Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

“You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.”
Timestamps and links below the fold ↓

0:00 Intro
0:52 Summary
1:49 Review
2:06 Why I re-read it
2:21 Lolita Podcast
3:07 The delusion
4:29 Asking for it
7:24 Angry and sad
8:54 My Lolita legacy

[James-gcii]

Rereading this book as an adult was really sad. Humbert's prose is gorgeous, but it's in service to destroying a girl's life. It's still my favourite book but it's an absolute tragedy. The tragedy not involving Humbert at all, his end being too good for him, despite what he proclaims

[bebop.]

I think it's also good to keep in mind that the book is written from Humbert's perspective and there is no reason to think that he is a reliable narrator. It is his attempt to make himself likable... He seems to be successful at it, despite the fact that it is quite explicit that he is a child rapist and an overall monster.

[xanaorispaa]

I think one should not confuse the issues... Is it a good book? It is extraordinary, deeply moving and certainly one of the greatest books ever written. Was Nabokov depicting Lolita as a seductress or as a victim? As a victim (all the more for her beauty, her poignant charm, her game of tennis, which we see through Humbert's adoring eyes). Did Humbert ignore the fact? No, he says it again and again, he knows what he has done, he feels irreparable guilt, and I dare say he also feels a great broken and limitless love for her. We experience great difficulty with allowing Humbert's irresistible voice into our heads with the knowledge that he is a monster, and if we cry with him in the end, it is because we pity him, and her, and ourselves for understanding the deeply tragic nature of things. And this mixed emotions, in Fitzgerald's words: this "ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" is I would argue, not just the mark of a first rate intelligence but also the challenge of a first rate book ; a book, which should not be held responsible for the misinterpretations it generates. I would even say that Lolita is in the end a very moral book (not that that's what truly matters here) all the more because it is so devastatingly sad. The seduction is in the enchanting words, and one should never feel guilt for falling under that spell, the magic spell of literature.

[ZAPRUDERPRIME]

Man, this was really crazy to hear. None of my friends are really readers so I never really got a chance to hear anyone else's perspective on this and I couldn't have imagined considering Dolores as the instigator of anything. My take was always that it was a monster story, a monster that wants more than anything to convince itself it's not sick. I didn't think Dolores had any crush on him, I think that's the story he liked and he doesn't include her dialogue because it challenges his reality. If anyone read this whole spiel thanks, and was very interesting video, I love hearing other people's takes on books it's crazy how different a story the same words can tell to different people!

[kristinanne]

I'm a childhood sexual abuse survivor. I had to read this book my freshman year of college and it triggered me beyond belief. I'm tempted to read it again now at age 46 after I've healed from my trauma, but I'm not sure anything good would come from it.

[meganmeaney]

I had the same experience. Came back to this book a decade after reading it and seeing the movie, and thought…wait a minute. This isn’t a story about a child seductrice at all! It was reading My Dark Vanessa that made me come back to Lolita, and think about the grooming by Humbert. Much respect to Vladimir Nabokov, much disappointment in all the misguided interpreters and movie makers of his story. Now off to listen to this podcast…thanks!

[larrygorlitz]

Your observations and changing perspective over time and age speaks volumes to the present debates about childhood choices and agency right now.

[ianp]

Thanks for sharing this interesting journey you’ve been on - the point you made around the 7 minute mark about Nabokov testing us all and how society has failed the test seemed just right. It is probably the most discomforting book I’ve ever read, and both the structure and language work to manipulate the reader so well. A masterpiece as you say, and we won’t even get started on the literary references etc. I liked your comment about the book’s cover too - my copy has a plain brown cover - I think it dates from when Nabokov was still alive.
I’m going to read Nabokov’s Pale Fire later this year which is another psychological study of a ‘troubling’ narrator so I’m looking forward to that - have you ever read it?

[booksteer]

I'm listening to the audiobook now. (Read by Jeremy Irons. Just brilliant.) The more it goes on, the more I think Humbert is distorting, or downright lying, about their relationship. I think he murdered Lolita's mother and that the whole car accident story was a lie. Lolita isn't portrayed as a seductress so much as being sexually precocious. He says she cries every night when he feigns being asleep. He drags her about the country so that she never has the chance to meet someone she can trust.

[josephsechler]

Spot on description of the plight of Dolores/Lolita and her misrepresentation in movies and pop culture. Having read the novel, I then wanted to figure out why he wrote Lolita.
If have not read it, I recommend reading his autobiography--Speak, Memory. In particular, analyze the relationship with his unmarried uncle. The clues are mostly vague but become much more explicit in one passing comment. I think in writing Lolita, he was working through the trauma of his own childhood abuse. Interestingly I read that his wife saved the Lolita manuscript from being destroyed three times by him and insisted he finish writing it which would potentially support that theory.

[lisev]

Havent read the book but kinda surprised to read that people whos read it think a 12 year old is to blame for seducing a man.... COME ON!

[whereisawesomeness]

I feel lucky to have read this book in the way I did. I read it at about the same age as you did, but I never believed (or even considered) that Dolores was being portrayed as a seductress. It’s easily my favourite novel, and I’m so fortunate to have had the chance to read it with relatively little influence from secondary interpreters.

[lonely_turtleking]

I've been wanting to read this book and your review has been great. I'm going to read it, thank you for actually telling me what it's about, because alot of people just say it's a very sexual book instead of saying what its actually is about.

[solarisvalenzuela]

you explaining about the different lenses we can interpret the characters is just so eye opening for so many victims, thank you ❤️

[LuminaryLibrarians]

It is so interesting hearing your perspective change so much - thank you for sharing. I only read the book for the first time about a year ago aged 35, and to be honest I didn't know the story, and had never seen any adaptations. I never felt Lolita was a seductress (only a victim), however I did spend a lot of my time feeling sorry for Humbert, which then made me feel disgusted with myself for having sympathy with him. However, I guess that is the genius of the book - it is from his perspective, and he cleverly manipulates you the reader into feeling sorry for him.

It is very beautifully written, which is such a paradox, because it made me feel physically sick a times. There is part of me which would like to re-read it, and part of me which wouldn't...

[falgalhutkinsmarzcal]

Lolita is Nabokov's love letter to the English language. He waxes poetic as if he is drunk on English because the point of the novel is to show how an articulate person can manipulate via language, and often achieve societal pardon. It is similar to how we overlook the indiscretions of our favorite filmmakers, artists, and musicians because of their genius. Elvis, Steven Tyler, Michael Jackson, Polanski, Woody Allen, and Anne Sexton all victimized children, yet people often ignore these transgressions because of their contributions to culture/society.

All that being said, if you read a lot of Nabokov's works you start to observe a persistent fascination with "nymphets". From his short stories to Ada or Ardor he featured "nymphets" in questionable situations.

[yenasung]

I try to reread “lolita” every summer for both pure enjoyment of pretty prose and to stay vigilant. It’s too easy to sweep under the rug and excuse behavior that’s seen as so normal in society, and ignore our pain.

[apope]

ONE OF THE GREATEST NOVELS EVER WRITTEN. and Humbert is one of the greatest villainous characters ever written. Everyone says they feel gross reading it because it's virtue signaling. It's proper to say that. It's an inspirational novel when you read it as an unreliable narrator and you are deeply inside the mind of a man insane and unwell in morals and mind.

[timkiely]

Thank you for such a sincere account of your experience with the novel. I have a Ph.D. in Russian literature and I never made it past the first few pages out of utter disgust. So it is very validating to hear your perspective. I have not kept up with literary theory, so I can't cite any clever names, but I can't help but think of the fact that the author was a dislocated Russian aristocrat and a deeply arrogant individual. I always suspect that "Lolita" was Nabokov's way of mocking and belittling the West. There is a distinct essence of amorality that Nabokov could create such enthralling prose about such a disgraceful subject. Isn't there a certain moral vacuity and condescending mockery in such an act? Again, your perspective was genuinely validating. And I wonder if the seeming paradox of an eloquent artifact about a depraved subject can be explained by its source.

[Tristramwilliams]

Have you read Pale Fire by Nabokov? I’d love to see you review that. It’s an extraordinary book.