Thank you for the advice! I'll take a look at the Lolita discussions.
Printable View
Thank you for the advice! I'll take a look at the Lolita discussions.
Yeah, the problem of Lolita is nowhere related to the sexual content, in fact, today the book would be probally less rated than a Britney Spears music video...
It is getting Nabokov, his sarcasm and irony, his critic to psychology (he hated Freud with all strength of intelect) and all in all, the trip he does to write a road book, his literary references...
By the way, there is no wrong age to read a book. If you can enjoy beauty, you can enjoy a book.
If you are old enough to fully appreciate Ulysses, then you are old enough to appreciate Lolita. The sexual content in negligible.
Bysshe, you remind me so much of me when I was 15! We're both from London for a start, and I actually read Lolita when I was 15, and it's still one of my all time favourites. I think that if I could appreciate it then, you definitely could. Maybe you should read a couple of Nabokov's short stories first, to get a taste of his style maybe? (which is very inspirational indeed), they're worth reading too, The Admiralty Spire in particular.
Let me know how it goes.
Go ahead and read it. I think you will be just fine.
I first read it when I was 14, and understood it pretty well, but not very completely. I think you'll get the story, and appreciate the monstruosity of H.H. and Nabokov's beautiful prose, but PLEASE read it again in a few years. When I reread it at 18 (and again this january) the book seemed so much richer, the shadows so much darker, so much deeper. It's grown as I've grown, and that's not happened with a lot of books I've read.
As for the funny looks, I'm 21 and my father almost had a seizure when he saw me reading it. People ignorant of the story will always overreact. Pay them no heed and enjoy your book :)
Thank you...I'm not sure if I'm "old enough to fully appreciate Ulysses", but I'll give it a go anyway.
Thanks for the short story recommendation too, F.Emerald. I'll see if the library has any collections of his short stories before I borrow Lolita.
And I think I'll definitely consider re-reading it later. There are some books I've read over the past couple of years that I'm already re-reading, and I'll probably continue to re-read them on a regular basis. I can imagine that Lolita would be one of those books that needs to be read again.
Fingers crossed my parents don't have seizures! Thanks again, everyone.
I think Botkin gives good advice. I suspect that this is a book that you read from different perspectives at different ages. I also think that it is hard to say if there is a right way of understanding a book - but we experience the story in different ways because we have different knowledge, and experience. There might be things in Lolita that a teenager would understand differently than me, who read it late.
I read Lolita when I was fifteen. It is one of my favorite books, though I (as somebody who is primarily interested in older men and always has been) dislike the way it bastardizes any attraction an adult may have towards a minor.
Anyway, yes, you should read Lolita. Don't sell yourself short because of your age. It's not becoming. It may make older people like you more on ocassion, but it's not worth it.
Generally speaking, I think you are quite right. But as Logos has already mentioned, there are some people who would not appreciate a good book even at the age of forty or more. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Bysshe
So why wait for the time when you will be able to fully appreciate it? As far as your age goes - I think that at fifteen, a person is quite conscious of what is happening around him/her. This is the age when you learn things, and you are highly observant of all that is happening around you. This is the time when questions are bugging in your mind, and you have to learn to hear people's answers of those questions without following them all. Reading books, like Lolita, Mein Kampf, etc, is the same matter. When you will read them, your mind will be full of questions, and there are chances that the book will influence you but if you are strong enough to crush that influence and instead just take the book as an opinion, not as a fact, it will be better.
I mean in this way, the book will be like another person giving his/her opinion about a certain matter or telling a tale to you of her/his/its life. And at the age of fifteen, with all things at the open (like drug use in schools), one should be able to form his/her own opinion rather than be influenced by a certain book without a thorough understanding.
So all I can say is that you should read the book if you want to, but don't be too sure about "inspiration" without having read the book.
Thank you. I think I will take it out, and maybe I'll post here when I've read it and tell you what I thought...
I just finished the book on my second day at almost 3 AM and felt kinda confused. i figured Quilty was the one who "rescued" (as Humbert Humbert would sarcastically say..) her, and that he saw her by accident. was he the guy that at one point ni the book was smiling and looking at Hubert with a weird look or something, after he had found her on the bed and thought that she had cheated on him, and did she ever cheat? al in al, what i am trying to say, was Quilty also like himbert? Confused reader here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sibe
It's easy to be confused about that. Quilty and Humbert were different aspects of the same person.Quote:
Originally Posted by NewAgewriter389
Lolita is on my summer reading list, I hope that someone will buy me this book for my birthday. I heard only really good comments about the book.
Amy Tan has even dedicated a full chapter to this book in her novel "The opposite of fate".
I haven't read Lolita, though I was familiar with its name and its author. I'd like to comment on the point of how the book was labeled as "dirty" and "bad" and that it was banned from some countries. I find it rather irritating when authorities decide to ban a certain book, based on assumptions that it might do harm to certain notions that has been established in the society. People would NEVER forgive a pedophile , but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that we should ban ANY book talking about the subject, it's simply wrong. This happened before with ana arabic novel written by Naguin Mahfouz in Egypt in the 50s (Children of Gebelawi)..and it was banned, till just THIS year, when it was firstly published. I had the chance to get the book and started reading, and I found that many of the claims some people made about how the book insults God and prophets, were merely out of THIER own interpretation. I mean, isn't it an essential thing for a literary book to bare more than one interpretation?! I read a part of the book now, and I don't find it insulting. Sorry for being off point, but this IS affilliated with what we're discussing here.
The fact that Nabokov succeeded in making you feel sorry for such a person,whom people normaly regard as a bastard who should be shot, this should be looked upon as a sign of that man's greatness, not to ban the book!! At least give the people the chance to decide for themselves, without shoving opinions down thier throats. That's what I think.
Umm... What? I'm usually open to alternate interpretations, but when it comes to Lolita, I don't think there's much to interpret. Nabokov violently opposed didacticism. What's on the page is what's there. And besides, how could Humbert go to prison for murdering an aspect of himself?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Sorry, but your interpretation just doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting your interpretation. :D
What makes you think that Humbert went to prison for murdering anyone? And why do you think that Nabokov opposed didacticism? Nabokov also claimed in the Epilogue that he hated symbolism, but he lied.Quote:
Originally Posted by tudwell
Um, have you guys read the book? :confused:
Humbert starts out in a prison cell first of all, and is addressing the jury throughout the book. That's the first clue.
That's the way that Nabokov presented it, but why would anyone take it at face value? Is Humbert a reliable narrator?Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Humbert? Reliable? :D One has to take certain framing techniques as fact.
Nabokov was an aesthete, a great admirer of Poe and Poe's philosophy (Poe is the most referenced author in Lolita) and if Nabokov says he hated symbolism, then I'll believe him.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
And did you read the foreword? It's narrated by someone other than Humbert Humbert and describes the situation: Humbert was awaiting trial for the murder of Quilty, but he died of a heart attack. After Lolita dies during childbirth, the qualifications for publishing the book set by Humbert himself are met and the book is published (after being edited by the narrator of the foreword).
Why? Lolita is a work of fiction. The technique of using unreliable narrators is quite ordinary and common. The framing of most novels usually sets the scene, but there is no actual particular reason why the introduction of a novel must be accepted at face value. I consider the introduction of Lolita to be fiction about fiction. We readers have no way of knowing whether Humbert is the narrator, or if another character dreamed up the story about Humbert and put it into his point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
I would believe the assertion that Nabokov hated symbolism, if it weren't false from the internal evidence of his writing. The use of "Annabel Lee" and symbols clearly related to that poem show that Nabokov used symbolism, and there were many other symbols. Remember that Nabokov was an expert on the writings of James Joyce, especially Ulysses and consider the travel and various activities in Lolita. I consider the two novels to be quite similar in the use of moving around and referring to a wide variety of symbols.Quote:
Originally Posted by tudwell
If you wish to accept the narrator of the Epilogue (presented as Nabokov) has truthful, then do so; but I can see no reason to believe that that part of the book is anything except more fiction.
So, does anyone think Vladimir Nabokov was a ficitional person? How many levels of fictional framing is one willing to accept or declare before saying fiction ends there and [whatever] starts here? Does anyone even think I wrote this post? Or that I read the book? Or even know what a frame is?
Hmm... I think I have a different definition of "symbolism" than some. I found a webpage about symbolism in Lolita. It said Humbert Humbert referred to two (Italian, I believe) kings named Humbert who were both dethroned, which obviously parallels the novel's Humbert to some extent. I, however, wouldn't consider this symbolism. It's a reference to something else, and one must know of the two things to appreciate its value. Symbolism, to me, would be like the color red representing death (to use a cliche). So what you consider symbolism involving Poe and "Annabel Lee" I would call a literary allusion.
And while I wouldn't consider the afterward a complete fiction, I do believe there is some symbolism in Lolita, and Nabokov can't be as literalist as he claims to be.
I'm still interested in your interpretation. If Quilty is just some aspect of Humbert Humbert, I take it he didn't really exist, and Humbert didn't really kill him? If so, then what parts of the story do you believe actually did happen (in Humbert's world, of course), if any. It just seems to me that you're headed down a road where the entire novel could be seen as, like you already said, a dream. I prefer to take it at face value.
So would I, but as part of the allusion, there were the people who appeared from the sea. I would have to read that section again for the details, but I believe that was symbolic. I also believe that there was symbolism in the barbershop section, and other places. I believe that I wrote that I consider Lolita to be very similar to Ulysses, which is solid symbolism.Quote:
Originally Posted by tudwell
OK, take it at face value. I should reread it (it's been a couple of years), but had a strong feeling from early on that there was something fishy about it. His use of "Annabel Lee" made me wonder how serious the novel was, because that poem is beautiful, silly verse. Perhaps I am too cynical, but the actual narrative doesn't ring true, unless I read it as allegorical. And in Palefire there is a mention of John Shade's "Cup of Hebe" in proximity to Hurricane Lolita tearing up the East Coast. Lolita was a symbol of young, immature women. A cup is a symbol for women, and Hebe was the Greek goddess of youth. I don't think that Lolita is very good purely at face value, but, if one sees it as an arrangement of symbols, it is great.Quote:
And while I wouldn't consider the afterward a complete fiction, I do believe there is some symbolism in Lolita, and Nabokov can't be as literalist as he claims to be.
I'm still interested in your interpretation. If Quilty is just some aspect of Humbert Humbert, I take it he didn't really exist, and Humbert didn't really kill him? If so, then what parts of the story do you believe actually did happen (in Humbert's world, of course), if any. It just seems to me that you're headed down a road where the entire novel could be seen as, like you already said, a dream. I prefer to take it at face value.
Fictional framing is fiction. It is dangerous to expect that anything that characters or narrators do or say in a work of fiction is not fictional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
I hardly know what to say other than "Yes."
Extrapolate all the way out to..how do we know we are real, how do we know we are not a character in either someone else's dream or imagination. How do we know we are not the same difference as a microbe in a pitre dish in some scientists laboratory. The line has to be drawn by common sense, which is not too common.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I prefer to discuss the book as written, not as it might have been written, as the latter frequently leads to an elevated discussion that wanders all over the landscape without any necessity for participants having read the book or even checking back with it occasionally for corroborating detail. For myself I prefer book discussion to philosophizing.
I agree with that sentiment completely. Nothing can be known with certainty, and we have to decide what to accept as true. Different people draw the line at different places.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
In literature I prefer to use evidence within the work to decide what is true within the framework of the work of fiction.
Hey, - I have to admit a love for Nabokov's works in general, however I found "Lolita" worthy but dull when I read it years ago. I recommend "Pale Fire", - a demanding work so don't start it until you're utterly sure; I suggest easing in with his short stories, among the best written in the Western tradition, but bettered by Borges.
I really only posted this to recommend a modern instance of the 'literature of Lolita' that I enjoyed, - "The End of Alice" by A.M. Homes, - disturbingly witty and perversely zestful.
Couldn't agree more. Glad to hear it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Perhaps I was a bit satirical in my approach, but allow me to be clearer. Certain aspects have to be taken literally, at face value. The actual frame of the story for example. When I mentioned Common Sense in my previous post I thought I was putting that across. Sorry, but it seems I was not clear enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Someone upstream mentioned a possibility of Humbert and Quilty being aspects of the same person. And while there is a certain doppleganger aspect there, in no way can I or do I believe that to be the case. There has to be a certain given logic in a novel, and logically Humbert killed Quilty and was in a prison cell awaiting trial there by giving him the time to write.
Now...where the wiggle room comes in is Humbert's intrepretation of his "relationship" with Lolita. BTW, I use the term "relationship" very loosely, since such a relationship is abhorrent.
Please excuse me for going somewhat off-topic here (only "somewhat" because the book I refer to is also about sexual obsession), but I've been going nuts trying to remember the title or the author of what I thought a fine novel in which the first half is narrated by a youngish man who has kidnapped a young woman he is sexually drawn to, is carrying her around (I think) in his truck or has her imprisoned in his house, and the other half is narrated by the young woman, his prisoner.
Fowles' The Collector. Great novel:).Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
YES! Thank you! Now I can get it and read it again. And the least, the VERY LEAST I can do for you is to urge you to get hold of Arthur & George by Julian Barnes, which you have now freed me to go back and finish reading...except I hate the thought that it will soon be over...Quote:
Originally Posted by Moira
Given your excellent taste, why not suggest to me another novel you admire? Only do it privately perhaps since we shouldn't derail this thread.
I understood your sarcasm and choose to ignore that. "Common sense" comes in many forms. Consider the frame of the story carefully, and you may see that it is a phony frame, an additional layer of fiction. Consider also the Epilogue, and you should notice that it is yet another layer of fiction. If you want to consider the narrative at face value, then do so; but, if one considers the narrative at face value, then what is the theme of the novel?Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
I don't disagree with you on these points, except in degree. Again, I have to ask what the story is really about; what is the theme? What does it mean? Your interpretation of the theme would determine your attitude toward each part of the novel, and toward each character.Quote:
Someone upstream mentioned a possibility of Humbert and Quilty being aspects of the same person. And while there is a certain doppleganger aspect there, in no way can I or do I believe that to be the case. There has to be a certain given logic in a novel, and logically Humbert killed Quilty and was in a prison cell awaiting trial there by giving him the time to write.
Now...where the wiggle room comes in is Humbert's intrepretation of his "relationship" with Lolita. BTW, I use the term "relationship" very loosely, since such a relationship is abhorrent.
Sarcasm is too strong a word for my intention. Although I certainly can be heavy handed on occasion, but didn't mean to be here. Just imagine a Spockian eyebrow move.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
As far as what I think the book is about.....on one level at least it struck me as survivalist, and a striving for freedom. Lolita herself survives and thrives in a sense, her possibilities thrive lets say. Maybe more about the elasticity of human beings to survive. But in the end it is what someone will do to be free. Humbert, free to love the person he wishes/imagines, and Lolita to be free of first her mother than Humbert and in the end Quilty.
And even manipulation and power of one over the other.
Maybe I look at things too simply. :)
I've read about the theories about old Europe debauching young America, or even the reverse, and eye them with the same jaundiced eye that VN did.
I partly agree with you, but I see the characters (Lolita, Humbert, and Quilty, at least) as mostly symbolic. Humbert wishes to regain his youth through contact with the essence of youth. Lolita, the Cup of Hebe, is young, immature womanhood. Because she is an immature woman, she couldn't bear children, because that would show that she was a mature woman; she would die as that symbolic type, if she hadn't physically died.. The story is somewhat like the myth of Tithonus with twists. I think that Lolita's death is the most important event in the novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
I didn't do much analysis, and nothing particularly jumped up screaming for hours of deep thought. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. Lolita contains some of the best prose I've ever read. Nabokov is a master. I mean, just read the first chapter!
But then again, it seems that you, PeterL, got much more out of the novel than I did. I felt the plot and characters were a bit flat and boring and that it was really only the style that gave the novel any of its worth. Perhaps I was wrong. I'm interested to reread it again, approaching it at a more symbolic level.