There’s no denying that Nabokov is a great writer. In fact, I’d love to read more by him — just on a different subject. I had a hard time rating this book as the subject matter is so despicable, but settled on 3 stars because of Nabokov’s writing ability. A large part of the rating also goes to the excellence in Jeremy Irons’ narration. I absolutely love his voice, but then again, he was almost too good as the narrator for Humbert Humbert. I have not seen the movie with Irons in the starring role.
I won’t repeat the storyline here, as everyone should know the basic outline of it. My question is, why did Nabokov even feel the need to write this story? I’ve heard one reviewer say that Nabokov makes us root for Humbert Humbert over Lolita. Not so. Not with me, anyway. A great writer Nabokov is. A great character Humbert Humbert is not.
1955, 366 pp.
Rating: 
well, morally, anyway, he’s not a great character.
my hubby & I are in the middle of the audio book (we’ve both read the book) and finding it far harder to listen to than to read. Humbert Humbert is just so much more despicable–and I think on the audio, you more easily remember how horrible he is. The printed words disguise it better, I think because it comes more from your head–it uses more of you for the character creation–than audio can.
congrats on finishing the audio–my husband and I might not.
I didn’t root for either of them. I pretty much despised everyone in the book. But I’m with you. I’d love to read more Nabakov, but definitely on a different topic.
Lezlie
If you get the chance, if you pick up the Vintage edition of the book (I believe) there’s an essay from Nabokov in the back where he more or less answers the why of the book; or, at least he lists some of the ideas that inspired him.
Your review makes me remember how much I love the book. I first read “Lolita” when I was about 13 or 14, pretty close to the age of the nymphet Lolita herself. So I was old enough to understand what was going on. I loved it then and still love it now – but I remember thinking it was very funny the first time I read it. Over the years, I’ve come to see the more horrendous aspects of it, as well. Still, it’s one of the most beautifully written books in the English language. Maybe I’ll re-read it for Banned Book Week!
I like JLS Hall’s idea of reading *Lolita* during Banned Book Week. It’s sitting on my bookcase, but I haven’t yet brought myself to read it. So many pop culture references to it (I’m thinking of the Police song and the memoir *Reading Lolita in Tehran*); I have to read it and make the connections.
I really loved what Azir Nafisi had to say about “Lolita” in “Reading Lolita in Tehran.” One of the points that she made was that Humbert’s crime (beyond the obvious) was in trying to impose his dream on a real person and the damage that resulted. I loved that and think that lots of people do that to others, they try to impose their ideas and desires on someone and refuse to see the person as they really are, or even to fully acknowledge that they are a separate being.
Completely unrelated, I’ve passed on an award to you!
I agree with you. I loved and hated Lolita at the same time. I too wanted to read more Nabokov when I’d finished this one, but I haven’t done so yet.
I think that it was so well written, that I did root for Humbert a little bit. But I also knew while I was doing it that I didn’t want to. I was also rooting for Lolita, and trying to raise her up a bit more as well.
Lolita is one of the most complex, tragic, and utterly consuming novels I’ve ever read.
Maybe that has something to do with why Nabokov “felt the need” to write it.
I really adored this novel. It is beautifully written, if like you say, you can get past the storyline. It is definitely in my top 5 books of all time and I plan to read more of his writing in the future. The film version with Irons in it is beautiful as well, like you say it is his voice. Natalie POrtman was originally going to play Lo but was put off by the nudity. I haven’t seen the Kubrick version.
I still just can’t bring myself to read Lolita…
I agree with your assessment. I did find parts of the book (the wording, etc.) to be funny, but it was hard to think of it as funny due to the subject matter.
I loved Lolita. I especially loved that Nabokov took the reader along a ride where he almost seems to approve of HH’s behavior, right until mid-book, where he turns everything around and berates the reader for going along with him. I think the contrast is far greater and we see HH as a far worse character because Nabokov treats him well in the first half. He takes you into the mind of the pedaphile and says Yep, this is gross all right. Lolita’s one of the best books I’ve ever read, and of all the books by Nabokov I’ve delved into (somewhere between 5 and 10 at this point), it’s by far the best.
Nabokov himself has said that PLOT IS NOT IMPORTANT in reading literature; it merely distracts from the art, as the reader is so fixed on “what happens next” that s/he misses the true art.
You say that his writing is “great”, so you can overlook how despicable Humbert is. That’s absolutely the wrong way of looking at it. Clearly, Humbert’s despicable nature IS the reason he wrote the book — he wants to separate aesthetics from morality, to see if beautiful prose can distract the reader from something so brutal and savage. Humbert is the ultimate unreliable narrator, which is a much-celebrated literary form. The entire point of the artform is that it can MAKE something horrendously immoral seem fine through proper presentation.
Further, the book is about searching for patterns and clues and metaphors, shadows and doubles and glimmers. The point of the book is NOT WHAT HAPPENS and you are an abysmal reader of literature to think so. It is a brilliantly crafted piece. If you think it only deserves three stars, I recommend you obtain the annotated copy so you can trace all the intricate patterns and intentional allusions throughout.
It’s hard for me to articulate HOW WRONG your approach to reading Nabokov is. I can’t believe that you think highly enough of your literary opinion to have the gall to insult him.
If you care so much about plot, you should read trashy detective novels. Plot is not the point of Nabokov’s literature.
You sicken me.
Callie, you said “The entire point of the artform is that it can MAKE something horrendously immoral seem fine through proper presentation.”
That’s just it. This book or any other will *never* make pedophilia seem fine to me. Never.
I’m sorry I sicken you. Pedophilia sickens me.
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (Russian author) [...]
[...] Five Challenge – 10 out of 100 out of 1001 – Russian Reading Challenge — Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov Classics Challenge – Book Awards II — The God of Animals by Aryn [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov [...]
[...] N – Nabokov, Lolita [...]
[...] April: Transformations, by Anne Sexton May: Other Voices, Other Rooms, by Truman Capote June: Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov July: The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier August: Maus I and Maus II, by Art [...]
[...] Lolita by Nabokov [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (Rhinoa) (Day Dream Muse) (Just a Reading Fool) [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov [...]
[...] Reading Challenge — Lolita by Vladimir [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov [...]
[...] Veronica (Blonde)56. Veronica (the Woman in White)57. Veronica (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde)58. 3M (Lolita)59. 3M [...]
[...] Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov [...]