it funny, is erotic, is cleaver and you will have something that you never expect

I expected to be repelled, disgusted, condescending, and dismissive of this book. Yes I was repelled and at times disgusted, but I see why this book has stood the test of time. I was blown away by Nabokov's mind, his wordplay, and how he never, ever over-explains anything. He always says just enough and then he's tearing off again and my mind rushes to keep up. I can't recall reading another book with an "unreliable narrator" although I'm sure I must have. I certainly can't recall enjoying a book or hating the characters in it so much.

Though english was third language of Nabokov, he has written such beautiful prose. but it was hard for me to decide what i liked more...the honesty and frankness that he adopted for his character to write what he does in the book or the plot itself....

spicy:)

I've only read LOLITA in this collection so this review will only reflect on that particular book. Will edit this review whenever I read the other books.

So, Lolita. It was a hard read. Knowing what it was about (thanks to it being a famous book), I kinda expected what I was going to face but I was still not ready for it. This book should have been subtitled: "In defence of paedophilia". From the early pages on, Humbert Humbert is an unapologetic paedophile. And like all paedos, he blames the girl (or nymphets as he calls them) for seducing him. It was never his fault!

Of course, HH is an unreliable narrator. The book is written as he is awaiting trial for murder and he wanted to set the record "straight". It is to Vladimir Nabokov's credit that he was able to make Mr Humbert both comical and disgusting at the same time. And which parts were true and which were embellished? As it was 'written' by a grown man who likes little girls and is trying to jusyify his actions, I would say most of it was hogwash. Again, credit to Nabokov for making Humbert Humbert so real.

(There is a book out called The Real Lolita which argues that Nabokov was inspired to write Lolita by the real life kidnap and rape case of Sally Horner. Well, that explains everything!)

I was just planning to read Lolita but I’m so glad I picked up this copy of the book and read Pale Fire and Pnin too! The only part that didn’t really live up to me was the Lolita screenplay, overall great read unique and kept my interest for many many pages

Read Lolita last year. Shocking and depressing. Nabokov was a genius. Will read other stories at some point.

I really enjoyed Lolita, up til about p. 188, when I began to get weary of the incessant descriptive passages about fondling and groping, etc. Nabokov is an amazing writer, so it's worth it to get through the novel, even though it's at times stomach-wrenching and other times, a snore.

The language in "Lo" was maddening, the novel should've been in three parts, and I can't name an interesting "participant." HH's pathos is pathets. Such a tard needs some S. King to steam you. D puts on unconvincing squabbles, acting 5 when she's twice-plus, and the roadtrip/s is/are limp...as...eff. I remember Pnin also buggin'. Pale Fire? Later. Later later.

A bargain. Of course, PNIN is relatively short, and PALE FIRE is very short, and the screenplay of LOLITA is an adaptation of the celebrated 1955 novel, but a good one.

So it's a bargain if you need it or want it! I for one think it's worth it.

I'm only writing about Pnin and Pale Fire, since I first read Lolita separately. The two actually work pretty well together since both contain strong elements of academic satire. Pnin was kind of painful right now, since the good professor can't get a decent job at an American university. I liked Pale Fire a lot. It's a prologue, a deliberately terrible narrative poem, and lengthy notes. The real story is about the editor, who it quickly becomes clear isn't entirely right. His notes cast the poem, which is actually a banal life story, as an allegory about his own life as an exiled king. It's a pretty funny and original setup.

Reading Lolita