on this better than I can). It is a satire on Freudian psychoanalysis. Finally, it is the result of one man's remarkable love for a language, which I think that no one can refute, no matter how appalled they are at the novel's content.

Where is the love in the midst of all this horror, you ask? Perhaps those who cannot find it have never experienced the terrible things that people do in spite of and BECAUSE of the strength of their love. Humbert's sexual addiction to Delores Haze is nothing less than an animalistic need to possess the object of his obsession in the most obvious way. Humbert's patient attempts to foster his captive's skills (whether they be tennis, literature, etc.) reveals a desire to cultivate, as you will, what he sees as a supremely fertile field.

And the sadism, I feel, was introduced for numerous reasons. Of course, it was to show just how horrible a person can by taking pleasure in the pain of another. But Nabokov also relayed the agony that Humbert experienced while BEING sadistic, while hurting the one thing that mattered most to him. Another significant, albeit rather twist, sign of love.

Of course Dolores' thoughts and feelings matter to Humbert, but one must remember that he is bent on possessing her. Therefore, her opinions on life and the world at large matter not a whit to him; he is only interested in what she thinks of him, but he is also able to ignore that part of her because of he is battling to possess the rest of her, and because of his "obvious" superiority to her, being a cultivated and educated adult European and all.

And of course, the most obvious overture made to Venus within this novel is the transference of Humbert's life (i.e., his assets) to Dolores. Of course, he could have blackmailed her, tried to buy her favors, kidnapped her for a second time, etc. But no, he cedes over all that is his to her and leaves. Granted, it is a small reparation, but it is all he can do by that point. It is the closest he can come to giving her back the life that he stole (her own, not Charlotte's) away and casually tore apart, and it is his attempt at absolution, not only for himself, but for her sake (read the last few paragraphs if you're shaking your head). It is this action that thinly separates H. H. from the everyday male monsters within our society.

Of course, I've focused on defending the love story within from H. H.'s point of view, since there is none from the character of Dolores. I will not go into Dolores' blatantly whorelike nature, which granted, was partially due to H. H.'s influence, but was clearly present BEFORE any contact was made between them. I will skip over (because of space) Charlotte's utter disregard and contempt for her own daughter

What's the upshot of all this? Well, first of all, I would like to make a few admissions. Yes, I am male. No, I am no professor of English, of literature, or of anything. But I do love the English language, I do love wonderful writing, I abhor H. H., and I find his actions within repulsive, horrifying, and warranting the harshest punishment available. I think spouse abusers should be beaten to a pulp and that rapists should be castrated. I don't think this is an appropriate book for most children and some adults.

And I am certainly no pedophile.

The upshot is that I firmly believe that Lolita is one of the finest and horrifying novels in the English language. And I, for one, feel that it is clearly a love story. And I'm not alone; I have many women friends and colleagues who have expressed similar opinions to mine, some of whom are English literature teachers, all of whom are strong and independent women (feminists, if we must use that silly and degrading label).

Those who cannot see the horrible and tragic drama of love in these pages should step off of their soapboxes, take closer look, and recognize this text for what it's for. Lolita, unlike such trash as Romeo & Juliet, is work of art, of literature. Romeo & Juliet is bad teenage hormones. Lolita is a labor of love.

Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece.
Review: I don't want to give too much away, and it would take a very long review to describe everything in this book. As the book goes on I began to despise Lolita. For some reason I felt sympathy toward Hubert. All he tries to do is give her love and she is very cruel towards him. Considering he is a pedophile and she is an innocent child I think Nabokov is a true genius at literary manipulation. Oh, and I saw the movie long after I read the book (I read this book years ago). I was not impressed. Why can't they make original movies instead of using great novels? The movie just can't live up to the novel! Overall this is the second best book I have ever read, next to Catcher in the Rye. I have read well over a thousand books (mostly non-fiction) and if you can get passed the pedophilia (which I know some people can't) this is one of the best books you will ever read.

Rating:
Summary: Didn't do anything for me
Review: This book wasn't badly written--I just did not see what was so great about it. I had to read it for school and would not have finished except I had no choice. I simply did not see much of a plot, and what was there did not hold my attention at all. Humbert's character was slightly fascinating in that he was so twisted, but things like that just do not interest me. When I put the book down, I was left with a creepy, unresolved feeling (yikes--there are actually people like that out there!), not to mention being fully relieved that I was finished with that book forever!

Rating:
Summary: This is no love story!
Review: All this hoopla about Lolita made me curious enough to read it. Don't tell me this is about love. This pedophile clearly stalks young girls. Maybe his first true love could never blossom, but to carry that feeling throughout his life screams psychological problems, not love.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant prose and psychological insight
Review: I am one of the minority who does not view Lolita as a love story. To me, Nabakov's masterpiece is both an experiment in prose(and an exhilirating one at that) as well as an intricate examination of the human mind. Writing as Humbert, Nabakov offers insight(how accurate we do not know) into the mind of one of the most complex, disturbing and perhaps misunderstood social deviants: the pedophile. I do not, as some do, have any sympathy for the character of Humbert, but I find it impossible not to be overwhelmed at his creation as it unfolds with each passing page. Nabakov's Humbert is both arrogant and weak, brilliant and pathetic. Whether or not his feelings for Lolita can be construed as "love" is a matter that will not soon be resolved. For me, Humbert believes that he loves Lolita, but can such a belief be valid in the mind of a self-described "madman?"