Lolita

[Boris239]

I've read Nabokov in Russian. His Russian is beautiful and I enjoyed the richness of his works, but it wasn't an easy read at all for me- some of his sentences were endless.

[Scheherazade]

But I think I'm right in saying (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm not!) that the kidnapping, murder and drugging all take place after the initial seduction.

Actually, they take place before the seduction. He plans the mother's murder and later on, when he 'kidnaps' her, tries to drug her to be able to seduce her.

But, from the descriptions of her, she is physically mature.

I think he mentions that once she starts to develop physically, he would lose interest in her.

I was actually referring to the fact that I believe that Quilty had already seduced her. It is obvious that she was seeing him behind Humberts back during their flight together - I think it started much sooner. Of course, I only have little hints to base this on, because our narrator was in denial about a lot of things.

I agree with this. I think she had started 'seeing' him during their play at school - before Humbert takes her for their final journey together (I think Humbert gets suspicious and decides to take her away anyway).

Theshizznigg>I am sorry but I can't see the point you are trying to make (it is after 3 am here! ). We all agree, I assume, that Humbert's obsession with young girl starts with Annabel Leigh. Are you suggesting that he finds a replacement in Dolores and that is all? I would disagree with that because even when he is with Dolores, he encourages her to invite her friends over so that he can look up their skirts (if not touch) whenever possible. He is not satisfied only with Dolores and definitely does not stop there.

I would also like to repeat that:

Humbert is a paedophile and morally weak (he doesn't hesitate to plan her mother's murder to get closer to Lolita!). He actively plans to be with her and pursues her to the bitter end. He is deceitful and cunning. I think the only saving grace for Humbert is that, unlike Quilty, he admits that what he did was wrong and feels bad about it. Also, the fact that he still wants to be with her after she grows up and is pregnant, shows that he has actually loved her.

[kathycf]

I think Lolita strictly from a literary view, is a well-written and very evocative novel. From a personal standpoint, it repulses me. Simply because a 12 year old looks like a woman does not equip her with maturity, nor the ability to deal with Humbert on an adult level, which is, of course, part of her appeal.

He seems quite repulsed by Lolita's mother and uses her simply to get to the child ( I am sorry , I have a hard time thinking of a 12 year old as a woman).Also, as Scheherazade says, he plans the mother's murder with nary a qualm. As well written as this book is, it is one I cannot bear to read again.

[PeterL]

I think that Lolita is easier to read and understand on a symbolic level than on a literal level. In "Pale Fire" Nabokov referred to "Lolita" as "The Cup of Hebe" by John Shade, as one example.

[Theshizznigg]

Either way the conversation goes, I find it most unfortunate when someone, (and I was included in this group) is reading Lolita, and then those around him/her accuse them of reading something that promotes pedophilia, and then they usually go into the whole speal of how the books is wrong, and you shouldn't read it.
By the end of it, I started asking people, "Have you read this book?" And when they answered no, I replied. "Then you are in no position to criticize it, when you have deemed to read it, then damn it all you wish."
Usually this leaves people stunned, and they solemnly retreat to making jives, and off hand comments.

All I really have to say toward the whole, is it ethical idea. It comes down to the freedom of choice and the freedom of free speech.
The writer of the book was willing to stake his reputation on the book, and those who are not afraid of the stigma surrounding the book, have read it time and time again.
It is a book, nothing more and nothing less.

[Gawaine]

Baddad

"she is still a child and so is guilty of little other than being ignorant/uneducated by those responsible for her welfare at an earlier age. Is she old enough to consider all the ramifications of the decisions she is making, and the behaviors she is engaging in?

"
So you mean that age is an excuse? So when you are 12-13 you can do anything of the sort, you're just a silly kid? What if at times she's behaving really cunningly? What sort of a kid for example, tells her "dad" that she had been having sex every day at camp with Charlie? I mean, if I would have done such a thing, I would have kept it a secret, I would have been ashamed (for lack of a better word) of it, and wouldn't disclose it not even to my friends, not to mention an adult. And first of all, I do not believe she's been abused by Humbert. When they ahd sex, she was not still a virgin!!! If it wasn't for her, Humbert would have been contepted with his voyeurism or his vivid imagination.[/QUOTE]

Understand that your experiences may be rather different from hers. Look around the world, and you will see many promiscuous young teenagers. Particularly out of the lower class.

[Cormeister37]

I am currently reading Lolita and though I have heard great things about it I don't know if I like it. The writing is great and sometimes its interesting but I it doesn't stimulate me like Joyce or Fitzgerald or others can.

[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.

[PeterL]

I am currently reading Lolita and though I have heard great things about it I don't know if I like it. The writing is great and sometimes its interesting but I it doesn't stimulate me like Joyce or Fitzgerald or others can.

It's kind of funny that you mention Joyce, because I see a lot of similarity between Lolita and Ulysses.

[samah]

When I first read Lolita I was 14 years old but it wasnt the original book they cut many parts of it so It was such a huge step for me to take , from reading " Weathering Heights" and " Gone With The Wind " to Lolita !
but I liked the part that it was a true story and the writer was executed at the end , so I found it a little bit strange and the girl lolita I've never met a girl like that , maybe because I come from a different society and a different country or maybe because I was too young but in general I found it somehow disgusting especially the writer he was a good writer maybe but lets admit it he was crazy , but maybe if I reread it now I'll change my mind about it who knows?

[Grumbleguts]

When I first read Lolita I was 14 years old but it wasnt the original book they cut many parts of it so It was such a huge step for me to take , from reading " Weathering Heights" and " Gone With The Wind " to Lolita !
but I liked the part that it was a true story and the writer was executed at the end , so I found it a little bit strange and the girl lolita I've never met a girl like that , maybe because I come from a different society and a different country or maybe because I was too young but in general I found it somehow disgusting especially the writer he was a good writer maybe but lets admit it he was crazy , but maybe if I reread it now I'll change my mind about it who knows?

Is this a genuine post? It has all the hallmarks of somebody playing games. 'WEATHERING heights' indeed!
Giving you the benefit of the doubt I am very much afraid that you have exhibited a profound lack of knowledge on this subject.
Nabokov's novel was not based on his own experience, it is merely written in the first person. It is fiction. If you reread the ending you will also find that while Humbert Humbert does indeed die in prison, he is not executed but dies of an heart attack. Nabokov himself died in Switzerland in 1977, 22 years after the book's publication of natural causes.
I have never heard any imputation except for yours that Nabokov was 'crazy' unless you count lepidoptery (butterfly collecting) as a mania. He was one of the finest authors of the last century and a personal favourite of mine.
I recommend that you really should reread the book as you patently failed to gain any insight into it upon your first reading.

[blondeatheart]

i love the adrian lyne version of lolita ie the movie

[PeterL]

When I first read Lolita I was 14 years old but it wasnt the original book they cut many parts of it so It was such a huge step for me to take , from reading " Weathering Heights" and " Gone With The Wind " to Lolita !
but I liked the part that it was a true story and the writer was executed at the end , so I found it a little bit strange and the girl lolita I've never met a girl like that , maybe because I come from a different society and a different country or maybe because I was too young but in general I found it somehow disgusting especially the writer he was a good writer maybe but lets admit it he was crazy , but maybe if I reread it now I'll change my mind about it who knows?

That's almost funny, because the preface is, if anything, more fictional than the narrative. I believe that the author's afterword is also fictional. I can't imagine anyone chopping up Lolita so that it wouldn't hint at sex without destroying to meaning and the beauty of the prose.

[Grumbleguts]

That's almost funny, because the preface is, if anything, more fictional than the narrative. I believe that the author's afterword is also fictional. I can't imagine anyone chopping up Lolita so that it wouldn't hint at sex without destroying to meaning and the beauty of the prose.

I think that Samah is referring to an abridged version rather than a censored version. Either way I am in complete agreement that it would destroy a piece of literary genius to bowdlerise it in such a way.

[PeterL]

I think that Samah is referring to an abridged version rather than a censored version. Either way I am in complete agreement that it would destroy a piece of literary genius to bowdlerise it in such a way.

Abridged or censored, neither would be worth reading.