Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov

[Flip217]

I absolutely love this book now, but when I first read it as a freshman in college, I wasn't particularly impressed. I recognized the writing was stylish and the plot well handled, but I was so turned off by the character of Humbert Humbert, and often felt so uncomfortable by the torture he inflicts on Lolita, that I just couldn't enjoy the book.

Several years ago, I picked up The Annotated Lolita (http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Lolita-Revised-Updated/dp/0679727299), and it changed my mind -- now I think "Lolita" is one of best stories ever written. I can't think of many other texts that are so expertly crafted and reward the reader for paying careful attention to the smallest details, as Nabokov sprinkles clues and references throughout the book that, unfortunately, are frequently missed or misunderstood.

That's why the annotated version is, in my opinion, the best way to read this book, even if you've read it before, but especially if you never have. I'll admit that it can become tedious, flipping back and forth from the page you're on to the notes in the back, and so maybe the best approach to the work is to read it twice -- once straight through to get a grasp of the characters and plot, and then again consulting the notes and discovering all the puns, anagrams, hidden references and clues.

If you have a decent background in what some might call "serious reading", and a working grasp of history, many of the hidden joys may reveal themselves to you without the notes (I was not as well-versed when I first encountered the book). Nabokov references Poe and his poem "Annabel Lee", Joyce and "Finnegan's Wake", butterflies and moths, fairy tales, Nabokov's other works, Freud, Alfred Kinsey, T.S. Eliot, Rousseau, Lewis Carroll...it just goes on and on and on. It seems a bit like a game Nabokov was playing with his readers -- how many hidden things can you find on this page? Of course, dissecting every sentence can lead to finding things that aren't really there, and, I would imagine, sucks some of the joy out of reading.

I should also add that while the subject material is offensive, there aren't any graphic descriptions of abuse, though there are heart-breaking descriptions of Lolita's suffering after such abuse takes place. It's also interesting me that "Lolita" has come to mean a young woman who uses her charms / sexuality to manipulate an older man -- think of Amy Fisher, who became known as the "Long Island Lolita". While Nabokov's Lolita does indeed recognize that Humbert Humbert is attracted to her, and is savvy enough to use that to her advantage to get what she wants, she is a child and has no real understanding of a physical, adult relationship. She is undoubtedly a victim, but that important distinction seems lost in the popular use of the term "Lolita".

[Lucky Jim]

I absolutely love this book now, but when I first read it as a freshman in college, I wasn't particularly impressed. I recognized the writing was stylish and the plot well handled, but I was so turned off by the character of Humbert Humbert, and often felt so uncomfortable by the torture he inflicts on Lolita, that I just couldn't enjoy the book.

Several years ago, I picked up The Annotated Lolita (http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Lolita-Revised-Updated/dp/0679727299), and it changed my mind -- now I think "Lolita" is one of best stories ever written. I can't think of many other texts that are so expertly crafted and reward the reader for paying careful attention to the smallest details, as Nabokov sprinkles clues and references throughout the book that, unfortunately, are frequently missed or misunderstood.

That's why the annotated version is, in my opinion, the best way to read this book, even if you've read it before, but especially if you never have. I'll admit that it can become tedious, flipping back and forth from the page you're on to the notes in the back, and so maybe the best approach to the work is to read it twice -- once straight through to get a grasp of the characters and plot, and then again consulting the notes and discovering all the puns, anagrams, hidden references and clues.

If you have a decent background in what some might call "serious reading", and a working grasp of history, many of the hidden joys may reveal themselves to you without the notes (I was not as well-versed when I first encountered the book). Nabokov references Poe and his poem "Annabel Lee", Joyce and "Finnegan's Wake", butterflies and moths, fairy tales, Nabokov's other works, Freud, Alfred Kinsey, T.S. Eliot, Rousseau, Lewis Carroll...it just goes on and on and on. It seems a bit like a game Nabokov was playing with his readers -- how many hidden things can you find on this page? Of course, dissecting every sentence can lead to finding things that aren't really there, and, I would imagine, sucks some of the joy out of reading.

I should also add that while the subject material is offensive, there aren't any graphic descriptions of abuse, though there are heart-breaking descriptions of Lolita's suffering after such abuse takes place. It's also interesting me that "Lolita" has come to mean a young woman who uses her charms / sexuality to manipulate an older man -- think of Amy Fisher, who became known as the "Long Island Lolita". While Nabokov's Lolita does indeed recognize that Humbert Humbert is attracted to her, and is savvy enough to use that to her advantage to get what she wants, she is a child and has no real understanding of a physical, adult relationship. She is undoubtedly a victim, but that important distinction seems lost in the popular use of the term "Lolita".

Now it's time for you to move onto Pale Fire. Great books.

[Flip217]

Now it's time for you to move onto Pale Fire. Great books.

I'll put it on the list! Unfortunately the list continues to grow but my free time stays the same, or shrinks.

[Gurgi]

I read it when I was 15. Over twenty years ago. Heavy stuff for a kid. Couldnt find it at the public Library in Carroll County. Maybe they have it now but at that time it wasnt on the shelves. I had to use my fathers Library card at the Western Maryland College(now McDaniel College). I was facinated by the writing. Nabakov is a master. I surely didnt understand most of the hidden stuff you write about.

Funny how I even got interested in the book. I loved the rock band "The Police" and they had a song titled "Dont stand so close to me". There is a part of the song where Sting sings "He starts to shake, he starts to caugh. Just like the Old Man in that famous book by Nabakov" I was curious and had to sing the song to the very nice Librarian who was on shift. She listened and told me that Sting was probally refering to "Lolita". So I read it.

Have you seen either of the Movies? Both are really quite good. The original with Peter Sellers is my favorite. Amazingly the book was quite popular in circles when it came out. Was made into a movie really rather fast.

If you like Russian authors I suggest you attempt some stuff by Doestky?(sp).

"Crime and Punishment" is a very hard go but worth the effort. Amazing this book was written before the time of Freud. "The Brothers Karmazov" is also a rough go but full of amazing characters. Both books has characters who fall in love with Prostitues. Both are about the evil in the hearts of all people.

[zff4]

It's beyond my ken how writers like Nabokov and Conrad used an adopted language to such effect.

[blid]

Humbert Humbert's persona is pretty priceless: the elaborate prose, the endless toying with Lolita's name, his general unreliability, etc.

[Capn Vivi]

I'm taking a class now where we read Lolita and The End of Alice back-to-back and, consequently, I find Humbert Humbert much funnier than perhaps I should.

[Gurgi]

I'm taking a class now where we read Lolita and The End of Alice back-to-back and, consequently, I find Humbert Humbert much funnier than perhaps I should.

You can say that again!

[Beltwayman]

I'm college educated, but I don't find this kind of reading interesting or fun. I've seen the depravity of mankind first hand, and counseled people who are amoungst the worst offenders in society. Now, I ask you why should I want to read Lolita? I certainly couldnt stand the movie. The human condition is rife with taking advantage of the inocent; and with many 'scholars' thinking that such 'sexual freedom' is sophistication at its best is sickening. Who knows how many intellectuals were inspired to deprive young girls of their youth as a result of this book?

So, I ask again, why should I read this book? :confused:

[Lucky Jim]

I'm college educated, but I don't find this kind of reading interesting or fun. I've seen the depravity of mankind first hand, and counseled people who are amoungst the worst offenders in society. Now, I ask you why should I want to read Lolita? I certainly couldnt stand the movie. The human condition is rife with taking advantage of the inocent; and with many 'scholars' thinking that such 'sexual freedom' is sophistication at its best is sickening. Who knows how many intellectuals were inspired to deprive young girls of their youth as a result of this book?
So, I ask again, why should I read this book? :confused:

Don't. I don't think any of us would care.

The bolded part is unfounded, speculative and, frankly, just plain dumb.

[Beltwayman]

Don't. I don't think any of us would care.

The bolded part is unfounded, speculative and, frankly, just plain dumb.

Thank you so much for sincerely answering my question.

[Lucky Jim]

Thank you so much for sincerely answering my question.

Why do we need to answer your question? You've stated youself why you don't need to read it.

Heck, I am/was a writer (poetry) and literature teacher and I don't ascribe to a philosophy that says any book is necessary. Literature is what it is: a gloss on the real world. When it is done well - when it is truly literature - it organizes and rearranges that world in such a way that we see things differently.

You don't want to see this differently. It's not the end of the world.

Your argument that Lolita somehow convinces people that pedophilia is okay is, however, patently ridiculous. And as such does not warrant any kind of sincere answer. If you refuse to approach the book with the sincerity that a work of art demands - and your specious logic reveals that you're not - then why should any of us treat you with the sincerity and/or respect that you refuse the book?

[Beltwayman]

Why do we need to answer your question? You've stated youself why you don't need to read it.

Heck, I am/was a writer (poetry) and literature teacher and I don't ascribe to a philosophy that says any book is necessary. Literature is what it is: a gloss on the real world. When it is done well - when it is truly literature - it organizes and rearranges that world in such a way that we see things differently.
You don't want to see this differently. It's not the end of the world.

Your argument that Lolita somehow convinces people that pedophilia is okay is, however, patently ridiculous. And as such does not warrant any kind of sincere answer. If you refuse to approach the book with the sincerity that a work of art demands - and your specious logic reveals that you're not - then why should any of us treat you with the sincerity and/or respect that you refuse the book?

What I put in bold is your answer to my question. Thank you, because its what I asked for.
However, your criticism is just a show of your lack of acceptance that of my way of thinking. Obviously pedophilia is repugnant and imoral to most; but many in higher education unfortunately don't believe it so. If you believe that it isnt influential; I havent read the book by my own admission; than give me a reason why that wouldn't be the case...why resort to insults? Did I insult you?
And furthermore, if your position that 'art' (books and movies in particular) does not provide massive influence on society or behaviour; than your not accepting the premise of your statement that your thinking is possibly changed as a result. To think that it doesnt effect behaviour would be naive. I have personal knowledge of suseptible young girls were influenced as a result of watching American Bueaty, many looking for that older guy by 20 years. It happens.

[Lucky Jim]

What I put in bold is your answer to my question. Thank you, because its what I asked for.
However, your criticism is just a show of your lack of acceptance that of my way of thinking. Obviously pedophilia is repugnant and imoral to most; but many in higher education unfortunately don't believe it so. If you believe that it isnt influential; I havent read the book by my own admission; than give me a reason why that wouldn't be the case...why resort to insults? Did I insult you?
And furthermore, if your position that 'art' (books and movies in particular) does not provide massive influence on society or behaviour; than your not accepting the premise of your statement that your thinking is possibly changed as a result. To think that it doesnt effect behaviour would be naive. I have personal knowledge of suseptible young girls were influenced as a result of watching American Bueaty, many looking for that older guy by 20 years. It happens.

I don't really put much stock in your anecdotal evidence about the effect of Sam Mendes films on the sex lives of adolescent girls. Sorry.

But your interpretation of what I said betrays your overly simplistic view of literature and the world.

For instance: I said that great art aids us in seeing the world in a new ways. Seeing the world in new ways does not mean that one disregards any pre-existing moral or ethical framework.

Indeed, if you do spousal counseling and talk with an abusive husband, you might be enlightened about certain things - the effect of pervasive abuse in the childhood homes of eventual abusers, the self-delusional components of how they think - that make you see the human side of otherwise disreputable or unlikable individuals...but that doesn't mean that you'll suddnely think spousal abuse is something worth trying at home.

Second, you've yet to support your contention that "many" in higher education think that pedophilia is just fine. "Many"? It's absurd.

Finally, Humbert Humbert isn't exactly an admirable guy. There are novels that confuse readers - novels meant as indictments of characters that readers end up admiring or emulating; Holden Caulfield, for instance, or Frank Bascombe - but Lolita isn't one of them.

You haven't read the book, but you indict it as propaganda for some elite intellectual agenda when the book really isn't anything of the sort.

[Flip217]

I'm college educated, but I don't find this kind of reading interesting or fun. I've seen the depravity of mankind first hand, and counseled people who are amoungst the worst offenders in society. Now, I ask you why should I want to read Lolita? I certainly couldnt stand the movie. The human condition is rife with taking advantage of the inocent; and with many 'scholars' thinking that such 'sexual freedom' is sophistication at its best is sickening. Who knows how many intellectuals were inspired to deprive young girls of their youth as a result of this book?

So, I ask again, why should I read this book? :confused:

I'd say you should read the book because you clearly don't really get what it's about, but you're ready to condemn it, without having read one word of it.

And I'd wager that not one "intellectual" was inspired to abuse any child because of this book; Lolita's suffering is made clear, as is the fact that Humbert Humbert is a sick man, deluding himself and manipulating others.

[Beltwayman]

I don't really put much stock in your anecdotal evidence about the effect of Sam Mendes films on the sex lives of adolescent girls. Sorry.

Is this really the place to argue the merits or could you have restricted yourself to accepting that I was looking for a reason in which to read the book based on what you do believe. There is plenty of evidence, if your willing to do your own research. Do you expect me to accept your view that art has no impact on society just because you say it?
So, why don't you show a little intellectual curtesy, and just answer my question without
But your interpretation of what I said betrays your overly simplistic view of literature and the world.


For instance: I said that great art aids us in seeing the world in a new ways. Seeing the world in new ways does not mean that one disregards any pre-existing moral or ethical framework.

Of course not. Thats why we read critically. But what you and I do, or what others should do, doesn't mean that is what in reality happens.



Indeed, if you do spousal counseling and talk with an abusive husband, you might be enlightened about certain things - the effect of pervasive abuse in the childhood homes of eventual abusers, the self-delusional components of how they think- that make you see the human side of otherwise disreputable or unlikable individuals...but that doesn't mean that you'll suddnely think spousal abuse is something worth trying at home.

This is true. Pedephiles are found in colleges and universities as well as amongst the most ignorant because that delusional thinking treats all its victims without prejudice no matter what your intelligence or acheivement. Is the field of art so priviledged that it is somehow pure of aberant, self-delusional forms of thinking? No, I don't think so. There are even some fields that victims of abuse gravitate towards, and the arts is certainly on that list. What better way to pass on those delusional components then through a self expressive, socially accepted facility? I conjectured that this might be the case with this book. It was conjecture; if you dissagree, than say it--and your more than welcome to say why, which is what I was asking for.



Second, you've yet to support your contention that "many" in higher education think that pedophilia is just fine. "Many"? It's absurd.

Finally, Humbert Humbert isn't exactly an admirable guy. There are novels that confuse readers - novels meant as indictments of characters that readers end up admiring or emulating; Holden Caulfield, for instance, or Frank Bascombe - but Lolita isn't one of them.

You haven't read the book, but you indict it as propaganda for some elite intellectual agenda when the book really isn't anything of the sort.

As I stated before, I rejected the idea of reading the book based upon my personal repugnance of the subject matter, and the way its dealt with in the movie. If you can't understand why I would find it personally repugnant; than I'm lost here. All I asked of you is to give me a reason to read it. You want me to accept your view that literature doesn't influence society? All you need to do is a little sociological research; or better yet, read about the work others have already completed. Why even enter into a 'debate' that is not even scholarly to do over a message board? Is this really the place to argue the merits or could you have restricted yourself to accepting that I was looking for a reason in which to read the book based on what you do believe. There is plenty of evidence, if your willing to do your own research, that indicates that art has direct impact on society, what it accepts and how it behaves. Why have people for decades put so much time, effort and money into 'art' for the expressed purpose for doing just that? Do you expect me to accept your view that art has no impact on society just because you say it? Can you prove it? If you can't why resort to saying its 'over simplistic'. Thats easy for you to say considering the limitation of this site and its purpose. So, why don't you show a little intellectual curtesy, and just answer my question in regards to why I should read the book based upon what I know to be true, based on research, education, professional work, and personal experience that you can presume to be true to your critical oppinion or not? I acknowledged my ignorance of the book itself; so educate me on its benefits without the condensation.

[Beltwayman]

I'd say you should read the book because you clearly don't really get what it's about, but you're ready to condemn it, without having read one word of it.

And I'd wager that not one "intellectual" was inspired to abuse any child because of this book; Lolita's suffering is made clear, as is the fact that Humbert Humbert is a sick man, deluding himself and manipulating others.

Thats encouraging to here. I'm not sure if I'll read it because of the depressing topic, but I will think about it. In either case, I won't presume its something its not. Thanks

[Flip217]

Thats encouraging to here. I'm not sure if I'll read it because of the depressing topic, but I will think about it. In either case, I won't presume its something its not. Thanks

Well, I can see you have strong views already established, but I'll just finish by saying that perhaps you could try to approach the book without any preconceived notions, and understand that any movie version is going to leave lots out by necessity. The movie is not the book.

And it's a testament to the genius and ability of Nabokov that he could take such a "depressing topic" and turn it into a genuine work of art that has been enjoyed, studied, debated, and (unfortunately) banned.

[Beltwayman]

Well, I can see you have strong views already established, but I'll just finish by saying that perhaps you could try to approach the book without any preconceived notions, and understand that any movie version is going to leave lots out by necessity. The movie is not the book.

And it's a testament to the genius and ability of Nabokov that he could take such a "depressing topic" and turn it into a genuine work of art that has been enjoyed, studied, debated, and (unfortunately) banned.

I learned along time ago to treat everything on its merits. Its what I do to a fault. Despite my strong feelings, movies are movies, and people are people. You have to keep an open mind, I know when I'm making a presumption. But it would be foolish to not read critically. :D I even do that when I read drivel.

[Lucky Jim]

This is true. Pedephiles are found in colleges and universities as well as amongst the most ignorant because that delusional thinking treats all its victims without prejudice no matter what your intelligence or acheivement. Is the field of art so priviledged that it is somehow pure of aberant, self-delusional forms of thinking? No, I don't think so. There are even some fields that victims of abuse gravitate towards, and the arts is certainly on that list. What better way to pass on those delusional components then through a self expressive, socially accepted facility? I conjectured that this might be the case with this book. It was conjecture; if you dissagree, than say it--and your more than welcome to say why, which is what I was asking for.

Why conjecture at all? Why would anyone feel the need to "pass along" the "delusional components" (whatever those are) of pedophilia? The onus is not on me to defend the book against your conjecture. The onus is on you to explain why the conjecture is appropriate. All you offered was the subject matter and a lame attempt to insinuate that academic elites think pedophilia is a kind of "sophistication." Those are your words. And you have yet to back them up at all. So tuck your BS burden-shifting away and make an argument in support of your points. For once.


As I stated before, I rejected the idea of reading the book based upon my personal repugnance of the subject matter, and the way its dealt with in the movie. If you can't understand why I would find it personally repugnant; than I'm lost here. All I asked of you is to give me a reason to read it.

And I chose to answer in the way I thought appropriate. You asked us to tell you why you should read it. And I told you you certainly didn't "need" to, and that given your inclination to dismiss it based on crap logic, everyone's probably better off if you didn't.


You want me to accept your view that literature doesn't influence society? All you need to do is a little sociological research; or better yet, read about the work others have already completed.

I never said that either art or literature weren't influential. I said that the idea that art or literature inspires anti-social behavior in any significant way is ridiculous. Which is why blaming Camus for random killings on beaches, blaming Fitzgerald for bootleggers, blaming Cormac McCarthy for vegetable love, blaming Toni Morrison for incest, or even blaming "drivel" like Easton Ellis for serial killers is patently ridiculous.


Why even enter into a 'debate' that is not even scholarly to do over a message board?

I don't even know what this means.


There is plenty of evidence, if your willing to do your own research, that indicates that art has direct impact on society, what it accepts and how it behaves. Why have people for decades put so much time, effort and money into 'art' for the expressed purpose for doing just that? Do you expect me to accept your view that art has no impact on society just because you say it? Can you prove it? If you can't why resort to saying its 'over simplistic'.

You clearly don't understand my point. Which is fine. But I've reiterated it above in the hopes that something might click.


So, why don't you show a little intellectual curtesy, and just answer my question in regards to why I should read the book based upon what I know to be true, based on research, education, professional work, and personal experience that you can presume to be true to your critical oppinion or not?

Frankly, you haven't shown that you deserve intellectual courtesy. Your posts are absent of logical coherence, they're rambling, they misread and misinterpret what I write, and they offer no support - other than some crazy anecdotal reference to Sam Mendes.

Point to one sociological and empirical source that supports your point about art and "aberrant" and/or "deviant" behavior? One empirical source that supports your theory about the culture of deviance among intellectual elites. Just one. Obviously, with so much education and experience in these fields, surely you can get your hands on one, no? I mean, Lolita was published over 50 years ago - clearly if the book has the effect that you speculate it has, someone's done a study on it, right?


I acknowledged my ignorance of the book itself; so educate me on its benefits without the condensation.

No thanks. I'm just too cool, and the air too hot, to avoid condensation.

[Lucky Jim]

I learned along time ago to treat everything on its merits. Its what I do to a fault. Despite my strong feelings, movies are movies, and people are people. You have to keep an open mind, I know when I'm making a presumption. But it would be foolish to not read critically. :D I even do that when I read drivel.


Clearly. I mean, you based this on the "merits", right?


I'm college educated, but I don't find this kind of reading interesting or fun. I've seen the depravity of mankind first hand, and counseled people who are amoungst the worst offenders in society. Now, I ask you why should I want to read Lolita? I certainly couldnt stand the movie. The human condition is rife with taking advantage of the inocent; and with many 'scholars' thinking that such 'sexual freedom' is sophistication at its best is sickening. Who knows how many intellectuals were inspired to deprive young girls of their youth as a result of this book?

So, I ask again, why should I read this book? :confused:

[Flip217]

No thanks. I'm just too cool, and the air too hot, to avoid condensation.

This may be the best line I've ever read on the Hangout. I think I'll put it on my sig line for a time. Sorry I have to spread rep around before giving you any more.