Lolita

by Edward Albee (Adaptor), Vladimir Nabokov (Creator)

THE STORY: Widely familiar as a successful novel and motion picture, LOLITA details the controversial obsession of Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged man of some education and refinement, to possess Dolores Haze, a pre-teen "nymphet." Comprised of a series of interrelated scenes which are commented on by an urbane narrator, the play follows the peregrinations of the increasingly desperate Humbert as he first marries Dolores's mother and then engineers her death—after which he and "Lolita" embark on a zigzag tour of America's motels, always one step ahead of another "dirty old man" with whom his hostage is in love. In the end, "Lolita" escapes Humbert's clutches only to marry a deaf man and die in childbirth—her tormentors, in turn, follow their own destinies toward either madness or murder.

Genres: Plays, Fiction, Literature

72 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1998

About the author

Noted American playwright Edward Franklin Albee explored the darker aspects of human relationships in plays like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1962) and Three Tall Women (1991), which won his third Pulitzer Prize.

People know Edward Franklin Albee III for works, including The Zoo Story , The Sandbox and The American Dream .
He well crafted his works, considered often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition. His early works reflected a mastery and Americanization of the theater of the absurd, which found its peak in European playwrights, such as Jean Genet, Samuel Barclay Beckett, and Eugène Ionesco. Younger Pulitzer Prize-winner Paula Vogel credits daring mix of theatricalism and biting dialogue of Albee with helping to reinvent the postwar theater in the early 1960s. Dedication of Albee to continuing to evolve his voice — as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) — also routinely marks him as distinct of his era.

Albee described his work as "an examination of the American Scene, an attack on the substitution of artificial for real values in our society, a condemnation of complacency, cruelty, and emasculation and vacuity, a stand against the fiction that everything in this slipping land of ours is peachy-keen."

Reviews

[Lo Celeste Riddell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow. I hated this so much I feel like I don't even know where to begin. For the record, I don't want to make any comments on Albee's ability to write other plays — I'm aware he wrote Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? which I still need to read/watch but I imagine is much better than this adaptation of Lolita. Also, I'm aware that Albee was gay, so it doesn't feel fair to assert any kind of pedophilic intention on his part as a writer; I think he just missed the mark severely. Like, SO severely.

First of all, this is not an adaptation of Lolita. Not a good one, anyways. I don't know what copy of Lolita this playwright got ahold of, but I can only imagine it must have had half of the pages torn out. So much is missing, and I don't even mean in a way that makes sense for time constraints. There is a whole scene added into Act 1 that doesn't exist at ALL in the book, which is that of Charlotte's funeral (the funeral in general isn't depicted in the book, and certainly neither is a woman at the funeral flirting with Humbert for several pages, nor Charlotte's corpse sitting up in her coffin and screaming at Humbert that he's going to hell?).

This version of Lolita is not depicted as a horror story (which it is), nor really a tragedy, save for proudly-self-proclaimed-pedophile Humbert's heartbreak in the end. Once again, we see a regurgitation of the idea that "Lolita" (NOT EVEN HER NAME IN THE BOOK — H.H. IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CALLS HER THAT AND IT'S A BIG POINT OF THE NOVEL!) seduced H.H. and is somehow more adult than she lets on. The oversexualization was bad. It was SO bad. I think it was maybe supposed to be funny? But I seriously cannot imagine what kind of person would find this funny. All of the attempted humor in the play is SO cringey, I literally gagged while reading it.

Also — what the hell is up with ACG? I gathered that ACG is supposed to be a stand-in for Nabokov + his prose style, but GOD, I really hated it. I didn't find this character a clever invention at all. Every time he spoke, I cringed. I hated his dialogue exchanges with H.H. I'm going to be a broken record here but I just COULD NOT STOP CRINGING!!! Cringe cringe cringe cringe cringe!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to mention, hardly any of Nabokov's prose style was actually used in the play. Instead, what we get is a poor imitation that reads more like a pretentious fedora-wearing middle schooler trying to replicate Nabokov and failing MISERABLY. All of the language was far too colloquial — H.H. speaks far too informally compared to his book counterpart.

ALSO -- I don't want to make this a footnote by any means — the racism??!?!!??!? Oh my god??? I hated the way Louise was depicted. I hated that her actress is supposed to play all of the Black maid characters in the various motels H.H. and "Lolita" go to (including the outright "joke" in dialogue about it). I hated that Charlotte (and "Lolita") were both so openly racist (and otherwise bigoted) in their speech, when there's literally no precedent set in the book that would necessitate this. It felt like an excuse to insert "edgy humor" into the play and, again, I DID NOT FIND IT FUNNY. Good god. It was so bad. See also: H.H. wondering if Charlotte is an antisemite by, himself, using the K-slur; Quilty mentioning wanting to make a phone call to Palestine and H.H. saying "there is no Palestine"; Charlotte calling H.H. a "fairy", etc. Literally NONE of this language was in the book and I don't understand why it is in here at all, other than poor attempts at humor, and it was not humorous. It's bad.

Literally no redeeming qualities here. There were also some scenes/references that were not in the novel but were definitely taken from the 1962 movie (which is, in my opinion, incredibly lazy). I just hated this. I hated H.H.'s long, grotesque comments about "Lolita" and her body — which are arguably too gross and explicit to have even been in the original book. Part of the magic of Lolita (the novel) is that the prose is so beautiful and enchanting, it too-easily disguises what is really happening, and forces you to look for the horror between the lines. There was no such magic here. Everything was too on the nose and too gross.

Don't bother with it. Spend your time reading anything else!

[Emily Clayton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book started out well, and conceptually it was excellent, but the end became much too drug out. Their travels across the country were two extensive and detailed. One redeeming quality is that it is a Russian novel.

[BeeQuiet · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only reason why this book doesn't get five stars from me is because I feel it really loses steam about three quarters of the way through. One might say that this was a purposeful devise, but it still left me feeling "I hope this book is over soon", even though I had been completely hooked on it not long before.

Criticism over, I do think Lolita is a real work of art, forcing us to question ourselves and human nature. The imagery is thick, rich and syrupy. Perfect to read on a hot summer day; it a book which is best read in matching weather.

Read it, go on. You'll never feel the same again.

[Erin Geismar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vladimir Nabokov is one of the most interesting people I've ever read about and his biography supplements the book well. Many people assumed he was a pedophile himself after he published this book, he even tried to burn his only manuscript when he realized how he would be thought of. So basically, even Nabokov realized he wrote this too well. The language is amazing - there are travel scenes comparative to 'On the Road'

[Patricio Amerena · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best novel I have read, probably. No, not probably, definitely. Every paragraph has something interesting or witty or beautiful in it. You want to keep coming back for more, because Humbert Humbert is the most interesting and hilarious antihero ever. He is a monster, a child, an intellectual, and a pedant... truly genius character development and a magnetic prose style.

[Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

LOVE Nabokov. Love him.

[Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Underproduced. The intial production was a nightmare for Mr. Albee. Read Gussow's biography of Albee for more details. Albee and Nabokov both deserve to have a definitive production.

[Annie Walaszek]

very intense. I enjoyed the modern twist. sarah ruhl before sarah ruhl was out of college.

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

while it's not explicit, and i never felt any sympathy whatsoever for the pervert narrator... the language is absurdly gorgeous, even though the subject matter is reprehensible.

[Meemsi · Rating 5 out of 5]

FORGET THE NOVEL

[Rajesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

1111

[Hanknooney · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is pretty funny for the most part and the framing device used to present the story is clever. This is essentially a parody of Nabavok's book and I'm unsure as to how affectionate this parody is; Albee doesn't seem to like the novel all that much. The latter acts condense too much plot and probably wouldn't make sense to someone who hasn't read the novel. The most damning thing you could say about this is that the novel succeeds on its evocative rendering of Humbert's neurosis and delusions, something that this parodic, leering play doesn't attempt to capture. Albee's jokes are generally pretty good when he's not cutely referencing other Nabakov works, but the preponderance of humor over serious attempts to evoke the novel's themes just underscores how willfully shallow this adaptation is.

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s been long enough since I’ve read the book that I think this play has it’s own identity for me. I remember the framework of the amazing book, but I couldn’t tell you where Albee took liberties or didn’t get certain details correct. I think since I wasn’t looking for a comparison of the original, I was able to enjoy this adaptation more. I thought it was interesting how the audience was let into the mind of Humbert as he interacts with them and the “writer” character. The “writer” character also gives the audience some relief as they witness this despicable character’s doings since they are reminded that it’s just a made up story, albeit a uncomfortable one. And to bring humor to such an unsavory topic is quite the feat. Now I need to go back and read the book again.

[Ian · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the book Lolita. this however is disappointing play. It is poorly written and some of the dialouge is pretty bad and ultimately, lacks the sense of humour and tragedy that the book itself has. It looks like is was written rather hastily and differs too much from the novel. A novice could write a better adaption of this!

[Travis Ammons · Rating 2 out of 5]

While my favorite novel of all time, Alber’s short stage version doesn’t hold a candle to the original work. Still a delightfully satisfying read, I’m only giving it 2 stars, as it pales SO MUCH to the novel by Nabakov (and even the crappy Jeremy Irons remake from Showtime)!

[Scarlette Blair · Rating 5 out of 5]

Terrible book that was wonderful to read.

[Courtney Bassett · Rating 2 out of 5]

More parody than adaptation.

[Jenny Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a different kind of book I have ever read.I was just randomly searching a book and I found it.It was amazing.Great book!!!!!