The best assessment I've ever heard about this book is, "While many stories require the reader to look past the ugliness to see its beauty, Lolita requires you to look past the beauty to see its ugliness."
Yeah I have seen many reviews comment on how masterful he was with the language, but either they aren't aware or they don't think it's significant that he wasn't a native speaker.
@@Mutantcy1992 Americans don't ask themselves why Lolita was such a big deal while in Eastern Europe it was pretty much ignored as another Roman Polanski with a shiksa story. It is none of my business explaining to you the details of Russian social life, but the overarching subject is emancipation of Jews from the yoke of kahals. The less Americans know about the subject the better it is for me. 1000 years ago: Moses Maimonides in the "The Guide of The Perplexed" explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.
@@fiucikmiselfo1922 wow so moses said a blatantly obvious human thing a long time ago. shocker. if that's your explanation for why eastern europe was so lax about it, then you apparently weren't one of the many touched, if you grasp what I'm saying.
@@Mutantcy1992 Nabakov was trained in English, Russian, and French all at once. His first tutors were English, so he first learned to read in English. He switched to Russian and French tutors afterward but continued to read English writers. He was extremely rich and got the best education that anyone in Europe could have. He was being groomed to be a landed and learned aristocrat when the Bolsheviks came along. As to his mastery of the language, and Lolita in particular, this is the point where his skill with English reached a new level, and everything he writes after Lolita is better and better.
While I am aware he is an unreliable narrator, I didn't read his repeated assertions of his handsomeness and charm as necessarily false, but rather indicative of his narcissism.
You are right about the popular misconception of Lolita as the underage seductress. Every time I hear the character referenced in this way I am offended, and I hear it all the time. Lolita is the victim!!
That's cuz people only saw movie and in movie she comes off like that, like she is the one playing with him. People don;t think that the whole movie is from Humberts point of view and his imagination
Krisgal -- That is what Nabakov was trying to do. it was his whole point. humbert is a predator, and all predators justify their actions. Nabakov even hints about lolitas being the victim as her name is dolores, which comes from the word pain in latin.
Victim of what exactly? Sure it might not be super proper but its not like many things in life are proper. Its like saying its not proper that i manage to attract a female my age and have sex with her the point is nobody was forced to do anything. Im just calling it like i see it. In any case i think the movie is stupid why write a story about supposed predators? Thats wrong in it self to me but hey if you people think its ok to see petafilia instead of participate in it and think its justified who am i to judge.
If you force your sexual wantings on someone ,who doesn't know what sex is or is saying no and you ignore it, you make them a victim.they eren't even near the same age
That is what Nabakov was trying to do. it was his whole point. humbert is a predator, and all predators justify their actions. Nabakov even hints about lolitas being the victim as her name is dolores, which comes from the word pain in latin.
You nailed this, the way Nabokov is able to make the reader simultaneously be sucked in by Humberts logic and to be able to see how warped his logic is, is just fascinating. The gorgeous language is an extension of Humberts charisma. Great review, I hope it makes more people try Lolita!
@@mickeysbooktubeexperiment3029 🔥🐑 Please review A One Hundred Dollar Misunderstanding by Robert Gover. I would love to hear what you have to say. I'll be waiting. *Thanks for this review, I just finished Lolita.🧑🦰
I've only listened to 5 mins of this review and I already want to thank you. I find a lot of people and reviews that fall into this lolita prototype misconception that it's worrying
I have to say -- this may be the best discussion video of Lolita I've seen on Booktube. You do such a good job of discussing the beauty of the book while also parsing out its complexity. I ESPECIALLY enjoyed hearing your thoughts on how unreliable the narrator is -- it's definitely something important to keep in mind when reading this story. Thank you for posting this!
+Krystal Marsh Thank you so much for the compliment. It's a hard book to discuss because it deals with a very taboo subject and there are some people it just won't work for him but I found it beautiful and fascinating and one of the most interesting reading experiences I've ever had.
+Darryl Suite thank you. You're very kind. I do have a degree in English lol but it really is a challenge having to say everything I want to say. I never feel articulate enough. I prefer writing but I love being a part of this community.
The unreliable narrator approach is one of the best parts about the book. From a linguistic pov the novel is incredible. "The Sound and the Fury" also has unreliable narration, though it's been years since I've read it. "Amadeus" is another one with unreliable narration. I don't know if you've read it or if you like reading plays, but I highly recommend it. It's nuts! Great video! :D
+28 Bookmarks Thanks! I'm reading The Sound and the Fury in April with Kamil, and I'm really looking forward to it. yes I love plays! Is this movie Amadeus based off of this play?
Great points! I think the reason Humbert is so effectively deceptive is that he is so highly SELF delusional - the best way to persuade or brainwash others into believing your illusions is to believe them yourself. Humbert is able to convince readers that he truly loves Lolita because he is unshakeably convinced of this himself - despite the cruel, even monstrous acts he commits against her for his own gratification. Humbert can successfully paint himself as the hapless victim in myriad circumstances - his unrequited passion for Lolita, his unhappy first marriage, his emasculating second marriage to a "domineering" woman, his eventual loss of Lolita, etc. - due to his own narcissism and self-pity. Nabokov himself warns us in the Foreword (via John Ray) not to fall victim to Humbert's "singing violin". Yet, somehow, we do all the same.
You are so intelligent and this book discussion/review was so on point! You brought up a lot of great facts, including that I think we at times need to sit back and remember who the narrator is.
I'm glad you brought it up about the concern, because , if you don't read the book and watch the movie, it kinda plays off, like she is seducing him in a playful way and no where it says that, all that is only from Humberts point of view and that his mind is just seeking all the excuses for his actions
The book perfectly communicates the intentions of nobokov in writing this piece. The film adaptions stay true to a fault of nobokov's book, unintentionally communicating more empathy for Humbert than originally intended.
Stanley Kubrick is a great director, but the movie is pretty bad and in no way resembles the book or its intentions. I literally turned it off half of the way through because I was so angry at how poorly it represented the story.
Stanley was always very methodically running parallel meanings throughout his entire career. Watch it without comparing to the novel and you may garner a new appreciation for it.
Kubricks movie was awful. The girl who played Lolita (Sue Lyon) was too old, and they didn't even mention Annabelle. To understand Humbert, at least 30 minutes should be devoted to Annabelle. James Mason was emotionless. If you haven't seen the version with Jerome Irons please see it. Again, it did not devote enough time to Annabelle, but it was much better.
I found your channel through this video and as soon as I finished it I subscribed. I really love your take on the book and how you chooses to present it. I love how you were able to get into detail without spoilers and explained your feeling towards this story. Even though I'm a frequent reader I don't watch a look of book tube simply because I don't find the creators are always rather loud and obnoxious a lot of the time. I loved your calm presentation and all over vibe. Keep it up 👍🏻
This was an absolutely amazing review. To be honest, the novel repulsed me until I took a couple days to really dissect and research why the hell it was a classic. As soon as I finished it, I simply couldn't justify it being up there with Fitzgerald and Vonnegut etc. The way you reviewed it is exactly how I felt after a couple days of letting it all seep in and reading Reading Lolita in Tehran (which if you haven't read yet, it offers a very interesting perspective!) also helped change my opinion too. Thank you for posting this!! I think it's important people know there's more to his novel than what everyone assumes!! I was someone who was very cautious, stopped reading it several times and now I completely understand why it's such a beautiful piece.
Absolutely hit the nail on the end. It was a tormenting thing; appreciating the beauty of the structure and lyrical words, yet when you remembered what it was about and who, it really made you feel, rightly so, uncomfortable, uneasy, disgusted! Would you be happy if I shared the link to your video in the description of mine?
When I first saw the movie I was about 12 and didn't actually see as anything wrong with what was going on and just somebody who was in love with a girl, but when I got older I read the book and watch the movie again and saw it completely different. Think maybe the first time I was just too young to properly understand the story, but at the same it was an adult constantly making it seem like it was ok what he was doing which makes things confusing at times.
I got maybe 50 or 60 pages into the novel and then could not go on. I had some sympathy for the struggle of having the mental illness that is pedophilia before I started reading Lolita, but actually reading the book repulsed me incredibly. I'm thankful for your explanations, I feel like I've gotten a deeper insight into why it is so well respected and why anyone would choose to subject themselves to this kind of content.
Maybe people don't understand it and don't like it because... Ya know... *pedophilia* (I'm not saying that I don't like it I've never seen the movie or book I just came here because Beetlejuice the musical made a reference of it)
Excellent review Mickey! I just finished the book and I'm so relieved to hear you call it beautiful. I felt the same way, but also felt guilty for enjoying it. I had to constantly remind myself of what was actually happening. Thank you for your review!
I read this in college and was triggered beyond belief because my dad is Humbert Humbert. My whole life consisted of trying to figure out what was real and what wasn't. I've been considering rereading this now that I'm 46 and healed from the trauma. I think that I shouldn't read it, but I really appreciate your perspective on this book. I feel like you got some good things from it and you're so well spoken. I wish you still made videos.
I picked this book up from a book shop for free (I didn't steal it), and I have been struggling to crack it open. Thank you for your review. I added it to my "to be read" list, and have committed to reading it in January. I knew the lead was a predator. I didn't think for one moment that Lolita was the seductress. Even if she were the seductress, I made up in my mind that she would not be.
I must say that was one of the best and most insightful reviews I've seen in a long time. You not only described the story and your reaction to it but showed how this incredible work of fiction reveals truths about the real world which is the greatest contribution of literature and art to society. Well done! ☺
Excellent analysis. I finally am going to read the book from the library. Nabokov does have a beautiful writing style just reading the first several chapters. I also am interested in his other writings.
I tried to read it and it was just too intellectually challenging for me. After a few hundred pages I noticed I was just reading the words without being able to take them in anymore. Heads of to you, you're obviously a much better reader than I'll ever be.
I really enjoyed this review/discussion. I think you've done a great job. I love this novel, but it always makes me question why I am enjoying it! I think it has a lot to do with the playful nature of the unreliable narrative.
... also you are totally right about Humbert lying in the narrative - there's a big clue towards the end that Humbert had murdered Charlotte Haze and she didn't die as described in the book
I never once, ever thought that maybe the whole story wasn't true! What if he was telling all this to the jury to make himself sound innocent and Quilty sound like the bad person, therefore it was ok for Hum to kill him.
I absolutely agree with you. It is so hard not to trust HH when he is so articulate. John Ray and HH also warned us not to trust him too but we keep falling into his trap because how could a monster be so educated, talented and funny. HH said, "Poets never kill" He seduced and lied to us, the readers, as much as he lied and seduced Lolita. I really enjoy your vlog. please do more.
You compliment the authors writing, and I have to compliment the way you are able to put this review into words so beautifully. I have an awful time articulating my thoughts and this video was like scratching an itch in my brain. If you haven't already read American Psycho, it's another great unreliable narrator story with an ambiguous ending, but it's definitely a lot to stomach, less in an emotional way like Lolita but more so just straight up gore.
Great analysis of why people are enamored with the book. In summary, people get so enamored with the beauty of the prose, albeit by a man whose native tongue is not English that they are shocked that they can accept an otherwise deplorable story. I suppose if you allow yourself to be "taken in," it's likely entertaining. Throughout the book, I chose not to be taken in by "the criminal." To me, it was a book in which the protagonist can use pretty words to make his horrible actions seem...sort of understandable. I'm just not there. I don't like people who do bad things, regardless of their nice words.
back when i read it, i was a kid and people didn't go on about paedophilia, so i was totally ignorant about it, eg about the victimhood, it was quite clear what it was about because for instance he's really happy when the mother dies and stuff. It's not exactly a graphic novel. The heart of it, for me, is the bit with the memory of playing tennis - it's sort of about how he becomes this person who can't move past that isn't it? At the point it was written and earlier, it was considered disgusting and unmentionable in polite society but not so driven underground that you couldn't be known to do it, it wasn't particularly illegal, like, rape was, but they'd have had to prosecute.. see pt 3 of j g o'farrell's empire trilogy
I have to give you props! (pardon me if this sounds condescending) i have noticed that most people, particularly women, find this story repulsive beyond any literary merit it may deserve. Rarely have I heard anyone share my appreciation for the linguistic acumen with which he tells his story. Much like if somebody spray painted a repulsive, but photo-real and powerful rendition of a scene, most folks would be too busy saying, "that is disgusting" to notice that the image, although created by spray paint is so realistic looking as to pass for a photograph at first glance.
There are a couple of times in this book where HH is describing the daily routines and events of him and Lolita and there will suddenly be a direct or near direct reference to his abuse of her, but it's presented as completely unremarkable as if HH doesn't realize how shocking it would be to read (which makes the shock even bigger of course). I don't know if I've ever been transported into the consciousness of a fictional character in this way before, it completely blew me away.
I've been looking for this book everywhereee but i live in south america and I haven't been able to find it im english (I want to work with it for my IB extended essay in the subject English A) but literally everytime I ask for it at a library or book store people look at me as if I'm insane and it's really annoying (I'm 17, but look 14 lol)
The author really mastered the art of making your skin crawl with beautiful prose. I had thought Lolita was a love story; instead it turned out to be the diary of a rapist.
Loved your assessment of the book. I came to read Lolita after having read My Dark Vanessa, which provides more of “Lolita’s” side of the story in this sexual predator relationship. Both great. I fully understand why Lolita is a classic.
Lex luther jr in batman v superman the movie brought me here. he quoted the 2nd paragraph ch.1 "plain Lo in the morning. Lola in slacks". i wanted to know the parallel. it gives much insight to lex jr's mindset.
I get lost between words so sometimes I wish there was a graphic novel version of this book but that would be super dangerous to try to draw and adapt it into a comic Book
Very much enjoyed your analysis. I want to speak up for Dolly, as she called herself. Her personality and voice are **almost** buried by the power of Humbert's narrative -- but he doesn't quite succeed, which is another aspect of the novel's brilliance. By carefully observing what Dolly does and says, and ignoring H.'s interpretations of her actions, Nabokov shows the reader the traumatized child that she is. Think of the tennis lesson, where her form is perfect, but she has no desire to win. (She probably doesn't think she can, not just in tennis, but in any way -- she's virtually a hostage. ) And her schoolteacher's perspective on her lack of interest in sex education, which the teacher comically attributes to an overly-protective upbringing. Of course, it's not actually lack of interest, but traumatized revulsion.
I didn’t get from the book what I got from the movie because in the movie (1997 one) I guess I see her in a dominant way if you saw the movie and read the book tell me if you saw that difference
But, you know, I got really impatient with Humbert Humbert's voice the more I read on. I never trust people who are eloquent enough to express themselves clearly but who choose to obfuscate what they mean with flowery words.
Great overview and very perceptive but I would object to one element...you constantly refer to the character as Lolita. Her name is Dolores. Lolita is a fancy fake name that Humbert makes up and refers to her as in his mind. She wouldn't answer to it. It's part of how he steals her identity.
