Lolita

Denerick

I'm about 100 pages into this. Wonderfully perverse... And the prose! My oh my, its been a long time since I needed a dictionary at hand to understand someones vocabulary. Great stuff. Anyone else read this before? Did you feel slightly guilty reading it? Your right inside the head of a paedophile after all.

Eliot Rosewater

Yeah, it's a really good novel. I think it's great the way the author lures you in with his prose - from the moment you read "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta." you're charmed. And I think this does skew your analysis of the character. You're willing to give the benefit of the doubt because of the charm!

Faulkner uses a similar tact in The Sound in the Fury with his bigoted racist character. I think it's excellent that different readers can come to different conclusions about that character and, indeed, the narrator of Lolita. It shows real depth, imo.

sxt

So many beautifully written passages that you have to read again and again. Amazing book

bigsmokewriting

Absolutely gorgeously written, but also quite creepy. Particularly as the image of the 'Lolita'-style girl in pop culture is often of a teenager, but HH is so emphatic that it's the pre-pubescent thing that does it for him. You wouldn't want him at a dinner party, but he makes for a fascinating narrator.

metrovelvet

I love this novel. I think what makes it so sinister is how seductive the language is. You have to step back and remind yourself how wrong all of it is event though the narration is pure enchantment.

One of my favourite parts of it is the description of L playing tennis. I don't have a copy of the book anymore so I cant reference an excerpt, sorry.

fisgon

Yeah, stunningly written yet disturbing when you get to the heart of it. Still not sure about this humanising of a paedophile, and whether I liked being made to sympathise with him.

Also, like Joseph Conrad, English wasn't even Nabokov's first language. That, to me, makes the novel, and its style, an incredible achievement.

Wyldwood

I've also just finished Lolita. It certainly is an extraordinary book. The prose is beautiful & flowery drawing you into the story but the subject matter is very disturbing. As the mother of a daughter it sent chills down my spine at times & I found Humbert to be a despicable character with no compassion for Lolita in spite of his declarations of love. Although she comes across as a vulgar, unintelligent child, he ignores her obvious distress when she sobs herself to sleep every night & repeatedly asks him to leave her alone. A book that certainly makes you ask questions about the mentality of a paedophile & the justification of their actions to themselves.

humbert

Fantastic book, must read it again sometime soon. Don't stop there, I loved Despair, Pale Fire and Laughter in the Dark. Such intriguing (and for the most part dislikeable) characters!

diddlybit

Adore Lolita, one of my favourite books.

The film adaptations are interesting as they take very different aspects of the book as the centralised feature. Kubrick's film is filled with black humour and the Lolita figure is as, I believe anyhow, Nabokov would have envisioned her. Lyne's version is much more a product of our time and quite moralising, though it was extremely controversial as it was deemed to be too sympathetic to Humbert Humbert. For the most part, he's portrayed as a tortured soul, torn between desires and ethics. Though Jeremy Irons reading the opening passage as a voice over is just exquisite. There is no way Kubrick could make the same film today.

They're both worth checking out if you're enjoying the book.

kerash

Prose? I thought it was utter drivel, epically boring, annoying crap. I couldn't finish it.

Denerick

kerash wrote: »

Prose? I thought it was utter drivel, epically boring, annoying crap. I couldn't finish it.

Ah... come on. I really enjoyed some of the reflections on American culture. The first 100 pages in particular were really compelling. At the start I thought he was a bit like an english literature undergraduate trying too hard but eventually I warmed to Nabokov.

Haidee

Lolita is my favourite novel of all time. I haven't read every single book around, but I read Lolita when I was about 17, before I went to University and it became my favourite book immediately. Three years on and many many books read and Lolita is still the book I find myself constantly going back to.

I have never read such beautiful language in any prose or poetry and no matter how many times I read it I cannot help sobbing my heart out! There are time when I cry for Humbert, certainly at first I cried more for him, but now I find myself crying for Lolita because no matter how cruel she often is to him, you can't forget she's just a child.

One of the things I adore about this book is the character of Lolita and the fact that she's so Americanised and such an ordinary teen. There's nothing particularly special about her and I think that's what makes her so endearing to me.

Those opening lines of the book will always be for me something very special.

KnifeWRENCH

I read it recently and was somewhat torn over it. I really enjoyed it initially; it was much more humourous than I was expecting, and the prose was fascinating. However, as the novel went on, I lost my initial enthusiasm for it. While I initially found the prose very interesting, I became a bit tired of it eventually. By the end of the novel, I can't help thinking it was too flowery and overly thought out.

Also found the plot to become increasingly more ludicrous as it went on; maybe that was the point of it but by the end, when he

goes to confront Clare Quilty

I was just thinking "Ah, come on." It seemed somewhat farcical, and while I understand that certain elements of the novel up to that point were farcical, I didn't think the novel as a whole was supposed to be a farce. And that's what it sort of felt like...

I'm probably sounding overly critical; I did enjoy the novel. But I'm not sure I'd read it again.

the west wing

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I read it recently and was somewhat torn over it. I really enjoyed it initially; it was much more humourous than I was expecting, and the prose was fascinating. However, as the novel went on, I lost my initial enthusiasm for it. While I initially found the prose very interesting, I became a bit tired of it eventually. By the end of the novel, I can't help thinking it was too flowery and overly thought out.

Also found the plot to become increasingly more ludicrous as it went on; maybe that was the point of it but by the end, when he

goes to confront Clare Quilty

I was just thinking "Ah, come on." It seemed somewhat farcical, and while I understand that certain elements of the novel up to that point were farcical, I didn't think the novel as a whole was supposed to be a farce. And that's what it sort of felt like...

I'm probably sounding overly critical; I did enjoy the novel. But I'm not sure I'd read it again.

One for word this was exactly my thoughts on the book. I loved the first part but lost some interest as the second part unfolded.

frisbeeface

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I read it recently and was somewhat torn over it. I really enjoyed it initially; it was much more humourous than I was expecting, and the prose was fascinating. However, as the novel went on, I lost my initial enthusiasm for it. While I initially found the prose very interesting, I became a bit tired of it eventually. By the end of the novel, I can't help thinking it was too flowery and overly thought out.

Also found the plot to become increasingly more ludicrous as it went on; maybe that was the point of it but by the end, when he

goes to confront Clare Quilty

I was just thinking "Ah, come on." It seemed somewhat farcical, and while I understand that certain elements of the novel up to that point were farcical, I didn't think the novel as a whole was supposed to be a farce. And that's what it sort of felt like...

I'm probably sounding overly critical; I did enjoy the novel. But I'm not sure I'd read it again.

Came into this thread to post something very similar to that. I found the writing grating on me towards the end. I've considered giving it another shot on a few occasions but can't bring myself to do it. A shame, because when I was 60-70 pages in I thought it was heading to a place near the top of my favourite books.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

fisgon wrote: »

Also, like Joseph Conrad, English wasn't even Nabokov's first language. That, to me, makes the novel, and its style, an incredible achievement.

You should read Pale Fire, where he just goes "Yerra sure I'll throw in an aul 1000 line poem in a language not my own at the start there", no free verse nonsense for him either. Sometimes reading Nabokov I'm dying to tell him to go away and stop showing off, but that's purely jealousy most of the time :pac:

I read Lolita years ago, and I've been meaning to read it again. I had been worried that maybe because I was only 16 when I'd read it I'd been more impressed than I would be now and might be disappointed if I returned to it, but I've recently read Ada and Pale Fire, both of which I found brilliant, so I'm fairly confident it's worth a re-read.

On the other two books, although Pale Fire's better, Ada would be good to read and compare with Lolita, difficult book but much more sex. Won't spoil anything for anyone who wants to read it, but I do believe I may have raised my eyebrows reading it more than I did during Lolita.

I love Nabokov, and for people who found the prose a bit affected you should watch interviews with him (there are a few on youtube) because the prose isn't actually a million miles away from what he just talked like, he seemed to speak very lyrically just naturally and off the cuff.

the west wing

I came across this and thought that it might interest someone http://www.openculture.com/2011/05/vladimir_nabokov_marvels_over_different_lolita_book_covers.html

Valmont

Lolita and Pale Fire are two of my favourite books. The ultimate strength of Lolita is Nabokov's prose and to a lesser (but still wonderful) extent, his depiction of intense love and obsession. I think that focusing on the fact that Humbert Humbert was a paedophile is completely missing the point, Lolita is about so much more.

Nabokov said that he wrote for re-readers and to those of you who have read Lolita or Pale Fire just the once, you are missing out on an awful lot of subtlety and humour which just isn't apparent during the first overwhelming read through.

Has anyone noticed how the book is absolutely filthy? He may not express these scenes using conventional language, but some of the smut in there is intense.

Valmont

Bodhi Quiet Number wrote: »

I love Nabokov, and for people who found the prose a bit affected you should watch interviews with him (there are a few on youtube) because the prose isn't actually a million miles away from what he just talked like, he seemed to speak very lyrically just naturally and off the cuff.

That's how I would describe the experience of reading him! You should give Pnina read sometime, it's short and very funny. I have Ada or Ardor on my shelf but I'm afraid to read it. Both because I have heard it is his most challenging work and because I don't want to exhaust his entire literary output before I'm 30.

Valmont

A friend has informed me that saying Nabokov's first language wasn't English is technically incorrect. In Speak, Memory, Nabokov says that English, French, and Russian were equally spoken in his household as he was growing up and that, on one occasion, his father (none other than the statesman Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov) returned home from a trip and angrily discovered that his children were speaking in English. Unlike other Russian authors who emigrated following the revolution (like Ayn Rand), Nabokov spoke English long before he left Russia.

coffee_cake

Okay okay, this book is being added to the list...

Valmont

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay okay, this book is being added to the list...

My list is currently stacked 1.5 metres high...

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

My list is currently stacked 1.5 metres high...

On my most recent count, my to-read list is 334 books long. (I'm not joking, I have a huge personal library of unread books...)

coffee_cake

I have about 10 books arriving in the post and I'm in the middle of one, not including FW... so "on the list" it shall remain for a week or two...

bluebirds

innovative style

emeraldstar

I've never heard this book described as "nice" before! :pac: