Prof. Harry Levin of Harvard says it is a great book and darkly symbolical (Mr. Nabokov explicitly denies any symbolism). Graham Greene says that “Lolita” is a distinguished novel. William Styron says it is "uniquely droll" and "genuinely funny."

"Lolita," then, is undeniably news in the world of books. Unfortunately, it is bad news. There are two equally serious reasons why it isn't worth any adult reader's attention. The first is that it is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid and archly fatuous fashion. The second is that it is repulsive.

"Lolita" is not crudely crammed with Anglo-Saxon nouns and verbs and explicitly described scenes of sexual violence. Its depravity is more refined. Mr. Nabokov, whose English vocabulary would astound the editors of the Oxford Dictionary, does not write cheap pornography. He writes highbrow pornography. Perhaps that is not his intention. Perhaps he thinks of his book as a satirical comedy and as an exploration of abnormal psychology. Nevertheless, "Lolita" is disgusting.

"Lolita" is a demonstration of the artistic pitfall that awaits a novelist who invades the clinical field of the case history. Since a large proportion of the human race is emotionally unbalanced and neuroses are so common as almost to be normal, novelists must rightly concern themselves with disturbed minds. But there is a line that is artistically perilous to cross.

Past the artistic danger line of madness is another even more fatal. It is where the particular mania is a perversion like Humbert's. To describe such a perversion with the pervert's enthusiasm without being disgusting is impossible. If Mr. Nabokov tried to do so he failed.

Tell it like it is, Orville! The above are excerpts from Orville Prescott's 1958 New York Times book review of Lolita back when Mr. Prescott was the most influential literary critic writing book reviews.

From my own experience of this classic, I would strongly recommend listening to the audio book narrated by Jeremy Irons, who does a masterful job of catching the flawless beauty of Mr. Nabokov's poetic language.

However, I must say, the subject matter of Lolita is not at all to my taste. I much prefer the author's Pale Fire and Pnin.



“I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita.”
― Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita

Αυτό το επί πολλά χρόνια απαγορευμένο βιβλίο αξίζει άπειρα αστέρια στη βαθμίδα αξιολόγησης της λογοτεχνίας.
Εύλογα έλαβε διαστάσεις μύθου, αφού ο Ναμπόκοφ ως πανεπιστημιακός δάσκαλος αξιοθαύμαστα παραστατικός,μαγνητίζει το κοινό του και το "παίζει" σε ένα παιχνίδι "στημένο" πάνω σε μια διάφανη σκακιέρα.

Η Λολίτα είναι ένα μεγάλο-μεταφορικά και ουσιαστικά- διττό μυθιστόρημα. Απο τη μια,εμπλέκει και φορτίζει τον αναγνώστη πολύ έντονα,βαθιά και συγκινησιακά σε μια τραγική ιστορία,υπερβατική, που καταργεί τα καθωσπρέπει και βάζει "μπουρλότο"στη φαντασία και
απο την άλλη αυτός ο μέγιστος δραματικός τερατολόγος, με την λαβυρινθώδη και περίπλοκη τεχνική του, παρωδεί και ειρωνεύεται όλες τις ρεαλιστικές συμβάσεις,μεταφέροντας τα λεγόμενα του μέσα σε ένα παιχνίδι που υπονομεύει τα πάντα.

Ή δέχεσαι την πολυσχιδή και ουσιώδη γραφή του Ναμπόκοφ που συνεχώς με επιδεξιότητα σου θολώνει το μυαλό και τη σκέψη και σε μαγνητίζει σε μια κατάσταση ύπαρξης όπου η τέχνη του γραπτού λόγου είναι μόνο:περιέργεια-τρυφερότητα-ευγένεια και έκσταση,
ή το χαρακτηρίζεις βιβλίο μανιακής διαφθοράς και προσβολής της αισθητικής απόλαυσης χωρίς ηθικό δίδαγμα και το κλείνεις πριν τον πρόλογο.

Είναι ένα "πορνογράφημα" που δεν περιέχει ούτε μία χυδαία λέξη,ούτε μία περιγραφή πρόστυχης ή έστω πικάντικης ερωτικής σκηνής. Ούτε μία.

Λογικά χαρακτηρισμένο και απαγορευμένο αφού το θέμα του είναι η παιδοφιλία-πόσο πονάει αυτή η λέξη με όλη τη σημασία της-και μια ανίερη σχέση,μια λυρική και ειρωνική ιστορία για έναν καταδικασμένο και αηδιαστικό έρωτα.

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins...

Με αυτά τα λόγια ενός τριανταπεντάχρονου άντρα προς ένα δωδεκάχρονο κοριτσάκι ξεκινάει η Λολίτα.
Ο Χάμπερτ Χάμπερτ είναι ο ήρωας και αφηγητής της φρικιαστικής ιστορίας.
Καταφέρνει να γίνει πατριός της μικρής Ντολόρες ή χαϊδευτικά Λο-λί-τα, την οποία και μεγαλώνει μετά το θάνατο της μητέρας της,γίνεται εραστής της και την κρατάει δέσμια και ασφυκτικά κολλημένη πάνω του αφού είναι ψυχωτικός,εμμονικός και αδύναμος μέχρι θανάτου να διαχειριστεί το πάθος του για το παιδί.

Γραμμένο σε πρώτο πρόσωπο-για να σε εξοργίζει περισσότερο-το βιβλίο αυτό καταφέρνει να διεισδύσει στη βαθιά ριζωμένη λαχτάρα του Χάμπερτ για όλα τα κοριτσάκια 9-14 ετών που αποκαλεί νυμφίδια. Υποφέρει, σχεδιάζει,ονειρεύεται,παραληρεί,φαντάζεται και κάνει αυτοσκοπό το αρρωστημένο του πάθος. Τα καταφέρνει. Έχει τη Λολίτα δική του. Κτήμα του. Ερωμένη του. Δημιούργημα του. Καταστροφή του.

"Λολίτα, πεθαίνω, τελειώνω. Η ενοχή και το μίσος με καίει. Και ξανά τη γροθιά μου σου υψώνω και ξανά η φωνούλα σου κλαίει......Λολίτα, φως της ζωής μου, φωτιά των λαγόνων μου. Άμαρτημά μου εσύ, ψυχή μου".

Γροθιά στο στομάχι η λογοτεχνική διαστροφικότητα του Ναμπόκοφ. Μας στήνει τη φάκα περίτεχνα και πέφτουμε μέσα,όλοι, ακόμα και οι πιο έμπειροι αναγνώστες. Σίγουρα. Μέγιστη παρωδία. Κανείς δεν ξεφεύγει.

Εκεί που μπαίνεις μέσα στην προσωπική τραγικότητα και αποδέχεσαι με απέχθεια το αρρωστημένο πάθος, εκεί που λυπάσαι τον "ποιητή-αφηγητή-δράστη" όταν απολογείται γραπτώς και φωνάζει την αιτία της δυστυχίας του, εξομολογούμενος ένα παιδικό του τραύμα και θρηνεί και οδύρεται,μετανιωμένος που κατάστρεψε μια παιδική ψυχή λέγοντας:
"Ήμουν ένα πεντάποδο τέρας αλλά σε αγάπησα.Ήμουν ποταπός και αχρείος και κτηνώδης και τα πάντα". Εκεί,πάνω στην εξομολόγηση ειναι στημένη η παγίδα.

Και όταν μέσα απο το ηθικό λεξιλόγιο του αρρώστου και μετανιωμένου γεννιέται η διπλή του προσωπικότητα στο πρόσωπο του Κλέρ Κίλτι, βλέπουμε άναυδοι έναν χαρακτήρα γελοίο,παράλογο,διεστραμμένο και γκροτέσκο. Γιατί ενσαρκώνει την αλήθεια και μια καρικατούρα της. Είναι η ενοχή του Χάμπερτ και η παρωδία του ψυχικού διπολισμού.

Και έρχεται η άρνηση της αποδοχής.

Και ξανά σιχαίνεται τον εαυτό σου που λίγο κόντεψε να λυπηθείς αυτό το κτήνος. Και μετά έρχεται το έγκλημα και πάλι παλινοδείς γιατί ο ανήθικος σκοτώνει τον ηθικό όμως ο ανήθικος αγάπησε βαθιά τη Λολίτα.
Και συνεχίζεις μέχρι τέλους να περιστρέφεσαι αναποδογυρίζοντας τις συμβάσεις και το δίκιο και το ηθικό μέσα στον κυκεώνα καταστάσεων που σε ορίζει θύτη και θύμα ο πανούργος συγγραφέας.

ΕΞΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΟ ΒΙΒΛΙΟ.
Η χρήση του λεξιλογίου αμιλλάται το "ερωτικό" και διεστραμμένο περιεχόμενο της αφήγησης.

Διαβάστε το.
Παρά το φαινομενικό θέμα που αφοπλίζει και σαστίζει.

Αξίζει για όλες τις παγίδες και τις μεταμορφώσεις. Είτε είστε στη μια πλευρά της λιμνούλας του Ναμπόκοφ,γεμάτη καθάριο,διάφανο νερό με σπάνια κοχύλια και λείο πυθμένα,είτε είστε απο την άλλη τη γεμάτη σύγχυση,λάσπη,μελάνι και σουπιές,
τα διαθλώμενα νερά του καλού και του κακού συγχέονται τρομερά.

"Ήταν Λο, απλή Λο το πρωινό, τέσσερα πόδια και δέκα ίντσες, ορθή με το ένα της σοσόνι. Ήταν Λόλα φορώντας παντελόνια. Ήταν Ντόλλυ στο σχολείο, Ντολόρες στο ληξιαρχείο. Όμως στη δική μου αγκαλιά ήταν πάντα, κάθε φορά, ΛΟΛΙΤΑ".

In this sulfurous and scandalous novel, Vladimir Nabokov succeeds in "lulling" the reader's ethics to bring him to consider the point of view of a pedophile's story. He skillfully plays with words to make him an accomplice and tolerate the sordid fantasies of his main character.
It goes beyond the sole question of pedophilia and incest, tilting received ideas with intelligence and finesse to deliver a heartbreaking story full of contradictions.
Bold, shocking, and haunting, despite our disgusting aversion, Nabokov delivers us the diary of a pedophile by playing down the role of the victim and embellishing the most disastrous baseness of this intolerable inclination.
The enormous provocative load can confuse more than one. It is disturbing, asking the reader to overcome his prejudices and give up his comfortable certainties about good and evil for a moment.
We admit the facets of the author's sophisticated, facetious, poetic, and erotic genius, who plays with first and third-person narration to confuse the reader and sometimes allow him to take a step back from the abject narrator.
Solar and lonely, this reading shines with a dark glow long after the last page turns.

n  I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another’s child, but still gray-eyed, still sooty-lashed, still auburn and almond, still Carmencita, still mine.n

From prison, the confessions of Humbert Humbert, a 40- year old man with a weakness for 'nymphets', budding sirens 'between nine and fourteen', reach us. Looking for shelter in a sleepy American town, he discovers 12-year-old Dolores Haze - Lolita. To be able to stay near her, Humbert marries mother Haze. With sardonic pleasure, Nabokov leads Humbert and Lolita to the tragic denouement, taking them from one grubby motel to another in a compulsively hooking road movie. Lolita speaks of loss, exile and unfulfilled desire. It is the story of an impossible, ill-fated love: as she matures, the butterfly Lolita inevitably pupates into a caterpillar. Because of Nabokov's virtuoso prose, Lolita is inventive, brilliant, playful literature- nevertheless in my opinion not the ideal book as a first acquaintance with Nabokov, disconcerting it is because of the subject.

Nabokov himself was acutely aware of the difficulties in presenting his Lolita visually to the world:

After thinking it over, I would rather not involve butterflies. Do you think it could be possible to find today in New York an artist who would not be influenced in his work by the general cartoonesque and primitivist style jacket illustration? Who would be capable of creating a romantic, delicately drawn, non-Freudian and non-juvenile, picture for LOLITA (a dissolving remoteness, a soft American landscape, a nostalgic highway—that sort of thing)? There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.

In lieu of even trying to capture impressions by an illustration, here is a fascinating article dedicated to 60 covers of the novel as published through the years in various countries. More covers can be found on Covering Lolita.

I am partial to sobriety in the matter. Which cover would you choose?

******************************************************************************

n  Ik eis dat de wereld weet hoeveel ik hield van mijn Lolita, déze Lolita, bleek en bezoedeld, en zwanger van andermans kind, maar nog altijd grijsogig, nog altijd roetig gewimperd, nog altijd kastanje en amandel, nog altijd Carmencita, nog altijd van mij.n

In 1958 verscheen de eerste Amerikaanse versie van dit schandaalboek in de Verenigde staten.

Vanuit de gevangenis bereiken ons de bekentenissen van Humbert Humbert, een 40-jarige Europeaan met een zwak voor ‘nimfijnen’, ontluikende sirenen ‘tussen negen en veertien’. Op zoek naar onderdak in een slaperig Amerikaans stadje ontdekt hij de 12-jarige Dolores Haze – Lolita. Om in haar buurt te kunnen blijven, trouwt Humbert met moeder Haze. In een beklemmende roadmovie voert Nabokov zijn personages via Amerikaanse motels naar de tragische ontknoping. Uit Lolita spreekt verlies, ballingschap en onvervuld verlangen. Het is het verhaal van een onmogelijke, noodlottige liefde: met het volwassen worden verpopt de vlinder Lolita zich onvermijdelijk tot rups. Dankzij Nabokovs virtuoze taal is Lolita een uniek boek dat de lezer ondanks de problematische thematiek zal verslinden: het is inventieve, briljante, speelse literatuur van de bovenste plank. Ook de sardonische kijk op het kitscherige Amerika van de jaren ’50 zal menig lezer bekoren.

Sick, twisted and beautiful.
Love this.

Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov

Lolita is a 1955 novel written by Russian American novelist Vladimir Nabokov.

The novel is notable for its controversial subject: the protagonist and unreliable narrator, a middle-aged literature professor under the pseudonym Humbert Humbert is obsessed with a 12-year-old girl, Dolores Haze, with whom he becomes sexually involved after he becomes her stepfather.

Lolita is his private nickname for Dolores.

The novel was originally written in English and first published in Paris in 1955 by Olympia Press.

Later it was translated into Russian by Nabokov himself and published in New York City in 1967 by Phaedra Publishers.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: سال 1994میلادی

این کتاب برای نخستین بار در سال 1955میلادی، در «پاریس» توسط «المپیاپرس» به چاپ رسید؛ «استنلی کوبریک، در سال 1962میلادی»، و «آدریان لین در سال 1992میلادی»، دو فیلم، با اقتباس از همین رمان ساختند؛ «لولیتا» رمانی است، در مورد عشق یک پروفسور میان‌سال، به یک دختربچه ی دوازده سیزده ساله به نام «لولیتا»؛ پروفسور از قضا ناپدری «لولیتا» نیز هست؛ پروفسور در پی فاش شدن عشق نامشروعش به دختر همسر خویش، و مرگ زنش، سفری نامشخص را در کنار «لولیتا» آغاز می‌کنند، غافل از آنکه، دخترک توسط یک فرد ثروتمند منحرف، اغفال و ناگاه پروفسور را ترک می‌کند؛

کتاب در «پاریس»، موهن تشخیص داده شد، و فروش آن قدغن شد؛ کمی بعد در «انگلیس»، سپس در «آرژانتین»، «نیوزیلند» و «آفریقای جنوبی» نیز، اجازه فروش پیدا نکرد؛ به دختران جوانی که از سنین پایین، درگیر مسائل جنسی ‌شوند، به اصطلاح «لولیتا» می‌گویند؛ کتاب «ناباکوف» را، در سال 2014میلادی، خانم «اکرم پدرام‌ نیا» نیز، به زبان فارسی برگردانده، و نشر «زریاب» آن را در «افغانستان»، چاپ و منتشر کرده است

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 22/05/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 05/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

if i see one more "coquette" girlie romanticizing this book i'm going to burn everything to the ground

Wishful… Sinful…
“He’d wag his horn rimmed head, smile secretively, wink, and proclaim his astonishment: ‘Still on Lolita?’ Then he’d issue a past master’s chuckle by way of letting me know that he and I were joined in some scatological conspiracy. It never occurred to him that I might be reading the book for the fourth or fifth time, and as the days passed I know he came to regard me as either depraved or the most moronic reader in Christendom. ‘Still on Lolita!’ became a recurring din, like a daily summons to waken.” n  Frederick Exleyn – n  A Fan's Notesn
Pharisees don’t read books – they just form opinions about them… And their opinion is their castle.

The passion I had developed for that nymphet, for the first nymphet in my life that could be reached at last by my awkward, aching, timid claws, would have certainly landed me again in a sanatorium, had not the devil realized that I was to be granted some relief if he wanted to have me as a plaything for some time longer.

When one is tortured with desire one has no place to hide… And Vladimir Nabokov’s profound immersion into an analysis of such desire that sweeps all the moral bans on its way was unprecedented. And he managed to raise his revolutionary novel high above the pornography – to the level of true immortal art.

We loved each other with a premature love, marked by a fierceness that so often destroys adult lives.

To some love is an obsession for life and to some it is nothing but a trinket for a day.

Nabokov often writes his novels in the perspective of detestable villains. You never like them, you're never supposed to like them, and Nabokov doesn't like them either. He slaps them around and humiliates them. And in the end, they pay the price for their sins. Readers never seem to realize this. They become immersed in the psychology of the book and feel defiled by it all. Instead, they should sit back and watch the bastards suffer. The stories are written in their own view so that makes the punishment all the more sweet. The reader knows exactly what the scheisemeister is feeling - pain, pain, pain. That's one of the reasons I like Nabokov so much. The bad guys really get it. It's not just getting killed or caught at the end, you really feel their anguish. Mmm... schadenfreude."

I sort of believe the reason why most of the characters are 2 dimensional is precisely because of who is potraying them, a depraved person. A depraved person who commits terrible, unforgivable crimes against people. How could he commit those crimes if he saw them as the human beings that they are? It's easier for a crook to swindle if he dehumanizes his victims. At the end of Lolita, Lolita transfigures. She's a sensitive, care-worn woman, but only because HH realizes her as such. That's why he can murder the man who betrayed her at the end. He was a filthy mongrel that deserved to die for what he did to her. "She groped for words. I supplied them mentally ("He broke my heart. You merely broke my life")." I don't remember, but this could be the first time he "supplied [words] mentally" in a way that's true and unselfish. He finally understood her as a person and sacrificed himself to revenge her. Perhaps, HH's only redeeming quality.

In Nabokov's books where the villain is the protagonist, the only other charachter with real depth or psychology is a character who the protagonists loves. The little daughter in Laughter in the Dark, Lolita at the end the novel, Despair? The protagonist in that one is a sociopath and doesn't give his novel-mates anything, but their personalities pop out. You can feel them from the distance. Other novels I've read by him don't exactly fit this mold. In Pnin, everyone is a little characterized but still quite real, Pale Fire is written by an almost-villain and you love everyone but him, especially the wife of the poet, Invitation to a Beheading, not even the main protagonist was very real. He had the same consciousness and feelings that a "K" would have in one of Kafka's novels. But he had no believable history, it's all just a dreamscape that doesn't have half the terror as Kafka's novels have. I never finished Ada or Ador. It's Lolita x 10 in smuttiness. "Is this really necessary??" And it wasn't believable either. Just a fantasy.

Of course, not all his novels are going to follow the same formula, but they are written by the same writer, the same mind. So I'm still working on him. I really think he's one of the best writers of the 20th century. He doesn't just tell a story, he explores the psyche and human perceptions, how a certain person feels, sees, or reacts to things. If they were normal people, it wouldn't be interesting, but he picks villains or eccentrics.

Pushing the boundaries of what acceptable literature can actually be, Lolita is very much a piece of art.

For many years I kept hearing about this book, the content sounding disturbing and perhaps even slightly fascinating. It’s a book that’s central theme is one of the darkest elements of mankind: paedophilia. And although such a thing is beyond revolting, it is used to tell the tale of a very lost and very lonely man. Humbert is a man to be pitied, pitied because he actually exists.

A child in a man’s body, unable to move on from what was to him the most perfect memory; Humbert’s obsession with youth takes on the form of paedophilia: he becomes attracted to this idea of purity and develops strong sexual feelings towards it. Humbert knows he is a monster, but he just doesn’t care. To him his feelings are perfectly justifiable, natural even. He has an incredibly distorted view of the world; thus, we see the world through the eyes of an extremely unreliable narrator. Perhaps unreliable is the wrong word. He reports what he sees with utmost honesty; however, his perceptions of these experiences are, well, just wrong.

As a character study, he is a very worthy subject. In the wake of Freudian psychoanalysis, Nabokov’s novel is aware of the rising field of psychology. Humbert is a walking contradiction. He is at times unbelievably arrogant, and at other times he is timid and weak; he is passive yet manipulative; he derides nothing from life other than a person sense of sexual gratification: it’s all he lives for. He has an exceedingly narrow range of interests; he scrutinises everything and remembers the most minor of details. He is charming, but at other times completely socially awkward. I think it wouldn’t be too far a thing to suggest that there are elements of Autism within his personality. He is obsessive about things, about his work and “his” Lolita. Ironically, at one point, he expresses succinct knowledge of Freud and at another he demonstrates complete ignorance towards Freud’s psychosexual stages of development. So who exactly is this Humbert?

Humbert is lost; he is lost in life, and he is lost within himself: he is hopeless, looking for any sense of light in his life. Unfortunately, this projection of desperation takes on the form of a child. He falls in love with Lolita, and what she represents to him. But of course it’s not real love; Lolita is just a sexual object to him not a person. So what follows is a story of a man who has convinced himself that his actions are perfectly justified. When he takes a twelve year old child in his arms; it is perfectly fine to his mind because she comes willing. Never mind the fact that he has crafted a situation so that she responds to his advances. She is vulnerable and completely alone in the world; she has no one to turn to in her moment of grief, and the snake is ready to lunge.

Nabokov describes some truly disturbing scenes, though he does so with eloquence bordering on the genius. Sounds odd, considering what I have just described. The content of the book is vile, Humbert is vile, but in a fictionalised world we have to look beyond that. The world is seen through the eyes of Humbert, so everything we see is what he sees and what he experiences. Nabokov uses free-indirect style to narrate some harrowing scenes, the content is vile but the language is beautiful. Again, this is what Humbert experiences. As troubling as this book may be, I argue that this has very strong place in the literary world. Nabokov explores the mind of a sexual predator and I think as readers we can learn a great deal in the process. We can see how the psychological make up of such an individual is formed and we can see what they think and they feel. To understand such a man is the first step towards stopping him and recognising this behaviour in other men.

As a reviewer, I find it of vital importance to read the reviews of others. There’s a quote on the back of my book from one such review; it says, and I quote “There’s no funnier monster in modern literature than poor, doomed Humbert Humbert.” I cannot quite describe how angry that quote makes me. There is nothing funny about Lolita.This book is terribly serious in content, and Humbert is not a man to be laughed at. What we have is a deeply disturbed individual, one confused and drifting through life, cold and utterly broken inside, and he is about to ruin the life of a young girl.

I don’t laugh at this book, I weep at its brilliance.

___________________________________

You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
__________________________________

إن معظم أصحاب الشذوذ الجنسي الذين يلتمسون علاقات جسدية مبهورة راعشة لذيذة مع فتاة مراهقة. هم من أصحاب الشخصيات الغريبة و هم في ذلك غير مؤذين. بل إنهم موادعون مسالمون مستكينون. انهم لا يطلبون من المجتمع أكثر من أن يسمح لهم بمتابعة سلوكهم غير المؤذي الذي يدعى بالسلوك الشاذ. كل ما يطلبوه هو أن يوالوا أعمال انحرافهم الجنسي (التي هي غير مؤذية عمليا) الهادئة دون أن ينقض المجتمع و الجهاز البوليسي بالسوط عليهم.

طبعا هذا هو منطق الشذوذ. إنه يعتقد أنه غير مؤذ و يسأل المجتمع أن يدعه و شأنه و كأن المراهقات بضاعة معروضة لتسليته و التسرية عن رغباته الشاذة.
رغم أنها من الروايات الكلاسيكية إلا أن عشرات الأفلام في جميع أنحاء العالم اقتبست عنها و أثارت صدمة واسعة في كافة الأوساط رغم أن أحداثها تتكرر منذ أمد بعيد و لم تزل تتكرر حتى الأن.
انتهاك القاصرات ممن يفترض أن يقوم بحمايتهن. سواء الأب أو الأخ أو العم أو الوصي أيا كان. و من لم يتحرش بهن جنسيا فهو يأكل حقوقهن المادية بكل بساطة.
قد نجد بعض الأسباب التي لا تبرر بالطبع التحرش بالفتيات في عالمنا العربي الذي يعاني الكبت الجنسي ضمن ما يعانيه من مشاكل مستعصية و لكن العجب في أن يكون حال الغرب كحال بني عدنان و بني قحطان.

ذلك لأنه يجب أن أعترف بانني بالاعتماد على غددي و افرازاتي كنت خليقا بأن أنتقل في يوم واحد من مرحلة جنون على أخرى. جنون يتأتى من تفكيري بأن علي في حوالي عام 1950 أن أتخلص من مراهقة صعبة المراس تبخر منها طابعها كحورية مسعورة. و جنون يتأتى من التفكير بأني بمساعدة من اصطباري و حظي الطيب قد أستطيع أن أملأ أحشاءها بجنين سيتحول إلى حورية مسعورة فتكون لوليتا الثانية في الثامنة أو التاسعة من عمرها عندما نصل إلى عام 1960 حيث سأظل قادرا على أن أمثل معها دور الجد الذي يحتضنها بوصايته. الجد الذي هو انسان لا يزال أزرق الناب أخضر القلب.

و هذا بالتأكيد لا يبدو الا محض جنون في جنون إلا أن الواقع أشد فسقا و أشد جنونا مما يتخيل الجميع.

I've thought for many years, people got this book wrong. It's not about a middle-aged man in love with a prepubescent girl. It's not about that at all.

Two things tell me this. The first is less obvious than the second. Humbert trills her name. Lola. Lolita. Or just Lo. In all its variations, it mirrors another name. United States of America. America. USA. Or just US.

The other clue is the road trip. Its importance to the plot is slim. Nabokov gives it little drama invoking instead the tedium of the drive, moods of a child, and banality of motel rooms. This is America. Not the Hollywood image. Drive it, if you haven't. Just once.

To the European born Humbert, America is the Lolita. America with its youth and innocence is the dream. Untainted by the wars and royalty of Europe, America is the pure child. Humbert (read Nabokov) the emigre in exile cannot help but love her. In this, Lolita is the great American novel.