Customer Reviews

Lolita: A Screenplay (Vintage International)

5 star:		(413)
4 star:		(81)
3 star:		(38)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

I have no real excuse for not reading "Lolita" before this late date. It's certainly a book that crops up in conversation a great deal. I watched the James Mason film version of the book years ago--perhaps that's what put me off. I recently watched the Jeremy Irons version and loved it. I suppose part of me asked why myself why I'd want to read a book that is essentially the ramblings of a middle-aged pervert. Anyway, I decided that I'd procrastinated long enough, and it was time to get serious and find out what all the fuss is about.

The story is narrated by middle-aged Humbert Humbert. He's a pedophile--although he's tried denying it, tried disguising it, and tried channeling his baser instincts, but as luck would have it, Humbert finds himself as the lodger at the home of a buxom, lonely widow, Charlotte Haze and 12-year-old daughter, Lolita. Humbert doesn't particularly even like Lolita--he actually finds her rather dull, but she becomes a vessel for the fantasies left by Humbert's unfulfilled first love affair.

Due to the subject matter, the book was, at times, rather difficult to read, and it is a tribute to Nabokov's skill as a writer that I was gripped by this story. Humbert Humbert is at his most 'human' (introspective) during his pre- and post-Lolita phases. Once Humbert crosses the boundaries of ethical behaviour and begins a physical relationship with Lolita, there is no going back. At times, Humbert congratulates himself for his cleverness and calls himself a "magician," and then at other times, Humbert seems to realize how despicable he truly is. Unfortunately, the occasional flash of insight is too pale and fleeting to release Humbert from his obsession with his "nymphet" and so Humbert accepts his enslavement and ultimate fate. As the novel develops, Humbert relates his seduction of Lolita and his subsequent relationship towards the child. His manipulative behaviour with Lolita was nauseating, and he acknowledges that Lolita has "absolutely nowhere else to go." Humbert keeps it that way--and turns Lolita into his personal prostitute. Vain, selfish Humbert is a despicable character and at no point did I feel one iota of sympathy for the man. His ability to focus solely on his destructive, obsessive needs is chilling. And yet while I despised the character of Humbert, the story was compelling. How did Nabokov manage this? The brilliant ending of the novel is a triumph of literature, and the words gave me goose bumps. "Lolita" is one of the best books I have ever read--displacedhuman.

If you've only heard of "Lolita" from its reputation as being "pornographic", you are in for a surprise when you read it. Yes, it involves a lecherous, middle aged man chasing after a 12 year old "nymphet". Yes, it is deeply disturbing and makes one queasy at times. It is also a brilliant, funny, witty, literary rollercoaster which will delight you and dazzle you with the beauty of language. Nabakov can make words jump through hoops you never even knew existed, while he explores the dark realms of obsession and longing.

The narrator, Humbert Humbert, is a fascinating construction. As readers, we find ourselves simultaneously repelled by his actions and sympathetic to his yearning. We are utterly charmed by his wit, intelligence and verbal acrobatics, sometimes to the point where we lost sight of what he's doing to his object of desire, Lolita.

I would suggest that all readers reaquaint themselves with the concept of the "unreliable narrator" before they sink into Humbert's hypnotic web of logic. When you find yourself sympathizing with Hum about Lolita's "cruelties", try to remember that you are seeing everything through his twisted and self-serving lens. Humbert has rationalized his behavior so deeply and reports it to us so entertainingly, that we find ourselves accepting his interpretations of people and events at face value. However, we must remember that Hum is capable of the most monsterous of deceptions (note how long it takes him to inform Lolita of her mother's demise), and of self deceptions. Read between the lines. Question his reading of events. Pay attention when his reporting is at odds with his interpretations of them. As one example, Humbert tells us that he was seduced by Lolita, giving us the impression that she was sexually mature and a willing partner. Contrast that with his throwaway mentioning of her "performing" for him in exchange for treats, and watching television as he took his pleasure in her. And don't ignore Lolita sobbing each night, as he seems to do.

Nabokov has created a connundrum for us as readers. He uses the most glorious tricks and delights of the English language to tell his tale of self-deception and rationalization masquerading as "love". Look beyond the circus to the grime beneath it, and appreciate the mastery that gives us both.

This is a magnificent book in many ways, most of which have been commented on--often brilliantly--by Amazon reviewers. I would therefore like to restrict my comments to the morality of the book, and to those who to this day view the book with outrage. Even those who admire the book somehow feel compelled to comment that they are "disturbed" by it. Why is this? Let us first examine the novel itself.

As everybody knows, it is the story of Humbert Humbert, a full-grown, adult male--not an old man--who seduces a compliant twelve-year old girl, and then goes on to have a year or so long "affair" with her. I put the term "affair" in quotation marks, because it probably isn't appropriate to describe a sexual relationship between a full grown male and a female child in such terms. Is it safe to say that most rational human beings disapprove of such relationships? It is certainly safe to say that Nabakov--and his narrator--know that such relationships are wrong. This is important. The tale is not only told in the context of a moral universe, it is also told by a character who is in acceptance of a moral universe. Oh, he makes a comment here and there about some medieval king marrying his twelve year old cousin, but clearly, his heart isn't in it. He knows that he is a monster, a "brute."

Indeed, his goal was never to have sex with a conscious Lolita to begin with. His goal initially was only to fondle her after drugging her to induce sleep; she was never to know what he was doing. Of course this is also reprehensible, but clearly it shows a conscience at work. A conscience motivated in part by fear, to be sure, but also a conscience for the welfare--at least early on--of this little girl. Conscience is not normally a factor in purely prurient forms of entertainment.

Following this encounter, he takes Lolita on a journey across, around, and through the United States, living in hotel rooms, and buying clothes and food on the move. Toward the end of this, we find one of the most moving paragraphs in literature: "And so we rolled East . . . We had been everywhere. We had really seen nothing. And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour-books, old tires, and her sobs in the night--every night, every night--the moment I feigned sleep." The narrator's revelation of such anguish on the part of his victim clearly works against the argument that this novel was merely intended to be pornographic.

Humbert makes it clear that he loves his Lolita. There can be no mistake about this. He loves the way she moves. He loves the down on her arm. He loves her grace on the tennis court. He loves the way she flicks her head at him when looking up from a book. He loves her toes, her shoes, her name. He describes her in beautiful, poignant, poetic language, memorable and moving in every respect. Indeed the English language has rarely been used so wonderfully. But nowhere in this book does he describe in such terms or any other terms her sexual characteristics, or comment at length or in glaring detail his physical relations with her.

Finally, there is no effort to sugar-coat the effect of all of this on Lolita herself. We learn that after she left Humbert, she entered into a series of tawdry sexual escapades--still at too young an age--with a debased playwright. We last see her in her late teens, married to a bumpkin, and living in a clapboard shack surrounded by weeds.

Obviously, to anybody who has bothered to read this book, the presentation of the subject matter is not what is objectionable. Therefore, what apparently disturbs most people is the subject matter itself. But why? Why doesn't the latest grisly serial-killer-of-the-month novel inspire such protest? (Has there ever been a time in the history of the world in which so many novels have been written about serial killers?) Why not the barely-disguised soft-porn trash by Danielle Steele or Jackie Collins? Or the latest Anne Rice gore fest? While Lolita is not really a morality tale, it certainly doesn't glorify its subject matter the way novels such as these do.

So what is it? I think that with Lolita Nabakov has perhaps unconsciously touched a nerve. We, as humans, are rational creatures. We know what is right, and we have set rules for ourselves to follow. Everybody agrees that murder is wrong. But sexual mores have changed and continue to change in our affluent Western societies. Abortion has become legal, which gives women more sexual freedom. Homosexuality has become acceptable, which allows men more sexual freedom. Prostitution and pornography are rampant. Without discussing the morality of any of this, our society is now in rapidly changing and uncharted territory. Perhaps the objection to Lolita is from those who look at the book, and wonder how far we are going to go.

Praise be to Graham Greene, who was not only an interesting novelist (e.g. The Quiet American), but he also has the merit of saving Nabokov's Lolita from obscurity. When the book found no publisher in the US, it was first brought out by a shady Parisian company that specialized in erotic books in the English language. That was a tourist attraction in Paris. For reasons unknown to me (why would Greene even know the series? he had other oddities about his character), Greene took notice of the book and named it as one of the best books of the year in a magazine article in the UK. That was the beginning of the road to fame and riches for Nabokov, including an Oscar winning, but lousy movie.
I admit I have not read Lolita recently, but I did at least twice some time ago, and I read his movie script in the LoA volume. Why do I review it now? Simply because J. talked me into it. Women can be persistent.
J did not like Lolita because she saw it as pedophile porno. I am aware that one can read the book that way. Actually most of the first buyers must have been looking for that, but most of them were badly disappointed.
Sure, the book is about a pedophile, but Nabokov never told us a straightforward story. One must be prepared to encounter mystifications and traps and double meanings.
Lolita's main text body is the alleged memoir of a man who has died in jail, where he was held for murder. We learn only late into the story who the victim was. Oddly, he was not in jail for rape and kidnapping, which he freely admits to in his text.
The hero is a decadent middle aged European of a cultured background. He has come to New England as a professor for literature. He is a pedophile, who can only 'love' pre-puberty girls. Nabokov's original title for the book was Kingdom by the Sea after E.A.Poe's poem. Humbert Humbert (the name should tell us that we can't expect clear sailing on meanings) settles down and meets a woman with the kind of daughter that he fancies. He marries her to get at the child. The woman dies (don't necessarily believe the version of her death that HH tells us), he kidnaps the girl Dolores, rapes her, and goes on the road with her, moving from place to place all over the US, settling here and there briefly, always running away before attachments can be formed. And still there comes a time when Lolita runs away from captivity.
What is the book about? It is also a little bit about pedophilia, sure, but it is mainly about an immigrant's experience of the US. Nabokov wrote about his own observations with his New England university environment, and to a large extent he wrote about his long car trips across the US on his butterfly hunts. The places where HH stays with Lolita are Nab's own stations, where he stayed with his wife, who drove the car.
HH is not a man who can be believed. He twists his tale to his liking, and even his admissions of wrongdoings with the girl have a strong smell of self-saving euphemism. The man is a self-centered egomaniac.
Lolita is not my favorite Nab-book, actually, but it is well worth reading more than once.

As I grow old and older, I ask myself all too often why I bother? Haven't I eaten enough toast? Haven't I bent over to tie enough shoes? Then I come across an author like Vladimir Nabokov and a book like *Lolita,* an author and a book that, although Ive read thousands and thousands of books in my time, I somehow never read before. Maybe it was his name, or fame, or the fact that a movie was made of his most famous novel. There are books that you feel you've already read, even though you havent, just because they are so famous, or infamous. This is one of those books. But if you havent read it and think you know what its all about, youre wrong, utterly and 100% wrong, and youre missing one of the great joys of a reader's life: the prose of Vladimir Nabokov.

This book is fiendishly good. It undermines everything we "ought" to feel, then it makes us feel it; finally it pulls the rug out from under us altogether. Nabokov's narrator, Humbert Humbert, is a child molestor, that's what we'd call him in the bald and unfancy terminology of today. He's a sick, abusive, predatory[...]. Yet it's his voice that entertains us throughout *Lolita,* and entertains us it does. Humbert is urbane, intelligent, self-deprecating, cynical, and laugh-out-loud funny. He's a poet and a romantic. He's the English professor we all wish we had. He knows that what he's doing is wrong. He's the first to admit it. He's the first to admit everything, including that he can't help himself. He is, you see, in love, hopelessly and authentically and obsessively in love. The problem is that she's [....]
Now the truly devilish thing about *Lolita* is that of all the characters in the novel, including even Lolita herself, its Humbert that draws our "sympathy," so to speak. Sympathy for the devil, it is, in spite of ourselves, in the sense that we see the world most vividly from his point-of-view, in the sense that he seems more alive than anyone else in the novel, more perceptive, more uncompromisingly self-honest, more human and, in the end, the most tragic of all the characters. He's a man with an indelible flaw, he's a man in love, no matter how misguided, no matter how criminal, and its Nabokov's "evil" genius to get us to accept Humbert Humbert as our sick hero, man who we might send to prison for fifty years, but who we couldn't help feeling more than a twinge of regret having to do so.

One would be hard-pressed to come up with a prose-stylist whose voice is smoother, more casually erudite, and more post-contemporary than Nabokov...and this in a novel that is already half-a-century old! An amazing text from an author who has after 300 pages of pure reading bliss, shot instantaneously to the top of my favorite author's list, *Lolita* is a book I should have read a hundred years ago, but instead sat wasting my time in graduate literature courses! What are they teaching in schools anyway? I'm ordering up some more Nabokov novels immediately, if not sooner. You should too.

My father and I had gotten into a deep discussion on film, since we both consider ourselves moviegoers or rather open-minded critics to all film genres, and the name Stanley Kubrick had popped up. I was familiar with Kubrick's work- Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, of course, Full Metal Jacket, and The Shining. More of his recent work. Well, Dad's an English and Lit. major and he told me about one of Kubrick's earlier films entitled Lolita. He said it was about a middle aged man who's pathetically infatuated with a young 12 year old girl. Pedaphilia. Very Kubrick, I had thought. But what had interested me most was that the novel upon which the movie was based on, written by Vladimir Nabokov had ranked so high among the top 100 novels of the 20th Century. That was what engaged me into interest with the book.

It's written so poetically, with such fervor that you tend to believe that Mr. Nabokov does in fact have Humbert's tendencies and mannerisms. The novel is quite funny, too. The scenes where Humbert Humbert contemplates a way to get Clarlotte Haze out of the picture are brilliant. The sex in the novel is unrestricted and even shocking if you (and you won't be able to help doing it) really visualize it. The dialogue between Humbert and Lolita is brilliant as are the moments when the shadowed Clare Quilty presents himself.

So it's smut, huh? Well, I wouldn't call it smut. Not at all. Believe it or not, this novel is a 100 percent love story. The old saying: "True love never dies", which I never really acknowledge. Humbert Humbert's desire for her was a result of the permanent damage caused from losing someone he had cherished in the past. Losing her, her youthful beauty, plummeted him into such a state of grief that he could only find escape with another "nymphet", as young as she may be, who could capture the image, that subconscious or maybe strongly conscious image that he adored. And though most can't relate to Humbert Humbert's odd infatuation, many can relate to his ability to feel passion for somebody. He is your average Romeo, ready to die or kill for his love. And though Humbert's actions are condemnable to society, we're witness to the fact that even society, that even strict regulations, can't diminish love if it's strong enough.

One of the most beautifully-constructed novels of the Twentieth Century, it is also one of the most misunderstood. When published in the 1950s, bluenoses criticized "Lolita" for its allegedly frank sexuality. Today, people look at it askance because of our increased sensitivity to child abuse and molestation. In addition, it was written by a Dead White European Male (not to be confused with White Widowed Male). Unfortunately, conservative and liberal critics scrutinizing the surface of "Lolita," as well as those panting maniacs looking for titillating stuff, demonstrate and appalling ignorance of Vladimir Nabokov's "intentions" (almost as shaky a term in his world as "reality").

We may read "Lolita" through the perspective of nymphet-obsessed Professor Humbert, but Nabokov himself described Humbert as a "vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear 'touching.'" (See "Strong Opinions," Page 94, Vintage International Edition.) Furthermore, anyone familiar with Nabokov's other works knows of his penchant for unreliable narrators, such as Charles Kinbote in "Pale Fire." We can label Humbert as yet another member of that pesky legion. Of course, Humbert commits the crime of pedophilia, but the legal transgression is not the worst thing he does to Dolores Haze, the titular "Lolita." At least initially, there seems a mutual attraction between Humbert and Dolores. (But then, perhaps Dolores simply wanted to find someone to side with her against her mother. And look who's telling the story.) Unfortunately, Humbert carries the relationship too far, robbing Dolores of her freedom and humanity by turning her into a simple, two dimensional sex toy he has labelled "Lolita." Of course, Humbert also abuses Dolores physically, smacking her when she doesn't "behave" and forcing himself sexually on her. Looking at all this, I'm a little surprised that a feminist writer hasn't started work on "Dolores' Diaries......"

Pedophilia and solipsism aren't the only themes covered in "Lolita." Since Nabokov portarays the erotic scenes and sensual images with a modesty based on artistic sensibility (rather than prudery), your standard pedophile seeking simple stimulation would probably end up bored by Nabokov's writing. Unless, of course, there happen to exist pedophiles also titillated by mythical and literary allusions; puns and anagrams that transcend linguistic boundaries; catalogues of quotidian life; parodies of Freudian psychology, popular culture, etc.; arcane and esoteric trivia; the melting pot of "high" and "low" culture; the bizarre coincidences that supplant the standard symbolism of most literature at that time; and so on.

Of course, "Lolita" is very funny, despite its narrator's moral deficiencies. Humbert's comments on certain subjects (such as Freudian psychology, pseudo-intellectual pretentions, pointless scientific studies, etc.) and his sardonic asides are absolutely hysterical. And the final showdown between Humbert and perverted playwright Clare Quilty is a great study in dark humor, almost reminiscent of the cartoon confrontations between Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny.

Nabokov has given us one of the greatest literary works of the century. In "Lolita," he took American colloquial English and manipulated in far more creative ways than many writers actually born in the United States. And after finishing the book, don't miss Nabokov's own commentary on "Lolita," where one finds the best-argued and most unique (not to mention funniest) argument against pornography.

It was many years ago when Nabokov died. (I was a child.) I wish that Nabokov has lived at least as long as Van Veen in "Ada," commenting on the culture and writing more books on the same par as those from hs late American period. A man who was "hip" while maintaining a bemused detachment from trendiness, what would he have made of shopping malls? Political correctness? Cable television? Alternative music? The Internet? Jerry Springer? Millenialist jitters? Or some of this decades greatest scandals, near-Nabokovian events in themselves, like Joey Buttafuoco (of course), Lorena Bobbitt, O.J. Simpson, Bill and Monica? Wherever he is (Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, Anti-Terra), I would like to thank Nabokov for providing us with a compelling and unique model of how to read, write, and perceive life.

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." --Oscar Wilde

Often banned by those who consider it "immoral," LOLITA is far better than just "well written." Stylistically, there are few novels in English that match Nabokov's masterpiece for the seriously playful love and use of language. And English was at least Nabokov's third tongue! LOLITA is neither a moral nor an immoral book. It is brilliantly written. But Wilde was slightly off: that is NOT all.

French academic Humbert Humbert comes to America to renew his life after stagnation and divorce in Paris. He soon meets the 12-year-old Dolores Haze. Lolita. She who reminds him so powerfully of the young Annabel he so innocently fell in love with on the Riviera when he was thirteen. The trouble is, Humbert was thirteen twenty-five years before and he wants to love Dolores as if he were thirteen again. It's just not so innocent this time around, and the fact that he knows this does not stop him.

That LOLITA is a love story cannot be convincingly denied any more than that it is a twisted tale of illicit, deranged obsession--novels, like life, often revel in ambiguity. Nabokov encourages these multiple shades of gray by employing one of the most enchanting yet unreliable narrators I've ever encountered. We see not only his obsessive, unheathily insatiable lust for the young girl, but also what life with him does to her: how she cries at night despite her brave front during the day, how she learns to manipulate him, how she grows to hate him. How much of what Humbert says can really be believed? Trying to figure that out is part of the enjoyment.

The whole book is a story of decadence and decline, of the beautiful ugliness of corruption. LOLITA is an aesthetic dream gone horribly wrong under the bright hot sun of the highways of middle America. It is also a treasure of twentieth century literature, a work of genius in how it persuades us, from time to time, to sympathize with its charming yet ruthless villain. But to say that Nabokov endorses pedophilia would be like saying that Sophocles endorses patricide and sleeping with one's mother because he wrote OEDIPUS REX. Read LOLITA and be amazed!

Lolita is both a great and troubling novel. It's difficult to imagine Nabokov writing anything of poor quality. His prose has a natural flow and an effortless sophistication that I have never seen in any other writer of the English language. He writes with grace and maturity that lend his prose a certain amount of authority. Once can hardly question the master, and this may be why I was seduced by "Lolita" the first time I read it.

During the first reading, I was swept away by the caricature of Humbert Humbert. His old world manner, his cool, self-justifying narrative, and his academic contempt for trendy concepts such as Freudian Psychology and Existentialism were humorous and refreshing. I was seduced by the characterization and language in the novel and hardly thought of it in realistic terms. This perspective was only reinforced by seeing the original film with Peter Sellers and James Mason. Like my first reading of the novel, the film had a gentle and irresistible current of humor that made it difficult to imagine the events actually occurring in the lives of real people.

The second time I read "Lolita" I had a far more troubling experience. I still enjoyed the novel's writing and characterization, but this time it struck me on a realistic level. I found myself empathizing with Lolita and imagining what the world must be like from her perspective as she traveled around the country in the company of a foster parent who habitually molested her. I was especially stunned by the scene in which Humbert first informs her that she cannot leave him and return to her mother because her mother is dead. Lolita storms out of the room but eventually returns to Humbert's bed and tearfully wraps her arms around him. When she does this, Humbert chillingly informs the reader that she simply had nowhere else to go. In that moment, I was suddenly immune to the charm of Humbert's narrative and enormously sad for Lolita.

Coincidentally, just after my second reading of Lolita, I saw the film with Jeremy Irons. Unlike the earlier version, the film treated the story in a blunt and realistic manner. The humorous characters and witty dialogs were overshadowed by a constant coldness and brutality throughout the film.

"Lolita" is a great novel, but we should be wary of how and why we appreciate it. Some readers and critics view Lolita as a tragic love story while others consider it a celebration of the open road. Some even argue that "Lolita" is a metaphor for the clash between European and American culture. "Lolita" may well be all these things and more, but it is also a much darker chronicle of the tormentor's mindset. Humbert's narrative is charming and full of old world conceit, but it is also a tool of disguise. Humbert self-consciously uses style to conceal the naked brutality of his craving and the harm it causes Lolita. He disguises himself as the doomed lover and portrays her as the tormenting muse.

We should praise Nabokov for this clever role reversal. It is a wonderful mechanism for employing style in an imaginative manner as Humbert alerts us in his opening monologue ("Can you stand my style!"). But while we can admire Nabokov's skill and imagination, we should not take Humbert at his word for who and what he is.

Lolita, the novel, is not about love. It is not a great love story. It is a great tragedy. I enjoy it immensely at each re-reading and find something new in it each time. I first read Lolita when it was published in this country in the 1950's, and I was Lolita's age. (It was the rebellious thing to do back then in my circle of friends; a few years later, the clandestine read was Peyton Place which paled in comparison.) I make it a point to get back in touch with my adolescent feelings as an American girl growing up in the 50's by picking up Lolita again every five or ten years for a fresh re-read.

As one matures, one's perception of this novel also matures. The poignant irony of its language continues to be Lolita's enduring best quality. I never had much sympathy for Humbert and, even as a teenager reading Lolita, I could recognize that he made too many apologies for himself. But presenting the story from Humbert's self-serving viewpoint was Nabokov's peculiarly brilliant means by which a straight, non-perverted reader is taken to secret places she/he might otherwise dare not go.

In those simpler times - the 1950's - in which the story takes place and when this novel first appeared in the English language, Nabokov gave us archetypal characters that mirrored the secrets of 1950's American society. Humbert, suave monster that he is, could have been the man next door or sitting on the park bench across from my school back then. Charlotte, the lonely lady putting up with an adolescent daughter who was fast becoming her rival even before Humbert came along, was struggling with a single parent and her place in '50's society as a woman. Lolita, the obnoxious little girl who's 11 going on 18, then 14 going on 24, as much loses her childhood (innocence) to what money can buy (the symbolism behind the pair's car travels from motel to motel across America) as she does to Humbert's disgusting obsession.

Flaws of this novel: Quilty's contribution as a character is wasted, even irrelevant. As another reviewer pointed out, the ending is weak, even anti-climactical. These are the novel's flaws. But they are so few.

I recommend Lolita to the reader who first loves words and, secondly, to the reader who read between the words. Lolita has within it at least the following emotions and experiences to be discerned: sense of irony, pathos, illicit pleasure, poignancy, dismay, outrage, humor, dark comedy, sadness, superficiality, loneliness, loss of innocence, and loss of what-might-have-been. But it is not about love.