Just finished reading the book, it was actually quite interesting. I expected Humbert Humbert to lure the girl, when in fac it was very much the other way round. I may move on to Narbokov's other book Pale Fire.
Pale Fire is a lot more difficult to get through, as it's in the style of a poem accompanied by notes on the poem. Very difficult; I gave up trying to read it until I'm at a higher reading level. I suggest Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading instead; much more readable, but also interesting.
I loved Lolita. It is the finest work of prose I have ever read. You could argue that Lo lures Humbert, but you must keep in mind the unreliable narrator: I personally feel that Humbert portrays it this way to absolve himself of guilt. Though I sympathize with his situation, he was still morally responsible to stop the childish advances Lo made on him, if they even really existed. As a foolish young girl, Lo did not know what she was doing, if she even knew anything.
>>2
I thought pretty much all absolvation of guilt could be forgiven because of the second part of the book. There it was obvious that Humbert was taking advantage of Lo and he ruined her life.
I didn't really like it. It was amusing indeed but after I finished then I wondered: so what? It has no content and even though the edition I bought mentioned that on the preface (V. Nabokov being criticised for the lack of content on it he replied to the critics that his intention was only to narrate a story) my expectations for it were high. I suppose I could have enjoyed it more if I hadn't expected anything from it.
BTW, have you watched the films? I have only watched the one directed by Stanley Kubrick and I'd say it is a good adaptation of the book.
>>4
yeah, i wish it had been about elves and epic combat too
>>5
ditch the limp-wristed elves for manly dwarves, and you've got yourself a best seller.
I only read one other Nabokov novel, King Queen Nave, and saw the film version of Despair. Both seemed to confirm my initial impression from reading Lolita that Nabokov was writing largely about our capacity for self-delusion, although that was a bit hard for me to take on board reading Lolita, not having yet started to challenge my own sexual delusions about litle girls.
Responding to the above post. One of the things I like about Lolita is that it speaks to pedos and non-pedos alike, and it makes us all uncomfortable. Unless if you give it a very superficial reading (as some Amazon reviewers have) it really is about the falseness of obsession and the way people trap themselves, and it tells that story in a much clearer way than most other 20th century fiction.
What is interesting about Lolita is that in a way H.H. is not so much predator as he is prey. He seems almost enslaved by Dolores in many ways.