that bombshell of a book, Nabokov's Lolita

[dysfunctional-h]

So after giving Lolita some time to stew, I must say while (LOL) I said it was dull at one particular moment (the middle of part 2), that's not to say I found it even remotely passionless at any other! It was hilariously punny in the Joycean way, and remarkably well written. However, I cannot say I felt like Nabokov was making a real statement about anything in particular, other than the power of writing itself, the way that Faulkner made a statement about the nature of man's obsessions in his body of work. Because, in the end, Humbert's paranoia TURNS OUT TO BE WELL FOUNDED. That is all I am going to say (I don't want to spoil it).

When it is all over for our hero, while one may feel deeply disturbed by the stark disparity between the immense monstrosity of the actions he takes and the infinite delicacy of the prose he pens, there is no reconciliation. Lolita asks more questions than it answers, as Nabokov wishes for us to find the answers within ourselves (he himself apparently disposed symbolism as a technique in literature). So, overall, a fine book, if difficult and at times boring.

Fair enough? Anybody else beg to differ? I'd love to hear if you do. ^_^

[Prince Smiles]

It's a great 'road book'. Lolita will take you on a ride though Americana as surely as Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers perfoming "Roadrunner" or Kowalski in his 1970 Dodge Challenger.


Am I happy or in misery?
Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me

[KCurtis]

It's a great 'road book'. Lolita will take you on a ride though Americana as surely as Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers perfoming "Roadrunner" or Kowalski in his 1970 Dodge Challenger.


Am I happy or in misery?
Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me

I love Roadrunner, forgot about that song! I was too disturbed by Lolita to think of it the way you suggest, although I think it is a superbly written book and maybe some day I should read it again. I teach Middle School girls, and that's why I can't bring myself to re-read it.

[Easter]

I actually just read Lolita for the first time... and whatever anyone may think of its (occasional) dull parts, or it's "message"... it has to have one of the best concluding lines in all of fiction.

[stlukesguild]

Personally, I found Lolita to have been a magnificent novel... one of the most perfect written... and all the more amazing when you consider that English was not the author's first language... or even his second... having already written novels in Russian and German. I surely don't get the complaints of boredom... but then again, that has more to do with the reader than the book. As for making a statement and/or provoking questions and offering answers... I doubt that Nabokov cared the least for such. His goal was not that of a social reformer but rather that of an "artist" and he created the most exquisitely, artful novel that almost never descends in vulgarity... in spite of the potential for such by the nature of the subject matter. Nabokov described the novel as a "love story". It is a "love story" for the English language and a love story for American culture... and a delicious and at time hilarious romp. The characters are audacious... even outrageous... beginning with the unreliable narrator, Humbert, whose insightful comments on American culture help to endear him to the reader... in spite of the fact that is actuality he is the most despicable of human beings. I can't think of a more seductive villain since Milton's Satan. Then there is Clare Quilty, Humbert's doppelgänger and "brother" in illicit lust and equal in the turn of a phrase. Outside of Moby Dick, As I lay Dying (and perhaps Myra Breckenridge... and surely Vidal's novel is a clear heir of Lolita) I cannot think of any American novel I enjoyed more.

[My2cents]

Personally, I found Lolita to have been a magnificent novel... one of the most perfect written... and all the more amazing when you consider that English was not the author's first language... or even his second... having already written novels in Russian and German. I surely don't get the complaints of boredom... but then again, that has more to do with the reader than the book. As for making a statement and/or provoking questions and offering answers... I doubt that Nabokov cared the least for such. His goal was not that of a social reformer but rather that of an "artist" and he created the most exquisitely, artful novel that almost never descends in vulgarity... in spite of the potential for such by the nature of the subject matter. Nabokov described the novel as a "love story". It is a "love story" for the English language and a love story for American culture... and a delicious and at time hilarious romp. The characters are audacious... even outrageous... beginning with the unreliable narrator, Humbert, whose insightful comments on American culture help to endear him to the reader... in spite of the fact that is actuality he is the most despicable of human beings. I can't think of a more seductive villain since Milton's Satan. Then there is Clare Quilty, Humbert's doppelgänger and "brother" in illicit lust and equal in the turn of a phrase. Outside of Moby Dick, As I lay Dying (and perhaps Myra Breckenridge... and surely Vidal's novel is a clear heir of Lolita) I cannot think of any American novel I enjoyed more.

Excellent summation of the book and it's author. Only one discordant note: Nabokov was perfectly fluent in three languages, the third being French.

Nabokov will always be remembered for Lolita, but his oeuvre is staggering for it's variety and richness.

[KCurtis]

Personally, I found Lolita to have been a magnificent novel... one of the most perfect written... and all the more amazing when you consider that English was not the author's first language... or even his second... having already written novels in Russian and German. I surely don't get the complaints of boredom... but then again, that has more to do with the reader than the book. As for making a statement and/or provoking questions and offering answers... I doubt that Nabokov cared the least for such. His goal was not that of a social reformer but rather that of an "artist" and he created the most exquisitely, artful novel that almost never descends in vulgarity... in spite of the potential for such by the nature of the subject matter. Nabokov described the novel as a "love story". It is a "love story" for the English language and a love story for American culture... and a delicious and at time hilarious romp. The characters are audacious... even outrageous... beginning with the unreliable narrator, Humbert, whose insightful comments on American culture help to endear him to the reader... in spite of the fact that is actuality he is the most despicable of human beings. I can't think of a more seductive villain since Milton's Satan. Then there is Clare Quilty, Humbert's doppelgänger and "brother" in illicit lust and equal in the turn of a phrase. Outside of Moby Dick, As I lay Dying (and perhaps Myra Breckenridge... and surely Vidal's novel is a clear heir of Lolita) I cannot think of any American novel I enjoyed more.

Wonderful and insightful outlook on the book. I just started reading Bend Sinister, and it's going to be a good one. I love reading Nabokov's take on ruthless governments. He always invokes humor where one doesn't think there can be any. I love him. After Bend Sinister I may read Pnin, hope that's spelled right.

[dysfunctional-h]

I dunno. maybe the second read will be more enjoyable. lol if he didn't care about adding a moral he could at least try to keep the reader engaged, as opposed to making them think you're going to bore them to a slow and painful death right before pulling out all the stops with one of the greatest sections of the book. XD just my opinion. I actually tend to like novels with some sort of theme and moral. but i must say i love the duality of quilty and humbert. Humbert, for all his obsession and blindness to the harm he's causing, ends up seeming naive or even benign in comparison.

[PoeticPassions]

I actually just read Lolita for the first time... and whatever anyone may think of its (occasional) dull parts, or it's "message"... it has to have one of the best concluding lines in all of fiction.

I agree... the last line is so powerful. It gives me chills.
Few others have achieved this (e.g. Fitzgerald, Mary Shelley, Joyce).

[Easter]

I agree... the last line is so powerful. It gives me chills.
Few others have achieved this (e.g. Fitzgerald, Mary Shelley, Joyce).

Yes! That's the exact experience I had when I finished Lolita... I was actually getting a bit nervous as I knew the book was coming to a close and I had NO idea how Nabokov could possibly wrap it all up in such a small space... but boy did he! And it's true it's so hard to find that in a great deal of fiction. Typically last lines leave me a little disappointed. I find myself going "Huh... ok..." rather than being wholly transfixed.

I always enjoy when concluding lines can make me go "whoa..."

[Ingrid37]

It's a great 'road book'.

[cacian]

I actually just read Lolita for the first time... and whatever anyone may think of its (occasional) dull parts, or it's "message"... it has to have one of the best concluding lines in all of fiction.

Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's a great novel. I loved it. The prose alone is enough to warrant it's categorization of a great novel.

It's not perfect though. I think it has a but of a pacing issue. There were some parts that really dragged for me, and I couldn't help but think some parts just weren't needed. It's the only reason I gave it a 9 rather than a 10.

[Easter]

Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.

Of course it's perverse. It can be downright uncomfortable, even...

But just because something is uncomfortable to read about doesn't make it not worth reading, in my opinion.

And Humbert Humbert is not only a terribly unreliable narrator, he's an incredibly unlikable human being. It's not like the book is trying to make you sympathize with and like this man who has a thing for little girls... quite the opposite.

I don't know... I think that despite the subject matter, it has moments of real beauty. Ultimately the book isn't so much about Humbert liking young girls.. it's about human connection, love, lust, obsession... Humbert's relationship with Lolita is just the vehicle for it all.

It's well worth reading.

[stlukesguild]

Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.

No... it's not a poignant point at all. It's simply misses out on the fact that what Nabokov was writing was fiction. The character Humbert Humbert does not represent the thoughts or desires of Nabokov any more than Lady Macbeth represents Shakespeare, Judge Holden represents Cormac McCarthy, or the rapist and murderer in this painting represents Goya:



Have you actually read the book?