n  English review at the bottomn


Como ser la Lolita perfecta
Como convertirte en una ninfula
Prendas para lucir como una Lolita<------Específicamente la Lolita que aquí nos concierne

Todo lo escrito arriba representa la manera en que la novela de Nabokov se ha insertado en nuestra cultura, donde Lolita no sólo es la representación de la belleza etérea y la inocencia, sino también es la joven que se aprovecha de un pobre hombre enamorado de ella para obtener costosos y constantes regalos. Mi opinión principal es la siguiente:



”Necesitaba horas de persuasiones, amenazas y promesas para conseguir que me prestará por algunos segundos sus miembros tostados en el secreto de un cuarto por cinco dolares, antes de emprender cualquier diversión que prefiriera sobre mi humilde goce”

Humbert Humbert es el narrador, nos cuenta la historia de Lolita y constantemente hace hincapié en el hecho de que Lolita lo adora y lo provoca, a pesar de que muchas de las situaciones que describe inicialmente son gestos comunes y que, una vez emprendida su historia con la Haze más pequeña, nos habla del dolor de Lo, de como ella va enloqueciendo poco a poco, incluyendo sus sollozos en la noche-cada noche,cada noche-no bien [se] fingía dormido. Humbert es un narrador terriblemente poco confiable, en muchas ocasiones sentía que mentía haciendo activa a Lolita en la relación para que pensáramos que la seducción era bilateral y no unilateral, cada situación la volteaba a su beneficio, cada niña que le gustaba era una ninfula que con su sola presencia está realizando movidas provocadoras hacia su persona, nadie ama a Lo (ni su propia madre) y todos están dispuestos a lastimarla (menos él) y la víctima de toda esta situación es él: porque él sufrió el desprecio de Dolores, porque él tuvo que esconder su relación, porque él fue carcomido por los celos, porque él debía pagar por el silencio de su victima.

Sí, odie a Humbert. Odie su actitud, odie sus acciones y odie su final. El intento final para que simpaticemos con él se estrella terriblemente (después de todo lo que le hizo a Lolita es imposible que se nos sensibilice de su situación, por más que trate de protegerla al final). Fácilmente puedo visualizarlo como el arquetipo en el que se han basado los pedófilos de la ficción actual, que buscan culpar a las/los pequeños por sus impulsos y consideran que no es incorrecto lo que hacen más allá del hecho de que la sociedad lo tiene mal visto.

”Lo que más temía yo no era que pudiera arruinarme, sino que acumulara dinero suficiente para huir”

Lolita será un misterio durante toda la historia, no importa cuan presente este en ella, no importa que en cada página la estemos viendo u oyendo al final lo que tenemos es el retrato de la ninfula que Humbert imagino, no de la chica que realmente estaba viviendo esta situación porque los destellos que tenemos de ella son tan minusculos que no bastan para que el lector pueda conocerla. El mayor problema con ella es que al final no genera simpatía, tan pronto desaparece del mapa es olvidada por todos aquellos que la rodeaban , si bien al inicio sabemos que se lleva mal con su madre y qude es caprichosa no es algo que no pueda achacarsele a cualquier otra joven de 12 años, no obstante toda su vida se ve marcada por los hombres, la corrupción de su inocencia y sus decisiones finales terminan debiendose a la confusión creada por una confusa vida sexual. De hecho su condición sexual queda expuesta por una de sus profesora que afirma que ”Dolli esta obsesionada por ideas sexuales para las que no encuentra salida”.

”Lo espantoso de morirse es que uno queda tan librado a si mismo”

Después de gran cantidad de adaptaciones la cultura popular alejo a Lolita, tanto la obra como el personaje de su esencia real y esto se lo achaco a la pelicula de Kubrick, no porque el desea romantizar esta novela sino que al ver únicamente las acciones de Humbert, poniendo cierta distancia de sus pensamiento, e incrementar la edad de Lolita, elimina el trasfondo de Lo y deja sólo a la adolescente seductora, con lo que no somos capaces de observar la maestría con la que Nabokov nos golpea en la cara y nos dice que después de todo este tiempo no sabemos absolutamente nada.

”Yo no estaba preparado para sus accesos de hastío desorganizado, sus apretujones vehementes e intensos, sus actitudes de abandono (´piernas abiertas, arte vencido, ojos narcotizados)”

Al final lo que vemos es el interior de una jaula desde los ojos del captor, narrado con tal maestría por Nabokov que las primeras paginas se sufren pero, una vez que avanzas hasta el punto de no retorno, donde no puedes dejar de obsesionarte por ambos personajes. Si logras traspasar las primeras 100 páginas puedes estar seguro que leer esto es un deleite, pero no es fácil: sí bien considero que todos somos sensibles hacia la pedofilia, en este caso nuestro límite de tolerancia cuando está forma parte de la ficción se ve bastante lastimado, debemos estar consciente de que lo que leemos es desde la mente del pedófilo por tanto los pensamientos no son mesurados ni filtrados, en vez de eso siempre nos habla de manera pasional y egocéntrica y las mujeres a su alrededor son meros objetos para que avance la historia.

Y si me alejo un poco de mi sensación de incomodidad y asco, mi mayor problema es el final, las pausas que no dejaban conocer por completo la resolución, más que incrementar la tensión, se tornaron anticlimáticas, pero no por ello deja de ser perfecto en su esencia e impredecible yo pensaba que Dolores terminaría muerta, ya fuera que la asesinara Humbert o que ella se suicidara.

Esta es una historia que se sufre, con una escritura que envuelve y se disfruta, pero que, cuando terminas, te das cuenta que el libro es único, estoy segura que sólo Nabokov podría haber creado esta historia tan pérfida, al punto que no logra dejar al lector indiferente, logrando que u estilo se sobreponga a la repulsión que causan sus personajes principales.

________________________________________________________-

How to be the perfect Lolita
How to become a nymphet
Clothes to look like a Lolita<------Specifically the Lolita that concerns us here

Everything written above represents the way in which Nabokov's novel has been inserted into our culture, where Lolita is not only the representation of ethereal beauty and innocence, but also the young woman who takes advantage of the love of a poor man from her to obtain expensive and constant gifts. My main opinion is the following:



Humbert Humbert is the narrator, he tells us Lolita's story and constantly emphasizes the fact that Lolita adores and provokes him, despite the fact that many of the situations he initially describes are common gestures and that once he begins his story with the smallest Haze, tells us about Lo's pain, how she is slowly going crazy, including her sobs at night-every night, every night-no sooner [he] pretended to sleep. Humbert is a terribly unreliable narrator, on many occasions I knew that he was lying by making Lolita active in the relationship so that we would think that the seduction was bilateral and not unilateral, each situation turned to his advantage, each girl he liked was a nymphet that with his mere presence he is making provocative moves towards her person, nobody loves Lo (not even her mother) and everyone is willing to hurt her (except him) and the victim of this whole situation is him: because he suffered the contempt of Dolores, because he had to hide his relationship, because he was eaten up by jealousy, because he had to pay for his victim's silence.

Yes, I hated Humbert. I hated his attitude, I hated his actions and I hated his ending. The final attempt to get us to sympathize with him crashes terribly (after everything he did to Lolita, it's impossible to make us aware of his situation, no matter how hard he tries to protect her at the end). I can easily visualize him as the archetype on which the pedophiles of current fiction have been based, who seek to blame the little ones for their impulses and consider that what they do is not wrong beyond the fact that society has it wrong seen.

Lolita will be a mystery throughout the story, no matter how present she's in it, no matter how we are seeing or hearing it on each page, at the end what we have is the portrait of the nymphet that Humbert imagined, not of the girl who was really there, living this situation because the glimpses we have of it are so minuscule that they are not enough for the reader to know it. The biggest problem with her is that in the end she does not generate sympathy, as soon as she disappears from the map she is forgotten by all those who surrounded her, although at the beginning we know that she does not get along with her mother and that she is capricious is not something that cannot be blamed on her. Like any other 12-year-old girl, however, her entire life is marked by men, the corruption of her innocence and her final decisions end up due to the confusion created by a confused sexual life. In fact, her sexual condition is exposed by one of her teacher who affirms that "Dolli is obsessed with sexual ideas for which she finds no outlet"  i>.

After a large number of adaptations, popular culture moved Lolita away from both the work and the character from its real essence and I attribute this to Kubrick's film, not because he wants to romanticize this novel, but by seeing only the actions that Humbert, putting some distance from his thoughts, he eliminates the background of Lo and leaves only the seductive teenager, so we are not able to observe the mastery with which Nabokov punches us in the face and tells us that after all this time we do not know absolutely nothing.

In the end, what we see is the inside of a cage from the eyes of the captor, narrated with such mastery by Nabokov that the first pages are painful, but once you advance to the point of no return, where you cannot stop obsessing over both characters. If you manage to get past the first 100 pages, you can be sure that reading this is a delight, but it is not easy: although I consider that we are all sensitive towards pedophilia, in this case our tolerance limit when it is part of fiction is quite noticeable. hurt, we must be aware that what we read is from the mind of the pedophile therefore the thoughts are not measured or filtered, instead he always speaks to us in a passionate and egocentric way and the women around him are mere objects for him to advance the history.

And if I move a little away from my feeling of discomfort and disgust, my biggest problem is the ending, the pauses that didn't allow the resolution to be completely revealed, rather than increasing the tension, became anticlimactic, but that doesn't stop it from being perfect. at her core and unpredictable I thought Dolores would end up dead, either Humbert murdered her or she committed suicide.

This is a story that is suffered, with a writing that involves and is enjoyed, but when you finish, you realize that the book is unique, I am sure that only Nabokov could have created this perfidious story, to the point that it fails leave the reader indifferent, making his style overcome the repulsion caused by his main characters.

A propósito del caso Epstein y de la nueva romanización del movimiento MAP.

Humbert el pedófilo romántico.

¿Que nos quiso decir Nabokov con este libro?

*Actualización 1.1.

La razón de escribir un libro es comunicar un mensaje, tener algo que decir en la multitud de géneros que hoy abarca la literatura. Después de leer este libro no puedo dilucidar qué nos quiso decir, qué mensaje quiso trasmitirnos. ¿Que razón tiene de existir un libro que no tiene nada que comunicar? Hasta las obras de Bukowski, con todo su cinismo y su realismo sucio tiene un mensaje para dejar, pero en este amigos míos, no sé. Ya en este punto comenzaré a especular en posibles alternativas a esta pregunta:

A - El autor quiso mostrarnos de manera cruda y descarada la mente de un pedofilo y como una familia disfuncional puede caer fácilmente en su juego.

B - El autor quiso mostrarnos que aun en una mente enferma puede haber amor y que aun bajo esas circunstancias puede crear un tipo de arte bello y deseable. (La forma en que Humbert está enamorado de Lolita)

C - El autor quiso mostrarnos que una niña de 12 años puede manipular un hombre de 42 años y que no es tan inocente como en teoría nos enseñan que debe ser.

En cualquiera de las opciones el libro no está correctamente abordado, es una oda a la perversidad psicopatologica y sigo sin entender el boom que genera. Hay formas de tratar esos temas de manera sana, es una irresponsabilidad hablar de esto en un libro sin tener en consideración las miles de victimas que ocurren lamentablemente en el mundo entero. Como lo dije en la ultima actualización, el tema es tan delicado que debería ser tratado exclusivamente para buscar formas de prevenir este tipo de abuso no de difundirlo.

Si te parece bello este libro tal vez es porque no has tenido de cerca un Humbert Humbert o no conoces a nadie que haya sido victima de alguien como él, el día que conozcas de primera mano un tipo como esos ya no te parecerá un "libro bonito con una prosa única", sino como lo que es: un libro asqueroso y descarado.
__________________________________________

Los libros que el mundo llama inmorales son los que muestran su propia vergüenza.
Oscar Wilde en El Retrato de Dorian Gray .

Este libro me puso en una situación difícil y acá les diré todo lo que pienso al respecto.

Una cosa es leer historias sobre temas tabú y otra es disfrutar una obra literaria que excede los limites de la depravación. He leído cosas tomadas por los pelos, como por ejemplo de un abogado que abusa sexualmente de la chica al cual está tutelando y de un tipo que secuestra y abusa de mujeres en su sótano (Los hombres que no amaban a las mujeres) De una loca que secuestra a un escritor para posteriormente obligarlo a re escribir la saga a su gusto a base de torturas (Misery), de un homosexual con aspiraciones de diseñador que mata a mujeres para confeccionar vestidos con su pieles (El silencio de los corderos). Y todos dejan una reflexión detrás, todos tratan estos temas con acautela pero a su vez nos enseñan algo. Pero este libro amigos míos, es mi limite, no pueden imaginar las sensaciones tan negativas que me ha causado. Y que al final no enseña nada, sólo nos muestra como el tipo se sale con la suya y como la niña a pesar de su edad se aprovecha de la obsesión de este loco.

Lo que mas me preocupa es que de todas las reseñas que leí y que vi, alaban y aman este libro la mayoría de mujeres, alabando la prosa de Nabokov e inculpando a dolores (lolita).

En el comienzo del libro el Sr Humbert Humbert tiene aspiraciones de justificar su perversión, de alguna manera se siente culpable y alega diferente tipos de argumentos, nos narra inclusive su primer amor el cual lo tuvo a los 12 con una niña que luego muere y que tiene un parecido con Lolita, he ahí su obsesión. Pues déjenme decirles algo, ningún juzgado se va a comer ese cuento, el que seduce menores de edad y tiene relaciones sexuales con ellos va preso en cualquier juzgado civilizado. ¿Que mire la forma tan bonita que Humbert se refiere a Lolita? NO, me vale madres. El tipo está mal de la cabeza y nunca debió salir de ese manicomio en el que estuvo en Europa.

Y es que el tema da largo y tendido, no les voy a negar que en el caso de la literatura latinoamericana se ha visto este tema, tal es el caso de Gabriel García Marquez y su libro memorias de mi putas tristes y otras referencias donde vemos relaciones sexuales con menores de edad. No voy a negar tampoco que en nuestra cultura no está del todo mal visto el asunto, sobretodo con chicas luego de los quince, donde ya son señoritas. Sin embargo sigue siendo lamentable.

En el caso de Humbert Humbert la cosa va a mayores, el tipo dice que las nínfulas, niñas pubescentes de 8 a 12 años de edad son las que le mueven el piso y las que le causan emoción sexual. El tipo tiene 42 y lo peor de todo es que la madre de la niña también es una irresponsable que no aprecia su hija y que se escandaliza cuando descubre todo los secretos. Todo esto junto es propicio para que hombres con el Sr Humbert Humbert alcancen sus objetivos.

Miro mi entorno familiar y tengo una sobrina de 3 años, el sólo hecho de pensar que en 5 años entra en el target de locos como Humbert me pone lo pelos de punta. Gente así no debería ni circular en la calle.

Deberíamos pensar mejor lo que estamos leyendo, deberíamos ver mas allá de la prosa y de lo famoso del libro antes de recomendarlo y darle difusión. Este tema debe ser tratado exclusivamente para recriminarle y evitarlo a toda costa, de analizar sus causas y prevenirlo en nuestras sociedades.

¿Que será de de gente como Humbert en 30 años? ¿Veremos el día en que aprueben leyes a favor de ellos y le permitan actuar en legalidad?

Espero que no.

0/5

LOLITA


This review contains SPOILERS, but if you've been living on this planet, you probably knew about them already...

Daddy, are we there yet? Are we there YET? Daddy, how much longer still? I want to go home!
Hush little one, now
Say your prayers
Don't forget my little nymph
To include everyone
I tuck you in
Warm within
Keep you free from sin
'Til the sandman he comes

Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your pillow tight

Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
We're off to never never-land

Something's wrong, shut the light
Heavy thoughts tonight
And they aren't of snow white
Dreams of war
Dreams of lies
Dreams of dragons fire
And of things that will bite, yeah

Sleep with one eye open
Grippin' your pillow tight

Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
We're off to never never-land


Now I lay me down to sleep
Pray the lord my soul to keep
And if I die before I wake
Pray the lord my soul to take
Hush little baby don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
It's just the beast under your bed
In your closet in your head
SOUNDTRACK AND VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD-E-L...

Vladimir Nabokov slyly catches the reader in plenty of traps with his twisting perspectives in this wrenching tale of brokenness, passion, insanity, obsession, and, ... love?

VERY SHORT PLOT DESCRIPTION:
A broken, sociopathic middle-aged man with strong pedophilic tendencies, plots, lies and connives his way into gaining control over a pubescent 12-year old orphan girl, and intimidates and bribes her into having daily sexual relations with him, until she manages to escape, and then...? Well, this is where the plot thickens, and where the novel's real punch lies.

CHARACTERIZATION IN THE NOVEL
The characterization, these shimmering, phantasmagorical mirages that are Humbert Humbert and Lolita, this is where Nabokov has exhibited pure genius. We initially see Lolita only through the eyes of Humbert, our typical unreliable narrator, so the reader has to constantly "read between the lines" to try and figure out what is really going on with the girl, and Nabokov does a beautiful job of creating a sympathetic portrait of the trajectory of a painfully tragic young life.

As for Humbert, from the outset one gets the impression that Nabokov is toying with the reader, when he introduces us to Humbert, creating the perfect unreliable narrator who even, right from the start, mentions that he has been institutionalized for bouts of insanity, also showing his sociopathic side by mentioning the games he likes to play with psychiatrists and therapists. He also makes no bones about the fact that he is a raging pedophile who can barely restrain his lust at the sight of 9-12 year old girls.

So, definitely not a sympathetic character. Plus there is ample reason to distrust him and to watch out carefully for inconsistencies in his version of events. Indeed, inconsistencies in what Humbert tells us, are rife.

Watch carefully what he tells us at the start of the novel, and see how what he says tends to be contradicted later on either by himself, or by what the other characters tell us.

Nabokov lays it on so thick, that Humbert, who finds 17 year olds abominably "aged", and who talks about a fourteen-year old as :" my aging mistress", appears almost like a caricature.

Humbert nurtures a fantasy that a large amount of pubescent and pre-pubescent girls are dangerous demonic little seductresses just ripe and waiting to be picked, whom he dubs "nymphets".

There is a lot not to like about this character for most of the novel: In the first sections of the narrative, one learns that he sees women (and actually all humans, for that matter) merely as vehicles to further his own pleasure, to be disposed of if they don't serve his personal interests in some way.

He is uncommonly uncharitable towards his first wife, as a start. He sees all little girls purely in terms of how sensually appealing and therefore potentially sexually satisfying they may be for him. He often fantasizes about visiting violence and even death upon those that get in the way of his needs. You think to yourself what a misogynistic, uncharitable, selfish, violent, conniving, sociopathic freak this narrator is. How much more hateful can a writer make a character?

Quite a bit more, it would appear, as one reads on. Humbert marries the hapless Charlotte, being in her thirties much too old for his tastes, for the sole and only reason to get to her "nymphet" daughter of twelve, and here enters an interesting ingredient of the novel, being Nabokov's use of irony.

IRONY
Humbert plots to kill Charlotte to get her out of the way, at which point Nabokov's bits of ironic black humor in the form of fate's role, humorously referred to by Humbert as "McFate", comes to the fore.
It turns out that if Humbert had followed through with drowning his wife as planned, he would have been spotted by the local landscape painter, and therefore he was "saved by the bell" of his own inaction. Fate then "rewards" him when his wife, blinded by tears when she finds out about his secret passion for her daughter after reading his diary, runs in front of a car and is conveniently killed.

After spinning a web of lies and connivances, Humbert is now finally free to fetch his stepdaughter from summer camp in order to "enjoy" her.

He plans to feed her nightly doses of sleeping pills in order to rape her in her sleep, but once again Mc Fate intervenes, and after finding that the sleeping pills don't work, Humbert is delighted when Lolita willingly submits to him. ..or did she? Throughout the novel, Nabokov spins a shimmery web of illusion. How much of what Humbert says is true? After all, we already know that he is a lying, conniving sociopath, right?

Mc Fate keeps intervening in interesting ways, but fate is not the only source of irony in the novel. Another source of irony, for instance, is the way that Humbert views himself.

One of the tongue-in-cheek aspects of Humbert's character is his narcissism. Right from the start, Humbert keeps referring to his own "good looks" but Nabokov cleverly makes the reader aware that he is actually a huge, thick-fingered, hairy dark beetlebrowed creature resembling an ape.

He also constantly speaks of his: "polite European way" while we realize that he is actually just a dork.

AMBIGUITY AND DOUBT
When Lolita, who had apparently already lost her virginity to some young boy before Humbert has intercourse with her the first time, says, later on, that Humbert had raped her on that first day, is she merely being playful, or is this a clue towards what had really happened? Why does Lolita have to be bribed into every caress, bullied into every act of intercourse-- into "doing her duty" as Humbert sees it, just as if she were his little medieval wife and owed him a wifely duty. (A 'right' which he claims very often, to the poor girl's chagrin.) Why, if she was really happy to go along with things, does Humbert have to keep threatening her, why does he refer to her as his captive?

Through his genius, Nabokov does not immediately reveal these clues, he sows increasing seeds of doubt throughout the text as one progresses with the plot.

Only in increments, does one see the damage that is being done to Lolita.
The first thing one realizes, is that Humbert is robbing her of a sizable portion of her education, as he keeps her out of school for at least a year on road trips designed to camouflage the fact that what he was actually after, was to have sexual relations with the girl as much as was practically possible.

As their life together progresses, Nabokov shows how she is being deprived of the normal social development so crucial to humans in this early phase of life, as Lolita starves for young company, and eventually for *any* company outside that of Humbert's oppressive presence.

Toward the end, Humbert relents regarding his descriptions of Lolita as an evil seductress when he admits that Lolita is actually a "conservative" person, deeply damaged by the incestuous nature of their relationship. (While she was under his control, Lolita was coerced to act as if the couple is father and daughter, creating a psychologically incestuous situation, which must have added to her confusion and increased the sense of helplessness at being left a sudden orphan.)
Who could Lolita have gone to, where to for help? Humbert kept pressing on her the idea that if she were to "tell" she would lose her freedom and end up in the equivalent of a prison for children.

PROSE
Vladimir Nabokov wrote:

"My private tragedy, which cannot, and indeed should not, be anybody's concern, is that I had to abandon my natural idiom, my untrammeled, rich, and infinitely docile Russian tongue for a second-rate brand of English, devoid of any of those apparatuses — the baffling mirror, the implied associations and traditions — which the native illusionist, frac-tails flying, can magically use to transcend the heritage in his own way."

Well, let's just say that if Nabokov's Russian prose is even more idiomatically apt, readable, and beautiful than his "second-rate" English prose is, then I oh so wish I was fluent in Russian so that I could read him in Russian! I would subtract half a star for all the French inserted into the text, though, which is fine, since I gave the novel six stars to start with.

PLOT RAMBLE
Something else I would subtract half a star for, is the rather undisciplined way in which paragraphs of woolly rambling which does not further the plot (or really anything else) were not excised.

TWISTY DÉNOUEMENT
Beautiful, riveting prose aside, the real genius of this novel becomes apparent towards the end. Plotwise, I had expected different things to happen.
There are many possible ways in which this novel could have ended. The most unexpected thing that happens, though, is the character growth/character revelation one experiences both regarding Humbert and Lolita. For the first 80% of the novel, I simply saw Humbert as a selfish, deluded, depraved monster.

...and yet, toward the end we start to see him suffer, really suffer.

For the first 80% of the novel, I fully believed, as did Humbert himself, that he was simply a sex-crazed fiend, completely incapable of anything even closely resembling love or empathy. After all, for all of his self-professed tenderness, he knew full well that he was keeping Lolita a prisoner against her will; knew that he was making her miserable, knew that what he was doing, was not only against the law but was morally wrong as well, inasfar as human judgement of affairs go, and never gave a thought to her well-being beyond her role as a vehicle of his pleasure.

For most of the novel, Humbert merely uses adult women as a front while he was indulging in his voyeuristic fantasies with multiple schoolgirls. Humbert maneuvering himself into a position where he could ogle prepubescent girls at play whilst masturbating in some way, through frottage or whatever means, becomes a familiar theme, not least sickening of where he makes Lolita stimulate him genitally whilst he is ogling "other nymphettes". (One can only conjecture how this must have made her feel). ..and Humbert makes it very clear that his attraction towards Lolita is simply as one girl-child amongst many, he is constantly sizing up the charms of other girls, even with Lolita at his full sexual disposal.

In one of the most offensive phrases to be found in the world of fiction, Humbert says:

" I now think it was a great mistake ... (not to) marry my little Creole; for I must confess that I could switch in the course of the same day from one pole of insanity to the other — from the thought that around 1950 I would have to get rid somehow of a difficult adolescent whose magic nymphage had evaporated — to the thought that with patience and luck I might have her produce eventually a nymphet with my blood in her exquisite veins, a Lolita the Second, who would be eight or nine around 1960; indeed, the telescopy of my mind, or un-mind, was strong enough to distinguish in the remoteness of time — bizarre, tender, salivating Dr.Humbert, practicing on supremely lovely Lolita the Third the art of being a granddad.

This passage reminded me of the Fritzl case , which took place after Lolita was written, so, truth may still be stranger than fiction.

Another thing which made me really hate Humbert, was where Lolita becomes ill with bronchitis and is consumed with fever, and he nevertheless does not desist from having sexual intercourse with her.

A passage that I found exceedingly creepy reads as follows:

" How sweet it was to bring that coffee to her, and then deny it until she had done her morning duty. And I was such a thoughtful friend, such a passionate father, such a good pediatrician, attending to all the wants of my little auburn brunette's body! My only grudge against nature was that I could not turn my Lolita inside out and apply voracious lips to her young matrix, her unknown heart, her nacreous liver, the sea-grapes of her lungs, her comely twin kidneys. " .

Beside the exceeding creepiness of the vivisection image, note the dark sarcastic irony of the second sentence. Not to mention, in the first sentence, the irony about servicing Humbert being Lolita's "duty"!

Yet another thing that struck me, was how Humbert never seemed to give a thought about how much Lolita's mother's death must surely have traumatized her, though he certainly cashed in on her helpless status as an orphan.

So, despite one knowing that Humbert was intentionally painted as a caricature of a heartless, selfish, callous, duplicitous sociopathic monster, (Humbert even makes it clear from the start of the novel, that he is a murderer - one only learns the identity of the victim at the end) it speaks of Nabakov's genius that, as things start to fall apart for Humbert, one actually feels the twinges of a softening in one's attitude towards him.

And then comes the twist in the final scene between Lolita and Humbert. All along, I had been primed by Nabokov's clues to believe that Lolita, although a brash, impudent youngster, had been innocent of many of the things Humbert had suspected her of - since he himself questions his own sanity and writes off a lot of his suspicions to paranoia.

The first clue that Humbert really has no clue about his own psyche or reality out there, is when Lolita indeed does escape with the help of an outsider. But then, in that final confrontation, the famous phrases as uttered by Humbert:

"...and I looked and looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else.

She was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet I had rolled myself upon with such cries in the past; an echo on the brink of a russet ravine, with a far wood under a white sky, and brown leaves choking the brook, and one last cricket in the crisp weeds... but thank God it was not that echo alone that I worshipped.

What I used to pamper among the tangled vines of my heart had dwindled to its essence: sterile and selfish vice, all that I canceled and cursed.
[...]
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;[...]

No matter, even if those eyes of hers would fade to myopic fish, and her nipples swell and crack, and her lovely young velvety delicate delta be tainted and torn — even then I would go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of your dear wan face, at the mere sound of your raucous young voice, my Lolita.

At last we see some humanity in this ghastly caricature of a character, and it is a humanity that tears at your soul, when you realize along with the character himself, that he has finally transcended the narrow confines of his selfish myopic obsession with youth and young girls, when he declares that, even heavily pregnant, even as an adult, even when stripped of her youth, he loves Lolita, and will continue to love her and wants to spend his life with her, even when she has lost all vestiges of that youth that he had worshiped so. (Not that any of this made his deeds forgivable, though!)

It is almost with shock that ones realizes how much the narrator's viewpoint has matured at last towards recognition of his culpability, towards responsibility for his crimes, when he intuits Lolita's thoughts:

"She groped for words. I supplied them mentally (" He (Clare) broke my heart. You (Humbert) merely broke my life")."

..and now, seeing her trauma and brokenness before him, it finally presses on Humbert's mind how helpless Lolita must have been feeling all along, and how hopeless her situation:

"I happened to glimpse from the bathroom, through a chance combination of mirror aslant and door ajar, a look on her face... that look I cannot exactly describe... an expression of helplessness so perfect that it seemed to grade into one of rather comfortable inanity just because this was the very limit of injustice and frustration..."

...and, after we had watched with horror the final dissolution of his character in the tragicomic events at the end of the novel, in which he can be seen as symbolically killing the bestial aspect of lust in a supreme act of violence, he finally accedes his guilt.

Throughout the novel, it is less helpful to listen to what Humbert says, than to look at what he does. Previously, he had acted in immeasurably selfish ways, right up to the point where he set out to take revenge with a gun in his pocket. Yet why would he need to take so much money with him? He knew that Lolita was older now, not a 'nymphet' anymore, so, if his motive was pure selfish revenge, why the money?

One has to carefully consider the evidence placed before you, and then you will see that the final actions HH took before he was taken into custody, point towards a huge shift in his attitude from being focused inward on himself, toward finally truly caring for the one he had falsely claimed to love so often before.

POSTSCRIPT:
After re-thinking my position on this novel, I have decided to completely remove my rating. Upon reflection, I feel that Nabokov introduced too much ambivalence regarding the fact that Humbert had raped Lolita. The aspect that I have a problem with, is that Lolita is seen to already have had sexual intercourse at the age of 12, albeit with another child. Apologists for pedophilia are grabbing at this straw as if it makes any difference to what Humbert did. The fact that she was not a virgin is NO EXCUSE.
Humbert raped her and ruined her life - and there is no vindication for this. In addition, I feel that Nabokov did not sufficiently show the intense psychological damage it does to a young person of this age if a person in a position of authority like a guardian or parent abuses the child. Intense feelings of shame, low self-esteem, and self-hatred along with long-term rage and most likely, symptoms of PTSD are usually the result.

I feel that although Nabokov did show Lolita as a broken person in the end, and although her life did not extend beyond the age of 17 because of Humbert, Nabokov did not, to this reviewer, sufficiently show the extent of her pain.

It's true. Decent writing cannot disguise the fact that within these pages the subject matter is ghastly, the plot repetitive, and despite the amount of lavish bows Nabokov puts on his words, one simply cannot get past the fact we are forcefully shoved into the mind of a paedophile by the name of Humbert, who is a seemingly substandard narrator, and is in desperate need of a personality (and a life) and has an unnatural obsession with a twelve year old girl called Lolita.

I almost didn't read this, and I'm pretty disappointed that I even allowed myself to buy it, but after I skimmed over many five star reviews on here, some of them were actually glowing, so I thought I'd take the plunge.

Evidently, I didn't miss much, but it does beg the question, how did this make book make it to "classic" status?

The views on this book are clearly divided, especially here on GR, and paedophilia as the main subject matter in any book isn't meant to be a comfortable read. This wasn't explicit, but it was disgusting in the sense that Nabokov tried to used his prose as some sort of seduction to the fact that his main guy is a nobody that likes children, wears purple silk robes, and sits in his car for lengthy periods, thinking about his corrupt desires.

There was not much to be happy about here, let me tell you. As I mentioned, we spent a great deal of time travelling with the despicable individual (Humbert) in his car, and strangely, he tells us how overweight he is. That's fine, but as we know, paedophiles present themselves from every walk of life, and they are not necessarily the "overweight" male from over the road. This sang stereotypical to me.

We are told Humbert loved Lolita, in his own sick and warped way, but however it's sugar coated, Humbert still forced himself onto Lolita, and took her away for his own perverted satisfaction.

Flowery prose is appealing and can indeed immerse the reader, but when you're seeing the world through the eyes of a paedophile, fancy prose will not prevent this book from being thrown out of the window.

n  ‘She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.’n

Nabokov's Lolita is a controversial and complex novel that has been both praised and criticized for its exploration of themes such as pedophilia, love, and obsession.

The novel tells the story of Humbert Humbert, a middle aged professor who becomes obsessed with a 12 year old girl named Dolores Haze, whom he calls "Lolita."

Nabokov's writing is lyrical and so beautiful, he creates a vivid and unforgettable portrait of Humbert's twisted mind. Nabokov does not shy away from the ugliness of Humbert's obsession, and he forces the reader to confront the dark side of human nature.

n  ‘I looked and looked at her, and I knew, as clearly as I know that I will die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth. She was only the dead-leaf echo of the nymphet from long ago - but I loved her, this Lolita, pale and polluted and big with another man's child. She could fade and wither - I didn't care. I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face.’’n

Lolita is a challenging and thought-provoking novel that will certainly stay with you long after you finish. It’s a must read for anyone interested in literature, psychology, or the human condition. However, be warned, it’s not an easy read, and it is not for everyone. If you choose to go on this wonderful literary journey, please do so with an open mind.

My Highest Recommendation.

n  ‘My car is limping, Dolores Haze,
And the last long lap is the hardest,
And I shall be dumped where the weed decays,
And the rest is rust and stardust.’’n

Does this image disturb you?

Well it better. The relationship between Humbert and Lolita is gruesome - it is sad, is is heartbreaking. It is reality. Paedophiles aren't overweight men in suits waiting outside your kindergarten. Paedophiles could be your next spouse, your cousin - someone you would never have suspected. And you? Just an innocent girl exposed to the wrong perosn.

And the saddest part? Humbert Humbert made me laugh. He made me cry. Me made me feel sorry for him - a bloody paedophile. But that is what makes this book so insanely cruel and gorgeous - that we feel sorry for a human being who is essentially decrepit and worth nothing to us. Why? Because it's reality, folks. Stop refusing to read this on the grounds of paedophilia influencing you - read it on the grounds of stopping this sick act. Read this because it needs to be read and understood.

Courtesy of Jen's mini reviews

This book scared the living daylights out of me.

As everyone says - its gorgeously written. The language is so rich that it somehow spills over the sentences - there's more to them than you can easily ingest. The writing makes the whole thing a pleasure to read, and in a lot of ways puts Nabakov in control from the start - there isn't a lot of room to imagine motives since Nabakov explains so much. I should point out that were a lesser writer spend any time at all writing in a language I can't read, I may have been tempted to put the whole thing down, but that here, despite entire passages in French, it never crossed my mind to do anything but read on.

There is a recurring temptation to read this as a love story. Humbert Humbert is lovingly obsessed with Lolita. Since he's the narrator of the story, his passion is the lens through which everything is viewed. But Nabakov allows just enough of the unfiltered (fictional) reality through to make it pretty clear that this is a story about a frightened, terribly abused little hostage and her tormentor. The constant flips between seeing Humbert as unfortunately in love with the wrong person, and him as a monster sucking every bit of life out of his prisoner is what is so frightening. It begs the question - how much of reality could we all reconfigure to fit our obsession, or even our love?

The characters, at least Lolita and Humbert are brilliant and true. Lolita is deeply sympathetic, and at points, so is Humbert. The place of the book is everywhere in motion, and little pinpoints across the country are written about with confidence and clarity. The settings precisely frame the story.

There is enough disturbing erotisism that I felt a little strange reading it in broad public view, but it its certainly not explicit in any traditional sense.

Brilliant, complex and extraordinarily readable, this is a book of such force and depth, that it seemed to me nearly impossible to get the whole picture on a single reading. It is definitely one I will pick up again.

هنوز یادم هست که دوران راهنمایی ، یه کسی بود که سر کوچه ی مدرسه مون دید می زد .تو ماشین می نشست ، موقعیت رو بررسی میکرد و تا مطمئن میشد اون دانش آموز تنهاست ، به شیشه ی ماشینش می کوبید تا نگاه اون دختر رو متوجه پایین تنه ش کنه . گاهی جرأت میکرد و پیاده میشد و قبل اینکه دانش آموز از همه جا بی خبر به مدرسه برسه ، بهش درکونی ای میزد و با رضایت به ماشینش بر می گشت. تا یه مدت کسی به مدیر مدرسه نمی گفت که اون مرد ، کار هر چند روز یه بارش چی هست . بچه ها احساس شرم و حتی گناه می کردن که چنین چیزی رو اطلاع بدن . آخر سر یکی شجاعت به خرج داد و شر اون آدم رو کم کردن . اما معلوم نشد که اون مرد بعد از مدرسه ی ما ، چه جای دیگه ای رو برای لذت بیمار گونه ش در نظر گرفته و چند نفر دیگه باید از کارش آسیب ببینن .

حتی گاهی اوقات تو شلوغی بازار ، متوجه لمس ناگهانی ای میشدم و تا به خودم میومدم ، اون آدم رفته بود . به کسی نمی گفتم و از طرفی درک درستی از این ماجراها نداشتم . چون آموزشی نه توی خونواده نه در مدرسه از این بابت دیده بودم . این جور مسائل برام تو هاله ای از ابهام بود . نهایت کاری که میکردم این بود که با سکوتم ، نارضایتیم رو نشون بدم یا اگه تو تاکسی متوجه مالیدن پاهاش به پاهام میشدم ، خودم رو جمع و جور میکردم .

مسئله ی رو مخ دیگه ای که وجود داشت ، این بود که از دبستان تا دبیرستان ، شاهد ازدواج همکلاسی هام بودم . برام جای سوال بود چرا یه دختر ۱۴ ساله باید با مردی که چند برابرش سن داره ازدواج کنه و حتی بخاطر این پیوند بهشون تبریک بگن . یه مدت این چیزها در نگاه خیلیا جذاب بود . مرد پخته و سن و سال داری که دختر نوجوونی رو به دست میاره ، کاری میکنه که با هیچ کدوم از دوستاش که ما باشیم ارتباط نداشته باشه . گاهی از دهن بچه ها می شنیدم که می گفتن چه خوب ، اینجوری شوهرش دوست داره فقط با خودش وقت بگذرونه و برای همین دیگه حالی از ما نمی پرسه . اما حالا که فکر میکنم ، کودک همسری چیز وحشتناکی بوده و هست که اون موقع درکش نمی کردیم . همکلاسی های من مثل شکوفه هایی بودن که تو دست آدم های پدوفیلی پژمرده میشدن و چون کسی ازشون خبری نداشت ، فکر میکردیم هنوز سرزنده و شادابن . اما چه کسی می دونست اون ها چه چیزهایی رو تجربه میکنن؟

لولیتا داستان دور از ذهنی نیست . در واقع هر چی بیشتر کتاب میخونم ، متوجه میشم که ما خیلی چیزها رو تو این جغرافیای نفرین شده لمس کردیم . اینکه خوانندگان هموطنم این کتاب رو درک نکردن ، هنوز برام جای سوال هست . هامبرت روایت دیدگاه همون آدمی هست که وقتی داشتی از مدرسه برمیگشتی ، به طرز عجیبی بهت خیره شد . همون کسی که با لبخند ضایعی نگاهش کردی . پس نباید انتظار داشته باشی که هامبرت هامبرت یه آدم عادی باشه . تو داستان رو از زبون کسی میشنوی که باعث شد تو خیابون احساس ناامنی کنی . همونی که باعث شد به خودت بلرزی و زبونت یخ بزنه و هیچ ایده ای نداشتی که چه کارهایی ازش سر میزنه . چون تو دنیای کودکانه ی خودت بودی و هنوز زندگی برات اونقدر جدی نشده بود .
باید اعتراف کنم که زیبایی قلم نابوکوف متحیرم کرد . این یه کتاب عادی برای یه خواننده ی عادی نیست . تو قرار نیست از رابطه ی عجیب هامبرت با لولیتا لذت ببری و پروانه ها رو تو شکمت احساس کنی . قرار هست به فاک بری !

راوی باهات صادق نیست و تو نمیتونی بهش اعتماد کنی . باید از جزئیات بیخیال نگذری و با تمرکز بخونیشون ؛ وگرنه بدجور رکب میخوری . راست و دروغ جوری در هم آمیخته شدن که هر چی بیشتر میخونی ، بیشتر پی میبری داستان از چه قرار هست . هامبرت با ذهن مشوش و ژولیده ش داستانی رو به قلم در میاره که باید زیر سوالش ببری . پس خواننده ی آگاه ، نباید منفعل باشی!
بله ! هامبرت هندونه زیر بغلت میذاره و جوری خطابت میکنه که این حس بهت دست میده باید قضاوت درستی بکنم ؛ چون مسئولیتی در قبالم هست . از طرفی با بازی های زبانیش ، دقتش به جزئیات و توصیفات منحصر به فردش تو رو شگفت زده میکنه .

زیبایی اثر وقتی پررنگ میشه که به زبان اصلی بخونیش ؛ پس اگه دانشش رو داری این لطف رو در حق خودت بکن. گرچه ترجمه ش هم سعی کرده به متن وفادار باشه .
بعضی از پانوشت های مترجم ، پایان داستان رو اسپویل میکنن ؛ پس اگه به لو رفتن داستان حساسی ، ازشون بگذر و آخر سر سراغشون برو .

در نهایت میخوام بگم نابوکوف نابغه ای بود که شاهکاری به اسم لولیتا خلق کرد. حداقل کاری که میتونی بکنی این هست که سطحی نخونیش چون در این صورت انگ هایی به کتاب میزنی که منصفانه نیست :)

n  Lolita, luz de mi vida, fuego de mis entrañas. Pecado mío, alma mía. Lo-lita: la punta de la lengua emprende un viaje de tres pasos desde el borde del paladar para apoyarse, en el tercero, en el borde de los dientes. Lo.Li.Ta.n



Fueron unos largos 6 meses el tiempo que me tomó, terminar Lolita, algunos me decían que ya lo dejara por la paz, pero como buena masoquista que soy no pude hacerlo y lo hice mi propósito de año y lo conseguí.

No es un libro que fuera malo, ni mucho menos pero lo que pasó conmigo es que me aburría en muchas ocasiones en otras eran tantas las descripciones que me perdía en la lectura y yo soy una persona que si algo no me atrapa me distraigo fácilmente y mi mente empieza a pensar en la inmortalidad del cangrejo.
Es que verán, de repente estaba narrando algo y luego empieza hablar sobre el paisaje que si pasó una mosca en ese momento me perdía en la idea. Aunque no disfruté la narración (lo que hizo que no disfrutara el libro) pude ver en algunas ocasiones la brillantez de los que muchos hablan sobre Vladimir Nabokov, sobre todo el inicio y el final.

n  n   

Era Lo, sencillamente Lo, por la mañana, un metro cuarenta y ocho de estatura con pies descalzos. Era Lola con pantalones. Era Dolly en la escuela. Era Dolores cuando firmaba. Pero en mis brazos era siempre Lolita.

n  n

Esta historia Humbert Humbert narra su vida amorosa desde su niñez hasta su último amor Dolores Haze aka Lolita. Es un hombre que tiene una obsesión sexual con niñas de entre 9 y 14 años que es la edad donde él las describe con nínfulas y según él es víctima de sus provocaciones.

n  n   

"Entre los límites temporales de los nueve y catorce años surgen doncellas que revelan a ciertos viajeros embrujados, dos o más veces mayores que ellas, su verdadera naturaleza, no humana sino de ninfas (o sea demoníaca); propongo llamar nínfulas a estas criaturas escogidas”

n  n

Fue bastante escalofriante saber los pensamientos que tenía sobre las niñas, porque me imagino a tanto pedófilo que existe en la vida real y que tiene ese tipo de pensamientos.

Humbert que es un profesor de literatura francesa viaja de Europa a los Estados Unidos donde alquila una habitación que sólo aceptó al ver a Dolores que es una niña de 12 años, al tiempo se casa con la mamá solo para estar cerca de la niña ya que empieza a desarrollar una obsesión con ella según el ha encontrado su nínfula ideal.



n  Humbert como narrador entra en la categoría de no confiables, no puedes saber que lo que te está contando sea verdad o simplemente es lo que quiere que tú veas, pero había cositas que él mismo decía que te hacía dudar de “Su Verdad”n

n  n   

"Cómo anhelaba envolver esos brazos, y tus cuatro miembros límpidos, encantadores –un potrillo acurrucado–, y tomar tu cabeza entre mis manos indignas y estirar hacia atrás la piel de tus sienes y besar tus ojos achinados y... «Por favor, déjame en paz, ¿quieres?», decías. «Dios mío, déjame tranquila"

n  n



Para empezar pinta a Lolita como una niña coqueta, seductora que manipula a Humbert, para que se cumplan sus deseos y según lo contado mediante relaciones sexuales, hacía que él sucumbiera a sus caprichos.




Me hubiera gustado contar con el punto de vista de Lo, porque al saber sólo la parte del narrador sólo permite que veamos la historia de un solo ángulo y no el cuadro completo.

Algo interesante y punto de inflexión para que se defina la personalidad y los gustos de Humbert es su niñez cuando él tiene una novia llamada Annabel que muere, el sufre tanto que en cada niña quiere encontrar a su amada y es lo que hace que se obsesione con las preadolescentes. Cada vez que describía a Lo es como si estuviera describiendo a Annabel.

n  n   

"Hay dos clases de memoria visual: con una, recreamos diestramente una imagen en el laboratorio de nuestra mente con los ojos abiertos (y así veo a Annabel, en términos generales tales como «piel color de miel», «brazos delgados», «pelo castaño y corto», «pestañas largas», «boca grande, brillante»); con la otra, evocamos instantáneamente con los ojos cerrados, en la oscura intimidad de los párpados, el objetivo, réplica absolutamente óptica de un rostro amado, un diminuto espectro de colores naturales (y así veo a Lolita)."

n  n

De hecho el mismo lo dice que sin una antecesora no existiría Lolita y dato curioso, Annabel fue creada basada en una de las obras de Edgar Allan Poe llamada del mismo nombre.

n  n   

¿Tuvo Lolita una precursora? Por cierto que la tuvo. En verdad, Lolita no pudo existir para mí si un verano no hubiese amado a otra... «En un principado junto al mar.» ¿Cuándo? Tantos años antes de que naciera Lolita como tenía yo ese verano. Siempre puede uno contar con un asesino para una prosa fantástica. Señoras y señores del jurado, la prueba número uno es lo que envidiaron los serafines de Poe, los errados, simples serafines de nobles alas. Mirad esta maraña de espinas.

n  n

A pesar de que la narración se tornaba aburrida como lo mencioné anteriormente y también sobre la brillantez de Nabokov, admiré su capacidad de hacer que empatizáramos con Humbert, con su amor por Lolita, su dolor al ver que le arrebataron a su amada su traición y ver que ella siguió adelante sin él y también admiré con que sutileza y de manera muy poética se narraban e insinuaban las escenas de sexo.

n  Conclusiónn: Un libro que no me gustó que abandoné miles de veces que me aburrió pero que a la vez fue bastante interesante de analizar.

I thought I was going to be sick a time or two while reading this...so, well done by you Nabokov, well done indeed!

When the reader gets so wrapped up in the story and believes so strongly in the characters and their actions that it moves the reader to illness, that is good writing. Almost too good. I had to remind myself that it wasn't real, that Nabokov wasn't writing a memoir in which he seduces and rapes an adolescent. His style, the language he uses and the way he employs it are all of the highest ability.

A comparison to Thomas Mann's Death in Venice must be made, paralleling as similarly as they do. The ever declining degradation, an aging man clinging desperately to youth, a madness of possessiveness, and perhaps more. Both describe pitiable main characters, but where they differ is that while Mann's is just pathetic, Nabokov's is dangerous. It is that danger that keeps the suspense taunt, the narrative edgy. We never quite know when Humbert Humbert will totally lose his shit, which we know by his own admission must eventually happen.

For all that danger and the repulsive horror, there is a surprising amount of humor, not only within the story itself, but also in the language. Certain passages gain near Wodehousian levels of hilarity. "Near" I say. It's very hard to successfully marry funny material to subject matter as abhorrent as this. Still, to carry it off to any degree further shows the ability Nabokov displayed in crafting this fine, if ghastly, novel.

|| 1.0 star ||

This was a never-ending, near inscrutable stream of ramblings from a paedophile on how disturbingly sexy he finds little girls. The book goes on entire tangents dedicated to the beauty of unblemished skin, wobbly knees, knobbly joints, and gangly limbs; it’s a (supposedly beautiful) love letter to the body of children and tries (but luckily fails, in my case) to convince me of their seductive powers. Then, of course, the book just straight-up goes into a story of kidnapping, abuse and rape, and well…
In what world I was meant to enjoy this, I don’t know. Even besides the obvious fact that it’s a disgusting read, it was also so exhausting to get through due to the painfully pretentious and slowly paced writing style.

And really, I know that all this was meant to symbolize the main character’s personality, manipulations and mind, and that it doesn’t actually point to any type of depravity concerning the author. After all, it’s quite clear that he never romanticizes Humbert (even though many of his readers do), and I understand that he is trying to criticize the very thing he is writing. Yes, I’m aware of all that…
Still, I don’t actually care much about that when it comes to passing judgement on the book as a whole, since the end result stays the same: It’s still a sickening story told in the most dreadful (and often mind-numbingly boring) way. Which means it’s just not an enjoyable (or even palatable) book to read. Easy as that. I mean, why would I want to undergo the uncomfortable task of viewing the world through the eyes of a predator? What on earth should be enticing about that? So, yes, I understand the author’s intent in writing this, and that’s interesting in theory, but in practice I don’t see the appeal of reading about the allure of a child’s body for hundreds of pages on end.

Genuinely, I think this book can only be fun to read if you either feel like Humbert is relatable to you (which is a big, fat, giant ew), if you want to understand men like Humbert (which is a lesser ew, but still very much ew), or if you somehow want to feel interesting or smart for liking risqué subjects and pretentious blabber (which is certainly not my jam, but at least it’s not an ew, so please let this be your reason).

Honestly, though, maybe I’m simply too normal to understand the appeal of this book or have it work on me, because no, it did not make me sympathize with the paedophile, and no, it did not make me think Dolores was a seductress (or supposed nymphet) or anything but an innocent victim, and no, it did not make me understand why little girls could be justifiably attractive to dirty old men, and no, it did not make me feel like I was witnessing a forbidden, tragic love story of any kind (not even a twisted one, since there simply was no love involved; only sick lust), and no, Humbert’s gaslighting simply did not work on me at any given point.

In truth, it all did absolutely nothing for me. As, in my opinion, should be the case for everyone. But sure, I accept art is subjective and all that, so I’ll try not to judge (or be too creeped out by) all the love this novel has received, but I genuinely find it hard not to in this case…
Why anyone can find even a hint of sympathy or understanding for this abusive paedophile is beyond me. This book certainly gives you no valid reason to either. Which makes me think some readers have more sympathy and understanding for paedophiles in their hearts (and from the out-set) than I personally feel even remotely comfortable with… and that’s honestly quite sad.

All in all, I obviously think a story like this should make you feel nothing but disgust and horror (and, in my case, unfortunately, a lot of unexpected boredom as well), which, for some people can certainly be interesting to read, and I find that to be completely valid. Unfortunately, not even those feelings of disgust were particularly prominent for me since the writing was so dry, it nearly put me to sleep. Rather than cry in horror, I snored in boredom.
Even more so, the way a lot of fans have been talking about this book shows me that disgust is certainly not the predominant (or only) emotion they all feel towards this story. They somehow feel understanding, sympathy, intrigue, love, justification, or even blame towards the victim, which just baffles my mind. I don’t understand how they get to that point, as I genuinely don’t think even the book itself or author himself tried to make them feel that way! Rather, it’s quite obvious that the author intended the very opposite.
And so, even though the book failed to make me feel any good things about it (or really, failed to make me feel much of anything at all), I do almost feel sad for the author to see his work be so often misunderstood and misused to justify paedophilia. Imagine writing a whole book about the delusions of paedophiles, only for your readers to go along in those very same delusions and have them fail to seperate reality from fantasy. That has got to suck. But then again, maybe it also shows why he never should have written it in the first place. Due to the way the story is told, it simply can’t really be enjoyed unless you do sympathize with the paedophile, which just seems like a contradictio in terminis to me.

P.S. If you want to read a meaningful, heartbreaking, and truthful version of this kind of story, please read n  My Dark Vanessan instead.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, pansexuals and non binaries, can I have your attention just for a couple of minutes, please? It won’t take long, I promise. I’ll go straight to the point with this one and let you know that I believe this novel is one of the biggest acts of bravery in the whole history of literature. It certainly is the most daring one I’ve ever read.

Nothing, and I mean literally nothing, is more appreciated (by the insignificant human being that I am) than seeing someone crossing boundaries, beliefs and general assumptions regardless of the consequences.

Ah, how I love to see people being forced to think outside the box; the look of confusion and fear in their eyes when everything they thought was real comes tumbling down and crashes by their feet.

But being brave wasn’t enough for Mr. Nabokov. He also had to deliver the most stunning, beautiful and outstanding writing. I lost count of the times when I literally lost my breath or realised I wasn’t even breathing while I was viciously turning the pages.

n  Well, my car had been attended to, and I had moved it away from the pumps to let a pickup truck be serviced - when the growing absence of her began to weigh upon me in the windy grayness. Not for the first time, and not for the last, had I stared in such dull discomfort of mind at those stationary trivialities that look almost surprised, like staring rustics, to find themselves in the standard traveler’s field of vision: that green garbage can, those very black, very whitewalled tires for sale, those bright cans of motor oil, that red icebox with assorted drinks, the four, five, seven discarded bottles within the incompleted cross-work puzzle of their wooden cells, that bug patiently walking up the inside of the window of the office.n

See, I said it wasn’t going to take long, and now that you’ve got this far I think you’d be glad to know Lolita is a work of art. A masterpiece. One of the greatest.

And for your courage (and everything else about this novel), Mr. Nabokov, wherever you are now, I take a bow to you. You’ve succeeded Sir, can’t you see the look of confusion and fear in their eyes?