Lolita: The Screenplay
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating

Lolita: The Screenplay

3.78 of 5 stars 3.78  ·  rating details  ·  169 ratings  ·  9 reviews
As it charts the hypnotized progress of Humbert Humbert, a hypercivilized and amoral European emigre, into the orbit of a treacherously lovely and utterly unimpressionable preteen, Lolita: A Screenplay gleefully demolishes a host of stereotypes - sexual, moral, and aesthetic. Not least among the casualties is the notion that cinema and literature are two separate spheres....more
Paperback, 240 pages
Published August 26th 1997 by Vintage (first published 1960)
more details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Lolita, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Lolita

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 316)
filter  |  sort: default (?)  |  rating details
Kate Savage
Up until the final scene, I was actually more engaged with this screenplay than I had been with the novel. This was for the same reason that the novelic screenplay is normally criticized: so much is left out. While the novel is sunk deep in the folds of Humbert Humbert's mind, the screenplay has to stop short. The film requires detachment. And in the white space left by this detachment, you begin to see, for the first time, the ostensible subject of the book and the movie: Lolita. Dolly. She has...more
Lolita is in my top five novels I’ve ever read. And I am a huge fan of Kubrick and his filmed version. So I don’t know why it took me so long to read Nabokov’s version of the screenplay, which differs greatly from Kubrick’s. It’s brilliant, of course. And, in an introduction, Nabokov says some pithy things about the 3 versions: original novel, Kubrick’s film and this screenplay. It’s interesting to read because, as he admits in the introduction, Nabokov did not know how to write a movie and this...more
Ben Benson
The screenplay of Lolita is in a similar structure to the Kubrick film in that it begins with the end, and then traces down the major stomping grounds of the novel, Ramsdale, the road, Beardsley, the road, Lolita's home, and for the screenplay it pretty much ends there whereas the Kubrick film replays the intro with a little more added.

The differences between the Kubrick film and the Nabokov screenplay are rather different outside of the major plot points that must be touched upon and Nabokov's...more
pada awalnya, penulis mengatakan sesuatu yang memang bener akan terjadi pada pembaca..bahwa pembaca akan merasa aneh, bahkan jijik dengan perilaku pedophile yang di derita si pemeran utama, tapi pada akhirnya -penulis tetap yakin- pembaca akan jatuh cinta pada tokoh utamanya..
man, that's totally right..XD
pertamanya bener2 aneh ngebaca cerita ttg seorang pria tua yang jatuh cinta pada seorang gadis, bukan, anak kecil yang berumur 25 taun lebih tua..duh, aneh bgt si..sakit kali ni orang yak..gitu...more
Richard F. Schiller
Not nearly as captivating as the virtuosic novel, but a fine work in itself. Lolita doesn't translate well as a screenplay because now all the events as shown from a camera-like omniscient view, instead of the fuzzy, multi-layered vision we get from Humbert Humbert. There were some elements of this screenplay I didn't like all that much, particularly the awkward narration of John Ray Jr. However, certain new phrases of classic Nabokovian genius are born here such as

"...solarizing your solar p...more
Julian Darius
Read the novel first (preferably in the annotated edition). Then read Nabokov's fascinating screen adaptation of his celebrated novel. It's different, but the choices Nabokov makes are fascinating. They suggest that he didn't see his own novel as a sacred text, but rather something that could be adapted and changed for a different medium.

Plus, there's a wonderful metatextual moment, where Lo and Humbert Humbert meet a certain professorly character.

Well worth your time.
Novel, but not as novel as the novel. (How d'you like that wordplay, Mr. Nabokov?!)

I get the sense that Nabokov adapted the book to see if he could, whereas Kubrick adapted the book because he had a vision of how it would look on-screen.
No, it's not so perfect as the novel, but it's still Nabokov, so you could do a lot worse. You need only read it if you are a one of his true devotees.
It is all about the exquisite prose and fascinating characters!!
Chelsea K
Chelsea K marked it as to-read
Aug 04, 2014
Emily marked it as to-read
Jun 24, 2014
Kilani marked it as to-read
Jun 17, 2014
Jamespc marked it as to-read
Jun 09, 2014
Conor Bateman
Conor Bateman marked it as to-read
May 29, 2014
Alicia marked it as to-read
May 27, 2014
Dasha Ezerova
Dasha Ezerova marked it as to-read
May 20, 2014
Sabrina marked it as to-read
May 09, 2014
B.B. marked it as to-read
May 04, 2014
Daniel added it
Apr 07, 2014
Martin marked it as to-read
Apr 30, 2014
Nathan added it
Feb 11, 2014
Danielle Bell
Danielle Bell marked it as to-read
Feb 20, 2014
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »
Russian: Владимир Владимирович Набоков

Nabokov wrote his first nine novels in Russian, then rose to international prominence as a master English prose stylist. He also made significant contributions to lepidoptery and had an interest in chess problems.

Nabokov's Lolita (1955) is frequently cited as his most important novel, and is at any rate his most widely known one, exhibiting the love of intrica...more
More about Vladimir Nabokov...
Lolita Pale Fire Pnin Invitation to a Beheading Speak, Memory

Share This Book