That’s pretty much what I did and I was happy I read it. It turned out to be one of the best books I’ve ever read. Aside from being a very nuanced story about Humbert’s relationships with Lolita and her mother it’s very cleverly written. By that I mean the wordplay and choice of phrasing is extremely clever which is amazing when you consider that English was Nabokov’s second language.
I’ll add my voice to the chorus who say it’s not porn. In fact, it doesn’t seek to titillate. I think the book turned darker and darker and has a few key passages that condemn Humbert for what he’s done.
You’re both right. The book was first published in Paris in 1955 after at least four US publishers turned Nabokov down. 1958 is the year that Putnam published it in the US.
And now that Anniee seems to have gone away for a while I’d like to just add that Lolita is IMHO one of the best books I’ve ever read. I bought it in fact after watching the absolutely compelling Irons film. To see it as porn is absolutely missing the whole point of the book (or film), ignoring the characterisation and message about manipulative human nature (on all parts). Some people perhaps just need to learn that there is more than one way to look at a subject - even one as sensitive as this.
For context, my sister was the recipient of sexual abuse from when she was no age to 17, and the perpetrator excused his actions in much the same way as Humbert did. The way in which Nabokov presents this line of reasoning and then (even though you know its false) suddenly drops in lines that make this crystal is shocking and effective. An absolute classic!
To be honest, that Lolita has now become synonomous with underage sex is, I think, terrible. That’s perhaps why it is so often misunderstood these days. Mind you, I’m of the opinion that Kubrick’s light-hearted look didn’t do the book many favours either and I guess it was given this treatment as a gesture of appeasement.
Actually, Zoff, I could have sworn that English was Nabakov’s third language, after Russian and French.
And I agree with the majority of posts here. Lolita is, in my opinion, the best novel in English of the 20th century. The opening page is simply orgasmic in its poetry. I think the majority of people would define pornography as a work that primarily appeals to the prurient interest. This book falls well short of that definition.
You’re right. He spoke three languages, though his bio says he learned French and English from his governesses at about the same time. He majored in Russian and French literature in college. Pretty amazing guy.
Heh. This thread has certainly improved since I looked at it yesterday morning.
Props to Jodi.
Nabokov was Russian and, had the political situation been different, may have preferred to continue to write in Russian. Lolita the book has been called his love affair with the English language or America (gee, a “love affair” with a young, vibrant but often tasteless and unsophisticated–in his eyes–language/culture: kinda sounds like Humbert and Lolita, huh?).
While I agree with the rest of your point, I’ve got to put a flag on this.
The entire point of the novel is that Humbert Humbert can only be attracted to girls just before the cusp of puberty. Lolita is 12 - she is underaged. She is a model of the girl Humbert fantasized about when he was younger and a commentary about Humbert’s inability to have normal sexual relations - any kind of true relations - with adult females. When Humbert sees her at the end of the book, post-puberty, he is repulsed by her.
That’s why the movies (although I only saw the first) didn’t capture the book. Both girls were played by pubescent females (both 14, IIRC). A true Lolita movie would have to use a girl so young that the movie could never be made.
Anniee reminds me of those nitwits so intent in finding pornography in Disney that they sit and watch it for HOURS frame by frame until they find it. Hell, the rest of us just watch it and move on never knowing we have been watching dirty movies If the book repulsed you so much honey, WHY didnt you just throw it out? Or trade it in for something more to your tastes?
I’m with Guin this book has now moved up to my MUST READ list.
In Utah, Lolita was almost old enough to marry … 14 with parents permission, 16 without.
What’s curious about Anniee is that she didn’t seem all that offended by those t.A.t.U. Russian girls who took lesbian Lolita-ism to a whole new level. So we’re not dealing with your basic, generic, Bible-belt prude here.
She’s also a King Diamond and Anne Rice fan as well. WTF?!? Now I’m really confused…
As Humble Servant mentions, one of the many undercurrents of this quite remarkable novel is that it can be interpreted as Nabokov’s love affair with a young, uncouth language (or culture), abandoning an older, more refined partner for the excitement of the new and (according to the mores he’s leaving behind) thrillingly dirty and perverse. Say what you will about the means Nabokov uses to explore his ideas, but I didn’t see no alternative subtexts in The Sopornos.
I had read a discussion of the book that made this point, which is one of the reasons I wanted to read it. I wish more people would have a love affair with English. It was a book I could enjoy both as a story and as a piece of extraordinary writing. And he managed to do it without trying to draw attention to his use of the language.
She’s definitely underaged. This part of the definition was discussed in another thread and I was being more literal about it.
You’re correct that it was intentional - I think people just would’ve been too repulsed by the visual side of it. Apparently, Sue Lyon (Lolita in film #1) was chosen because she looked mature.
I’ve been meaning to buy Lolita for awhile, but I’m hanging out for the annotated version so I can understand all the nuances of the book. The Borders near me had a copy but it was beaten up pretty badly - this thread has reminded me to check out some of the other Borders around me (all the other bookstores have the non-annotated versions).
Actually, Russian and English were both Nabokov’s first languages. His wealthy parents hired a Scottish governess, who spoke to Vladimir only in English from birth. At the age of five he began French lessons.
I encourage all the people who say they now intend to read Lolita, but please keep in mind that it is not a FUN book. It’s very well written and the issues it raises are provactive (in every sense of the word) but for the same reason it is a pretty disturbing book and Humbert a pretty distasteful character.
I think the comparison to Bastard Out Of Carolina is to that extent an apt one, in that BOOC is IMO another very well written book that is nevertheless disturbing and in some places tough to read.
But literature should at least occasionally challenge us, and Lolita does that in spades.
If the book repulsed you so much honey, WHY didnt you just throw it out? Or trade it in for something more to your tastes?