Scan barcode
curiousemwanders's review against another edition
4.0
I didn't finish this book. not because it was bad or made me uncomfortable, but because of the complete control of the language in the book. it demanded to be read slowly, which i had some problems with as someone who likes to wiz though books. someday i'll restart this book and im sure ill enjoy it, but as for now i have to say, i'm done with it.
Update -- years later. I finished the book. I honestly have nothing to add to this review that hasn't been said about the book before. I highly recommend listening to Lolita the podcast, it really explores the book's impact on society.
Update -- years later. I finished the book. I honestly have nothing to add to this review that hasn't been said about the book before. I highly recommend listening to Lolita the podcast, it really explores the book's impact on society.
poisonousplum's review against another edition
challenging
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
samanthagillan's review against another edition
2.0
A moment of silence for the hours I spent trudging through this book before finally DNFing it to all hell. This baby gets a generous two stars, because although I hated every second of it, Nabokov did his job in vividly painting such an unlikeable narrator.
Humbert Humbert is a pedophile, he's not someone the reader is meant to fall in love with (or so I assume). It's not even the subject of pedophilia that puts me off from his character, either. I love horror. I love to have my stomach turned. I love gruesome, morally divergent plotlines played out by problematic characters. But Humbert is the type of character I cannot stand, whether they're meant to be playing a villain or a protagonist the reader is supposed to empathize with over time. Humbert is a dull, pretentious narcissist. The "beautiful prose" other readers speak of only adds to that very vibe. Good god, I could not stand to sit through another second of his boring rambles.
Humbert Humbert is a pedophile, he's not someone the reader is meant to fall in love with (or so I assume). It's not even the subject of pedophilia that puts me off from his character, either. I love horror. I love to have my stomach turned. I love gruesome, morally divergent plotlines played out by problematic characters. But Humbert is the type of character I cannot stand, whether they're meant to be playing a villain or a protagonist the reader is supposed to empathize with over time. Humbert is a dull, pretentious narcissist. The "beautiful prose" other readers speak of only adds to that very vibe. Good god, I could not stand to sit through another second of his boring rambles.
readwithsummer's review against another edition
5.0
L'autre soir un air froid d'opиra m'alita: [The other night a cold opera tune put me to bed:]
Son fиlи--bien fol est qui s'y fie! [Crackled sound - who goes by it is crazy!]
Il neige, le dиcor s'иcroule, Lolita! [It's snowing. The scenery is collapsing, Lolita!]
Lolita, qu'ai-je fait de ta vie? [Lolita, what did I do with your life?]
Dying, dying, Lolita Haze,
Of hate and remorse, I'm dying.
And again my hairy fist I raise,
And again I hear you crying.
There is so much more to this novel than 'exploring the mind of a nonce'. That kind of boils it down to its core aspect, but the novel contains so much more than that. I really enjoyed the plot of the book, and I'd completely forgotten about it. I read it 8 years ago and the core is all I remembered as well, I think it's because that's the most shocking part of it, the most repulsive, the thing you can't really forget...
Except this is a masterfully crafted novel, with suspense, intrigue, plot twists, action, lyrical writing, wordplay, anagrams, literature references, meaning! It's a wild ride. I found myself looking forward to picking this novel up (admittedly, once I'd passed Part 1).
It really is split into two distinct parts, and for some reason, most people take away only the first part.
The first part is the exploration of Humbert's mind; his disgusting and revolting exploits in his hunt for his desire. It makes for very difficult reading, I found it physically stressful and very unsettling to read as the first part reached its climax. It's also where we get Humbert at his most cunning as a narrator. Interestingly, we get told at the close of the novel that Humbert wrote his memoir/statement in 56 days, at the start in a psychiatric hospital, and the rest in jail.
I really think that shows. The essence of the novel changes when we get to the end, something we didn't get at the start- and I think that's reflected in Humbert's attitude in telling his story. There is no remorse at the start, he has no regrets. He plays with us as the reader, relishes in disturbing us. He's arrogant, confessing how he loves to play with psychologists and has fun talking directly to the reader. He's trying to get you onto his side, he's making out he simply couldn't help it, but he wanted to do his mischievous deeds in the most humane way possible. Except, we as readers of course find it horrific.
But, as we draw to the close there's a shift. Is it because he's facing the death squad? Or is it because he's finally reflected on his story, start to finish? I think a bit of both. But I could clearly tell at the start of the novel he had no remorse, didn't care for Dolores, only for his Lolita. But by the end, he starts thinking of Dolores in real terms- and we get some remorse. Is it fake? Is it faked remorse to get the jury/reader on his side? Remorse gets you the best sentence. It's hard to tell.
But could someone faking it write such a heartbreakingly raw and true statement as this?,
I reviewed my case. With the utmost simplicity and clarity I now saw myself and my love. Previous attempts seemed out of focus in comparison. [..] Alas, I was unable to transcend the simple human fact [..] nothing could make my Lolita forget the foul lust I had inflicted upon her. [..] a North American girl-child named Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac [..] I see nothing for the treatment of my misery but the melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art. To quote an old poet:
The moral sense in mortals is the duty
We have to pay on mortal sense of beauty.
Maybe Humbert's mind games are working on me. And to clarify, I feel no empathy for this sick b******. But the conclusion of the novel was very sombre and depressing.
Again, masterfully crafted on Nabokov's part, because whilst there was a lot of enjoyment to be had in the plot of the novel, he's absolutely right to end it on a devasting and sombre note. It's a ridiculously sad story for Dolores, and we end on a haunting passage of Humbert wishing her all the best in the life we know she doesn't have. Oof.
I also noticed a distinct difference in Part 1 and Part 2 for Dolores, and I think the split was intentionally done so. Not only do we move from Humbert's preying on her, to their actual affair- but we get the shift in Dolores' perception as well. The part that some people take away from Lo's side of it is the first part, that she was also after him. In a way, she was. Is this from Humbert's twisted perception? I don't know. She willingly went to [spoiler] Quincy as well, another Humbert, albeit a much worse one.
I do think this was also intentional on Nabokov's part, as Dolores is used to demonstrate how commercialisation is corrupting society and its youth. Dolores is consistently used to reflect capitalism in society, how vapid and easily manipulated it makes her. The over-sexualisation of advertisements and Hollywood exposes her to it before Humbert properly did. Commercialisation and sexualisation are so intrinsically linked to each other, it’s the ol’ adage ‘sex sells’. But, what impact does that have on youth?
But, then Dolores is no longer a young girl, experimenting with what she see's in the movies and growing into an adolescent in a normal but slightly unhealthy way, no, she is cruelly awakened to the monster she's been exposed to and the horrifics it is going to entail. Start, Part 2.
We get a dramatic decrease in explanations of Humbert's perversions in Part 2, and this is where we hit the plot. This is where I found it much easier and enjoyable reading, although we obviously don't escape it completely. We know the disgusting actions going on in the background, but we're no longer exposed to the disgusting details. It turned into a catch-me-if-you-can style run, with a twist, and we get to see Dolores start to get one over on Humbert. Instead of Humbert ruling the show, Dolores becomes the mastermind, manipulating the situation for her own plans, not his. She is no longer seeking his attention, but trying to get away. She knows who he truly is and what he's capable of, and oh how we root for her to escape even though we're looking at it from Humbert's side.
It is wrapped up beautifully in the ending though. I can sort of, sort of, understand why some people interpret this as a love story. In the misguided kind of, Wuthering Heights way. There's love there, but love isn't always dreamy and romantic.
The way Nabokov weaved that ending from the start though was really poetically done. And also that thing with the names scattered throughout the novel? Genius. I tried to keep track, and I caught most of them, but I think there's a few anagrams, alliterations and allusions that my IQ is far too low to pick up on. Nabokov!
Son fиlи--bien fol est qui s'y fie! [Crackled sound - who goes by it is crazy!]
Il neige, le dиcor s'иcroule, Lolita! [It's snowing. The scenery is collapsing, Lolita!]
Lolita, qu'ai-je fait de ta vie? [Lolita, what did I do with your life?]
Dying, dying, Lolita Haze,
Of hate and remorse, I'm dying.
And again my hairy fist I raise,
And again I hear you crying.
There is so much more to this novel than 'exploring the mind of a nonce'. That kind of boils it down to its core aspect, but the novel contains so much more than that. I really enjoyed the plot of the book, and I'd completely forgotten about it. I read it 8 years ago and the core is all I remembered as well, I think it's because that's the most shocking part of it, the most repulsive, the thing you can't really forget...
Except this is a masterfully crafted novel, with suspense, intrigue, plot twists, action, lyrical writing, wordplay, anagrams, literature references, meaning! It's a wild ride. I found myself looking forward to picking this novel up (admittedly, once I'd passed Part 1).
It really is split into two distinct parts, and for some reason, most people take away only the first part.
The first part is the exploration of Humbert's mind; his disgusting and revolting exploits in his hunt for his desire. It makes for very difficult reading, I found it physically stressful and very unsettling to read as the first part reached its climax. It's also where we get Humbert at his most cunning as a narrator. Interestingly, we get told at the close of the novel that Humbert wrote his memoir/statement in 56 days, at the start in a psychiatric hospital, and the rest in jail.
I really think that shows. The essence of the novel changes when we get to the end, something we didn't get at the start- and I think that's reflected in Humbert's attitude in telling his story. There is no remorse at the start, he has no regrets. He plays with us as the reader, relishes in disturbing us. He's arrogant, confessing how he loves to play with psychologists and has fun talking directly to the reader. He's trying to get you onto his side, he's making out he simply couldn't help it, but he wanted to do his mischievous deeds in the most humane way possible. Except, we as readers of course find it horrific.
But, as we draw to the close there's a shift. Is it because he's facing the death squad? Or is it because he's finally reflected on his story, start to finish? I think a bit of both. But I could clearly tell at the start of the novel he had no remorse, didn't care for Dolores, only for his Lolita. But by the end, he starts thinking of Dolores in real terms- and we get some remorse. Is it fake? Is it faked remorse to get the jury/reader on his side? Remorse gets you the best sentence. It's hard to tell.
But could someone faking it write such a heartbreakingly raw and true statement as this?,
I reviewed my case. With the utmost simplicity and clarity I now saw myself and my love. Previous attempts seemed out of focus in comparison. [..] Alas, I was unable to transcend the simple human fact [..] nothing could make my Lolita forget the foul lust I had inflicted upon her. [..] a North American girl-child named Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac [..] I see nothing for the treatment of my misery but the melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art. To quote an old poet:
The moral sense in mortals is the duty
We have to pay on mortal sense of beauty.
Maybe Humbert's mind games are working on me. And to clarify, I feel no empathy for this sick b******. But the conclusion of the novel was very sombre and depressing.
Again, masterfully crafted on Nabokov's part, because whilst there was a lot of enjoyment to be had in the plot of the novel, he's absolutely right to end it on a devasting and sombre note. It's a ridiculously sad story for Dolores, and we end on a haunting passage of Humbert wishing her all the best in the life we know she doesn't have. Oof.
I also noticed a distinct difference in Part 1 and Part 2 for Dolores, and I think the split was intentionally done so. Not only do we move from Humbert's preying on her, to their actual affair- but we get the shift in Dolores' perception as well. The part that some people take away from Lo's side of it is the first part, that she was also after him. In a way, she was. Is this from Humbert's twisted perception? I don't know. She willingly went to [spoiler] Quincy as well, another Humbert, albeit a much worse one.
I do think this was also intentional on Nabokov's part, as Dolores is used to demonstrate how commercialisation is corrupting society and its youth. Dolores is consistently used to reflect capitalism in society, how vapid and easily manipulated it makes her. The over-sexualisation of advertisements and Hollywood exposes her to it before Humbert properly did. Commercialisation and sexualisation are so intrinsically linked to each other, it’s the ol’ adage ‘sex sells’. But, what impact does that have on youth?
But, then Dolores is no longer a young girl, experimenting with what she see's in the movies and growing into an adolescent in a normal but slightly unhealthy way, no, she is cruelly awakened to the monster she's been exposed to and the horrifics it is going to entail. Start, Part 2.
We get a dramatic decrease in explanations of Humbert's perversions in Part 2, and this is where we hit the plot. This is where I found it much easier and enjoyable reading, although we obviously don't escape it completely. We know the disgusting actions going on in the background, but we're no longer exposed to the disgusting details. It turned into a catch-me-if-you-can style run, with a twist, and we get to see Dolores start to get one over on Humbert. Instead of Humbert ruling the show, Dolores becomes the mastermind, manipulating the situation for her own plans, not his. She is no longer seeking his attention, but trying to get away. She knows who he truly is and what he's capable of, and oh how we root for her to escape even though we're looking at it from Humbert's side.
It is wrapped up beautifully in the ending though. I can sort of, sort of, understand why some people interpret this as a love story. In the misguided kind of, Wuthering Heights way. There's love there, but love isn't always dreamy and romantic.
The way Nabokov weaved that ending from the start though was really poetically done. And also that thing with the names scattered throughout the novel? Genius. I tried to keep track, and I caught most of them, but I think there's a few anagrams, alliterations and allusions that my IQ is far too low to pick up on. Nabokov!
jaehaeramorghul's review against another edition
dark
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
indigodragonfly's review against another edition
5.0
Favorite book: hands-down amazing. Beautiful language and astounding pathos.
kaykay38's review against another edition
4.0
A few points that struck me:
- Humbert is quite a relatable character.
- I thoroughly enjoyed the humanization of the Humbert.
- The raunchy bits were enticing, but the deeply emotional, psychological bits were what drove me to finish the book.
- Nabokov is good indeed. To be able to invoke empathy for such a perverse horrifying affliction demonstrates Nabokov’s understanding of humanity and his skill with words.
- This book is not about a girl at all, but a motif.
- It is clearly the internal battle of letting go of the immortalization of premature loss. In this way, I also related to Humbert’s predilection. It is twisted, wholly unholy, yet imbued with vulnerability.
- Humbert is quite a relatable character.
- I thoroughly enjoyed the humanization of the Humbert.
- The raunchy bits were enticing, but the deeply emotional, psychological bits were what drove me to finish the book.
- Nabokov is good indeed. To be able to invoke empathy for such a perverse horrifying affliction demonstrates Nabokov’s understanding of humanity and his skill with words.
- This book is not about a girl at all, but a motif.
- It is clearly the internal battle of letting go of the immortalization of premature loss. In this way, I also related to Humbert’s predilection. It is twisted, wholly unholy, yet imbued with vulnerability.
libby_libaryon's review against another edition
2.0
I was surprised that this book was exactly what I thought I was. Ultimately super sad and hard to get through.