Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Dull and Prolix
Review: Love affair with the English language my a~~, this is a dull, prolix novel. I will admit that Nabakov possessed a remarkable English vocabulary and exquisite command of English syntax. But, did he have to exercise this knowledge in every form?

Academics and social critics my debate the value of Lolita, point out its originality, laud the courage to produce it, love it or hate it for its content. And for those with the time and inclination, I'm sure it's a fantastic character study of a man caught between his moral conviction and his carnal desire, or whatever significance they may glean. But, the prose is just dry and often unclear. There are too many words and the paragraphs are far too long. The novel lacks a powerful climax (no pun intended). These stylistic issues drag the story down.

This same story shaped by any number of Nabokov's contemporaries could have been recounted more vividly, without loosing any of its inherent qualities, in far fewer pages.

In defense, a colleague of mine pointed out that Nabokov was a Russian immigrant and that his style of writing reflects conventions and structures found in many Russian novels. However, Lolita is not a work written in Russian for Russians. It is a novel written in English for American popular consumption. Shouldn't the style reflect this?

No matter how dramatic or significant the subject, a book must first be clear. As an amateur critic, maybe I'm missing some nuance of literary theory that justifies Nabokov's style. But, from what I have read about literature, clarity and simplicity are the hallmarks of the great works of twentieth century American writing. It seems to me that much of the insight, passion, conflict, paradox, and social commentary Nabokov attempts to illustrate in Lolita is lost in the words.

Rating:
Summary: volodya..
Review: I first read Lujin's Defense from Nobokov. I thought that it was a great book since the expression was highly individual. Stefan zweig has the similiar subject, Which is the destruction of a brilliant human mind-chess player, yet I think Nobokov's was more illusive. There is depth and complexity. It is also intriguing of him to tell things in an illusive manner, things are not apparent, they are cached, there is a blurred texture through out the novel which I think is quite a challange for the reader. But If you like discovering through reading, you must begin with some other pieces not lolita.

I think lolita is very erotic in an illusive manner, again. Most of the scenes, even the phantasmic thoughts of having a 12 then 13, 14, 15 year old girl in bed, have normally the tendency to be perverse but I think that's where Vladimir's mentorship begins. The narrative is natural, it is not abusive, it is poetic and I found the antogonist natural from time to time, his tendencies were natural not cruel. Yet, for Lolita who was not conscious of her own libido, I think all is cruel.

There is a sentence at the end, when he refinds his lolita after a while, aged(17) and pregnant " My lolita was already thrown out at the age of 17..."

I'm very fond of Nobokov's intellectual depth. His contrasts in the book sometimes reminds me of Dostoyevski, PRoust, George Orwell, and the sentence I wrote above, its affect at the end, I think it is similiar to George Orwell's 1984, where at the end the man, antagonist, is ashamed of his humanity after long hours of torchure, his skin is gone, his flesh melted, he could hardly stand up, look at his face and know himself... It is a tragical ending.

Anyone who wants to read that book, I urge you to read it, but begin with another of his...

Rating:
Summary: Worth the read
Review: This is a book you almost don't want to admit to your friends you've read, but you're truly missing something if you haven't.

It's not a love story, and it's not a satire. It's not a comedy, and it's not a commentary on America versus old Europe.

While Nabokov may have had some of those things in there, which I won't argue, at it's heart, that's not what this book is.

Those who cry "It isn't a love story, it's rape" are right. What they are wrong about is saying that because of this, the story is unworthy of reading.

I think it is highly worthy of reading for anyone man, woman or teen (teens, with the caveat that the book should be discussed with a responsible adult).

Why?

This book is, above all else, a character study. A study of a man who did not see himself as evil to begin with. Humbert Humbert was "Everyman"... He just had a slight... problem. For a long time, it was no more than that, until the opportunity presented itself - with Dolores Haze - Lolita.

Was he evil? He did evil things, this cannot be denied. He believed himself, however, to be a good man. That does not excuse what he did.

This descent of an otherwise moral man, who wished to leave the object of his desires unharmed and untouched, into the man who stole Dolores' childhood from her has lessons for all of us to learn.

Those who claim that the only ones who would find worth in this book are those who get their jollies off, I believe are actually afraid of what they may discover about themselves.

From my viewpoint, I found facing that fear and recognizing that it is a place I would never desire to go very affirming. How are we to know who we are if we do not challenge ourselves? If I had gotten my "jollies" off on the first part of this book, then the rest of it would prompt me to get myself to a shrink.

This book is brutally honest about both sides of the equation - something sorely missing in overly-conservative reactionary writing which demonizes without examination. We see Humbert Humbert's descent, which itself drags Dolores down too. We see Dolores' manipulations, but we understand her position somewhat - where else is there for her to go? Plenty of places, but often a child in that situation will feel not only that there is no place to go, but that they will be punished for their part in what has happened. For the teen readers, obviously, this point would need discussion.

For those who were delighted with the thought of "Lolita", this book might show them the truth of where they were headed (or have been, god forbid) and bring to them a realization of just how devastating this can be to a young child.

For those who are mentally stable, the book is still valuable as a character study, and as a challenge and affirmation of our most deeply held convictions.

FWIW, I am a male survivor of childhood abuse. Reading the book was hard for me, but in the end, I did find it very worthwhile, and I hope my rambling review is useful to you.

Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant "Sinister Memoir"!
Review: "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta." With those famous opening lines, Nabokov begins a sordid tale told by Humbert Humbert, one of the most fascinating characters in all of American literature. Even many people who have never read this novel know the basic story here since the word "Lolita" has become a part of American culture in that that someone with a "Lolita complex" is attracted to very young girls.

Published in 1955, this novel caused a storm of controversy; it is still provocative today even though there is not a four letter word in it. That is not to say that the book is not extremely erotic in many places. What Nabokov does with words is brilliant. As always he plays constant word games with the reader. Someone goes on a "honeymonsoon" to India. In seaching for Dolores aka Lolita and her run-away suitor, Humbert finds the name "Will Brown, Dolores, Colo." in a hotel register. Humbert and Dolores have breakfast in the "township of Soda, pop. 1001." There are allusions to Poe ("in a kingdom by the sea") and other writers throughout the book. You skim paragraphs at your peril.

The book is wondrously satiric. Nabokov captures the vapidness of the motels in small and middle America in the 40's and 50's with great brilliance. Humbert, with all his perversions, is often a terribly funny character as well. The scene where he wrestles with Quilty comes to mind. "We rolled all over the floor, in each other's arms, like two huge helpless children. He was naked and goatish under his robe, and I felt suffocated as he rolled over me. I rolled over him. We rolled over me. They rolled over him. We rolled over us."

We cannot forget, however, that Humbert is ultimately guilty of an ugly sin. In his own words he has deprived a "girl-child" of her childhood. In their cross-country journey, she cries every night. The picture is not pretty.

In an essay written in 1956 Nabokov writes about writing LOLITA. HE says that he is "neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and. . .. LOLITA has no moral in tow." He further denies the charge made by some readers that the novel is anti-American. Finally he says there are three subjects "utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned." Obviously the theme of this novel is one. The other two, in Nabokov's words, are: "a Negro-White marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at the age of 106." A most interesting observation. I wonder just how much has changed in 47 years.

Rating:
Summary: Beyond words
Review: What to do with a man like Humbert...all at the same time I want to bash his head in for treating Lo like his personal sex toy and stealing her childhood, and I want to give him a big hug and cry with him, letting him know that I feel some of the torturous pain he feels. What a curse, to be so vulnerable to the innocent wiles of the nymphet. To know that the relationship you crave, that you NEED, if it comes along is entirely temporary and always disasterous. Incredible story...unbelievably powerful movie (Lyne)...Nabokov and Lyne have broken my heart, and yet I'm grateful.

Rating:
Summary: "lo(w)-lee-ta"
Review: i don't get it. let's call this book what it is--a story about a murdering pedophile.
so it must be an indepth psychological study of how this perversion occurs?--no. so it must be a love story between a man and a young girl?--no. so it must be a comedy?--only if you think the manipulation, abuse and destruction of a young girl funny.
the apparent justification of humbert's pedophilia is the death of his girlfriend as a teenager. that's like excusing jeffrey dahlmer's cannibalism as a result of his chewing his nails as a kid. is it a love story when the narrator brags of "terrorizing lo"? is it funny when he knows what he is doing is terribly wrong, but keeps on doing it because his lust is never satisfied?
so what is the attraction of this book? yes the writing is poetic, but we can find better elsewhere--try virginia woolf.
maybe it just allows the reader to justify his/her own perversions by relating them to humbert's. oops that's way too deep for this book!
if you were the parent of a young girl, how would you like humbert moving in next to you?
next time you see a news story about the death of a child by a pedophile or the destruction of a child's life and her/his family's lives because of an assault, then think of lolita and tell me whether you think it is a work of art or a masterpiece!

Rating:
Summary: STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS
Review: 'LOLITA- LIGHT OF MY LIFE- FIRE OF MY LOINS- MY SIN, MY SOUL.
LOOO-LEEE- TAAA.
The tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps.
LOOO-LEEE-TAAA' -Hubert Hubert-

Humbert Humbert is an intellectual, a teacher, fluidly articulate, a lover of books, a poet, and good looking.
The reader will like him because in some strange way, he
will make them...justifying why he does the things he does.
And the reader will hate him for the same things.

Hubert Hubert is a child molester, a monster, a pervert, a stalker, evil, and sick. And he is appalled, even by himself.

'IF ONLY SHE SAW THE MONSTERS BEHIND THE EYES'
'I AM THE DEVIL'S PLAY THING'

Hubert Hubert is obsessed with young girls (Nymphets) as he so elequently calls them. He is sexually attracted to Lolita most of all, and married her mother to get close to her. (Naughty boy)
His thoughts are written so beautifully about the way he feels for Lolita, that the reader forgets, at times, about his perversion. How he describes her knees, her legs, her skin, the way her hair drapes over her apple fresh cheeks. How lovely. How wicked.

Hubert Hubert also lets the reader know how he feels about older women, his 30ish wife, for instance.

'Being with her was like thrashing inside a decaying forest'

Shame on you, Hubert.

Vladmir Nabokov has Hubert speaking in third person through some of the book...because Hubert cannot believe who he has become or maybe has always been or will never be.

He knows his thoughts and desires are wrong, but he does not stop them, cannot, will not, for he is the "Devil's Plaything. A Monster."

Hubert trys to be the doting step-father, giving Lolita what she wants, getting involved in school, protecting her from the big bad world.
But he forgets one thing....
He doesn't protect her from Hubert Hubert.

He kills a horrible creature in the book a bit like himself...and in killing this devil...kills himself too...not physically but metaphorically.

There is no way that Nabokov could have written this book without thinking the same thoughts as Hubert Hubert...it does make the reader wonder.

Note- one of the best books I have ever read. So beautiful- So musical- So lyrical--- And yet ghastly and horrid at the same time.

Rating:
Summary: sophistication for its own sake?
Review: "Lolita"
by Vladimir Nabokov 1955

(July 2003)

Nabokov left a brilliant literary career in Russian behind when he emigrated to the United States in 1940, at the age of forty-one, and then began a new, brilliant literary career, in another language. Has anyone else ever done such a thing?

I first read "Lolita" when I was in Mali, in 1986. I didn't get much out of it, but I did notice the way Humbert's monstrosity gradually became more apparent, despite the narrator's attempt to portray himself as a refined gentleman.

This time around, I notice constantly Nabokov's gushing current of masterful play with the English language. "My west-door neighbor, who might have been a businessman or a college teacher, or both, would speak to me once in a while as he barbered some late garden blooms or watered his car, or, at a later date, defrosted his driveway (I don't mind if these verbs are all wrong), but my brief grunts, just sufficiently articulate to sound like conventional assents or interrogative pause-fillers, precluded any evolution toward chumminess." The "wrong verbs" in this sentence are by no means accidental. Little love notes to the English language are littered across the pages.

Nabokov has imposed upon himself the challenge of helping us to understand (without expecting, or wishing, us to sympathise with) a creature we abhor, a creature we know we must abhor -- we are afraid to feel anything but abhorrence for a pederast. Near the end of the story, we see Humbert beginning to feel guilt and contrition. "I loved you. I was a pentapod monster, but I loved you. I was despicable and brutal, and turpid, and everything .... And there were times when I knew how you felt, and it was hell to know it, my little one." Nabokov challenges the reader to see all this in one person.

Someone asked me, "is it pornography?" When it was first published in the 1950's, is was widely viewed as such. France banned the book altogether. But given the fundamental premise of the story, it's quite astonishing how little sexual narrative is in the book. I have a feeling that Nabokov took pleasure in constructing this irony, that the public would be so offended by the very idea of the book, while its contents would be so unsatisfying to anyone who turned to the book for sexual stimulation. There's a blending of tawdry vileness and snooty sophistication in it that you could think of as the sign of a virtuoso writer showing off his skill. The book is an aesthetic feat. But this is not the sort of novel that I would love for what I learn from it. It's actually, I think, just entertainment, after all -- not entertainment for the masses, by any means, but entertainment for highly educated, intelligent, sophisticated lovers of literature. An odd, type-defying work that is not my favorite type of novel.pe of novel. I no longer love sophistication for its own sake.

Rating:
Summary: WOW
Review: Get your rump to the store and buy this book!

Rating:
Summary: I read it every other six months.
Review: When I was recommended this book, I was intimidated by the " erotic, incestual theme" ( I have a great dislike and annoyance of raunchiness. Everyone thinks something is wrong because I never laughed watching American Pie and during Junior High sex- ed) and almost didn't bother picking it up. For the past few months, I read nothing but Kurt Vonnegut and was begining to think this would be a bore. However despite the bad reviews, I loved the book. Many people complain over it's " vulgar, disturbing" content but Nabokov never did really say on account what he did with Lolita. He was very metaphoric with his descriptions of the characters created; in my opinion, I think he intended on not telling what Humbert did because he knew that the reader will imagine will most likely be worst than what actually really did occur.

I must warn readers who are planning on reading Lolita: have patience ( It takes time before he mentions the plot and the first 80 something pages are talking about his past life in Europe. ), keep a dictionary handy if you are vocabulary challenged, and don't be so held up with the theme.

In shorter terms, I love the book. I, at first, would have gaven it three stars but I just kept coming back to it more intrigued every time I read it. By the way, I don't think anyone really mentioned this but it's a funny book when you think about. There were many times, I was laughing out loud in my study hall class because of Humbert's annoyance but devout love for Lolita.

Heather ( Grade 9)