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:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Child abuse, Death, Pedophilia, Rape, Death of parent
Moderate: Murder
Minor: Car accident
3 stars. I would give it less but it's beautifully written.
**
Lolita is so many things, has been analysed and scrutinised and praised to the point that I can't really add anything more of value, but at it's core it's a portrait of singular, intense alienation. Humbert Humbert cannot be any more isolated or alienated; for not only is his every morsel of time & energy & imagination directed towards an intensely private pursuit, not only towards an intensely private intensely illegal & taboo pursuit, but towards a pursuit that is all of these things and also *does not really exist*. Humbert is not interested in young girls, he's interested in a highly specific, mythical, quasi-supernatural version of a young girl that exists only in his warped fantasies. The nymphets are not there. He notices a normal young girl who embodies a few common aesthetic features, a few crude personality traits, assigns her the nymphet role, and swims as far into his fantasy with her as he dares before retreating and summoning the courage to move on to another.
This is crucial, because while this is a novel about a paedophile, it also isn't. Take Humbert's friendship with Gaston. Gaston is a paedophile who likes young boys. He recognises, knows, somehow, that Humbert is a paedophile, and so feels safe to share this private aspect of his life with him. However, Humbert does not share back. If Humbert was like Gaston, he probably would. But he isn't; unlike Gaston he isn't into real children but into fantastical ones. He is completely alone; driven every second of every day by an urge that no-one else on earth can relate to or understand. Gaston is his only friend, and their relationship is as surface level as a friendship can be. Humbert's arch-nemesis, Quilty, is also a 'normal' paedophile, exploiting and abusing young children in ways remarkably familiar and mundane to anyone who knows anything about grooming & sexual abuse in Hollywood. Other paedophiles are just as unknowable to Humbert, and he to them, as anyone else. Gaston & Quilty may be evil, craven, scumbags, but there's a sense, theoretically at least, that they can find human connection (with other paedophiles) and a degree of satisfaction (through their paedophilia) and so can enjoy a level of human experience that they absolutely do not deserve.
Humbert however, is condemned to endless pathetic suffering. The cruellest tragedy of his devotion to delusion is that when he finally gets a nymphet all to himself, he cannot ever find contentment or satisfaction or peace precisely because he perceives her as a nymphet rather than the thing she actually is; a child, a girl, a person. ' It never occurs to him to consider her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh.' She will never be a nymphet, and in his monstrous machinations to make her one he only succeeds in denying her a childhood and denying himself any chance of real connection with another human being.
Oh, also extremely funny. extremely funny.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/02/lifetimes/nab-r-lolita.html?scp=3&sq=%22lolita%22%20book%20review&st=cse
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/lolita-by-vladimir-nabokov-joanne-harris-s-book-of-a-lifetime-10249561.html
Lolita is so many things, has been analysed and scrutinised and praised to the point that I can't really add anything more of value, but at it's core it's a portrait of singular, intense alienation. Humbert Humbert cannot be any more isolated or alienated; for not only is his every morsel of time & energy & imagination directed towards an intensely private pursuit, not only towards an intensely private intensely illegal & taboo pursuit, but towards a pursuit that is all of these things and also *does not really exist*. Humbert is not interested in young girls, he's interested in a highly specific, mythical, quasi-supernatural version of a young girl that exists only in his warped fantasies. The nymphets are not there. He notices a normal young girl who embodies a few common aesthetic features, a few crude personality traits, assigns her the nymphet role, and swims as far into his fantasy with her as he dares before retreating and summoning the courage to move on to another.
This is crucial, because while this is a novel about a paedophile, it also isn't. Take Humbert's friendship with Gaston. Gaston is a paedophile who likes young boys. He recognises, knows, somehow, that Humbert is a paedophile, and so feels safe to share this private aspect of his life with him. However, Humbert does not share back. If Humbert was like Gaston, he probably would. But he isn't; unlike Gaston he isn't into real children but into fantastical ones. He is completely alone; driven every second of every day by an urge that no-one else on earth can relate to or understand. Gaston is his only friend, and their relationship is as surface level as a friendship can be. Humbert's arch-nemesis, Quilty, is also a 'normal' paedophile, exploiting and abusing young children in ways remarkably familiar and mundane to anyone who knows anything about grooming & sexual abuse in Hollywood. Other paedophiles are just as unknowable to Humbert, and he to them, as anyone else. Gaston & Quilty may be evil, craven, scumbags, but there's a sense, theoretically at least, that they can find human connection (with other paedophiles) and a degree of satisfaction (through their paedophilia) and so can enjoy a level of human experience that they absolutely do not deserve.
Humbert however, is condemned to endless pathetic suffering. The cruellest tragedy of his devotion to delusion is that when he finally gets a nymphet all to himself, he cannot ever find contentment or satisfaction or peace precisely because he perceives her as a nymphet rather than the thing she actually is; a child, a girl, a person. ' It never occurs to him to consider her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh.' She will never be a nymphet, and in his monstrous machinations to make her one he only succeeds in denying her a childhood and denying himself any chance of real connection with another human being.
Oh, also extremely funny. extremely funny.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/02/lifetimes/nab-r-lolita.html?scp=3&sq=%22lolita%22%20book%20review&st=cse
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/lolita-by-vladimir-nabokov-joanne-harris-s-book-of-a-lifetime-10249561.html
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
"Me moriré si me tocas"
I honestly don't get anyone who could possible think there's any indication that lolita is a love story after reading the novel tbh. Even WITH humbert trying his best to rewrite history through his lens there's just so many indications from the book itself about how dolores felt about the horrible situation she was in - "She had no where else to go", crying herself to sleep every night, saving up money to run away etc. Its pretty much a fucked up horror story painted over with flowery language and proses from a pedo madman trying to rewrite history.
Nabokov's writing is absolutely praise-worthy though. The fact that he managed to write the proses he did in this book with english being his FOURTH language is just insane. This was a hella uncomfortable read but the book itself is impossible to put down and i'm glad (?) i finally had a chance to read this classic. Thought it was a good idea to finally read this after reading the heartbreaking novel my dark vanessa to close up the cycle.
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Child abuse, Pedophilia
Minor: Death of parent
My god I don't think I can rate this book. I want to be very clear: this was superbly written. Five star writing and plot. But oh, oh, oh the writing and the plot. I am an anthropology major; I think one of the most important things we can do is to try to understand one another. But I don't want to empathize with the main character. I can sympathize, but I don't want to be subjected to his child-porn outlook on the world. And certainly not to how he acts upon it.
At the end of all this, I am struck with a troubling question: does everybody deserve to be understood? (I staunchly think yes but) If so, to what extent? The more that I truly understand the main character, the more I am truly able to see the world in his pedophilic way. I am fully willing to champion--and I think this is really what the novel is trying to argue--that pedophiles are not inhuman monsters but rather people just like you and me. Some of them do abominable things, and others live "normally" with their desires. But beyond detachedly understanding what these desires are and why they might arise, what good does truly understanding them create?
Am I the better for being able to look at a little girl and think, "Oh yeah, I guess I can kind of see it", and thus having a better understanding of humanity? The answer to this question strikes at the book's fundamental merit, and makes me inclined to rate it one star. But I feel like I have dipped my toes into the waters of true understanding without suffering the horrid consequences, and so I really just don't know. Agh.
At the end of all this, I am struck with a troubling question: does everybody deserve to be understood? (I staunchly think yes but) If so, to what extent? The more that I truly understand the main character, the more I am truly able to see the world in his pedophilic way. I am fully willing to champion--and I think this is really what the novel is trying to argue--that pedophiles are not inhuman monsters but rather people just like you and me. Some of them do abominable things, and others live "normally" with their desires. But beyond detachedly understanding what these desires are and why they might arise, what good does truly understanding them create?
Am I the better for being able to look at a little girl and think, "Oh yeah, I guess I can kind of see it", and thus having a better understanding of humanity? The answer to this question strikes at the book's fundamental merit, and makes me inclined to rate it one star. But I feel like I have dipped my toes into the waters of true understanding without suffering the horrid consequences, and so I really just don't know. Agh.
challenging
dark
slow-paced
Loveable characters:
No
have i finished reading this book? no i only made it to the end of part one and i don’t think i will ever be finishing it. it was simultaneously disturbing and boring at the same time. not sure how that can be achieved
one of the reviews i read asked the question: “what’s more important in a book, it’s prose or content?” and depending on what your answer is the rating oscillates between one and five. take that as you will
one of the reviews i read asked the question: “what’s more important in a book, it’s prose or content?” and depending on what your answer is the rating oscillates between one and five. take that as you will
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
how something can tackle such disgusting subject matter and be in the point of view of such a horrible person but still be so beautifully written is beyond me.
i already felt this way, but especially after reading this, it makes me so angry that people try to romanticize this book or the movies. like Nobokov clearly wrote it in the way where Humbert is the villain and Dolores is a child just existing but he sways the narrative to make it seem like she came into him. Like i said previous, this book is beautifully written, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t fill me with absolute dread and anger and disgust at times. I do think it’s interesting and a testament to his talent that Nobokov was able to add depth and humanity to the character of Humbert. He wasn’t a one dimensional villain, he felt remorse and admitted to seeing the hurt he caused Dolores, which made you hate him all the more when he continued to hurt her and try to justify himself.
my heart aches for dolores. he stole her childhood—her whole LIFE— all the while he made it out to be some love story. the last sentence of Part One literally made me sick to my stomach. everyone in her life failed her, she never truly lived her own life :(
i already felt this way, but especially after reading this, it makes me so angry that people try to romanticize this book or the movies. like Nobokov clearly wrote it in the way where Humbert is the villain and Dolores is a child just existing but he sways the narrative to make it seem like she came into him. Like i said previous, this book is beautifully written, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t fill me with absolute dread and anger and disgust at times. I do think it’s interesting and a testament to his talent that Nobokov was able to add depth and humanity to the character of Humbert. He wasn’t a one dimensional villain, he felt remorse and admitted to seeing the hurt he caused Dolores, which made you hate him all the more when he continued to hurt her and try to justify himself.
my heart aches for dolores. he stole her childhood—her whole LIFE— all the while he made it out to be some love story. the last sentence of Part One literally made me sick to my stomach. everyone in her life failed her, she never truly lived her own life :(