You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
dark
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
The writing is amazing. The narrator is disturbing and I really struggled with the way he spoke of 'nymphets'.
The author has written something that draws you in, but repulses you at the same time. If you want to be out of every comfort zone, especially one pertaining to morals/ethics, then give this a go.
The author has written something that draws you in, but repulses you at the same time. If you want to be out of every comfort zone, especially one pertaining to morals/ethics, then give this a go.
It took me an hour of reflection to decide how to rate this book. The premise of the book is grotesque, though the book itself is a work of art. At first, it created almost a moral dilemma, as Humbert is initially very self aware of the immoral nature of his urges, and he is a horrifyingly likeable character. Relievingly, this quickly changes and I became to loathe his “plain and humble ignorance” of his actions. This book certainly does not paint pedophelia in any positive light, but is instead made up of the ravings of a despicable man. It is clear why this has worked its way into the list of must-read classics, and I very much enjoyed reading it.
gdyby ktos zapytal mi sie czym jest przesada, pokazalabym mu ta ksiazke
edit: po obejrzeniu filmu jednak daje 4 (nie ogladajcie go bez przeczytania ksiazki wczesniej)
edit: po obejrzeniu filmu jednak daje 4 (nie ogladajcie go bez przeczytania ksiazki wczesniej)
challenging
dark
tense
slow-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
How does a person rate Lolita? It's definitely not an easy read, or one that I particularly enjoyed, but I don't believe that the point of Lolita is to enjoy. I don't even think that there is a 'point,' because to imply that there is means to completely set aside Nabokov's disdain for stories with 'morals'. It is simply a man playing in the sandbox of characters and why, on a literal level not a psychoanalytic level, do people do what they do. Ironically, that pragmaticism of story-telling allows for some of the cleanest character depictions I've seen in a story. And, sure, it's romantically written, but even Humbert's beautiful prose in his narration grates expectantly after a while. The incessant babbling and justification given page after page of his obsession masked in love. A character study in how the manipulative manipulate even themselves to live with the things they do.
Lolita has been read as many things: a scandal, a stylistic triumph, a psychological case study, a satire of American culture. In Gregor von Rezzori’s 1986 Vanity Fair essay “In Pursuit of Lolita"-- an article that is regularly quoted on the back of Lolita's cover to declare it “the only convincing love story of our century”--he justifies this by intentionally peeling Dolores Haze out of her own life and installing her as a symbol for Europe’s yearning toward America. Dolly’s reality in the shape of her hatred of Humbert, her bargaining for survival, her explicit wish to escape is brushed aside in favor of a grand metaphor. That move is not accidental.
Lolita is one of literature’s great Rorschach tests. Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator who tells you so himself. He is a self-aware seducer whose prose is lush enough to dazzle even as it describes sedating a child. Dolores’s voice is present in the novel and it’s blunt. She hates him, she’s trapped, she’s bartering her body because she has no other options. These moments are tripwires, and they are not subtle. The saddest part of Lolita, barring the explicit predation from Humbert towards Dolly, is that other characters like Charlotte, Dolly's mother, buy into these siren songs. They buy into the Humble Bumble act of incompetency that Humbert lays on thick, and blame Dolores for her own rape. Lolita is an insight into the mind of a pedophile, sure, but it's also insight into the way people will avoid looking too close at predation because it exists and is supported by the way our society is built and functions. (As a therapist, I have had countless clients recount to me that they were accused, by their own mothers, of seducing or wanting to seduce the adult men in their life and thus putting young girls in a position to defend themselves for simply having bodies that vile men wish to defile.)
Nabokov lays those tripwires right alongside the linguistic fireworks. A reader is constantly offered two options, either follow the artistry and Humbert’s charm into a reframing of abuse as tragic love, or keep hold of the hard facts the novel keeps reiterating in flashing warning lights. Which path you take says less about Lolita than it does about you. To read Lolita is to discover whether you are reading the book Humbert wants you to read, or the one Nabokov actually wrote.
Lolita has been read as many things: a scandal, a stylistic triumph, a psychological case study, a satire of American culture. In Gregor von Rezzori’s 1986 Vanity Fair essay “In Pursuit of Lolita"-- an article that is regularly quoted on the back of Lolita's cover to declare it “the only convincing love story of our century”--he justifies this by intentionally peeling Dolores Haze out of her own life and installing her as a symbol for Europe’s yearning toward America. Dolly’s reality in the shape of her hatred of Humbert, her bargaining for survival, her explicit wish to escape is brushed aside in favor of a grand metaphor. That move is not accidental.
Lolita is one of literature’s great Rorschach tests. Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator who tells you so himself. He is a self-aware seducer whose prose is lush enough to dazzle even as it describes sedating a child. Dolores’s voice is present in the novel and it’s blunt. She hates him, she’s trapped, she’s bartering her body because she has no other options. These moments are tripwires, and they are not subtle. The saddest part of Lolita, barring the explicit predation from Humbert towards Dolly, is that other characters like Charlotte, Dolly's mother, buy into these siren songs. They buy into the Humble Bumble act of incompetency that Humbert lays on thick, and blame Dolores for her own rape. Lolita is an insight into the mind of a pedophile, sure, but it's also insight into the way people will avoid looking too close at predation because it exists and is supported by the way our society is built and functions. (As a therapist, I have had countless clients recount to me that they were accused, by their own mothers, of seducing or wanting to seduce the adult men in their life and thus putting young girls in a position to defend themselves for simply having bodies that vile men wish to defile.)
Nabokov lays those tripwires right alongside the linguistic fireworks. A reader is constantly offered two options, either follow the artistry and Humbert’s charm into a reframing of abuse as tragic love, or keep hold of the hard facts the novel keeps reiterating in flashing warning lights. Which path you take says less about Lolita than it does about you. To read Lolita is to discover whether you are reading the book Humbert wants you to read, or the one Nabokov actually wrote.
To the individuals calling Lolita a love story or an erotic novel, did we read two completely different works?
Lots of things I could touch on, all of which have been said before by people smarter than me, but ultimately I choose to focus on Dolores Haze: failed and neglected by those meant to protect her, falling through cracks in a flawed system. Cracks as big as canyons that stretch as many miles as Humbert put on the car in the two years he held her captive. Even Humbert, in all his web spinning and fancy prose penned to justify his perversions and obsession, cannot twist Dolores' condemnation of the crimes he committed against her. Dolores had her innocence stolen; a little girl abused and sexualized, who in turn was forced to use her own body and sexuality as a means of survival when Humbert stripped all other autonomy away from her and loomed over her. A constant, inescapable shadow.
Dolores was forced to survive in the constraints of a life that Humbert put on her. Sadly, I finish Lolita knowing that part of Dolores never escaped the prison in which Humbert held her captive. Humbert even images Dolores saying it: "You merely broke my life."
I believe some of the things Humbert tells us are the truth. I believe all of them are through the lens of his vastly skewed, deplorable, and disturbing perspective. He is a predator. He is a groomer. He can be, in some regards, even funny and charming, and when we find ourselves disgusted over our own amusement at something H.H. said that made us chuckle, we are forced to reconcile the fact that Humbert, and the depraved men like him, are human. Sometimes, other people are the most nightmarish thing we can encounter.
Lots of things I could touch on, all of which have been said before by people smarter than me, but ultimately I choose to focus on Dolores Haze: failed and neglected by those meant to protect her, falling through cracks in a flawed system. Cracks as big as canyons that stretch as many miles as Humbert put on the car in the two years he held her captive. Even Humbert, in all his web spinning and fancy prose penned to justify his perversions and obsession, cannot twist Dolores' condemnation of the crimes he committed against her. Dolores had her innocence stolen; a little girl abused and sexualized, who in turn was forced to use her own body and sexuality as a means of survival when Humbert stripped all other autonomy away from her and loomed over her. A constant, inescapable shadow.
Dolores was forced to survive in the constraints of a life that Humbert put on her. Sadly, I finish Lolita knowing that part of Dolores never escaped the prison in which Humbert held her captive. Humbert even images Dolores saying it: "You merely broke my life."
I believe some of the things Humbert tells us are the truth. I believe all of them are through the lens of his vastly skewed, deplorable, and disturbing perspective. He is a predator. He is a groomer. He can be, in some regards, even funny and charming, and when we find ourselves disgusted over our own amusement at something H.H. said that made us chuckle, we are forced to reconcile the fact that Humbert, and the depraved men like him, are human. Sometimes, other people are the most nightmarish thing we can encounter.
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-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
I think everyone should read this book, particularly everyone who has a child. It lays out, with unflinching accuracy, all the warning signs that your child may be the target of pedophilia and sexual abuse. It’s unbelievably chilling and hard to get through, but necessary. I will defend this book to its last, and not just because Nabokov is a fantastic writer. (Though not without any fault — the middle section of this book did drag considerably.)
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Confinement, Emotional abuse, Pedophilia, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Sexual violence, Kidnapping, Stalking, Death of parent, Sexual harassment
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
funny
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes