# Reading > Write a Book Review >  that bombshell of a book, Nabokov's Lolita

## dysfunctional-h

So after giving Lolita some time to stew, I must say while (LOL) I said it was dull at one particular moment (the middle of part 2), that's not to say I found it even remotely passionless at any other! It was hilariously punny in the Joycean way, and remarkably well written. However, I cannot say I felt like Nabokov was making a real statement about anything in particular, other than the power of writing itself, the way that Faulkner made a statement about the nature of man's obsessions in his body of work. Because, in the end, Humbert's paranoia TURNS OUT TO BE WELL FOUNDED. That is all I am going to say (I don't want to spoil it).

When it is all over for our hero, while one may feel deeply disturbed by the stark disparity between the immense monstrosity of the actions he takes and the infinite delicacy of the prose he pens, there is no reconciliation. Lolita asks more questions than it answers, as Nabokov wishes for us to find the answers within ourselves (he himself apparently disposed symbolism as a technique in literature). So, overall, a fine book, if difficult and at times boring.

Fair enough? Anybody else beg to differ? I'd love to hear if you do. ^_^

----------


## Prince Smiles

It's a great 'road book'. Lolita will take you on a ride though Americana as surely as Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers perfoming "Roadrunner" or Kowalski in his 1970 Dodge Challenger. 


Am I happy or in misery? 
Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me

----------


## KCurtis

> It's a great 'road book'. Lolita will take you on a ride though Americana as surely as Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers perfoming "Roadrunner" or Kowalski in his 1970 Dodge Challenger. 
> 
> 
> Am I happy or in misery? 
> Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me


I love Roadrunner, forgot about that song! I was too disturbed by Lolita to think of it the way you suggest, although I think it is a superbly written book and maybe some day I should read it again. I teach Middle School girls, and that's why I can't bring myself to re-read it.

----------


## Easter

I actually just read Lolita for the first time... and whatever anyone may think of its (occasional) dull parts, or it's "message"... it has to have one of the best concluding lines in all of fiction.

----------


## stlukesguild

Personally, I found _Lolita_ to have been a magnificent novel... one of the most perfect written... and all the more amazing when you consider that English was not the author's first language... or even his second... having already written novels in Russian and German. I surely don't get the complaints of boredom... but then again, that has more to do with the reader than the book. As for making a statement and/or provoking questions and offering answers... I doubt that Nabokov cared the least for such. His goal was not that of a social reformer but rather that of an "artist" and he created the most exquisitely, artful novel that almost never descends in vulgarity... in spite of the potential for such by the nature of the subject matter. Nabokov described the novel as a "love story". It is a "love story" for the English language and a love story for American culture... and a delicious and at time hilarious romp. The characters are audacious... even outrageous... beginning with the unreliable narrator, Humbert, whose insightful comments on American culture help to endear him to the reader... in spite of the fact that is actuality he is the most despicable of human beings. I can't think of a more seductive villain since Milton's Satan. Then there is Clare Quilty, Humbert's doppelgänger and "brother" in illicit lust and equal in the turn of a phrase. Outside of _Moby Dick, As I lay Dying_ (and perhaps _Myra Breckenridge_... and surely Vidal's novel is a clear heir of _Lolita_) I cannot think of any American novel I enjoyed more.

----------


## My2cents

> Personally, I found _Lolita_ to have been a magnificent novel... one of the most perfect written... and all the more amazing when you consider that English was not the author's first language... or even his second... having already written novels in Russian and German. I surely don't get the complaints of boredom... but then again, that has more to do with the reader than the book. As for making a statement and/or provoking questions and offering answers... I doubt that Nabokov cared the least for such. His goal was not that of a social reformer but rather that of an "artist" and he created the most exquisitely, artful novel that almost never descends in vulgarity... in spite of the potential for such by the nature of the subject matter. Nabokov described the novel as a "love story". It is a "love story" for the English language and a love story for American culture... and a delicious and at time hilarious romp. The characters are audacious... even outrageous... beginning with the unreliable narrator, Humbert, whose insightful comments on American culture help to endear him to the reader... in spite of the fact that is actuality he is the most despicable of human beings. I can't think of a more seductive villain since Milton's Satan. Then there is Clare Quilty, Humbert's doppelgänger and "brother" in illicit lust and equal in the turn of a phrase. Outside of _Moby Dick, As I lay Dying_ (and perhaps _Myra Breckenridge_... and surely Vidal's novel is a clear heir of _Lolita_) I cannot think of any American novel I enjoyed more.


Excellent summation of the book and it's author. Only one discordant note: Nabokov was perfectly fluent in three languages, the third being French.

Nabokov will always be remembered for _Lolita_, but his oeuvre is staggering for it's variety and richness.

----------


## KCurtis

> Personally, I found _Lolita_ to have been a magnificent novel... one of the most perfect written... and all the more amazing when you consider that English was not the author's first language... or even his second... having already written novels in Russian and German. I surely don't get the complaints of boredom... but then again, that has more to do with the reader than the book. As for making a statement and/or provoking questions and offering answers... I doubt that Nabokov cared the least for such. His goal was not that of a social reformer but rather that of an "artist" and he created the most exquisitely, artful novel that almost never descends in vulgarity... in spite of the potential for such by the nature of the subject matter. Nabokov described the novel as a "love story". It is a "love story" for the English language and a love story for American culture... and a delicious and at time hilarious romp. The characters are audacious... even outrageous... beginning with the unreliable narrator, Humbert, whose insightful comments on American culture help to endear him to the reader... in spite of the fact that is actuality he is the most despicable of human beings. I can't think of a more seductive villain since Milton's Satan. Then there is Clare Quilty, Humbert's doppelgänger and "brother" in illicit lust and equal in the turn of a phrase. Outside of _Moby Dick, As I lay Dying_ (and perhaps _Myra Breckenridge_... and surely Vidal's novel is a clear heir of _Lolita_) I cannot think of any American novel I enjoyed more.


Wonderful and insightful outlook on the book. I just started reading Bend Sinister, and it's going to be a good one. I love reading Nabokov's take on ruthless governments. He always invokes humor where one doesn't think there can be any. I love him. After Bend Sinister I may read Pnin, hope that's spelled right.

----------


## dysfunctional-h

I dunno. maybe the second read will be more enjoyable. lol if he didn't care about adding a moral he could at least try to keep the reader engaged, as opposed to making them think you're going to bore them to a slow and painful death right before pulling out all the stops with one of the greatest sections of the book. XD just my opinion. I actually tend to like novels with some sort of theme and moral. but i must say i love the duality of quilty and humbert. Humbert, for all his obsession and blindness to the harm he's causing, ends up seeming naive or even benign in comparison.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> I actually just read Lolita for the first time... and whatever anyone may think of its (occasional) dull parts, or it's "message"... it has to have one of the best concluding lines in all of fiction.


I agree... the last line is so powerful. It gives me chills. 
Few others have achieved this (e.g. Fitzgerald, Mary Shelley, Joyce).

----------


## Easter

> I agree... the last line is so powerful. It gives me chills. 
> Few others have achieved this (e.g. Fitzgerald, Mary Shelley, Joyce).


Yes! That's the exact experience I had when I finished Lolita... I was actually getting a bit nervous as I knew the book was coming to a close and I had NO idea how Nabokov could possibly wrap it all up in such a small space... but boy did he! And it's true it's so hard to find that in a great deal of fiction. Typically last lines leave me a little disappointed. I find myself going "Huh... ok..." rather than being wholly transfixed. 

I always enjoy when concluding lines can make me go "whoa..."

----------


## Ingrid37

It's a great 'road book'.

----------


## cacian

> I actually just read Lolita for the first time... and whatever anyone may think of its (occasional) dull parts, or it's "message"... it has to have one of the best concluding lines in all of fiction.


Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

It's a great novel. I loved it. The prose alone is enough to warrant it's categorization of a great novel.

It's not perfect though. I think it has a but of a pacing issue. There were some parts that really dragged for me, and I couldn't help but think some parts just weren't needed. It's the only reason I gave it a 9 rather than a 10.

----------


## Easter

> Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
> After all Lolita was only 13.
> Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
> I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
> Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.


Of course it's perverse. It can be downright uncomfortable, even... 

But just because something is uncomfortable to read about doesn't make it not worth reading, in my opinion.

And Humbert Humbert is not only a terribly unreliable narrator, he's an incredibly unlikable human being. It's not like the book is trying to make you sympathize with and like this man who has a thing for little girls... quite the opposite. 

I don't know... I think that despite the subject matter, it has moments of real beauty. Ultimately the book isn't so much about Humbert liking young girls.. it's about human connection, love, lust, obsession... Humbert's relationship with Lolita is just the vehicle for it all. 

It's well worth reading.

----------


## stlukesguild

Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.

No... it's not a poignant point at all. It's simply misses out on the fact that what Nabokov was writing was fiction. The character Humbert Humbert does not represent the thoughts or desires of Nabokov any more than Lady Macbeth represents Shakespeare, Judge Holden represents Cormac McCarthy, or the rapist and murderer in this painting represents Goya:



Have you actually read the book?

----------


## stlukesguild

And Humbert Humbert is not only a terribly unreliable narrator, he's an incredibly unlikable human being. 

Exactly! He is the villain... and one of the greatest in literature.

It's not like the book is trying to make you sympathize with and like this man who has a thing for little girls... quite the opposite.

Here I must disagree to a certain degree. Humbert is one of the most seductive villains is all of literature. The closest character I can think of is Milton's Satan, who like Humbert, can almost seduce the audience into liking him in spite of our better judgment. Nabokov is certainly playing with the reader here...

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Humbert is one of the strangest characters in fiction, because he's a character you hate but at the same time (at times) sympathize with, at least I did. When you think about it, Nabokov pulls off quite an amazing feat by making the reader side with Humbert and dislike Lolita, the real victim! But he does it, and what's more is that he does it mostly by letting the reader into Humbert's mind--Lolita never really does anything horrible to him, just manipulates, and when in comparison, the "meanness" she directs at Humbert is minor to what Humbert does to her. 

Cacian, how do you think this book is "at the heart of or merging on child abuse"? Your reasons must go beyond that it's own the book, or every book about war would be promoting war, every book about drugs would be promoting drugs, etc.

P.S. I love Milton's Satan. I was rooting for him throughout _Paradise Lost_.  :Devil:

----------


## Easter

> Here I must disagree to a certain degree. Humbert is one of the most seductive villains is all of literature. The closest character I can think of is Milton's Satan, who like Humbert, can almost seduce the audience into liking him in spite of our better judgment. Nabokov is certainly playing with the reader here...


Well, the interesting thing about Humbert Humbert is how simultaneously repulsive and fascinating he can be... 

I think the original point I was trying to make with the other poster was that Nabokov wasn't trying to make pedophilia into a sympathetic subject... he wasn't condoning it. There's a difference between making Humbert into a seductive character and making the subject itself into one.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I think the original point I was trying to make with the other poster was that Nabokov wasn't trying to make pedophilia into a sympathetic subject... he wasn't condoning it. There's a difference between making Humbert into a seductive character and making the subject itself into one.


Very true. Still, I did find my self aroused several times in the book (while simultaneously be repulsed, an odd combination).

----------


## Easter

> Very true. Still, I did find my self aroused several times in the book (while simultaneously be repulsed, an odd combination).


Part of that could simply be the language Nabokov uses! He intentionally used such sexual language for the most mundane activities... things weren't spat out, they were ejaculated... such a great use of language to evoke an atmosphere. 

And I think there's a difference between being aroused by the thought of being with a young girl and being around (and repulsed!) by Humbert's own lust and obsession... the way Nabokov writes it, it's almost impossible not to feel how Humbert feels things.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Part of that could simply be the language Nabokov uses! He intentionally used such sexual language for the most mundane activities... things weren't spat out, they were ejaculated... such a great use of language to evoke an atmosphere. 
> 
> And I think there's a difference between being aroused by the thought of being with a young girl and being around (and repulsed!) by Humbert's own lust and obsession... the way Nabokov writes it, it's almost impossible not to feel how Humbert feels things.


Exactly. Nabokov could make one aroused by describing the phone book.

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1135091Did you at any time thought it was may be slightely perverse?
After all Lolita was only 13.
Books such as these are contreversial and are at the heart of or merging on child abuse for me anyway.
I can understand literature at its best but when it is done using/decribing children in this way it makes wonder whether the reader and the writer have forgotten where to draw the line for the sake of art and literature.
Just an opinion but a very poignant one I feel it needs to be pointed out.[/COLOR]




> No... it's not a poignant point at all. It's simply misses out on the fact that what Nabokov was writing was fiction. The character Humbert Humbert does not represent the thoughts or desires of Nabokov any more than Lady Macbeth represents Shakespeare, Judge Holden represents Cormac


To me it is a poingnant point because the focus of this book is about a girl aged 13 being lusted over with by an adult, in all countries this is considered child abuse. The author is fully responsible for the content of his books and for him to indulge in such perversity is not something I share and so I hold him as responsible for his thoughts as his character. I tend to keep my reading clean. This is how I view literature.
As to fiction well a book is ficition yes but lots of fiction finds itself in main stream reality because of it. Many books are being filmed and acted out by real people for real audiences, what happens after one has been exposed to contreversial topics such as violence, death hatred lust and child abuse, is anybody's guess.
Media and televisions shape our psychological well being and affect our thoughts and behaviour later on in life.
Many case of child abuse still go on to this day and many famous people such gary glitter and other writers stanlye kubrick are being prosecuted for literally abusing children aged 13 or less. This is fiction/reality and this book in my eyes only goes on reinforcing this utterly wrong attitude and carelessness towards the welfare of children.






> McCarthy, or the rapist and murderer in this painting represents Goya:


one word Jack the Ripper and still goes one to this day.




> Have you actually read the book?


have I the read book?
I could not possibly say I could but I had to flick throughout quickly because the pages I have seen and the perversity of it I could not possibly allow me to pursue it any further.
I have children and I have to think their welfare and for me to read a book such as this would mean I have let my children down. 
I have no desire to share any of nobokov fantasing about a child. I draw the line and yes he might have had the most incredible amasing style of his language I am afraid he has not my attention because of the prolific topice he chose to use to write about.
Had he chosen somethin less contreversial something more educational and imaginative then yes I would have given the time of the day and so no I have nothing to say about him apart from his imfamous fame of being the one with a contreversial topic on his name.
So no he does not get my votes.
Of course this is my opinion and I am entitled to it and you have your views on the subject and I am respective of them.
Each to their own.

----------


## Easter

> To me it is a poingnant point because the focus of this book is about a girl aged 13 being lusted over with by an adult, in all countries this is considered child abuse. The author is fully responsible for the content of his books and for him to indulge in such perversity is not something I share and so I hold him as responsible for his thoughts as his character. I tend to keep my reading clean. This is how I view literature.
> As to fiction well a book is ficition yes but lots of fiction finds itself in main stream reality because of it. Many books are being filmed and acted out by real people for real audiences, what happens after one has been exposed to contreversial topics such as violence, death hatred lust and child abuse, is anybody's guess.


I think you missed the point St Luke was trying to make earlier... just because a painter paints a rape, or a writer writes about child abuse doesn't mean that they want to rape or abuse children. And they don't want to encourage these things either. But they DO want to raise awareness of them. Just because something is controversial or uncomfortable to talk about doesn't mean that it shouldn't be addressed. 

Controversial art does not create these issues. These things have been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. But they do raise awareness of them, they create a dialogue about them, and make them so that they can't be ignored. Problems with society can't be fixed if they're ignored. 




> Many case of child abuse still go on to this day and many famous people such gary glitter and other writers stanlye kubrick are being prosecuted for literally abusing children aged 13 or less. This is fiction/reality and this book in my eyes only goes on reinforcing this utterly wrong attitude and carelessness towards the welfare of children.


I would point out that until fairly recently (within the last few hundred years), 13 would not be considered a child. The notion of adolescence is a fairly recent (and extremely correct) construct. Before that there was just childhood and then adulthood. 

In fact, Lolita stands as testament to how we have evolved as a society. Just a few hundred years or so ago, Humbert lusting after a 13 year old would not have even been considered child abuse. But Humbert DOES know he's wrong. He knows it, and he agonizes over it. He knows others know it's wrong as well. Were the book to treat the subject cavalierly or carelessly, this notion of being wrong wouldn't even be introduced.




> have I the read book?
> I could not possibly say I could but I had to flick throughout quickly because the pages I have seen and the perversity of it I could not possibly allow me to pursue it any further.
> Had he chosen somethin less contreversial something more educational and imaginative then yes I would have given the time of the day and so no I have nothing to say about him apart from his imfamous fame of being the one with a contreversial topic on his name.
> So no he does not get my votes.
> Of course this is my opinion and I am entitled to it and you have your views on the subject and I am respective of them.
> Each to their own.


Of course you're entitled to your opinion! In fact, the beauty of this topic (or any controversial art!) is that it creates this dialogue of disagreement. It creates awareness of a subject. How could we learn anything about each other (or about ourselves) if all we read was perfectly nice, safe literature? 

Although, to be fair, I do think to properly comment on a book you should have read it... there's a lot more to Lolita than the controversial subject matter. Lolita is not a comfortable book with a comfortable topic, but I do think that it has something to say, and that that something is worth reading.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Yeah, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, it's the type of opinion that leads to censorship and suppression of free speech and artistic expression.

----------


## cacian

> Yeah, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Unfortunately, though, it's the type of opinion that leads to censorship and suppression of free speech and artistic expression.


the point of freedom of speech is that I am entitled to say what I think and if that is your view that my opinion leads to censorship then those are your words not mine.
An opinion regardless of what it carries is an opinion and just because you happen to like something and I do not does not give you the right to make a negative comment about it.
I am stating what I consider to be right and you state what you want without infringing on mine. That is the definition of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is not about exposing perversive thoughts in a book of fiction , it is about the ability to express any perversion in a real life statement and ensuring that it does not infect our societies.
If one really cared about children welfaire one does not start by making a fiction of it and selling it to gain reputation and status.
One way of doing is to declare it openly and to the public by making a full and proper realistic statement to engage others's awarness of it. Beating around the bush about it in perverse fictional story where characters engage in full erotic twisted description at the benefit of children aged 13 or more is not what I consider proper.
That is my opinion.

----------


## Easter

Well, in the interest of clearing up the "censorship" issue, cacian... is it just that YOU don't want to read the book, or that you think the book SHOULDN'T be read by anyone? 

MM wasn't denying your right to have an opinion on the book but he (she? sorry... I don't know! lol) was pointing out that oftentimes people use their negative opinions of books/art to crusade against them being read/seen at all. I'm a huge anti-censorship person, myself, so I can see where MM was coming from. I think it's dangerous for anyone to say that just because something has disagreeable subject matter it ought to be eliminated from the sphere of public discourse. (Note: I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying this, I'm just saying that is the danger of censorship)

Also, point of interest, freedom of speech doesn't just protect speech you like, it protects speech you hate as well.. so if we all want to enjoy this right, we need to maintain our willingness to have this dialogue, especially if someone says something we don't agree with. 

That being said, I DON'T think Nabokov wrote Lolita to capitalize on the shocking subject matter in order "to gain reputation and status." I think he wanted to write a story about lust, love, and obsession... and he did that. In Lolita, Humbert Humbert doesn't just use Lolita.. he is madly, passionately, (and improperly) in love with her.. 

Once again, though, this might be easier to point out had you read the book... and not just expressed your assumptions about it based on what you've heard about the plot...

----------


## stlukesguild

I love Milton's Satan. I was rooting for him throughout Paradise Lost.

Yes. Quite often I find myself agreeing with the Romantic interpretation and concurring with Blake who insisted that Milton was really of the Devil's party. It certainly is easy to see Satan as rebelling against the old order... not unlike Milton himself rebelling against the English crown. Indeed, it's quite hard not to imagine _Paradise Lost_ as being quite akin to Shelley's _Prometheus Bound_... in which the poet's sympathies are clearly with the rebel. But the Romantics lived in the age of rebellion and revolution... and this carried over to religion as well as the question of the aristocracy and government. Milton's faith was unshakable. He may have questioned the Papacy... but certainly not the divine order of the universe. God was unquestionably good and Satan evil. I suspect that Milton portrays Satan as such a noble... even sympathetic figure in order to convey just how seductive and dangerous Satan and sin is.

----------


## stlukesguild

To me it is a poingnant point because the focus of this book is about a girl aged 13 being lusted over with by an adult, in all countries this is considered child abuse. 

The subject of pedophilia served Nabokov merely as a formalistic challenge. In no way does he set out to explore the realities of pedophilia or the horrific experience of child abuse. Rather, the subject was merely a challenge to his skills as a writer. Could he write a novel about such a theme without falling prey to the pornographic? Could he actually make the predator a sympathetic figure? Language, comments on American and European culture, age and youth, etc... are equally important themes... and in many ways are explored in far more depth than the realities of child abuse. 

The author is fully responsible for the content of his books and for him to indulge in such perversity is not something I share and so I hold him as responsible for his thoughts as his character. I tend to keep my reading clean.

You have a truly naive concept of art. If we were to eliminate every character from literature that was flawed... or even "evil" we'd pretty much be left with little more to read than _Green Eggs and Ham_ and _Dick and Jane_. 

have I the read book?
I could not possibly say I could but I had to flick throughout quickly because the pages I have seen and the perversity of it I could not possibly allow me to pursue it any further.

Then you have absolutely no business commenting on it because all you have to bring to the discussion is hearsay and personal assumptions.

----------


## cacian

> The subject of pedophilia served Nabokov merely as a formalistic challenge. In no way does he set out to explore the realities of pedophilia or the horrific experience of child abuse. Rather, the subject was merely a challenge to his skills as a writer. Could he write a novel about such a theme without falling prey to the pornographic? Could he actually make the predator a sympathetic figure? Language, comments on American and European culture, age and youth, etc... are equally important themes... and in many ways are explored in far more depth than the realities of child abuse.


I am afraid I have to completely disagree, for someone to be so knowledgable about lust and peodophilia with children that age and in a literary sesne one needs to have thought, experienced or felt them in one way or another in order to be so eloquent about such subject. No smoke without fire or thereabouts.





> You have a truly naive concept of art. If we were to eliminate every character from literature that was flawed... or even "evil" we'd pretty much be left with little more to read than _Green Eggs and Ham_ and _Dick and Jane_.


Please do not assume that I am naive. You know notthing about me to assume such conclusions. Another way of putting might that you are the naive one to assume that bad/contreversial art exposed publically in this way has any benefit other then to encourage participation of some sort, I don't consider sharing twisted ideas a good way of raising awarness. My opinion my choice.




> Then you have absolutely no business commenting on it because all you have to bring to the discussion is hearsay and personal assumptions.


I am afraid you are again very wrong to assume that one needs to have read an entire book to know whether it is any good or not.
I have seen enough of it to know it is not a book I aspire to or admire, not my fault if the few pages I have seen of it failed to convince me that it was worth it.
One is able to make up one's mind about any book by reading one or two pages and looking at the summary and reading critics of it. I know whether a book is worth reading or not at a glance. Maybe it takes you longer but that's you. Please do not make any more assumption in a disrespectful way if you have n othing else different to add.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Cacian, how are we supposed to _not_ think you're naive? You're constantly talking about what you think is inappropriate and what you don't read because you find it offensive, and you're saying here that _Lolita_ condones pedophilia. What other conclusion are we supposed to come to?




> the point of freedom of speech is that I am entitled to say what I think and if that is your view that my opinion leads to censorship then those are your words not mine.
> An opinion regardless of what it carries is an opinion and just because you happen to like something and I do not does not give you the right to make a negative comment about it.
> I am stating what I consider to be right and you state what you want without infringing on mine. That is the definition of freedom of speech.
> Freedom of speech is not about exposing perversive thoughts in a book of fiction , it is about the ability to express any perversion in a real life statement and ensuring that it does not infect our societies.
> If one really cared about children welfaire one does not start by making a fiction of it and selling it to gain reputation and status.
> One way of doing is to declare it openly and to the public by making a full and proper realistic statement to engage others's awarness of it. Beating around the bush about it in perverse fictional story where characters engage in full erotic twisted description at the benefit of children aged 13 or more is not what I consider proper.
> That is my opinion.


So, you can state your opinion, but I'm not allowed to state my opinion that I think it's completely off-base? I'm confused.

Easter pretty much nailed what I was trying to say (and I'm a guy, Easter,  :Smile: ). I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, just that opinions like that are what leads to censorship. Opinions like that are what leads to books, paintings, movies, or anything else, being banned. Opinions like that lead to idiotic decisions like replacing the word "nigger" with "slave" in Huck Finn. So, yeah, IN MY OPINION, your opinions, when widespread, are dangerous. And I have just as much a right to express my opinion that condemns your opinion, capiche?

And, I must agree with the consensus here--you really need to read the whole book if you want your opinions to hold any weight.

----------


## stlukesguild

I am afraid I have to completely disagree

How can you disagree as what the book is about when you haven't bothered to read it? Any opinion you may have considering is wholly without value.

for someone to be so knowledgable about lust and peodophilia with children that age and in a literary sesne one needs to have thought, experienced or felt them in one way or another in order to be so eloquent about such subject. No smoke without fire or thereabouts.

That's certainly one of the dumbest comments I've read here in quite a while... and that takes some doing. You clearly haven't the least idea about what goes into the creation of a work of art or creativity. Art is laden with narratives and images addressing subjects ranging from rape to murder to torture to nearly any horrific subject you can think of. Those with a certain degree of maturity recognize that the artist and the artwork are two distinct things. Not every work of art that addresses a subject matter that makes us uncomfortable is an expression of the subconscious desires of the artist. Had you actually read Lolita you might have recognized just how Nabokov employs Humbert as an unreliable narrator... someone not to be trusted. But again, your opinions are based upon nothing more than hearsay and presumption.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I am afraid I have to completely disagree
> 
> How can you disagree as what the book is about when you haven't bothered to read the book? Any opinion you may have considering is wholly without value.
> 
> for someone to be so knowledgable about lust and peodophilia with children that age and in a literary sesne one needs to have thought, experienced or felt them in one way or another in order to be so eloquent about such subject. No smoke without fire or thereabouts.
> 
> That's certainly one of the dumbest comments I've read here in quite a while... and that takes some doing. You clearly haven't the least idea about what goes into the creation of a work of art or creativity. Art is laden with narratives and images addressing subjects ranging from rape to murder to torture to nearly any horrific subject you can think of. Those with a certain degree of maturity recognize that the artist and the artwork are two distinct things. Not every work of art that addresses a subject matter that makes us uncomfortable is an expression of the subconscious desires of the artist. Had you actually read Lolita you might have recognized just how Nabokov employs Humbert as an unreliable narrator... someone not to be trusted. But again, your opinions are based upon nothing more than hearsay and presumption.


No, no, no, StLukes, she read a _few pages_--surely enough for her to conclude that Nabokov was a pedophile.

----------


## dysfunctional-h

> No, no, no, StLukes, she read a _few pages_--surely enough for her to conclude that Nabokov was a pedophile.


trololololol

My understanding of this book is honestly most likely too superficial to warrant comment. I need to reread this book as an adult, probably, to fully understand it, especially the disillusioned post-modern atmosphere. I'm too idealistic as a teen. XD

----------


## Easter

> I am afraid I have to completely disagree, for someone to be so knowledgable about lust and peodophilia with children that age and in a literary sesne one needs to have thought, experienced or felt them in one way or another in order to be so eloquent about such subject. No smoke without fire or thereabouts.


So.. by that logic, people can only write about what they know/feel/have experience with themselves? So... I guess fantasy or science fiction doesn't really exist? Or historical fiction, because the authors couldn't have lived through that history themselves?

I think it's a little nearsighted to assume that because an author writes about a man who loves a 13 year old girl the author himself must have felt such things.

----------


## cacian

> =Easter;1135467]So.. by that logic, people can only write about what they know/feel/have experience with themselves? So... I guess fantasy or science fiction doesn't really exist? Or historical fiction, because the authors couldn't have lived through that history themselves?


Hi Easter when it comes down to writing about fantasy then that is just imagination of the mind because it is easier to imagine things that don't exist then things that do.
I can easily imagine new characters based on what I already know from children's books and fairy tales stories and then build on from it. Imagination is key when it comes to creationism at this level.
That is how I understand it.




> I think it's a little nearsighted to assume that because an author writes about a man who loves a 13 year old girl the author himself must have felt such things.


[/QUOTE]
When it comes to intimacy and feelings then it is slightely different one can express a sentiment, an emotions or a desire perfectly because onehas lived felt or feels that way.
Feelings are personal and so is lust. I could not write about sexual desires that are different from mine such as the case of lolita because I have the faintest idea how to go about because I have not the experience of it. I can howevber write eloquently about my deep desires if I wanted to and succed at it because I know how it feels.
That is how I perceive things and of course you are to disagree with me and that is perfectly acceptable to me because you and I are different.

----------


## cacian

> No, no, no, StLukes, she read a _few pages_--surely enough for her to conclude that Nabokov was a pedophile.


well how long does it take to realise the book is not for you?
I usually make my mind up by looking at few things
Title/Summary/first few pages/style of writing and last but not least and most importanly the topic.
If the story is going to be build about a child and an adult in adult theme I won't look at it.
For example I would not read sci-fi books because I am not interested in them.
I am quick at making my mind up at selecting which books are of interest to me which saves me money when I go to a bookshop. Thank god I do not have to read the whole thing to decide I did not like it.

One question I have which is perfectly on topic and it is this:

who is to know that Gary Glitter and Roman Polanski did not read the book and felt tempted by it and so went and did it? After we are only human if a book that deals with such contreversial situation is publically accepted as one the best ever to be written who is to say its impact had a total opposite effect on certain people because people are different. Different people react differently a one same thing ? 
There always tow sides to a story isn't there?
This is a perfectly plausible scenario and makes a perfectly valid point.

Anyway I won't go on about this subject because I am not after an argument but just to put a point across.
I hope you do appreciate that views and opinions are always going to be varied and different and that is healthy as far as I am concerned.

----------


## Easter

> Hi Easter when it comes down to writing about fantasy then that is just imagination of the mind because it is easier to imagine things that don't exist then things that do.
> I can easily imagine new characters based on what I already know from children's books and fairy tales stories and then build on from it. Imagination is key when it comes to creationism at this level.
> That is how I understand it.
> 
> When it comes to intimacy and feelings then it is slightely different one can express a sentiment, an emotions or a desire perfectly because onehas lived felt or feels that way.
> Feelings are personal and so is lust. I could not write about sexual desires that are different from mine such as the case of lolita because I have the faintest idea how to go about because I have not the experience of it. I can howevber write eloquently about my deep desires if I wanted to and succed at it because I know how it feels.
> That is how I perceive things and of course you are to disagree with me and that is perfectly acceptable to me because you and I are different.


Well, I DO disagree with you... just because YOU could not write about something without having felt it, doesn't mean that others can't. As to the notion that it's easier to write about something that doesn't exist... I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think it's a HUGE challenge to create an entire world or country or series of events based around rules that aren't applicable in our own world. 

Also, I do think we need to clarify exactly what Nabokov is writing about... It isn't just that Humbert Humbert gets a sexual charge from underage girls... he falls in love with them. And it's an all-encompasing, obsessive love. So really Nabokov is NOT writing about some taboo desire.. he's writing about obsessive love, which is a universal subject. The object of is affection may be taboo, but his feelings are not.




> well how long does it take to realise the book is not for you?
> I usually make my mind up by looking at few things
> Title/Summary/first few pages/style of writing and last but not least and most importanly the topic.
> If the story is going to be build about a child and an adult in adult theme I won't look at it.
> For example I would not read sci-fi books because I am not interested in them.
> I am quick at making my mind up at selecting which books are of interest to me which saves me money when I go to a bookshop. Thank god I do not have to read the whole thing to decide I did not like it.


I also think you're missing the point they were trying to make here... it's not whether or not the book is for you.... if you don't like the book, that's fine! You're entitled not to! But the point is that you haven't read it, you have no intention of reading it (because it's 'not for you') and yet you have no problem commenting on the topic and the content and the author's intention. How can you really make an informed judgment without having read it? I wouldn't comment on a thread about, _Atlas Shrugged_, for example, because I haven't read it... despite what I may have heard about it or whether or not I think it's a book that's "for me"... I wouldn't comment because I don't feel like I know enough about it to make informed comments...

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> well how long does it take to realise the book is not for you?
> I usually make my mind up by looking at few things
> Title/Summary/first few pages/style of writing and last but not least and most importanly the topic.
> If the story is going to be build about a child and an adult in adult theme I won't look at it.
> For example I would not read sci-fi books because I am not interested in them.
> I am quick at making my mind up at selecting which books are of interest to me which saves me money when I go to a bookshop. Thank god I do not have to read the whole thing to decide I did not like it.
> 
> One question I have which is perfectly on topic and it is this:
> 
> ...


I don't understand your question.

----------


## cacian

> I don't understand your question.


What I am trying to say that lots of books shape our inspirations motivations and ultimately our styles and attitudes because that is the power of literature.
Lots of great writers and authors are influenced by other writers before and so lots of style of writing and ideals come throught one's writing.
The question I am asking is this:
do you think by reading Lolita some people not all, would interpret the book differently from you and I?
I gave you an example of Polanski to illustrate what I am trying to say and that is:
Is there a possibility somewhere that an offender or polanski for example would have committed child abuse because the negative influence the book had on them?
After there is always two side to a story .

----------


## Dark Star

> who is to know that Gary Glitter and Stanley Kubrick did not read the book and felt tempted by it and so went and did it?


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Kubrick is a pedophile? If so, what evidence do you have?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> What I am trying to say that lots of books shape our inspirations motivations and ultimately our styles and attitudes because that is the power of literature.
> Lots of great writers and authors are influenced by other writers before and so lots of style of writing and ideals come throught one's writing.
> The question I am asking is this:
> do you think by reading Lolita some people not all, would interpret the book differently from you and I?
> I gave you an example of Kubrick to illustrate what I am trying to say and that is:
> Is there a possibility somewhere that an offender or kubrick for example would have committed child abuse because the negative influence the book had on them?
> After there is always two side to a story .


Anyone who commits a crime like child abuse is going to have deeper issues than being influenced by one single piece of art. That's like saying video games are the sole reason a kids goes on a shooting spree. It's ridiculous.

There will always be different interpretations of a book, and some of those interpretations will be bad, such as interpreting _Lolita_ as promoting pedophilia. An author, or a work, can hardly be faulted for stupid people misunderstanding it. The man who killed John Lennon was obsessed and claimed inspiration from _The Catcher in the Rye_. Should we assign blame to that book or J.D. Salinger? No. Same goes for _Lolita_.

----------


## cacian

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Kubrick is a pedophile? If so, what evidence do you have?


Oops sorry I beg your pardon..totally my fault...it was Polanski.
I always confuse the two.
I better go and change it...apologies.

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE]


> Anyone who commits a crime like child abuse is going to have deeper issues than being influenced by one single piece of art. That's like saying video games are the sole reason a kids goes on a shooting spree. It's ridiculous.


Well that is one perfect possibility. Some people would act on impulse and because they have seen it or read about it.
Take glossy magazines for example, they are a huge business because they sell fashion like tap water. Many young people buy these magazines to look at the lastest look/style/model because they want to be the same. That is what magazines do and are to sell an image a picture an ideal that is not attainable. How is that different from a story that deals with child abuse issues?




> There will always be different interpretations of a book, and some of those interpretations will be bad, such as interpreting _Lolita_ as promoting pedophilia. An author, or a work, can hardly be faulted for stupid people misunderstanding it. The man who killed John Lennon was obsessed and claimed inspiration from _The Catcher in the Rye_. Should we assign blame to that book or J.D. Salinger? No. Same goes for _Lolita_.


Well why don't you want to believe the killer? You heard it from the horse's mouth. I believe what this person said that he was inspired by the book because he admitted it.

----------


## stlukesguild

I could not write about sexual desires that are different from mine such as the case of lolita because I have the faintest idea how to go about because I have not the experience of it.

That does not mean that others cannot.

----------


## stlukesguild

What I am trying to say that lots of books shape our inspirations motivations and ultimately our styles and attitudes because that is the power of literature.
Lots of great writers and authors are influenced by other writers before and so lots of style of writing and ideals come throught one's writing.
The question I am asking is this:
do you think by reading Lolita some people not all, would interpret the book differently from you and I?
I gave you an example of Polanski to illustrate what I am trying to say and that is:
Is there a possibility somewhere that an offender or polanski for example would have committed child abuse because the negative influence the book had on them?
After there is always two side to a story .

So obviously we should banish the Bible and the Qur'an. Far more criminal acts, acts of the most atrocious and unspeakable tortures, and wholesale murders have been committed by those inspired by these books than by a thousand _Lolitas_.

----------


## Ecurb

Didn't Charles the Beloved, last king of Zembla, have a penchant for young boys? I'm thinking of vacationing in Zembla this summer (although my sexual proclivities differ from Charles's.)

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Well why don't you want to believe the killer? You heard it from the horse's mouth. I believe what this person said that he was inspired by the book because he admitted it.


I didn't say I didn't believe the killer; I'm pretty sure I said quite the opposite. My point is the book, in this case Catcher in the Rye, nor its author shouldn't be blamed for one nut-case's interpretation.

----------


## Emil Miller

I reviewed this novel some time ago and while the subject matter is obviously disturbing for many readers, despite its controversial nature, the precociousness of young girls is not infrequently encountered in everyday life. Here is an amusing take on a silly suggestion that girls take their infant siblings to school as an example in sex lessons. The caption reads: 

Look Doris, taking Baby to school
for practical sex demonstrations
one thing -taking Daddys another!

----------


## R.F. Schiller

Sorry to bump an old thread, but seeing as this is my favourite book of all-time I'd like to point out a few comments:

- It's asinine that cacian is denouncing the book based on "flipping through a few pages". How are you supposed to get any context? You would've missed the part at the end:

"What I heard was but the melody of children at play, nothing but that, and so limpid was the air that within this vapor of blended voices, majestic and minute, remote and magically near, frank and divinely enigmatic -- one could hear now and then, as if released, an almost articulate spurt of vivid laughter, or the crack of a bat, or the clatter of a toy wagon, but it was all really too far for the eye to distinguish any movement in the lightly etched streets. I stood listening to that musical vibration from my lofty slope, to those flashes of separate cries with a kind of demure murmur for background, and then *I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita's absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord."*

I also have no idea why you seem to think Nabokov shares the same feelings as Humbert. Did Dostoevsky really inhabit murderous feelings inside? If you read the book carefully, it is clear that Nabokov is writing about a villain and is siding with Dolores Haze. 

Secondly, it seems like many are talking about the novel in terms of love. While I do believe the novel does contain allegorical elements of Nabokov's love of English and America, I think the book has more to do with tyranny and Nabokov's disgust with totalitarianism. In _Speak, Memory_, Nabokov repeatedly speaks about the purity and beauty of his own childhood and life in Russia. When he was 17, the Communist regime took over, eventually resulting in his father's death, and he was forced to flee to Berlin, leaving his native homeland. Then again, he was forced to flee from Berlin to France during the uprise of the Nazi party, as his wife was Jewish (and therefore his son as well by the Nuremberg Laws). He was then forced to flee from France to New York upon Hitler's invasion of France. Many of his friends, including his brother Sergei, were killed in the Holocaust. Nabokov then began to absolutely loathe totalitarianism, both because he championed individualism over collectivism and because he was personally affected by it.

When he was writing his first "American" book, Nabokov began to wonder deeply about what would have happened to his son if he had failed to protect him from Nazi Germany. This is reflected in_ Bend Sinister_ as it is about a character who fails to protect his child who is then killed by the totalitarian state. These sentiments leak into Lolita where Nabokov now writes from the perspective of the tyrant. Superficially Humbert has many similarities with Nabokov, both Europeans who later arrived in America, both middle-aged, both men of letters ect. but it is actually Lolita who shares the same innermost nature with Nabokov. Just like many tyrants, Humbert is incredibly seductive with his speech - Hitler's oratory skills were legendary which made him exceptionally popular with the German people, and even foreign leaders, like the Canadian Prime Minister (if I remember my high school history correctly) had a man-crush on him. Nabokov uses Humbert to show us how powerfully persuasive tyrants can be and we, the readers have to find Nabokov's clues within the story to not be seduced by Humbert and focus on the facts. 

The book is not about sex, it is about corruption and loss of childhood. Sex is merely one of the mechanisms which Humbert "broke" Lolita.

I know Nabokov has said that he does not write with a moral in mind and does not consider himself a didactic writer, but that is only on the surface. I took an undergraduate course just on Nabokov with a well-known scholar who has published several articles (mainly on his Russian works) and books on Nabokov. I've read _King, Queen, Knave, Laughter in the Dark, Despair, The Gift, Glory, The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Lolita, Pnin and Pale Fire_ and in almost all of them, Nabokov does have a "point" to make, instead of just the aesthetic bliss his claims, but never does it explicitly.

----------

