Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

[ParkerSM]

The old posts on this book are quite old, so I thought I'd start a fresh one.

What did people think of this book, putting the subject matter aside? I recently watched the movie, and that was just appalling. Never again.

But the book, I thought it was one of the most beautifully written books I have ever read, I was quite curious when I stumbled upon it, because it was in my Catholic High School Library! I am not sure who was more surprised, me or the librarian!

Having read this book when I was 15, it was difficult to read, but I think that if any writer can wright a sex scene and have me not even realise until the next chapter, must be legend!
I will have to find it again, and read it, just to see if I understand more , and hopefully, appreciate it EVEN more again!

[Fran]

It's many years since I first read Lolita & definitely the subject matter makes for difficult reading but I agree the writing is beautiful. IMO it actually does a great service in casting light on the deluded nature of paedophilia so well exemplified by the character of Humbert Humbert. We in Ireland, as elsewhere, have been on a bit of a learning curve with regard to child abuse in the last decade of so and I think the response to Lolita would be quite different today to what it was back in 1955 when you very definitely would not have found it in any Catholic High School Library!
Much of the controversy concerning Lolita was, as is so often the case, generated by people who never bothered to read the actual book.

[ParkerSM]

Much of the controversy concerning Lolita was, as is so often the case, generated by people who never bothered to read the actual book.

This is so true! As I discovered when I told my mum that this was a beautiful when I was reading it, and I got some very weird books.

Child Abuse is quite a heated topic in New Zealand at the moment, more often then not there are cases of physical/sexual abuse in the papers. Especially since the creation of the "Anti-Smacking" law.

Way back when, approx 30,000 years ago, it was found that girls matured at a slightly earlier rate then they do now, and with maturity comes the development of hips and boobs, otherwise the most common features that men are attracted to, so it was not uncommon to find girls/women pregnant at 13-15 years of age.

However, these days, I think it is almost, for lack of a better word, unnatural for a man or woman to be attracted to a child. That is where I believe the "morbid" fascination comes from with people wanting to read this book (Or otherwise to scared to read it due to the stigma of being "interested" in the book) . It is different, it goes against nature, and to top it off, it's a scandal, and who does not like the gossip generate from a good scandal!

-- 18 Mar 2012, 17:34 --

Much of the controversy concerning Lolita was, as is so often the case, generated by people who never bothered to read the actual book.

This is so true! As I discovered when I told my mum that this was a beautiful when I was reading it, and I got some very weird books.

!

That should read: "...When I told my mum this was a beautiful book ... and I got some very weird looks"

[Maud Fitch]

It is different, it goes against nature, and to top it off, it's a scandal, and who does not like the gossip generate from a good scandal!

The late Vladimir Nabokov wrote "Lolita" in mid-career yet ask anyone to name one of his other books and they can't.
I think this shows that risky, sexy or taboo topics will always sell a book, e.g. "Portnoy's Complaint", "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I'm sure other readers could add racy titles to that list, even if they don't know the authors.

[Fran]

It is different, it goes against nature, and to top it off, it's a scandal, and who does not like the gossip generate from a good scandal!

The late Vladimir Nabokov wrote "Lolita" in mid-career yet ask anyone to name one of his other books and they can't.
I think this shows that risky, sexy or taboo topics will always sell a book, e.g. "Portnoy's Complaint", "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I'm sure other readers could add racy titles to that list, even if they don't know the authors.

You are absolutely right Maud it is the reputation Lolita garnered as a racy novel that earned it much of it's publicity, in point of fact it is not a particularly racy novel at all, certainly not by today's standards (or lack of standards!) If all it were was a racy novel it would have disappeared from the shelves long ago but it lives on, much loved, reread & argued over because it is so much more.

[ParkerSM]

You are absolutely right Maud it is the reputation Lolita garnered as a racy novel that earned it much of it's publicity, in point of fact it is not a particularly racy novel at all, certainly not by today's standards (or lack of standards!) If all it were was a racy novel it would have disappeared from the shelves long ago but it lives on, much loved, reread & argued over because it is so much more.

Perhaps this is why I found the book in a school library. Maybe they were able to realise that it is a wonderful novel, with a topical subject, but no less controversial then Animal Farm or dare I say it, Harry Potter (if you were from one of the more reluctant towns/schools in America).

NB: I have not read Animal Farm (on the To Read List) but I do understand and know what it is about, so I can't really argue any more points on it at this stage) Just being honest.
On the other hand, I know Potter Inside Out!

[dindindin]

This is a great book. I didn't read it until 1978, well after the period in which it was considered controversial.
My most enduring memory of the book was Nabokov's incredibly dry sense of humor. And his facility with the
American dialect. Most of the book is told through the eyes of Humbert Humbert, who is willing to suffer Dollylo's
mother if it keeps him in proximity to her daughter. The exchanges between Humbert and his American environment
are hilarious: "She(Lolita) would rather have a hamburger than a humburger."
It is a measure of Nabokov's skill as a writer that the image of a pedophile or what he is or what he destroys, never
crossed my mind. Instead Nabokov gives us a character who is well past considering the moral pros and cons of the
terrible crimes he's committed. His only real problem now is keeping it a secret. And Humbert was a master at the
art of deception.

[ParkerSM]

I feel like I am on Facebook right now and I am looking for a "Like!" button!!!

[Connie_88]

My impression after reading Lolita was also that it was beautifully written and I'm glad that I decided to read it after initial reluctance due to the subject matter. People always give me funny looks when I recommend that they read this book and more often than not they let the subject matter put them off which is sad because they're really missing out on one of the best written books I've read

[dindindin]

The first time I read Lolita, I read my brother's copy. It was his recommendation that motivated me to read
the book. Having seen the movie, I was aware of the story line. My brothers' recommendation was based on his
appreciation of Nabokov's mastery of the craft. When I returned the book, we discussed it for probably an hour. '
I remember that neither one of us used the term "pedophilia". I read one of the reviews that used the term
"subject matter". Is pedophilia the subject matter? Or is a broken down man, a pedophile, the subject matter.
Lolita's in charge. The sun rises and falls on her whim. Humbert's along for the ride. He's replaceable. My brother
and I laughed at the lengths he would go to engineer a liason between himself and his obsession. If Nabokov had
described a kidnaping, brutallity, torture, I wouldn't have read the book. But it's Nabokov's profile of Humbert
that's amusing--his self doubt and recrimination. What about anyone else whose read the book?. What do you think?
(Have I mispelled "pedophilia"? I can't find it in my dictionary.)

[Fran]

The first time I read Lolita, I read my brother's copy. It was his recommendation that motivated me to read
the book. Having seen the movie, I was aware of the story line. My brothers' recommendation was based on his
appreciation of Nabokov's mastery of the craft. When I returned the book, we discussed it for probably an hour. '
I remember that neither one of us used the term "pedophilia". I read one of the reviews that used the term
"subject matter". Is pedophilia the subject matter? Or is a broken down man, a pedophile, the subject matter.
Lolita's in charge. The sun rises and falls on her whim. Humbert's along for the ride. He's replaceable. My brother
and I laughed at the lengths he would go to engineer a liason between himself and his obsession. If Nabokov had
described a kidnaping, brutallity, torture, I wouldn't have read the book. But it's Nabokov's profile of Humbert
that's amusing--his self doubt and recrimination. What about anyone else whose read the book?. What do you think?
(Have I mispelled "pedophilia"? I can't find it in my dictionary.)

I would agree but I would add Humbert's delusion or self-delusion & the ways humans try to reconcile what they want with what they know to be acceptable!

The spelling is paedophilia I think.

[dindindin]

You're right. Self delusion has facilitated his descent.(I'm going to get rid of this dictionary. Neither spelling shows
up).

[goldengate]

I read Lotita and Lady Chatterly's Lover when I was about 11 or 12 (ages ago...) I "borrowed" my Mom's copies and read them on the sly. I remember being quite amazed by the whole story line in each book. I remember thinking, "it's interesting but what is the big deal?" Both books captiivated me. I could not put them down. I have always been an avid reader (had been by years even at that age). I knew those books were special. I reread them a few years ago and saw them in a new light. I still found them fascinating - beautifully written.

[Fran]

I read Lotita and Lady Chatterly's Lover when I was about 11 or 12 (ages ago...) I "borrowed" my Mom's copies and read them on the sly. I remember being quite amazed by the whole story line in each book. I remember thinking, "it's interesting but what is the big deal?" Both books captiivated me. I could not put them down. I have always been an avid reader (had been by years even at that age). I knew those books were special. I reread them a few years ago and saw them in a new light. I still found them fascinating - beautifully written.

IMO that's part of what identifies great literature ... you can read the book again and again and get something new & different from it each time ... it's like the book is alive.

[David_Jerome]

I thought the book was humorous, but the narrator was far too verbose. Took too long to describe his trips and events. And he used too many French words that I doubt the average speaker of English knows.

Still, the book is definitely unique, and it felt authentic. Nothing about it seemed phony or contrived. And again, he has some nice wit.