Lolita

[Walter]

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.

Published certainly. Written? Set?
Are you referring to The Enchanter?

[PeterL]

Published certainly. Written? Set?
Are you referring to The Enchanter?

He may have called the orignial version The Enchanter?, I don't remember, but in one set of his sollected works there were comments by him about his writing, and the comments for Lolita mentioned that item. That collection also included his screenplay for Lolita and comments about the movie. While the movie claims that he wrote the screenplay, he actually wrote on a couple of the scenes that are in the movie.

[orra]

Hello Walter,
I agree with you in the fact that Nabokov's Lolita is a reflection of the American fifties as Nabokov saw it. And we dont forget that the 1950s were called the innocent 50s because Amercia was still conservative, the puritans values were there.With the beginning of the 60s, there was a change. it was a decade of sexual permissiveness. Therefore Lolita in the 1950s was a taboo in America and in Europe too.
Moreover his eloquent language and his genuis in writing the story makes the novel a whole representation of reality which was not hte real image if America. Maybe it was his reality through his eyes.
what do you think?

[orra]

I ask for ur opinions in that question because I need that in my research.

[Walter]

I ask for ur opinions in that question because I need that in my research.

If your research is surveying opinions, then I think I have already stated mine as well as I can. I think VN was a very keen and accurate observer of the world around him and that in Lolita he took what he saw of America and recreated it artistically in a brilliant work of fiction. I do not believe for an instant that he saw America as a parody of itself and mistook that for reality.

If your research regards cultural background for Lolita, then I have to say that cultural history and trends in America are subjects far from my background and I have no worthwhile opinions for you on those subjects.

If you are seeking information, rather than collecting individual personal opinions, then at best I can only suggest exploring on-line among the numerous articles relating to cultural history, the 50's, Nabokov and Lolita. I am sure you can find people who speak better to those topic than I can.

All of that assumes that your question was directed to me in the first place. I suspect there are also others in this thread who will have valid responses for your interest. So, I would respectfully prefer to regard yours as a question and discussion open to all.

[orra]

I ll be so happy to get other reponses to this thread from other members, we are here to share ideas and opinions.
I would like to focus on the fact that Lolita can be read from many prospectives and it is such a complex unity that u are overwhlemed with different ideas. For instance today i have just finished my fourth reading of this book and my points upon which i want to focus on are oriented in other diffrent way. This time i did find that working on Nabokov'Amercia on Lolita is really so vague and the diffrent points of view of many critics would lead me to lose the real concern on the book and also put me in some confusions.
I make my mind to deal with the quest in Lolita which is a key theme in the novel and which was treated through the whole process of the narrative. The ambiguities of this quest is embedded in the real meaning of the quest as well as its importance as a theme.There are different quests in this novel. We can find the quest for art,quest of Humbert Humbert himself( his doubling Quilty)and also the quest for innocence. Lolita is so rich that we cannot overwhelmed allthemes Nabokov comes across.

[Logos]

Hello orra, may I suggest Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran.. it brings some interesting perspective to a book (Lolita) that has been at times banned and condemned in the west; read as a forbidden book in a Muslim country by a group of female students.

While avoiding the discussion of current politics because that's not allowed here, part of their conclusions are they can "feel sympathy for Humbert's victims ... without approving of them." and "Nabakov's villains are brutal and totalitarian rulers trying to possess and control imaginitive minds." which the women can wholly identify with.

[PeterL]

I make my mind to deal with the quest in Lolita which is a key theme in the novel and which was treated through the whole process of the narrative. The ambiguities of this quest is embedded in the real meaning of the quest as well as its importance as a theme.There are different quests in this novel. We can find the quest for art,quest of Humbert Humbert himself( his doubling Quilty)and also the quest for innocence. Lolita is so rich that we cannot overwhelmed allthemes Nabokov comes across.

Hurrah, someone else sees Lolita as an quest story. There are many parallels with Ulysses and with ancient quest myths. Remember that Nabokov was a Joyce expert.

[Walter]

Hadn't thought of it that way before, but that thought does cause quite a few things to snap into focus.

[Vassilissa]

Hi everybody. Sometimes things happens - that's what I thought, as this afternoon, looking lazily for a literature forum, I found you and your thread about one of the books I loved more in my life - and it's even one of the few books I would have writtten myself. My experience with Lolita is quite unusual, I dare say. I read it the first time when I was the same age of Lolita at the beginning of the book - i.e. 11. My mother had no rules about novels, as well as my grandmother: in my family, we followed the principle of St. Paul: omnia munda mundis, ("everything is pure for the one who is pure"), so I was allowed to read everything I could possibly find in my house. I did not know anything about Nabokov; I choosed it just because I was fascinated from the book's cover, which was green and solid, and very comfortable to handle. I started reading, and there I was - heartstruck. St. Paul was right - I did not even understand H.H. was a pedophile, for I did not even know what pedophilia was; and I found it difficult to remember he was about forty, even if I knew that no man of forty could love a girl of 11. Nor I was shocked by the fact Lolita was as old as me. I could not identify myself with Lolita. She was an alien to me: I was not precocious, I did not know what was to have a sexual life and to be a rebel, and, most of all, I loved to study. Weird as it sounds, I identified myself with H.H! At that time, I was in love with a schoolmate (gosh, it is the first time I confess it): she was slender, serious, blonde and untouchable, very different from Lolita, but I perfectly understood H.H.'s urge for Lo; for his unacceptable, vast, silent desire exactly was like mine. That is the reason why I still believe "Lolita" is basically a love story, in which love, unfortunatly, is wrong (VERY WRONG), impossible and lost. Of course, the America's theme has a big part (I read enough about Nabokov - which is absolutely and definitely, even if I leave "Lolita" apart, one of my favourite writers - to have an idea of how United States could have impressed him as he came in the '50 as an immigrant). But this came with maturity. I still remember myself in the slow winter afternoons of our house by the seaside, the book in my hands. I found very soon there had been somebody on earth who knew what passion was. Hugs, Vassilissa.

[plainjane]

I'm a little late coming to this thread, but wanted to comment on a few things anyway.
I just read Speak, Memory a few months ago, and in it Nabokov does say that he learned Russian when he was five years old, when his father came home (to their summer place) and realized that the boys only spoke English (and French I suppose), the father was horrified, and immediately hired a local school master to tudor them. Someone above quoted the "perfectly normal trilingual child" bit, and is absolutely correct.

I first read Lolita about 2 years ago, and have reread a few times, and each time more story surfaces, his layers are endless.
I think in the end Humbert was in love with Lolita, his feelings had become truer and he understood what he'd done to her, and how terrible it was.

But what no one seems to remember or at least mention from the book is his encounter with Rita...honestly I was laughing almost all the way through that section....if only he could have stayed with her. /sigh/

[godhelpme2]

I also have read it but only recently. The beauty of this artwork is rather fascinating. It is far more than morally educational. I am overwhelmed by the author's excellent skill of using words, his abundant knowledge of literature and religion and philosophy etc, his brave behavior of writing such an sensitive topic among the public. i love it, it is really beautiful.

[Bysshe]

I'm fifteen years old, and I was wondering if I should try reading it now, or if I should wait until I'm older. I know that there are some books that you probably can't properly appreciate till you're slightly older. I'm looking for something new to read, and it's one of those books that keeps appearing on lists of "classic books". Apart from anything else, I've read short extracts from the book and I'm intrigued by Nabokov's style of writing. I'm trying to write a book myself - I know that sounds horribly pretentious coming from a teenager - and I want to read a variety of books by different authors to gain ideas and inspiration.

So, two questions, really. Firstly, am I too young to appreciate Lolita, and secondly, will I get funny looks from the school librarian if I try to take it out?

[Virgil]

Not pretentious at all. Good luck.

I have not read Lolita, so I can't answer your question.

[Logos]

An ironic question given the book you're asking about My first thought is of course you should read it! why not!? I think the question of age is subjective: you might be mature enough, sophisticated enough, well-read and worldly enough, and/or be able to think critically and independently enough that you can read Lolita and understand it, grasp its subject, context, symbolism, and themes and appreciate what the author is getting at etc. whereas another 15 yr. old might be confused, they might not 'get' it. but heck I know some 40somethings who read comics and don't 'get' them

But what is the harm in trying?


Here is the first major discussion of Lolita at LitNet that you might want to check out:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ghlight=Lolita

.
.