Rating: 
Summary: It's NOT a dirty book!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: I only recently read "Lolita", after having managed to avoid it for a good twenty-six years. Thank God I picked it up at last! I don't believe in "the Great American Novel" and I've never been able to choose one book as "the best I've ever read"-- before now. Whether or not it qualifies as an American novel (I don't see why not, but as Nabokov was born outside the U.S. others might disagree) 'Lolita' IS the best book I've ever read, hands down, bar none, period. // And yet, every time I recommend it to someone new, they comment, "oh, but that's a sick book. I don't want to read about an old man and a little girl. It's nasty.," or something along those lines. WRONG!!!!!! 'Lolita' is a beautiful, lyrical, funny, compelling, exciting adventure with a narrator who's insanely sane and a heroine one can pity but seldom respect. The plot is unpredictable even if you know the subject matter, and at times the tension generated by dear Humbert Humbert and his little Lo kept me up all night long, reading. // I love this book, respect it, and look forward to reading it many many times. Certainly I'll always find something new-- Nabokov is Joycean in the multitude and depth of his references, with a charming American tilt and sense of fun. :: READ THIS BOOK. I dare you to dislike it.
Rating:
Summary: Better the second time
Review: I read "Lolita" years ago and duly considered it funny, sad, thoughtful, literate and heart-rending -- a true classic. Then my wife gave me this annotated version as a gift. I re-read it and found, to my surprise, that the book was even better the second time around. The annotations are insightful and not intrusive. And the book itself is simply astounding. This book made me laugh out loud, it filled my eyes with tears, it gave me goosebumps, it made me think, it made me wonder. DO NOT let other people try to keep you from reading this book because of their opinion of the morality of the plot. The plot? I remember taking my two young daughters to see Disney's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" and watching cartoon characters get laughs by roasting hot dogs over the flames of a burning city and another scene in the same G-rated movie where a clergyman wrestles with his sexual desire for a teenage girl in song and dance. Likewise, the plot of "Lolita" is not morally uplifting. But, I tell you, the words themselves absolutely soar. This is the work of a genius. END
Rating:
Summary: Lolita.. for the serious reader
Review: I, like I am aware many of you are, am a very picky reader. I need to be pulled in by a book and taken away by it. That is exactly what I found in Lolita, and haven't found since. Nabokov has set my standards extremely high with his prose writing style which in my mind can be compared to no one but Edgar Allen Poe himself.
As for the storyline, I was swept away by the gentleness of Humbert and his emotions. I truely connected with him. I felt his sorrow, his pain and his happiness. I connected with Lolita, with her innocence and lack there of, and how she felt. I connected with Clare Quilty in a way I never thought I would have. I felt hatred towards the characters, sympathy towards them. Everything you should feel in novels.
As for the descriptions. Well, Nabokov does go a wee bit overboard with them. However, as in the rule set by Poe - "Every single line in the story must lead up to a single effect," and Nabokov does a hell of good job doing it. All of those descriptions forshadow something.
"Lolita" is full of culture, also. It describes settings perfectly with the era. From Lo's clothes to her music, from the magazines she reads to the way the family life is, you can perfectly imagine just what time period it is historically as well as personally.
The book is extremely difficult, some pages and paragraphs have to be read two or three times in order to fully absorb their content. Sometimes I even found it difficult not to skim through things, but i'm glad I did not.
If you are going to read "Lolita," read it because you want to, not because it's considered a classic. If you read it, take it in, take your time.. absorb Nabokov's words. You will not be regretful.
I recommend this book to serious readers who wish to read it to be swept away. I do not recommend this to people who just want to say they've read it, because they won't enjoy it. Take your time, and absorb the content, and I guarentee you'll love it!Liz- 17
Rating:
Summary: The Second Time Through
Review: This is my suggestion about reading 'Lolita' - the first time, delve into it without the benefit of annotations. Read an edition other than Appel's, or - if you're a stronger person than I am - simply ignore the numbers in the margin. Digest it for what it is, explore the story, create opinions and thoughts in your own mind. Even the most learned scholar will feel ignorant at times - Nabokov is, unquestionably, a genius of language and allusions - but I cannot stress enough how vital it is to read this book as an outsider. Allow a few months to go by. And then delve heartily into this annotated edition. The insights provided by Appel are gems, and makes an entirely new experience of the story. He's a passionate scholar and that is reflected in his careful detail, his concern with Nabokov's input, and his personal voice coming though the notes. Some of the notes hit you over the head, a few things seem glossed over, and his obsession with Nabokov's other works get slightly tedious to someone who isn't as dedicated to the author as Appel is. However, on the whole, the notes are absolutely precious and give a depth to the book that is continually lurking behind the surface during a first-time "ignorant" reading. I would have been horribly disappointed at the plot disclosures, as well as terribly confused at times, if I had read this version when I first read the book. But to the reader "in-the-know," Nabokov's genius shines through, as does his humor and sly cleverness that don't neccessarily pop out at first. The notes range from the purely practical (translations of the interspersed French phrases) to the explanatory (literary history is invoked at the most unlikelist of places) to the anecdotal (Nabokov's own musings, his expertise in entemology, etc). But take my advice - read it first without the notes, and then go back. You'll thank me!
Rating:
Summary: Extraordinary prose
Review: It is difficult to add anything new not already said by previous reviewers of this book. I think, however, that a distinction should be made between the absolutely extraordinary narrative and the actual topic of the book. Most negative reviews refer to the apparent "lack of morals" of the story, due to the fact that it revolves around a case of paedophilia. The main character recognises the "perverted" nature of his emotions and desires, so it is difficult to support any idea that the book fosters any concept of sexual liaison with a minor, despite the fact that he ends up acting upon his obsession. In any case, the extraordinary power of the book goes beyond the issue of Humbert's sexual inclination for Lolita. The narrative puts the reader right under Humberts skin. The vivid description of his obsessive/compulsive behavior is nothing like I've read before - its realism is frightning. I own both the "regular" version and the anotated version of Lolita. I've found that the anotated version is not ultra necessary; though useful at times, I've noticed that it gives away some spoilers.... I personally think that it is not worth the price difference unless the reader becomes a real fan of the book; some commets are interesting as an insider's story to the author and his writing. By far, the best fiction book I've ever come across.
Rating:
Summary: in response to "inferior story"
Review: It sounds to me like you only read the book because it's 'deemed a classic.' In your sluggish effort to simply finish the book so you could say you read it, you missed some large issues that Nabokov presented. Being a former English major, you should've picked up on the larger themes, not that it's just a story about a girl being raped. What about the theme of 'old Europe' vs. 'young America,' American modernization, generation clashes, pop culture, love and romance, betrayal. You missed all that and more. No, you don't have to like the book, but you didn't pick up what the book really was about and maybe that's why you didn't like it.
Rating: 
Summary: A great technical novel, with an inferior story
Review: (Please keep in mind that I gave this book two stars compared to other books considered classics - I'm not saying it's as good as Al Franken's book, which I gave three stars. When rating books, I keep in mind the genre.) Nabokov is a superior writer for all of the reasons that Appel mentions in his detailed notes: his allusions to other works, the book being a parody of itself, effective use of foreshadowing, putting the author's fingerprint on the narrative, the double, and all of the other literary techniques. In the end though, the story is lousy. A 13-year-old girl is getting raped and I couldn't care and it's not because I sympathized with her tormentor either. Does that make me a bad person? Perhaps. Does it make Nabokov a lousy storyteller? In this instance, yes. I just couldn't care about the characters. The book took me two years to read - I kept putting it down to read another novel. I wasn't expecting - and didn't want - an erotic thriller. That's what late-night Showtime is for. If the point of the novel was to make a story about pedophilia mundane, than Nabokov succeed. It still doesn't mean it's a good book. (Some of the other reviews here sound as if they gave the book a good rating just because it's been deemed a classic.) As a former English major, I've read many classic novels. Read this one if you are interested in the technical aspects of writing. Examining Nabokov's approach will make you a better writer. Don't read it because you are looking for a classic that tells a good story though - check out Joyce, Steinbeck, or Fitzgerald for that need. Go ahead - say this review wasn't helpful too. God forbid someone actually has a negative opinion of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, Disturbing, Masterful, VERY Helpful Annotations
Review: I had heard of 'Lolita' as being a classic for so long, and finally I got to reading it. I now know why it's considered so highly. It amazes me to no end that both Nabokov and Conrad were 'English as a second-third-fouth-etc language' speakers and writers, yet they display sheer mastery of our language. It's hard to believe that Lolita came out in the 50's. I think it might still be ahead of its time, or timeless in sense. It was disturbing, albiet riveting. Thank goodness for Mr. Appel's annotations, as the work is loaded with French quotes and various literary allusions. It made the read far more enjoyable for this sad monoglot!
Rating:
Summary: They don't get better than this.
Review: I've owned this book for about 10 years (but bought from a mall bookstore). I have a dozen or so "post-its" marking certain parts I like to read over again. It is beginning to fall apart, and some pages are loose. A few years back, "Lolita" was ranked #4 of all books from the 20th century (James Joyce had #1 - "Ulysses" and 2 others in the top 10 - however, the pollsters said the top 10 were in no particular order...) Nabokov's "Lolita" has so much cultural detail (gleaned from the 1940's and '50's and earlier) including references to painting, music, books, poetry, geography, etc., that the "annotated version" (containing about 140 pages of indexed notes), providing so much useful explanation of some more obscure references, makes Nabokov's writing even more remarkable. The 60 or so preface pages are kind of "scholarly" writings about general and specific aspects of Nabokov's writing (including other books), and are a bit tedious in all honesty, but some people may want that type of review. It should be read after reading the book itself, I think. I am not going to say anything about the plot of the book. No review can possible do justice to the book due to the complexity and overtones/undertones of the writing style and subject matter. If you've never read it, you've missed out - and here's your chance at a great version of the book. A brief mention of both movies - the earlier Kubrick version barely followed the book, although I liked it on its own. The later Lyne movie was very good, and only faltered with the ending, and the casting of Melanie Griffith. The movie omits some really poignant and relevant details of the last page and a half of the book that really tied up some loose ends and completed the circle. Too bad.
Rating:
Summary: Best for a second reading
Review: When I was a young man and first encountered Lolita I was pleasantly taken with the audacity of the good Professor Vladimir Nabokov's intent. Like most undergraduates it was clear to me that "shocking the bourgeoisie" was always good sport. Now that some decades have passed and I have had the opportunity to re-read the novel and then to read it a third time with the insights provided by Professor Alfred Appel's annotations, I can only say, it is a singular pleasure and a troubling experience. Lolita is everything a great novel should be, challenging us intellectually, disturbing us emotionally, leading us to fascination and revulsion, making us question our values and our preconceptions while compelling us to turn the pages. A close and sober reading leaves one feeling a kind of tristesse, as the French say, that cannot be easily dismissed. On the one hand, the conception and development of the novel is brilliant. The language is Joycean, the ironies delicious, the plot twists delightful, the theme compelling, the characters indelible, the milieu veracious On the other hand, the "unreliable narrator"--I never liked that term: he's reliable; he just isn't admirable--who is the novel's central character, Humbert Humbert, the Old World dirty middle-aged man taking sexual advantage of a child whom he has trapped, is without doubt a vile creature. And yet--and this is part of the genius of the novel--one cannot help but identify with his tainted love, his hopeless, doomed passion. And indeed one even identifies with the task he has perversely inherited, that of looking after a teenaged girl and keeping her out of harm's way, a formidable task with which almost any parent can identify. (Part of the dramatic irony throughout the novel stems from Humbert's dual role as lover and parent. Something to think about.) What one cannot abide, of course, is Humbert's obsessive jealousy and his overbearing attempts at psychological dominance. Why is it that "normal" men do not fall in love with young girls (to say nothing of pre-adolescent "nymphets")? Why is it that one loves them without falling in love with them? Is it not "wise" in an evolutionary sense to be there first, so to speak? No doubt the evolutionary mechanism demands that drive in some of us, but at what cost, and in the modern society, to what end? Normal men do not chase after pre-adolescent girls partly because it is against the law, and partly because society condemns those that do, and partly because older girls are more interesting, but most often simply because such a relationship would never work. The intense, masochistic, obsessive love that Hum feels for little Lo is all there is of permanence in such a relationship. When that is gone, there is nothing left. "Dollie" must go her own way, make her own life, and Humbert must go back to his books and his lurking by school yards. Lolita at twelve is not capable of loving Humbert. By the time she is sixteen she is bored with him. And by the time she is an adult he is an embarrassment, a skeleton in the closet of her former life. So we know as we begin Nabokov's mid-century masterpiece that Humbert's love is doomed. We also fear that something terrible is going to happen to Lolita because she is being robbed of her adolescence and forced into a kind of physical and emotional servitude. Note well the entrance of Claire Quilty, the libertine, who is part foil to Humbert and part the embodiment of the moral abyss that one may fall into. Indeed Quilty is the horror that Humbert Humbert himself might very well become, which is why his hatred for Quilty is so intense, accentuating as Quilty does the extent of Humbert's perversion. Note that Quilty fulfills (offstage and after the fact, as it were) our worst fears for Lolita. Humbert addresses Quilty as one addresses the hated parts of one's very soul. But enough. The word limit here prevents a full critical treatment of Lolita. For those interested there is Harold Bloom's collection of critical essays, Interpretations of Lolita (1987), to read. You might also want to look at my reviews of the non-annotated edition of the novel and at my reviews of the two very interesting films based on Nabokov's work, Stanley Kubrick's Lolita (1962) and Adrian Lyne's Lolita (1997). My intention here is to recommend this edition because of the light shed on the text by Professor Appel's gloss, especially his translations of the many French phrases that Humbert (who is a professor of European literature, as was Nabokov, one notes in passing) sprinkles throughout the story. I would also like to correct an error in a review below in which it is asserted that Professor Appel is actually Professor Nabokov in camouflage (perhaps like a butterfly). While annotating his own novel in pseudonym is something that Nabokov might very well do and do with delight, I must point out that Appel does indeed exist (at least he has a Website) and of course Professor Nabokov is dead, and so the reviewer is mistaken.
|
