Lolita

Rating:
Summary: 'Love her madly'
Review: If there is anything greater than this book, I would like to know where to find it, for I believe that I've just read the best book of all time. Not only could I relate to the way Humbert Humbert saw things, I also found him a beast. Which relatively makes me love the character all the more. Aside from the symbolism, and the awkward, yet intelligent things Humbert says, one must look past all the perversion for just a moment, and try to understand the poor fellow. Since I can't spoil anything, I will say this: If one must blame the other, surely Humbert and Lolita are both at fault. But to me, this is a story far beyond guidelines, and sophistication. If you are pondering as to whether or not read this book, I once again tell you it is an absolute delight.

Rating:
Summary: The Dirty Comedy
Review: As Beethoven said, "Friends applaud, the comedy is over," I felt it actually was when I finished reading this uproarious, sublime piece of literature. It's a comedy, no farce of veracity about it, and I laughed more times than I awed my jaw at Nabokov's seamless weaving of the English language. Puns, double entendres, wordplay and allusions, as well as high poetry, punctuate this immensely enjoyable book as it, in the process, punctures your own inadequate handling of the English language even more so, as it did mine. Granted, English ain't my first language either, but me no english good while Nabocough english very good.

The plot is simple enough: a deceased older man lusts or loves (you decide) over a younger thing of innocence (you decide, again), desperately and pathetically attempting at recapturing a childhood infatuation. This is all you need to know before you dive into the mind of Humbert Humbert, a comic of a man who utterly conjures within me a portrait of Peter Parker (?) or, better likely, Peter Pan. He's a man; thrust against a tempest of a temptation, yielding to his libido and itching to throw away that cockcrow leaf that has so unabashedly covered his (insert euphemism here). He's a man, like any of us. He's a man, period.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a fine display of a writer at his zenith of flair and bent. If anything, read this novel because of its linguistic merits, not because of its, supposed, dissolute subject matter, which is anything but. People, this is what readers hope for every time they slice through thin strips of paper congested with words; this is why we read.

...Or was, "Pity, pity - too late!" Beethoven's last words. Well, either way, it's a pity the comedy is over, but I do applaud it.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic language, otherwise...
Review: I'm amazed that about 90% of the reviews here rate Lolita with 5 stars. But I do agree with the small minority that think the language is over florid and elaborate. It's like reading a series of sentences and paragraphs that have big words and fancy metaphors woven into them for the hell of having big words. I agree with one reviewer that said Nabokov probably only wrote all those big words to impress his readers with his vocabulary of his second language. The book dipped in the middle, when Lo and Humbert begin to travel throughout America. Many times I lost the plot and had to go back to reread what was going on, mainly because the French and the difficulty of the language completely put me off reading it intently and carefully. I suppose if you yourself have a wide range of vocab, a good knowledge of French (particularly French puns and humour) you would enjoy this book a lot more. However, I still give it 3 stars because Nabokov captures Humbert's feelings and his yearning and passion for Lo fantastically. I was a bit disappointed with the sequence of events at the end. I'll probably read it again someday, now that I've got the basic jist of it and can concentrate better on the language and other small details that make Lolita a supposedly huourous and satiricial work.

Rating:
Summary: Pretentious dribble.
Review: How the hell can anyone consider this a great novel? It addresses no deep themes, has no dramatic tension and no moving or even likable characters. ... Apart from the illicit sexual theme - which you can get more and better of in beeline novels if that is your sort of thing - who cares what happens to either of them?

After reading this I began to understand why Nabokov was so critical of Dostoyevsky - it was sheer jealousy. Because one page of Crime and Punishment contains more drama and pschological insight than anything that detached, arrogant and superficial snob ever wrote.

Rating:
Summary: Classically written, but perverse and sad
Review: This book is so well written you can almost hear the sinister whisper of Humbert's voice when he speaks of Dolores (Lolita). Though the author suggests that this is just a story, it seems hauntingly real. The way Humbert flip-flops between justification and shame is too well written not to have been experienced. And the end...the realization, cannot possibly be outdone.

Rating:
Summary: Memorable obsession
Review: Lolita is the story about a European scholar in America, driven by his obsession with young girls. Humbert Humbert marries Lolita's mother simply to be near the 12-year-old girl, and celebrates when his wife happens to die in an accident. With the mother out of the picture, Humbert no longer restrains himself, and instead indulges in a gratuituous relationship with young Lolita (I feel compelled to express my astonisment with the editorial review of this book, which talks about the relationship as an 'erotic' 'love affair'. Such an understanding is in my opinion only possible in Humbert's utterly twisted and deprived mind). The sympathy we might have felt for the yearning Humbert disappears as he allows his compulsion to create an absurd universe in which he is in complete control over her body and behavior.

There are some obvious references to Andre Gide in this novel, and "Lolita" seems similar in many ways to "The Immoralist". Humbert travels through North America like Michel through North Africa, and like Michel Humbert is an extremely erudite and cultured man who gradually leaves culture and convention behind to live by his basest instincts. The main difference is perhaps that Humbert, unlike the "protagonists" of "The Immoralist" or "Death in Venice", pursues his demonic schemes systematically, without doubt or shame. All three books seem to share the idea that men of culture, intellect, and artistic sensibility are particularly likely to succumb to fascinations otherwise bounded by taboo, that their creative spirits make possible perversions which transcend the boundaries of both nature and culture. It is, I think, a very interesting but profoundly disturbing idea.

Rating:
Summary: WOW
Review: This book hooked me at the first page when I picked it up in eighth grade. Since then (I'm now in med school), I've read it over twenty times, and it still continues to amaze me. I read a page of Lolita before I start writing my own stories. Nabokov is a genius. To fully enjoy this book, buy the annotated version, and have a French dictionary handy. I also got the audiobook read by Jeremy Irons, who captured beautifully the passions and perversions of Humbert.

Rating:
Summary: An Abuse of Power and a Cowardly Male Protagonist
Review: It's interesting to me to read the intellectualizing of the relationship between Lo and Humbert. Let's keep it real people. Any time a 40-year-old man seduces a 12-year-old girl, it is an abuse of power. Humbert, for all of his romantic allusions and delusions, acted irresponsibly and criminally. It saddens me that so many people really believe that Lo and Humbert's relationship was a real love story. Real love is conscious love-not the desperate, and failed re-enactment of some unfulfilled childhood love and loss. To dismiss the story as comedy minimizes the theme of power imbalance that permeates throughout this book. I'm sick and tired of how often young women are harrassed and sexually abused in this culture and throughout the world. This book is not funny. And the genius of the prose does not compensate for the weak, pathetic excuse of a man that Humbert is described to be. It's a scream that so many men identify with him and I find it interesting that so many readers are quick to turn away from what is really going on in the story-the sexual molestation of a 12-year-old child by an adult male father figure. This denial of reality happens all the time and I'm not surprised that it happens in literary circles as well.

Rating:
Summary: Touches that dark bit in every skeleton
Review: Humbert Humbert, like each of us, is a personality of thousands of angled mirrors. What captivates and mortifies is that within a creature that is so sick there are glimpses and reflections of ourselves. Nabokov has crafted something beyond a novel; almost a personal case study mixed with a wretched yet poignant tale of lust (love?). Humbert is the last type of person with whom one would want to identify. Our social and moral walls prevent even the most flexible and ethically pliant person from fully accepting or condoning Humbert's actions as understandable. But the manic and crazed in each of us reach out, almost to a point of understanding, and cry with him when little Lo has lost her "nymphet" charm yet he still longs for her. Beyond this, a well-educated, good-looking (self-proclaimed of course), European is not what we associate with social sicknes and decrepitude. Humbert, encapsulates, in a more extreme form, the little inadequacies in all of us. This is a beautiful book. After reading Nabokov, one's own prose starts to sound horribly profane. At this point I would rather dwell upon the swirling images and thoughts that pulsate through my mind as a result of this book, then to mire them by attempting to crudely pull apart and describe them in a strangled and dim-witted fashion.

Rating:
Summary: melodramatic, flowery prose
Review: Most laud this book for what they usually call "wordplay", "fun with a foreign language", "literary allusion", etc.

I can understand this, but nevertheless find Nabukov's style a bit too flowery--a bit too literary, whatever that means. I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being lectured to or that I was being asked to coo in awe over his masterful prose. I just couldn't go along with it. The wordplay, the toying with English, just goes over the edge.

It's like being in some sort of time warp, letting an 19th century romantic writer (and there are allusions galore to 19th century prose) loose with 20th century nihilistic taboo-breaking. Nabokov's style is too pretentious--possibly carried over from his academic vocations.

I mean no offense to those who have enjoyed Lolita--Nabokov successfully manages to salvage the embellishments of Victorian English for modern literature. If this sounds appealing (as it does to many), you will love this book. If you are like me, however, and feel that embellishments are best left to poetry and the 18th century, I would give it a try or pass it by.