Lolita: Introduction by Martin Amis

After reading The Real Lolita by Sarah Weinman I wanted to read the real Lolita book to which she was referring while writing about the true crime case of Sally Horner's abduction, kidnapping, rapes, and eventual death. I found Part One of this novel to be very long-winded and over-described, written more like literary fiction than fiction. However it gives the reader a glimpse into what psychological thrillers would later become, especially so as it is narrated by the baddie whose subjective view could be considered at times vastly unreliable as we never get to hear from Delores Haze herself. Part Two however seemed to drag on about meaningless repetitive day-to-day living, and the ending though good felt abrupt and his motivation for what he does not apparent. It's almost as if the author tried to write a crime thriller at the end. This I believe is because it took him so long to write that the ending was written in an era where Gaslight-esque films turned more procedural, and us authors do write to the times we are in. Although people condemn this book for writing about paedophilia, there is no graphic or gratuitous explanations of such activities and I think that perhaps the reason the first half worked better than the second was the obvious suspense the author uses as Humbert as he tells the reader what he wants to do, what he intends to do, and how he plans to execute it. Humbert faces many obstacles and conflicts to complete his plans and when they are thwarted he becomes a killer. It's a work of pure genius. However a couple of things I noticed that occurred in two books written by two authors who'd committed the real crimes for which they were writing stood out for me in this book too. I'm not saying Nabokov was a closet paedo, but his character has illnesses when he does which land him in hospital, the same background (emigrating from Russia, to Paris then to the US) and this stuck out to me as if he was trying to tell the reader his character was based loosely on him. I also worried about his extremely close observation on the sizes of girls hips and how their 'buds' looked. How would he know this if he was not once a girl? And if he'd just added those details about himself in the book wouldn't he have done so in his first or second publications? Not his tenth? It's usually by the third that an author has spewed their guts on their own familial histories and personal experiences and they start to find their voice and are able to leave their own issues aside in order to write exclusively in their narrators point of view, rather than their own. I think a lot of readers misinterpret what this book is about. it's obvious Delores does not seduce him. He tells the reader she did, which is exactly what sexual offenders do, so I think it's safe to say this is certainly not a love story, a romance between a twelve year old girl and a man who is in a position of authority. Anyone who thinks it is should reread it or get counselling.

I’m working my way through a great swath of classic literature and given the huge attention this book has received I thought I’d include it while I was going through the Russian novelists.As it happened though, either this novel wasn’t nearly as profound as academics seem to consider it to be, or I’m dumber than I thought I was, because I saw nothing particularly significant or profound in it. Nabokov’s command of English is precise, well embellished and pleasing to read, (impressively so, given his native Russian tongue), but I don’t feel as though I gained anything from having read Lolita.Perhaps it just doesn’t suit my incentives for reading, and that’s fine. If you read literature in an attempt to draw ideas from the texts then- as far as I can tell- this isn’t worth your time. On the other hand, if you are more emotionally malleable and enjoy immersing yourself in elaborate descriptions and ‘feeling’ your way through a narrative along with the characters, I think you’d likely get a lot more from it than I did. It ended up being a chore for me.

Just because the book is praised as one of the Best Novels of the 20th century doesn't mean that it's for everyone.Lolita is a controversial novel about a Pedophile taking us on a journey on his Pedophilic adventures and his attempt to earn empathy from us, the readers, for his actions.Each reader has a different opinion. Some are disgusted by it, some enjoy the brilliance of it, some are all together apathetic to it. Still, everything comes down to one single fact if you are thinking of buying it, ask yourself just this one question - Are YOU willing to listen to a 40yr old man talk about his sexual relationship with a 12yr old child???And now, about the quality of the book...• The cover of the book is gorgeous and the quality of the pages are fine.• The font size is comfortable to read.• Received without any kind of damages.• No bookmark delivered.• You can see the size of the novel compared to a regular notebook.Hope this was helpful

Nabokov was a playful and mischievous writer: few books are as mischievous as "Lolita", a story of a middle aged man’s obsession with a twelve-year-old girl. "Lolita" is a bizarre and brave novel: I cannot think of one other work of note which deals with this theme.There is one thing which impressed me more and more, as I read through the story: narrator Humbert’s isolation. This isolation is not obvious at first. But you soon begin to notice the signs. His reluctance to let anyone get too close. His reluctance to reveal too much about himself in conversation. The endless, mindless travelling. All this betokens a very isolated person. Indeed, an isolated couple, for Lolita, while she remains with him, is isolated too. Middle-aged Humbert and adolescent Lolita, throughout most of the novel, have to keep their distance from everybody else. They remain isolated from the mainstream of humanity. Some would add that they are living outside the moral universe too.A word on the narrative style. Lolita is a worthy successor to Wilde’s "Dorian Gray". There is a decadence in both novels; both are written in gorgeous, hothouse-artificial style.I discovered an interesting sidelight on Nabokov’s novel. Or rather, upon its name. Nabokov lived in Paris for a time, and spoke fluent French. He may have been familiar with a historical novel by Cecil Saint-Laurent, called "La vie extraordinaire de Lola Montès". The real life Lola Montez was a 19th century courtesan, whose lovers included composer Franz Liszt and the King of Bavaria. Saint-Laurent’s book inspired a Max Ophul movie: "Lola Montez". It was released in 1955, the same year that "Lolita" was published. According to one reviewer, Lola in Max Ophul’s movie ‘is merely a passive blank onto which men project their fantasies.’ Which is exactly what Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert does with his own little Lola. He writes about her at great length, and with great eloquence. The bitter irony (and the sadness) is that this Lola is not a high flying courtesan, but a 12-year-old girl who reads comics.

The hype of being one of the books which every reader should read - I don't know how I feel about it. The book follows Humbert Humbert a know scholar and an romantic.The fist 10 chapters help to build Humbert character and explains the reason for the choices he make in his life. He has a number of flings and when she rents from his landlord her daughter strikes him and being wonderful. As she is growing up we get glimpses of the family model, the only problem is Lolita Haze is 12. As she is growing Humbert beginnings to become obsessive with her. On of his tactics is to marry her mother and he whisks her away on an adventure.I am not a fan of this books, however at least I can say that I have read it. For me the subject of this novel is a trigger for me so this is a book that I wouldn't recommend to anybody.