5.0 out of 5 stars
The Second Time Through, Dec 13 2001
This is my suggestion about reading 'Lolita' - the first time, delve into it without the benefit of annotations. Read an edition other than Appel's, or - if you're a stronger person than I am - simply ignore the numbers in the margin. Digest it for what it is, explore the story, create opinions and thoughts in your own mind. Even the most learned scholar will feel ignorant at times - Nabokov is, unquestionably, a genius of language and allusions - but I cannot stress enough how vital it is to read this book as an outsider. Allow a few months to go by. And then delve heartily into this annotated edition. The insights provided by Appel are gems, and makes an entirely new experience of the story. He's a passionate scholar and that is reflected in his careful detail, his concern with Nabokov's input, and his personal voice coming though the notes. Some of the notes hit you over the head, a few things seem glossed over, and his obsession with Nabokov's other works get slightly tedious to someone who isn't as dedicated to the author as Appel is. However, on the whole, the notes are absolutely precious and give a depth to the book that is continually lurking behind the surface during a first-time "ignorant" reading. I would have been horribly disappointed at the plot disclosures, as well as terribly confused at times, if I had read this version when I first read the book. But to the reader "in-the-know," Nabokov's genius shines through, as does his humor and sly cleverness that don't neccessarily pop out at first. The notes range from the purely practical (translations of the interspersed French phrases) to the explanatory (literary history is invoked at the most unlikelist of places) to the anecdotal (Nabokov's own musings, his expertise in entemology, etc). But take my advice - read it first without the notes, and then go back. You'll thank me!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still ahead of its time, Sep 18 2002
Some observations on this, one of the great novels of the twentieth century:
Shakespeare's Juliet was 13-years-old, but Nabokov's Lolita was 12. The so-called "shocking" and "perverse" nature of the sexuality that Nabokov explores is lost if the nymphet is a sexually mature teenager. Incidentally, by the time they are wheeling across the country, Lolita apparently gains sexually maturity, as evidenced from the first sentence of Chapter 33, Part One which reads: "In the gay town of Lepingville I bought her four books of comics, a box of candy, a box of sanitary pads...."
Humbert's sexuality is actually a strategy in the evolutionary game. Instead of waiting until the female is sexually mature, the Humbert Humberts of the world pre-select their little darlings so that they are already in position, so to speak, when she reaches sexual maturity. Society, of course, cannot buy this. Its abhorrence is but one of the myriad taboos it concocts to protect itself from the evolutionary mechanism, a mechanism that cares not at all what society thinks, thumbing its nose, so to speak, at all societies and their ephemeral prejudices.
Among the most chilling sentences in the novel are these at the end of Part One after Lolita learns that her mother is dead. Humbert narrates: "At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go."
Also chilling is this from Lolita (half in jest, half in bitter revelation) the morning after their first night together: "You chump...You revolting creature. I was a daisy-fresh girl, and look what you've done to me. I ought to call the police and tell them you raped me. Oh, you dirty, dirty old man."
As a literary artist, Nabokov might be compared with Anthony Burgess. Both are strikingly original stylists and gifted masters of the language, and both had one very popular novel that made them famous (which of course neither thought was his best work), and both have written many erudite and precious volumes. Although I usually find Burgess's style a little too dense for me, his A Clockwork Orange was excellent. Also both Lolita and A Clockwork Orange were made into movies directed by Stanley Kubrick.
While one might imagine that women, especially feminists, would positively despise Lolita, it ain't necessarily so. I know one feminist English prof who teaches it at the university level. Understandably they emphasize the depravity of Humbert and his virtual enslavement of Lolita. But those women who do resist the novel do so because the story reveals a disagreeable fact of human sexuality they would prefer to forget, namely that for most males, youth itself is a supreme value in the old sex game. By the same token most young men do not like to see aging rockers or graying Richard Gere types or fat Hollywood producers walking off with beautiful starlets.
Although Lolita was (and is) ahead of its time, it is necessarily a "fiction" with the central character necessarily an "antihero" for the sake of the prejudices of society. Nonetheless, one of Nabokov's motivations in writing "Lolita" was to show that, however strongly society condemned their love it was a real expression of human sexuality and not a Freudian type "perversion." (Nabokov despised Freud and considered psychoanalysis a "racket.") Unfortunately (but understandably!) he was not able to overcome the taboo himself and come out of the closet. (If indeed he was in the closet.) Additionally, he discovered, I suspect, in writing the novel that not only would society (and his readership) accept only a tragic version of the story, but that inevitably, given the mores of society, such a version was the only one possible. To write the story with a happy ending, with Humbert the proud father paying for the wedding, perhaps, and sending his little love off to middle class banality with some "Dick Schiller" was unthinkable artistically and psychologically. Indeed, it would have been the common place resolution of the usual "family affair."
By the way, Nabokov wrote a precursor of Lolita, a rather longish short story entitled "The Enchanter" which was eventually published in English. "The Enchanter" is interesting but doesn't have the delicious ironic humor or anything like the scope of Lolita.
The edition with annotations by "Alfred Appel Jr." adds to the enjoyment of the novel if you tend to the pedantic. Most of the French phrases are translated. Be aware however that "Alfred Appel Jr." is really Vladimir Nabokov himself in pseudonym!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Lolita.. for the serious reader, May 3 2004
I, like I am aware many of you are, am a very picky reader. I need to be pulled in by a book and taken away by it. That is exactly what I found in Lolita, and haven't found since. Nabokov has set my standards extremely high with his prose writing style which in my mind can be compared to no one but Edgar Allen Poe himself.
As for the storyline, I was swept away by the gentleness of Humbert and his emotions. I truely connected with him. I felt his sorrow, his pain and his happiness. I connected with Lolita, with her innocence and lack there of, and how she felt. I connected with Clare Quilty in a way I never thought I would have. I felt hatred towards the characters, sympathy towards them. Everything you should feel in novels.
As for the descriptions. Well, Nabokov does go a wee bit overboard with them. However, as in the rule set by Poe - "Every single line in the story must lead up to a single effect," and Nabokov does a hell of good job doing it. All of those descriptions forshadow something.
"Lolita" is full of culture, also. It describes settings perfectly with the era. From Lo's clothes to her music, from the magazines she reads to the way the family life is, you can perfectly imagine just what time period it is historically as well as personally.
The book is extremely difficult, some pages and paragraphs have to be read two or three times in order to fully absorb their content. Sometimes I even found it difficult not to skim through things, but i'm glad I did not.
If you are going to read "Lolita," read it because you want to, not because it's considered a classic. If you read it, take it in, take your time.. absorb Nabokov's words. You will not be regretful.
I recommend this book to serious readers who wish to read it to be swept away. I do not recommend this to people who just want to say they've read it, because they won't enjoy it. Take your time, and absorb the content, and I guarentee you'll love it!
Liz- 17
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No