Having just finished my first reading of Lolita, I'm in awe of Nabokov's style and technique, but especially his ability to first seduce and disarm the reader through his narrator's wit and charm, and then to quietly slip in some repellent image or egregiously horrific incident, as if it were merely incidental. That juxtaposition of the hilarious and the horrific intensified the horror for me, much as salt intensifies the sweetness of chocolate. The poignance was almost unbearable at times.

That's one thought. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this or any other aspect of the book in this thread.

Blessings & thanks,
Christina

Isn't it amazing how witty and at ease he seems with English?

More later--I think Lolita is one of the greatest detective stories I've ever read.

On my way to work.

I reiterate: apologies for dropping out of sight all this time. I'm still dealing with my kidney thing, doctors' visits, diagnostics, etc. Somehow I've been feeling unsociable, too -- solitary and tongue-tied, listless and lackluster. All the ideas and responses that were spilling out of me as I read the book just seem to have evaporated somehow. But thanks so much for your responses, ladies, and forgive me for not holding up my end of the discussion.

Ruth, yes, I was struck by the urbanity of Nabokov's wit and how erudite and often poetic his observations and allusions are. This seemed to me part of the characterization -- Humbert rather than Nabokov speaking. However, the Nabokov's postscript, "On a Book Entitled Lolita," seemed written in much the same voice. What do you think? Are they one and the same?

Pamela, what a wonderful observation! When you have time, please do say more. I'll look forward to your thoughts. In a related vein, I was struck by the suspense and deeply regretted having first seen the movie. Nabokov hints, and teases, and addresses (us?) as "ladies and gentlemen of the jury." A virgin reader, I think, would have been driven mad by it.