Lolita

Ok I'm so sorry. I said that I read it when I was 14 years old and I dont know why I thought it was a true story? but that what was written in the version that I read and I thougt that the writer is some old man who is in love with a teenage girl and trying to write his memoires from jail , maybe little bit foolish and naive but actually in that time I didnt hear about the novel or the writer ,I didnt even watch the movie I just bought it from the book store because I just liked the title!
and I said before I'll try to reread it again .
And I'm so sorry again to you all especially to you grumbleguts I hope now we are cool .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samah

Ok I'm so sorry. I said that I read it when I was 14 years old and I dont know why I thought it was a true story? but that what was written in the version that I read and I thougt that the writer is some old man who is in love with a teenage girl and trying to write his memoires from jail , maybe little bit foolish and naive but actually in that time I didnt hear about the novel or the writer ,I didnt even watch the movie I just bought it from the book store because I just liked the title!
and I said before I'll try to reread it again .
And I'm so sorry again to you all especially to you grumbleguts I hope now we are cool .

---

There's no reason for you to be apologetic. The novel was written with a foreward with the spurious signature of a a doctor of something that said that the author had been convicted of child molestation, etc. I can imagine many odf the events in the novel actually happening. The only material printed between the covers of Lolita that can be taken as true with any degree of confidence is the material on the Copyright page and on the titla page. The autor's afterword may have some elements of truth in it, but I wouldn't be confident about that either.

I just finished reading it two days ago, and I loved it. It's just amazingly well written; Nabokov is much more than just a writer, he is an artist, and his style is brilliant. And the thing is, there actually is a point to the exaggerated eloquence, because it's coming from a very intelligent and extremely well-spoken narrator, and the manner in which he speaks gives us more insight into his mind than the words he uses.

Humbert is really just a tortured soul who can't control his emotions, and though at the beginning he desperately wants to avoid tarnishing Lolita, but when her mother dies and he's the only thing she has and it's offered to him on a platter, he's so tortured by his emotions and by his desire to relive that unfinished and doomed romance that he just can't turn it down, and he replaces Lolita with Annabel so that he can try to resolve his destructive psychological problems. I also found it technically subtle and emotionally touching how, though Humbert is most of the time concerned with himself and with his own emotions, whenever he gives us a glimpse into Lolita's mind it is always very brief but incredibly powerful. In particular there are two instances, one in which Lolita's friend's father is holding her and Lolita gets sore, and Humbert tells us that he realizes Lolita would prefer the worst upbringing to this joke of a childhood, and the second is when he tells us that, at night when he pretended to be asleep, he would hear her crying, every night without fault.

I was talking to my English teacher about it (he hasn't read it), and he said that it's probably very much like Huck Finn: those who instantly jump on the superficialities without really taking any time or patience whatsoever to get down into the book are simply willing to dismiss it as racist, when in fact it isn't. In the same way, those who aren't willing to study or even read Lolita think it's pedophilic. In Huck Finn racism is a means to an end (the racist attitudes of all the corrupt, morally lacking people contrasts against the goodness of Jim and results in the opposite of racism) just as it is in Lolita (a touching portrait of a man who is rendered completely insane by passions which he simply cannot control, though he knows they are wrong).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koa

??? I thought Lolita was written originally in American English, even if nabokov was Russian... I know he was bilingual and translated his own works... (i believe I've already said this somewhere). Anything else I need to know about the languages???




gatsbysghost, English is not too hard. Its grammar is incredibly easy to learn, then it's hard to master the whole of the language because it's very varied etc... But grammatically, I'm sure it's the easiest language I've ever known. If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...

---

You think English grammar is easy? Try Mandarin. They don't mess around with any of this possessive crap. It's "I house," "you car"... and the tenses are so much easier. I'd panic if I came from Chinese and suddenly there's all these conjugations to do.

Lolita is a great, great book, and one of my favorites. Nabokov writes beautifully in English--as well or better than many native-born writers. In fact, he wrote Lolita as a sort of "love song" to English, a language he loved.

If anyone gives you a "face" when you mention Lolita, just remember that many people are incredibly close-minded and do not understand that art is art, even if it deals with a "sensitive" subject. They don't know what they are missing; it's their loss. The only time to trouble about them is when bands of these people get together and start braying en masse about which art should be available and which should not.


-2AF

If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...

--In my opinion and experience, Spanish is probably one of the easier languages for native English speakers to learn. English is an incredibly rich, complicated and persnickety language: it has a more varied vocabulary than many other languages, and it is constantly breaking its own rules. English grammar is, in fact, not that simple at all. The romance languages, on the other hand, pretty much stick to their own rules. Once one learns the rules, the rest follows suit.

When I was learning French, for example, I was also able to read Spanish, merely because the structure and the vocabulary is so simple and straight-forward. At the time, my friend who was taking Spanish could not read my French books in the same way as I could read her Spanish texts.

The most complicated language I ever learned was Ancient Greek (Attic). Now that's a complicated, declined language--more verb forms than Latin, and everything has tenses, even nouns. Now that was a challenge!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koa

??? I thought Lolita was written originally in American English, even if nabokov was Russian... I know he was bilingual and translated his own works... (i believe I've already said this somewhere). Anything else I need to know about the languages???




gatsbysghost, English is not too hard. Its grammar is incredibly easy to learn, then it's hard to master the whole of the language because it's very varied etc... But grammatically, I'm sure it's the easiest language I've ever known. If you are a native English speaker, I can believe Spanish seems hard to you: I think it's very hard for English speakers to learn any other language, exactly because their grammar is so easy that vast grammars like the Spanish one are confusing to them...

---

------In my opinion and experience, Spanish is probably one of the easier languages for native English speakers to learn. English is an incredibly rich, complicated and persnickety language: it has a more varied vocabulary than many other languages, and it is constantly breaking its own rules. English grammar is, in fact, not that simple at all. The romance languages, on the other hand, pretty much stick to their own rules. Once one learns the rules, the rest follows suit.

When I was learning French, for example, I was also able to read Spanish, merely because the structure and the vocabulary is so simple and straight-forward. At the time, my friend who was taking Spanish could not read my French books in the same way as I could read her Spanish texts.

The most complicated language I ever learned was Ancient Greek (Attic). Now that's a complicated, declined language--more verb forms than Latin, and everything has tenses, even nouns. Now that was a challenge!

All in all, I would say that the story is just that.
A story, a rather well written narative of the opinions and views of the slightly psycotic Humbert Humbert, as he attempts to fulfil a lost childhood memory with the object of his obsession.

Just like to point out that the story in the story is writen by Humbert for the courts, so any pity or mercy you feel for Humbert is because this is his story and he wrote it ORGINIALLY for his case. Even so, I'm sure he would still want pity for himself after he and Lolita were both dead.

This is a great technique Nabokov uses to, in a way, fool his own readers into believeing Humbert's plee. While I'm sure Humbert deserves some pity, he 'milks' it as much as he can by the way he makes the story. For example he makes nymphets seem like the bad guys, he also makes Quilty look as the ultimate bad guy. He also leads the audience on the journey with him, for example when he and Lolita were being followed. The writer Humbert knew who he was but never told the audience who he was, he made the audience feel as much as he did. And even when Lolita told him who it was, he did not tell the reader and still left us wondering.

I did find Lolita beautifully written and Humbert's story intriguing and on the whole even no verisimilitude was missed that advisable sympathy was evoked. It's been a long time since I read it but I can still recall how Humbert indulged himself with nymphets--his great loss of a maiden in his adolescence which left its stamp on his mind. As for language, one of the most important things for the master is to be creative in regard to art and its impact on the readers, not exactly being strictly native or not.

As a Chinese, as far as I've learnt, I think the language does have possessive forms, people can understand you if you say "I house,""you car", but it's not unusual as we say "my house,""your car". It's interesting that with a few nouns, we seem too lazy to use possessive forms, but with most, we just adopt possessive, such as "my book,""my cloth,""my food", etc.(it would be definitely odd if we say "I book,""I cloth" and "I food" here)...and this language also have tenses though it appears not so remarkable as some other languages. (we often add some auxiliary words to the verb as it stands unchanged and independent it self)...

sorry if i seem long-winded. All languages are marvellously created and not that easy. :)

I have to say...

I love the tempo of this book. Yes, it is slow, but every moment of excruciating anticipation is mirrored detail by shocking detail.

Nabokov is one of the most capable and emotive writers of the 20th century, and his use of the english language is almost unparalleled, I would say. This in itself is astounding, and not because he's a Russian writer. He is a native English speaker, as it was his first language (he did not learn Russian until the age of 8).

The question of ethics in literature/art is a very frustrating one. I don't usually like to take part in these debates -- I think the question is moot -- but I will say, with regard to Lolita, there is no attempt made by author or narrator to disguise the ethical missteps Humbert takes. If Humbert himself is an unethical pedophile, that is one thing. Lolita as a work of art is straightforward, vivid, and uncompromising. It should be given credit for that, at the very least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kimpossible

Doesn't stimulate you? I'm sorry by I find Nabakov one of the most stimulating writers i have read. His prose is so charged, so drenched in Humbert's obsession. You can really feel the (creepy and somewhat disturbing [but nonetheless hilarious]) overwhelming emotion in Humbert's narrative. Now, don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Fitzgerald and Joyce. I am actually doing a project on Fitzgerald right now. I just find Nabakov more stimulating, not necessarily more interesting or powerful.

---

I could not agree more! I've read some of Nabokov's novels, Lolita being the first, and if/when I go off to other authors, when I return to Nabokov, it is like coming home. His prose is the most beautifully written that I have encountered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDalloway112

I have to say...

I love the tempo of this book. Yes, it is slow, but every moment of excruciating anticipation is mirrored detail by shocking detail.

Nabokov is one of the most capable and emotive writers of the 20th century, and his use of the english language is almost unparalleled, I would say. This in itself is astounding, and not because he's a Russian writer. He is a native English speaker, as it was his first language (he did not learn Russian until the age of 8).

The question of ethics in literature/art is a very frustrating one. I don't usually like to take part in these debates -- I think the question is moot -- but I will say, with regard to Lolita, there is no attempt made by author or narrator to disguise the ethical missteps Humbert takes. If Humbert himself is an unethical pedophile, that is one thing. Lolita as a work of art is straightforward, vivid, and uncompromising. It should be given credit for that, at the very least.

---

Again, without a doubt! Nabokov makes no excuses for the behaviour of his creatures. It is what it is. The first time I read Lolita I do admit to having a difficult time getting through it. I'd stop, but I was compelled to return. And in the end I realized that what Nabokov was getting at was his characters striving for human freedom.

Someone above wrote about certain persons acting unapproving of their reading Lolita, I have constantly run into that as well.....but only from those that have not read it.
Some believe that ignorance is bliss. I'd call that plain narrow minded.

Hi am a new member in this forum :)
I have read Lolita two years ago and it was just a reading , i did like the story and i was fascinated by the author who did play with the psychology of characters which makes the readers like the book.
And now am rereading it again but i have a purpose, i ll work inthis book for my thesis of the license and am interrested about what was written about lolita.
I have read all the replies to this thread and they were intersting but i did notice that there is no one who talk about Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties. We know that Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian born as well an Amercian citizen and who considered Amercia as his second mother home. But we can notice that Nabokov gave his own view of America and we cant forget that he came from exile.
What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orra

Hi am a new member in this forum :)
I have read Lolita two years ago and it was just a reading , i did like the story and i was fascinated by the author who did play with the psychology of characters which makes the readers like the book.
And now am rereading it again but i have a purpose, i ll work inthis book for my thesis of the license and am interrested about what was written about lolita.
I have read all the replies to this thread and they were intersting but i did notice that there is no one who talk about Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties. We know that Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian born as well an Amercian citizen and who considered Amercia as his second mother home. But we can notice that Nabokov gave his own view of America and we cant forget that he came from exile.
What do you think?

---

To a degree, Lolita is about Nabokov's view of America in the early 1950's. He wrote about his love for driving around and seeing America in various places. Look around, and you will find some of those. I believe that Lolita is like Ulysses to a degree. Both are about wandering a place and various thoughts about the trip. In Pale Fire Nabokov referred to Lolita as "The Cup of Hebe", so there is a substantial amount of symbolism, even though Nabokov claimed not to like symbolism in the postscript. I think that comment should be taken to mean that there was a substantial amount of symbolism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orra

I have read all the replies to this thread and they were interesting but i did notice that there is no one who talk about Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties. We know that Vladimir Nabokov is a Russian born as well an American citizen and who considered America as his second mother home. But we can notice that Nabokov gave his own view of America and we cant forget that he came from exile.
What do you think?

---

Hello Orra,
I'm late to this discussion and am unfamiliar with what went before.
However, I can't help remarking on the notion of "Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties" that you are interested in. The meaning depends somewhat on how one parses that notion.
Nabokov had certainly become familiar with America in his road trips across the Country. And Lolita certainly contains his reactions to what he saw -- he was a very keen observer! And he very explicitly wished to write Lolita as an "American novel."
All of which, however, is not to say that the America presented in Lolita is a photographic view of America, or its culture, as it was in the 50's. Certain parts are incredibly "right on" -- as aspects of American culture seen with a heightened artistic 'super-reality.' Other parts are seen as satire or parody, as explained by Appel in his introduction and notes to The Annotated Lolita. One important cultural aspect that Nabokov found "exhilarating," and highlighted in his writing (whether found in American or European contexts), was what he called "poshlost," and translated by him as "philistine vulgarity." So some parts of his view are decidedly (and deliberately) not very complimentary for artistic reasons of plot or character development.
In summary I would offer the thought that the evidences of America as seen in Lolita are not of the "America of the 50's," but rather are the America of the 50's as reflected off Nabokov's particular cultural sensitivities and artistic intentions for his novel.
Condensed still further, I would say that Lolita is not an image, but a redrawn image after viewing through the more or less distorting lenses of particular cultural and artistic perspectives.
At root, Lolita is still fundamentally a novel and a successful work of artistic fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Hello Orra,
I'm late to this discussion and am unfamiliar with what went before.
However, I can't help remarking on the notion of "Nabokov's Lolita as an image of America in the late fifties" that you are interested in. The meaning depends somewhat on how one parses that notion.
Nabokov had certainly become familiar with America in his road trips across the Country. And Lolita certainly contains his reactions to what he saw -- he was a very keen observer! And he very explicitly wished to write Lolita as an "American novel."
All of which, however, is not to say that the America presented in Lolita is a photographic view of America, or its culture, as it was in the 50's. Certain parts are incredibly "right on" -- as aspects of American culture seen with a heightened artistic 'super-reality.' Other parts are seen as satire or parody, as explained by Appel in his introduction and notes to The Annotated Lolita. One important cultural aspect that Nabokov found "exhilarating," and highlighted in his writing (whether found in American or European contexts), was what he called "poshlost," and translated by him as "philistine vulgarity." So some parts of his view are decidedly (and deliberately) not very complimentary for artistic reasons of plot or character development.
In summary I would offer the thought that the evidences of America as seen in Lolita are not of the "America of the 50's," but rather are the America of the 50's as reflected off Nabokov's particular cultural sensitivities and artistic intentions for his novel.
Condensed still further, I would say that Lolita is not an image, but a redrawn image after viewing through the more or less distorting lenses of particular cultural and artistic perspectives.
At root, Lolita is still fundamentally a novel and a successful work of artistic fiction.

---

Another factor to remember is that Lolita was originally written in and set in Europe. I would love to read the original version to see how much was changed from one to the other.