Chris's Reviews > Lolita
Lolita
by
by

*Ranked as one of the Top 100 Fiction of the 20th Century*
I’m not quite sure how to put this in words. Hell, I’m not sure what I intend to say, so this is going to be ugly. If you want to sit in on this exercise be my guest, you’ve probably got more important things to do, such as organizing your cassette tapes and LPs before shoving them in a box destined for the attic, believe me, your time will be better spent, especially when you take that stroll down memory lane and consider how killer it would be to rock out to Depeche Mode and A-Ha all afternoon (it’s possible you’re one of those badasses with some Dead Kennedys on cassette, more power to you, feel free to tear off your shirt and bathe with a 40oz of Big Bear). You might want to clean your bong while you’re at it; you never know how immersed you’ll get in the hazy recollections of your exploits during the New Wave or burgeoning Hardcore era and might prefer a soundtrack to complement your deranged thoughts.
As for Lolita, maybe this tangential bullshit will help get my point across� I’ve recently taken a keen interest in watching “Deadliest Catch�, but as soon as the show concludes I wonder “What have I walked away with, after investing 50 minutes and 4 rum & cokes to the accompaniment of these awe-inspiring images of man battling the elements to strike bepincered gold?� Not much, appears to be the answer; it’s just a bunch of crabs, crabs, crabs, and master-baiting, the simple ingredients of all my friendships and relationships. Sure, it’s awesome to watch sea-faring maniacs risk life and limb to haul in the nasty creatures that pay their bills, but there’s nothing else to it, just dudes getting stoked over a huge haul of crabs, or lamenting some element of the life they’ve chosen. Then you get to thinking how these dudes� wives manage without them at sea for 20+ days at a time; obviously they are in the crab-catching business as well. And the real kick in the ass is that I don’t even eat crab, hell, I’ve never even tried a dish that incorporates any crab. When I consider the ridiculousness of it all, it seems pretty disheartening. This sort of pointless introspection is probably how Des Esseintes got his start, so I’ll leave it at that before it becomes habit-forming.
I can’t say that my opinion of Lolita is much different. It’s just Humbert Humbert endlessly rhapsodizing about nymphettes, most substantially, his nymphette, Lolita. And that’s it; I’ve probably never read anything so one-dimensional in my life. I’m sure the upper echelons of literary critics found myriad reasons beyond my primitive sensibilities for including this in the Top 100 works of 20th century fiction, I just don’t happen to see it. One of these qualifiers might be this absurd statement on the back cover, ‘Lolita is also the story of a hypercivilized European colliding with the cheerful barbarism of postwar America�. Now, when we consider the social climate at the time of publication, with book-banning and obscenity trials recently being all the rage, and you know that in order to somehow foist upon the public a tale concerning a grown man’s obsession and fornication with a 12 year old girl the defenders of this thinly-veiled smut have to somehow show that there is something above and beyond mere prurient interest hidden between the covers of the book, so statements like the one above are thrown out there to mind-f#ck all. I don’t even know what the hell that statement on the cover is supposed to mean, but ‘postwar America� were powerful buzzwords at the time, and truly, what else could you possibly use as a thematic defense for this book, seeing as the book has nothing to offer except the ridiculous tale of a weathered old pervert ogling young girls on the hopscotch courts, finding one that epitomizes his unacceptable desires, and eventually having his way with her before attempting to completely control her young body and mind during a trek that can only be considered kidnapping on the grandest scale. Let’s not forget that when his precious nymphette is purloined by an unknown fiend, he goes off to ambush the guy and shoot his ass; this is not the behavior of the ‘hypercivilized�; my own rather sloppy upbringing declares that anyone with a shred of civility offers his adversary a duel rather than attack him unawares, Humbert is a lowly coward of the worst disposition. The ‘hypercivilized� don’t go around bagging 85 pound kids sporting skinned knees from spills at the roller-rink, real men fish for those awesome and voluptuous Amazonians, the women who proudly stand 5�10� or more and have generous curves that modern fabrics fruitlessly struggle to contain from spilling forth in all their fully-developed glory. Our man Humbert has no such redeeming qualities; he’s a scoundrel of the lowest and basest rank. Let’s not forget that he weeps, and when I conjure a mental image of the elusive ‘hypercivilized European�, weeping like a bitch and throwing a tantrum doesn’t enter the picture.
While the frauds who compiled the Top 100 Fiction list and I might diverge in our estimations of Lolita, I will agree with our man John Updike when he states “Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written, that is, ecstatically.� There is no denying that the book is phenomenally written, but the repetition of nymphette-this and nymphette-that simply overwhelmed me; I was left with an indelible image of Nabokov sitting there alternately referencing his thesaurus and a collection of kiddie porn for inspiration while hammering this out. I’d have enjoyed this book a thousand times more had it been about turtles, or walnuts, or my mother's first communion, hell, anything else. Nymphettes suck: there is a reason I don’t go trolling for trim at the nearest bus station, who the hell wants to put up with the behavior of a pubescent trollop?
There isn’t a whole hell of a lot that I know, but I do know this; if my choices were either read Lolita again or spend a day crabbing in the arctic, I’d better be prepared to get some frostbite on my beanbag.
I’m not quite sure how to put this in words. Hell, I’m not sure what I intend to say, so this is going to be ugly. If you want to sit in on this exercise be my guest, you’ve probably got more important things to do, such as organizing your cassette tapes and LPs before shoving them in a box destined for the attic, believe me, your time will be better spent, especially when you take that stroll down memory lane and consider how killer it would be to rock out to Depeche Mode and A-Ha all afternoon (it’s possible you’re one of those badasses with some Dead Kennedys on cassette, more power to you, feel free to tear off your shirt and bathe with a 40oz of Big Bear). You might want to clean your bong while you’re at it; you never know how immersed you’ll get in the hazy recollections of your exploits during the New Wave or burgeoning Hardcore era and might prefer a soundtrack to complement your deranged thoughts.
As for Lolita, maybe this tangential bullshit will help get my point across� I’ve recently taken a keen interest in watching “Deadliest Catch�, but as soon as the show concludes I wonder “What have I walked away with, after investing 50 minutes and 4 rum & cokes to the accompaniment of these awe-inspiring images of man battling the elements to strike bepincered gold?� Not much, appears to be the answer; it’s just a bunch of crabs, crabs, crabs, and master-baiting, the simple ingredients of all my friendships and relationships. Sure, it’s awesome to watch sea-faring maniacs risk life and limb to haul in the nasty creatures that pay their bills, but there’s nothing else to it, just dudes getting stoked over a huge haul of crabs, or lamenting some element of the life they’ve chosen. Then you get to thinking how these dudes� wives manage without them at sea for 20+ days at a time; obviously they are in the crab-catching business as well. And the real kick in the ass is that I don’t even eat crab, hell, I’ve never even tried a dish that incorporates any crab. When I consider the ridiculousness of it all, it seems pretty disheartening. This sort of pointless introspection is probably how Des Esseintes got his start, so I’ll leave it at that before it becomes habit-forming.
I can’t say that my opinion of Lolita is much different. It’s just Humbert Humbert endlessly rhapsodizing about nymphettes, most substantially, his nymphette, Lolita. And that’s it; I’ve probably never read anything so one-dimensional in my life. I’m sure the upper echelons of literary critics found myriad reasons beyond my primitive sensibilities for including this in the Top 100 works of 20th century fiction, I just don’t happen to see it. One of these qualifiers might be this absurd statement on the back cover, ‘Lolita is also the story of a hypercivilized European colliding with the cheerful barbarism of postwar America�. Now, when we consider the social climate at the time of publication, with book-banning and obscenity trials recently being all the rage, and you know that in order to somehow foist upon the public a tale concerning a grown man’s obsession and fornication with a 12 year old girl the defenders of this thinly-veiled smut have to somehow show that there is something above and beyond mere prurient interest hidden between the covers of the book, so statements like the one above are thrown out there to mind-f#ck all. I don’t even know what the hell that statement on the cover is supposed to mean, but ‘postwar America� were powerful buzzwords at the time, and truly, what else could you possibly use as a thematic defense for this book, seeing as the book has nothing to offer except the ridiculous tale of a weathered old pervert ogling young girls on the hopscotch courts, finding one that epitomizes his unacceptable desires, and eventually having his way with her before attempting to completely control her young body and mind during a trek that can only be considered kidnapping on the grandest scale. Let’s not forget that when his precious nymphette is purloined by an unknown fiend, he goes off to ambush the guy and shoot his ass; this is not the behavior of the ‘hypercivilized�; my own rather sloppy upbringing declares that anyone with a shred of civility offers his adversary a duel rather than attack him unawares, Humbert is a lowly coward of the worst disposition. The ‘hypercivilized� don’t go around bagging 85 pound kids sporting skinned knees from spills at the roller-rink, real men fish for those awesome and voluptuous Amazonians, the women who proudly stand 5�10� or more and have generous curves that modern fabrics fruitlessly struggle to contain from spilling forth in all their fully-developed glory. Our man Humbert has no such redeeming qualities; he’s a scoundrel of the lowest and basest rank. Let’s not forget that he weeps, and when I conjure a mental image of the elusive ‘hypercivilized European�, weeping like a bitch and throwing a tantrum doesn’t enter the picture.
While the frauds who compiled the Top 100 Fiction list and I might diverge in our estimations of Lolita, I will agree with our man John Updike when he states “Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written, that is, ecstatically.� There is no denying that the book is phenomenally written, but the repetition of nymphette-this and nymphette-that simply overwhelmed me; I was left with an indelible image of Nabokov sitting there alternately referencing his thesaurus and a collection of kiddie porn for inspiration while hammering this out. I’d have enjoyed this book a thousand times more had it been about turtles, or walnuts, or my mother's first communion, hell, anything else. Nymphettes suck: there is a reason I don’t go trolling for trim at the nearest bus station, who the hell wants to put up with the behavior of a pubescent trollop?
There isn’t a whole hell of a lot that I know, but I do know this; if my choices were either read Lolita again or spend a day crabbing in the arctic, I’d better be prepared to get some frostbite on my beanbag.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Lolita.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
April 1, 2008
– Shelved
April 1, 2008
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 53 (53 new)

I enjoyed your review, and when I finished reading Lolita, I felt the same way you felt about the novel. Nabokov's afterword, wherein he rants about the silliness of "books with ideas" and other literary purposes, reinforced my confusion and displeasure.
Undeniably, Humbert Humbert was obsessed with Lolita as an object, not as a person. Thinking about it a couple days later, I began to think readers of Lolita reenact Humbert Humbert's cross-eyed masturbatory fantasy with the novel rather than the girl. Humbert Humbert is to Nymphet as Nabokov reader is to "Lolita." Postmodernism, picture-within-picture, etc. If my theory were true, Nabokov would be even more extraordinarily clever than all those well-placed puns made him out to be. More importantly, my theory helped me come to terms with wasting two days reading Lolita.


For me, from a psychology standpoint, I enjoyed the book because it was about a liar. The ultimate narcissist who is so busy mocking a school teacher, he misses hearing the laundry list of symptoms his Lolita is exhibiting because of his continuous rape.
The prose is gorgeous and the story disturbing. I have never agreed with a single other person's interpretation of what the story means. That is what I find most fascinating. That the story can and has been interpreted in so many ways. For some people, there is no subtext and Humbert is exactly who he says he is. For others, the entire story is the lie and the subtext is the truth. For others, it is somewhere in the middle and for film-makers, it has turned into a tale of a young, hyper sexual woman perverting a helpless man. That one boggles me the most.
Part of the fascination with Lolita has to do with our own minds and how we see the world. It's a mind fuck.
Sorry I'm rambling. Good review.

Dear Chris and all you other Reviewers (I dub You All with a capital letter.)
I have just added LOLITA to my To-be-read List after reading a brief and stimulating review by a novelist Debra Adelaide which I have quoted in full and can be perused on this site.
Your Reviews have only added to my interest in what appears to be a multi-layered book..sorry Chris ,that last comment doesn't coincide with your one-dimensional interpretation!!
So I WILL RETURN to add to the discussion once I get time to bed down with Lolita..God, I hope THAT wasn't a Freudian slip!!1
Cheers from Wayne
)


But Pnin I loved. And late in his very brief but wonderful story when he is alone in his house, his dream house, after an absolutely sparkling party (how perfectly Nabokov employs this literary device!)you want to cry for him as the simple act of washing dishes becomes a longingly poignant symbol (to you, if not to poor Pnin)of the sadness of this man's honest existence. Such simple, beautifully painted and emotionally charged scenes I find rarely in any literature. Display Nabokov's celebrated book, leatherbound, in your "show-and-tell" library, but pick this one up and read it. Now! Nabokov was a gifted weaver of colorful cloth in his borrowed language. And in Pnin (not in Lolita) he is also a spinner of exquisite yarn.


"Lolita is also the story of a hypercivilized European colliding with the cheerful barbarism of postwar America'"
...because in Nabokov's afterword, he actually ridicules people who interpret the novel in this way. I noticed someone above also used this same inaccurate interpretation to ridicule you...pretty amusing.

I'll read it, and form my own impressions. Being a beanbag-challenged amazon type with a low threshold for ick, I hope I don't regret it.

Go write something "better" instead of reviewing books loser.

A reader shouldn't be left wondering either of two things;
1) don't trust older men;
2) don't trust teenage girls . . .
But that's what the story seems to be saying.
Oh yeah . . . and divorcees . . . bad women!

I always end up with severe cramps afterwards.
Smoked oysters affect me like that too. So when I'm at the buffet, I'll leave my share of them for you.

Maybe you already have, I dunno' . . . but there's probably a novel in you just waiting to flow from your pen.

For me, from a psychology standpoint, I enjoyed the book because it was about a liar. The ult..."
Chris,
I honestly did not read your review. I scanned your essay of rambling to get to your point about Lolita and I did not find your argument interesting.
Christina,
I found your quick review handled the Lolita controversy without all the filler. The story can be interpreted in so many ways and it is hard for one to find the truths within the story. Since the narration comes from Humbert, you only see what he wants your to see but there are moments where reality slips through.
I feel like there are moments where Humbert is is able to gain the sympathy of the readers. Then you remember the perverted situation these characters are in and you feel such disgust as you continue on with the story. I remember feeling uncomfortable while reading Lolita, but I was unable to stop.
When this book first came out, imagine the controversy being the writer. It is amazing and disturbing that Nabokov manages to create a convincingly perverted, and yet charismatic, character such as Humbert in this story. Nabokov probably had to deal with more shit from society than a person like Chris. If Lolita was as one-dimensional as Chris's review it would not be labeled such a classic.





Some people just can't let go of their youth.



Amen.

The discussion threads over this book are so heated and lively.
I really liked your review and it's nice to know that there are some good guys left in this world:))
I haven't seen deadliest catch yet but I get a similar vibe from Man vs Wild, haha^_^


Why oh why couldn't you have left out that height requirement??? I guess real men won't be fishing for me anytime soon since I proudly stand way shorter then 5'10". ;)
Haven't read the book but was thinking about it - your review is hilarious though.



I'm sorry but I can't help but say this, but that is a disturbing view. Although I don't blame you for thinking that because it is in part what Nabokov set out to do; make a disgusting and cowardly man appear sympathetic. Make no mistake, "Lolita" or her true name Dolores, was misguided and as curious as any pre-pubescent child; but she was taken advantage of and trapped by an obsessed, possessive brute, who hides his true character in lyrical prose and finger pointing. Her sadness and disillusionment shows through multiple times in the narrative. Please don't demonize her.

Wtf? No seriously wtf? Did you miss the fact that she's a fucking child? Did you miss every single time Humbert acknowledges the complete and utter destruction of her as a human by HIM? Did you miss the part about how she's not even a pubescent teen when he RAPES her?
Like seriously? I know interpretation is individual but what you just wrote was nothing more than CHILD RAPE apologetics. He's unable to resist her charm? NO! He's a fucking adult and should take responsibility like one. Not foist it upon a child he manipulated in the first place.

This book is certainly very polarising and I can understand why..
I guess the greatest thing to come from this novel (apart from the brilliant wordplay) is the interesting and inevitable debates that have followed.
By the way, I am a slender gal, though well over 5:10--try not to hold it against me


Is your review of going swimming "Yeah it's great but I just hate that you get all wet!"
just sayin'- not evey woman is curvy. not every woman is tall. your body shouldn't have anything to do with your being loved. it doesn't matter whether you're 100 pounds or 150. whether you're tall or short. whether you have curves or angles. a real woman is a woman of any shape or size. and we all deserve to be loved.

Or maybe because you shouldn't be having sex with 12 year olds at all? Or 13 year olds, or 14 year olds? I'm assuming you were referring to 'trollops' that were around Dolores Haze's age.




Beautifully written, my dude.

hahahahaha. well played.