LOLITAVladimir Nabokov
Personal Rating: 1.5/5
Yearly Count: 2
Even with the planning of "marathon reading" days, I still wasn't able to complete this book in short order. I desperately wanted to rid of it, but life's happenings kept preventing it, and now I'm delighted to be done with it. "It" being the operative word.
I wanted to read this book because I have heard and read the name "Lolita" used in many ways for many years. In general, I knew what the book was about, so I wasn't surprised with the content, but what I didn't know was that I would be so creeped out by the main character, Humbert Humbert. I usually like books that are written in first person, yet didn't like this one because he was always trying to make me "see" his way of thinking. That was repulsive and NOT going to happen.
Okay...another book that I didn't enjoy, but can say I read. Enough already!
Hey Joy. I also just recently read this book, and for the same reason! I just felt like I SHOULD. Anyway, here's a link to my review, if you're interested!
ReplyDeletehttp://breakingfourth.blogspot.com/2006/12/winter-reading-challenge-book-3-lolita.html
Lisa...
Thanks for the review, Joy. You just confirmed my feeling that I didn't want to read this book.
ReplyDeleteLisa ~ I'll be right over!
ReplyDeleteBooklogged ~ Didn't see your post. Hmmm Anyway, glad I could be of help! :)
ReplyDeleteWeren't you at least happy at the end? Knowing that professor Humbert died alone and lonely?
ReplyDeleteNabokov wanted Humbert to be a dispicable character, and for the audience to hate him, but my problem is that I didn't like Lolita, or her mother, or anyone else in the novel any better. They were all horrid.
That being said, I think "Lolita" is an important book because it serves as a cautionary tale for those young girls who want to be like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. If you invite that kind of attention, you should beware the consequences. Just my take on it, I guess.
Better luck on your next read.
I have had a conversation with my Nabakov-fanatic somewhat friend M to whom Nabokov is her favorite writer. After some time discussing, we concluded that Nabokov is a tease - he laughs at us while he writes this piece. The language is beautiful , he challenges words and grammar as if composing a song. And yet the content is so grotesque. Granted I often find myself defending HH saying this isn't about pedophilia but I'll let you read about it from my post if you wish. It is funny to see though that many feel this obligation to read the book. I am told that the short story that precedes this book is more 'acceptable' if not as beautiful.
ReplyDeleteKookie ~ Actually, no, that didn't satisfy me; however, I don't know what would have. I agree, there were no likable characters.
ReplyDeleteNessie ~ Oh, I agree...he definitely was a taunt! I didn't enjoy that tactic in this book, whereas in others I have. I didn't feel an "obligation" to read this; it was more like wanting to be "in the know". "Lolita" is spoken of in different contexts and I wanted to understand the reference.
If you're interested in reading a bit about this book, check out "Reading Lolita in Tehran". I didn't finish that book, but I did read the part on Lolita (she discusses several books in her Iranian book club, but Lolita was the only one I had read).
ReplyDeleteI loved Lolita, because of the imagery and the language. Nabakov was a master at language. But the characters truly, truly creep you out.
What makes me mad about how you so often see the word "Lolita" is that so often, it is a term that is used for a girl of easy virtue. A young girl who is a temptress. While Lolita in the book had this side to her, she was most definately forced into Humberts arms, and raped. She was not a girl who was interested in sleeping around. She was his victim.