Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Nabavoks disturbing masterpeice
Review: This is unarguably a one-of-a-kind book. It's a difficult read, the language and prose is gorgeous, but can get a bit mundane. In a sense, it is a love story...but Humbert does not actually love Lolita herself, but he loves her for the fact that she resembles his lost childhood love. He never gets to know the REAL inside Lolita, he constantly talks about her nubile and pubescent beauty. He speaks of how she tortures him, but she is just a young girl. Humbert morally corrupts the girl to the point where she sleeps with other men and becomes involved with child pornography. This is the kind of book that weeks after finishing it, you continue to cotemplate it. What makes it readable, despite the distrubing concept, is that Nabavok adds humor, but all of the humor is dark and eerie.
It is a wonderful book, but it's definatly not meant to be read by everyone

Rating:
Summary: Do NOT call this a love story!
Review: First of all: Nabokov's chief accomplishment in this novel (other than the oft-noted brilliance of his prose)is to DAMN THE READER who is seduced by it! By creating the persona of Humbert, Nabokov tests the limits of the lure of "European cultured sophistication" making the reader IDENTIFY with, SYMPATHIZE with, and indeed, ANTICIPATE EAGERLY Humbert's quest. If "the heart wants what it wants," and if Humbert wants this one thing passionately enough, "purely" enough (in terms of the singularity of his desire), then surely, he ought to have it.
This is the dirty bargain the reader makes in Part One. Nabokov's brilliant game works. I freely admit it. He turns the reader into, if not an actual co-molester, at least a willing co-pornographer. If you don't actually close the book in disgust, you are PARTICIPATING in Humbert's crime. What better way to show the reader the amorality of passion. Even the READER can become amoral in his or her "passion" for the "hero" to achieve his "holy grail"!!

HOWEVER--In part two, Humbert is made to see his true crimes. He realizes fully what he has done to Lolita. He and she were living lives of "pure evil," as he puts it near the end. He ended her life, he says. The reader, too, therefore, should have been able to pull back by this point and "repent" of the crime of vicarious participation in this monstrous evil. I'm sure there are many, many other levels of meaning in Nabokov's work, but this most basic idea of the dangers amoral pleasure (and especially vicarious experience of it by the reader!) is crucial.

Imagine my surprise, therefore, when in review after review, I am told that this book is essentially a "hilarious love story"! WHAT!?!?! LOVE STORY? What love? I ask you! What love! Humbert himself realizes what his so-called "love" has been--he stalked, he consumed, he destroyed a SOUL. ANY reviewer who dares to use the word LOVE to describe this relationship is STILL in the thrall of Humbert's point of view. But how can ANY morally discerning human being possibly take HIS side of things by the end of the novel? This is an outrage!

Frankly, I didn't find the novel funny, either--I thought it was alluringly pornagraphic at first, then sickeningly sad later. And I'm one who never turns down a good satire or parody, no matter how "black." But this story was one of heartbreak and despair. What is FUNNY about that?

But you know what? Call it FUNNY any day--but don't you DARE call the confessions of a self-confessed monster a love story!

Rating:
Summary: Lolita, light of my library.......
Review: One of the most beautifully-constructed novels of the Twentieth Century, it is also one of the most misunderstood. When published in the 1950s, bluenoses criticized "Lolita" for its allegedly frank sexuality. Today, people look at it askance because of our increased sensitivity to child abuse and molestation. In addition, it was written by a Dead White European Male (not to be confused with White Widowed Male). Unfortunately, conservative and liberal critics scrutinizing the surface of "Lolita," as well as those panting maniacs looking for titillating stuff, demonstrate and appalling ignorance of Vladimir Nabokov's "intentions" (almost as shaky a term in his world as "reality").

We may read "Lolita" through the perspective of nymphet-obsessed Professor Humbert, but Nabokov himself described Humbert as a "vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear 'touching.'" (See "Strong Opinions," Page 94, Vintage International Edition.) Furthermore, anyone familiar with Nabokov's other works knows of his penchant for unreliable narrators, such as Charles Kinbote in "Pale Fire." We can label Humbert as yet another member of that pesky legion. Of course, Humbert commits the crime of pedophilia, but the legal transgression is not the worst thing he does to Dolores Haze, the titular "Lolita." At least initially, there seems a mutual attraction between Humbert and Dolores. (But then, perhaps Dolores simply wanted to find someone to side with her against her mother. And look who's telling the story.) Unfortunately, Humbert carries the relationship too far, robbing Dolores of her freedom and humanity by turning her into a simple, two dimensional sex toy he has labelled "Lolita." Of course, Humbert also abuses Dolores physically, smacking her when she doesn't "behave" and forcing himself sexually on her. Looking at all this, I'm a little surprised that a feminist writer hasn't started work on "Dolores' Diaries......"

Pedophilia and solipsism aren't the only themes covered in "Lolita." Since Nabokov portarays the erotic scenes and sensual images with a modesty based on artistic sensibility (rather than prudery), your standard pedophile seeking simple stimulation would probably end up bored by Nabokov's writing. Unless, of course, there happen to exist pedophiles also titillated by mythical and literary allusions; puns and anagrams that transcend linguistic boundaries; catalogues of quotidian life; parodies of Freudian psychology, popular culture, etc.; arcane and esoteric trivia; the melting pot of "high" and "low" culture; the bizarre coincidences that supplant the standard symbolism of most literature at that time; and so on.

Of course, "Lolita" is very funny, despite its narrator's moral deficiencies. Humbert's comments on certain subjects (such as Freudian psychology, pseudo-intellectual pretentions, pointless scientific studies, etc.) and his sardonic asides are absolutely hysterical. And the final showdown between Humbert and perverted playwright Clare Quilty is a great study in dark humor, almost reminiscent of the cartoon confrontations between Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny.

Nabokov has given us one of the greatest literary works of the century. In "Lolita," he took American colloquial English and manipulated in far more creative ways than many writers actually born in the United States. And after finishing the book, don't miss Nabokov's own commentary on "Lolita," where one finds the best-argued and most unique (not to mention funniest) argument against pornography.

It was many years ago when Nabokov died. (I was a child.) I wish that Nabokov has lived at least as long as Van Veen in "Ada," commenting on the culture and writing more books on the same par as those from hs late American period. A man who was "hip" while maintaining a bemused detachment from trendiness, what would he have made of shopping malls? Political correctness? Cable television? Alternative music? The Internet? Jerry Springer? Millenialist jitters? Or some of this decades greatest scandals, near-Nabokovian events in themselves, like Joey Buttafuoco (of course), Lorena Bobbitt, O.J. Simpson, Bill and Monica? Wherever he is (Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, Anti-Terra), I would like to thank Nabokov for providing us with a compelling and unique model of how to read, write, and perceive life.

Rating:
Summary: Lolita
Review: A middle aged European guiltily enjoys sex with a 12-year old girl while driving around the United States. He loves Lolita, terribly, but he is doing an awful thing to her:

"We had been everywhere. We had really seen nothing. And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires, and her sobs in the night - every night, every night - the moment I feigned sleep."

Nabokov portrays his protagonist sympathetically: he is a sophisticated, sensitive, and frank man. He is also a sexual deviant and, later, a murderer. I suppose it might be said of such a man that he lives on his own terms.

This book is beautifully written, of course. Unfortunately, I suspect that many people have begun to read this book but then were stopped by their abhorrence of the subject matter. It's too bad, because writing of this quality is rare.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing writing, unsatisfying ending
Review: Lolita. Fifty years after it was written, the name alone carries a variety of connotations. Nabokov hooks you early with all the dark but titillating subject matter and all the clever wordplay. And his allusions to Joyce, Proust, Flaubert and just about everything under the sun, should keep lit profs and lit critics busy for centuries. But I am but a humble reader, and for me the story flags near the end, just as I most want to know what's going to happen.

Nevertheless, I can honestly say I've read very few books as beautifully or cleverly written in the English language. With the exception of Shakespeare, whose English is of another era, only Dickens has a greater command of the language and compares favorably. But it's not always clear what Nabokov is saying, let alone what he is alluding to. You really need a strong background in world literature to get the full appreciation. The references come often, and they often come in French. I haven't read any of Proust or Joyce for instance. It certainly would have helped. It was fortunate that I had recently read Madame Bovary, as he makes references to it as well. He also alludes to his own works.

But please don't be put off. You don't have to speak French, and you don't have to be a lit prof to enjoy the story. Still, read it especially for the language. I don't usually recommend books for their writing alone. This is a rare exception. Sure, the insights into a criminal mind and the look at America from a European's perspective are interesting, but the language, oh my god, the language. It's mindboggling! Considering that English was a second or third language for him, I can only imagine what Nabokov's writing must have been like in his native Russian. Twain, Hemingway, Faulkner, Poe, James, Steinbeck, Updike, Oates -- when it comes to beautiful writing, they don't hold a candle to Nabokov. He puts them all to shame. It's not always easy, but it's always original and arresting. See for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Great arranger of words, but the story is just so putrid
Review: The words of Nabokov are intensely lyrical, and to think that
English was his third language. But, there is no depth to his
work. What's at the bottom of the ankle high depth is just so
much muck that it makes one's skin crawl.

What a waste of prodigious talent.



Rating:
Summary: Beautifully ugly
Review: Lolita will always be controversial. It is the narration of a bright, occasionally witty and intellectual man who becomes obsessed with a 12 year old "nymphette" and involved with her some time later, leading to extraordinary pleasure, suffering, abuse, manipulation, betrayal and tragedy. Of course, the idea of Lolita being some kind of "dangerous" book because it "promotes" pedophilia is just as ludicrous as saying that Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment promotes murder. However, it is seeing why this book packs such a punch that reveals what I think are its strengths.

Nabokov insists that his work is not a piece of didactic fiction and I agree. Many people who have read the book comment on the interplay with the reader hating Humbert the narrator for what he is doing but still finding him witty and charming. Myself, I did not find him charming at all, but rather it was a tale so ugly that it became beautiful. The poetic manner of Humbert describing his most horrifying passions makes it seem like a modern-day story a little bit in the traditions of Greek or Shakespearean drama, with vibrant, exaggerated emotions and situations and a pathos that is interestingly portrayed amongst a "banal" landscape of being on the road in the US in the late 40s, with motels and the like.

Nabokov is known for a large amount of layers in his fiction and Lolita does not disappoint, being a semiotician's wet dream. Even Humbert himself says that his account would prove fascinating to his psychiatrists and the legal system (he's writing whilst institutionalised). Rather than go into how wonderfully symbolic the book is in its alleged portraying of Old Europe debauching America (or the other way around), I want to share how Lolita got me thinking about truth. Many novels have an "unreliable narrator" - it's a good way of creating good fiction judging by the many other works using this technique. Here though, we have a narrator who is more even unreliable than most, AND who is self-reflexive about it, perfectly understanding that his relationship with Lolita was immoral and harmful. This means the whole book is a tangle in which we can try and reconstruct what "happened" and what was Humbert's "subjectivity" (and the book wonderfully blurs the line). The most horrible moments I found were ones where the true monstrosity of Humbert is exposed briefly, for a few lines, before returning to a more poetic/subjective narration.

If ever I was to become a boring advocate of "you have to read these books to know what the 20th century meant in literature," I'd include Lolita amongst the top of the list. It's confronting, complex and very entertaining.

Rating:
Summary: There's Only One ... Lolita!
Review: Lolita has been called numerous things, and it has been banned in numerous places at numerous times. But the gist of the tale is not pedophilia or sordid affairs (and Nabokov is not explicit in this novel). I believe there are several ways to examine Lolita. One is dissecting 1940s and 1950s America's culture and environment (Humbert and Lolita are on the road traversing the US for much of the book, and Nabokov rips into teenage slang and "vulgarities" throughout). Lolita is also about unrequited or misguided "love," of course, and how Humbert delves into his deviant role as Lo's protector and lover is a bit maddening, but not pornographic. The power struggles between Humbert and Lolita found throughout the novel show Humbert's muddled identity, and Humbert becomes more of an overzealous "dad" to Lolita than anything else. Nabokov even gives Humbert an alter ego (playwright Clare Quilty) to further demonstrate this point. Finally, the role of fate (Humbert coins it "Aubrey McFate") is a recurring theme in the novel, possibly another attempt by Humbert to give credence to his obsession.

I strongly believe this is one of the best modern books written. Nabokov's ability surpasses many others in his ilk, and he has created an indelible and complex story with Lolita. Yes, the book can be a difficult read, but I suggest it for anyone interested in reading a modern classic. Nabokov's astounding use of the English language (and Nabokov was a Russian, mind you) is phenomenal.

An aside: I highly suggest purchasing Alfred Appel Jr.'s The Annotated Lolita if you decide to tackle this book. It contains many helpful end notes to decipher confusing parts of the novel. (There is a decent amount of French in the book.) Apart from Lolita, another engaging, shorter novel I recommend -- a sort of doomed love story -- is: The Losers' Club by Richard Perez.


Rating:
Summary: A New Perspective
Review:
Lolita is a truly riveting love story. But aside from the taboo romance, depth of the characters, and the color of the landscapes, I found this book intriguing for its perspective.

The description that Nobokov gives of each and every American scene is truly dazzling. Despite the fact that he was born in Russia and spent much of his time around Europe, Nobokov managed to create a classic American novel. Lolita has done as much, for me at least, to bolster the ever elusive American romanticism as Twain, Fitzgerald, or Kerouac.



Rating:
Summary: Absurdly tedious, triumphantly boring!
Review: It took me more than three weeks to finish a book I would normally have finished in three days. I found this book extensively pointless, lifeless, and vastly uninteresting. I didn't care much about the meaningless meanderings of some schizoid pervert and his kidnapped "Lolita". The book was quite stagnant in many parts, over-pretentious in others, and too predictable in many more. I find very little interest in reading about a pedophile's beastly quests and obsessions with so-called "pubescent pets", "girl-children", and unsuspecting "nymphets". The 12 year old Lolita (Dolores Haze) herself seems completely counterfeit and weightless to me...she's a horrendously created character at best, who is strangely unaffected at the news of her mother's death. Quilty was a hollow character intended to add a little action - - but sadly Nabokov did all this quite unsuccessfully.

Nabokov's colorful prose only directs even more attention to a dull, forced, and frumpy storyline. Once you've read part 1, reading part 2 is really an unnecessary, if not painful endeavor. There are too many lulling passages of vapid repetitiveness and inactivity throughout the book. Even more absurd is the fact that Vanity Fair had the nerve to call it "the only convincing love story of our century". This is not a love story...this is child abuse.

Every word and every turn of the page tempts you to just drop the book. I will venture to say that this is the most over-rated book in our lifetime. In my opinion, this is not a book to buy - get it from the library if you have to. The only happy moment I had with this book is when I finished it.