Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

[Emil Miller]

I have just finished re-reading, after a space of many years, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. It is, according to the author, a story based on an actual case of a paedophile named, anonymously in the book, as Humbert Humbert; a teacher of literature who leaves Europe (Paris) in 1947 to live in the USA. The place where he resides is that of a widow with a beautiful twelve-year-old daughter, Lolita, and he marries the girl's mother in order to seduce the girl, although to begin with she is a precociously willing accomplice. The mother dies in a road accident and Lolita and her step-father then travel across the USA for a year before Humbert decides to enrol her in college where she re-connects with Clare Quilty, another peadophile and former playwrite acquaintance of her mother, who, after following Humbert and his "daughter" across a second trip around the U S., manages to run off with Lolita leaving Humbert, who by now has fallen in love with her, bereft.
Humbert eventually tracks down Quilty and kills him, only to die in prison leaving his written story behind after Lolita drifts into a marriage with a virtual non-entity and dies in childbirth at the age of 17.
At the end of the story, the reader feels desperately sorry for Lolita and Humbert alike, for their doomed relationship is obvious from the start and follows on to its inevitable conclusion.
This inadequate summary of the book cannot convey the dazzling use of language that Nobokov uses for his tale. He pins down America with the precision that he pinned his examples of lepidoptera in pursuit of his life-long hobby.

[Dark Lady]

I loved this novel when I read, about a year ago, for the first time.

Brian, you might want to be careful about writing a review like this, though. You might get people who are upset that you have ruined the book for them if they haven't read it because of the depth you've gone into expleining the plot. I think, really, this sub-forum is for you to say what you liked and didn't like about a book. What's worth commenting on and perhaps analysing it to an extent. Not to give a blow by blow account of what happens in it.

Maybe you should edit your post to indicate there are spoilers in it so nobody gets annoyed?

But thanks for starting this thread. I do remamber a section of Lolita that lost my interest. I think it was a bit when they were travelling. Other than that, though, it was a great read and I would highly recommend it.

[The Comedian]

Thanks for the review.

[Helga]

this is one of my favourite books! I loved how you didn't approve of his way of thinking but still he wasn't a bad guy. a bit strange but not evil. I agree that the language is beautiful and the story too even though it's sad and cruel at times.

I love the name Humbert Humbert, it tells you a lot about him and how average and normal he is.

[NickAdams]

I stopped reading the review after the second or third spoiler, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying Nabokov's prose.

[billl]

Definitely too much plot in this review. The plot isn't the most valuable thing in this novel, but the wonderful writing would be best enjoyed without so much foreknowledge of the plot.

[Emil Miller]

I find it remarkable that a novel that has been around for over half a century and discussed ad infinitum in literary circles still remains unknown ( plotwise) to those who are involved in literary pursuits. It has been filmed twice and was a cause celebre when first published in 1955. I saw the film (Kubrick's) before I first read the book. The book made me appreciate why the film failed; it is impossible to recreate Nabokov's prose style in cinematic terms. However, despite having seen the film twice in the cinema and a number of times as a video, my second reading of the novel was more absorbing than the first, despite the fact that I knew exactly how the story unfolded. This novel is so famous (or infamous, depending on one's point of view) that asking for spoiler warnings is rather like asking for them in a review of Romeo and Juliet.

[NickAdams]

If Lolita was a high school or junior high school standard, then I might agree, but Lolita may be too taboo to have worked its way into the popular culture like Romeo and Juliet has and those I've heard mention the book stopped at the pedophilia, because it is the novelty.

Reviews will always have a spoiler or two, so it was my fault for reading.

[billl]

Well it is supposed to be a book review, but not the sort of review provided by a junior high school student to prove that they read the book. Really, I think a person reading a book review (here, or anywhere else actually, but especially here) would either be:

A) a person who hasn't read the book and wants to decide if it is right for them.

or

B) someone who has read the book, and is curious about the reviewer's insights and interpretations.

Just recounting the entirety of the plot and then making 3 points (about the prose, the setting, and the author's bio) in a single sentence is probably not what most people would be looking for. I certainly understand the desire to express one's enjoyment of a great book, though. And the summary gives me a chance to recall the book . But I suspect there are teens and some other visitors to the site who might not have read it--as well as Nabokov fans (and foes?) that'd be interested in learning more about the reviewer's reactions to the book.

[Emil Miller]

Well it is supposed to be a book review, but not the sort of review provided by a junior high school student to prove that they read the book. Really, I think a person reading a book review (here, or anywhere else actually, but especially here) would either be:

A) a person who hasn't read the book and wants to decide if it is right for them.

or

B) someone who has read the book, and is curious about the reviewer's insights and interpretations.

Just recounting the entirety of the plot and then making 3 points (about the prose, the setting, and the author's bio) in a single sentence is probably not what most people would be looking for. I certainly understand the desire to express one's enjoyment of a great book, though. And the summary gives me a chance to recall the book . But I suspect there are teens and some other visitors to the site who might not have read it--as well as Nabokov fans (and foes?) that'd be interested in learning more about the reviewer's reactions to the book.

Point taken. I will bear it in mind if I decide on futher reviews.

[The Comedian]

I just finished reading Lolita for the first time. And I liked it, but did not love it. I can certainly see how it merits renown as an example of narration and for the powerful character of Humbert Humbert.

As a portrait of America, which an earlier poster suggested, I am less inclined to think that it's particularly valuable. Maybe it deals with an era of US history with which I am not familiar (1940s/50s) for not having lived then. Sure grimy mid-west hotels and east coast presumption are part of the US experience, but I surely wouldn't say that they illustrate the best nor the worst nor the entire of what the US is.

I'm sure such a study has been done, but I do think it would interesting to see it read in the long line of travel literature (from On The Road, to My Antonia, to the Grapes of Wrath. ..) in which a continental journey is undertaken -- of course, it is in the journey that we more freely commit (and admit) to moral transgressions. (Humbert Humbert is certainly aware that his behavior is immoral; he's just too selfish to care). The place of "home" coaxes, nurtures our moral being in a great variety of ways. And the road, is, among other things, devilish.

Okay, so Lolita is off my life-list. It was a good book, but not one that I would likely re-read. Rating?: 7/10 nymphets.

[Scheherazade]

Rating?: 7/10 nymphets.

Hey!

[blazeofglory]

I have read this book long ago and this book is so frank and straightforward in point of fact. I have read and found it of superiority in terms of its literary significance.