I'm having a really difficult time reading this book

[Joshua]

Does anyone else find this book extremely difficult to follow or am I just a complete idiot? Its very well written but for some reason I'm having the hardest time getting through it. The subject manner is disturbing and its very elaborate writing. Anyone have trouble with this?

[Mike]

Just take your time and soak it up slowly

[Jennifer]

I started reading it for the first time last summer. Thank God I'm not the only one! I found the writing style beautiful and unique, but I also had a hard time getting through it. A lot of the time I wasn't really sure what was happening, even though I understood the general plot.

I think the best thing is maybe put the book down and come back in a few years. That's what I'm going to do probably. Good luck :)

[Chris]

So my friends from my book club and my wife had trouble with the book too.

I like to give the following 2 tips to people that have trouble with the book:

1. Read Lolita like Humbert is speaking to you directly. If you are trying to read it like a "normal" book (Lord of the Rings, Neuromancer, etc.) you will have a hard time following along. Remember, what we know as "Lolita" is Humbert's meta-fictional memoirs and is written as such so it will not read or flow like a normal book.

2. I find that people focus far too much on the "difficult subject matter." This is a work of fiction and is in no way based on actual events of any kind. No little girls were harmed in the making of this novel so don't focus so much on it. Lolita is a modernist novel and, like other modernist novels, is an exploration in humanity and an exploration in the range of emotions that a book an evoke. This emotional exploration should be what you are focusing on.

Hang in there. Don't get hung up on the "subject matter" of a fictional character. Give yourself up to the book and focus on what you feel throughout the book, particularly how you feel about Humbert and Lolita individually, and how it evolves.

[Scott]

I found the prose a bit of a challenge but once I got into it I didn't have trouble following. As Mike said, take your time with it. There is an annotated version out there that might help.

[Feliks]

I too, dislike the writing style. Its overly-embroidered, overly-artful. Deliberately drawing attention to him, his vocabulary, his fireworks...rather than the story he's supposed to be depicting. It gets in the way. I'd rather he just tell the story much more soberly and much less flouncingly; its as if he can't choose between poetry or prose in this effort.

[Chris]

As a modernist novel, the focus is NOT supposed to be on the story. The focus is SUPPOSED to be on the people, Humbert in particular. Remember, what we know as Lolita is supposed to be Humbert's meta-fictional memoirs and will not read like a traditional story.

[christopher]

i dont think u have to b worried about "not getting it" or really following what is going on w the book as long as u give yourself to the language completely and let urself get caught up in it.

my edition has a note/thing written by nabokov "on a book entitled lolita" which i thought was helpful in understanding this (altho i think u only need to read the first chapter to get this sense)

if u let yourself out of the grasp of the language, if you start to think about other things, if u find yourself not admiring the language for all of its beauty i think u are doing urself a disservice; i cant really give any advice on how to get past this altho reading that first chapter, and really admiring it for what it is might help, or slowing down and just letting yourself get caught up in it.

theres more to reading lolita than just that, to be sure; but the reason why lolita is good, the reason why ppl read it etc. is because of the language, and if u fight against it then i think a lot of the books power/affect will b lost.

[Feliks]

Chris wrote: "As a modernist novel, the focus is NOT supposed to be on the story. The focus is SUPPOSED to be on the people, Humbert in particular ..."

Yes, obviously so. At the simplest level, that is the tilt of the novel. But other 'modern' novels are successfully character-based and yet still do not commit this sin he wallows in, this over-poesy of his writing style. His focus is on his own artsy writing tricks and flourishes--in a way that obstructs both story and character.

[Joshua]

I find it a lot easier to read when I simply focus on Humbert. He's a fascinating character. I find myself sympathizing with Lolita though. I'm more than half way through, so I just have to keep reading I guess.

[Amanda]

While Nabokov isn't American born, I think it is helpful to look at Lolita as an American novel. The focus should be on the characters and how they illustrate a particular perspective on America and Americans. In some sense the story illustrates the great American road trip; in another our country's obsession with youth and wish fulfillment.

[Gary]

Joshua wrote: "Does anyone else find this book extremely difficult to follow or am I just a complete idiot? Its very well written but for some reason I'm having the hardest time getting through it. The subject manner is disturbing and its very elaborate writing. Anyone have trouble with this?"

Some books need to be read more than once. Lolita is very likely one of the densest novels in the English literary canon, so I don't think you should be all that worried about having trouble with it. I've read it six, maybe eight times, and I think I've got a pretty good handle on it now, but that took a while....

There are a few on-line reviews and lectures of the book that might help you get the big picture. Nick Mount is a Canadian English Lit prof. whose lecture on the book is featured in an episode of the CBC program Big Ideas. He does a pretty good job talking about it and Nabokov, though I'm sure he'd himself say this lecture is far from definitive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZz6Aw...

[Chris]

Felkis wrote: "Yes, obviously so. At the simplest level, that is the tilt of the novel. But other 'modern' novels are successfully character-based and yet still do not commit this sin he wallows in, this over-poesy of his writing style. His focus is on his own artsy writing tricks and flourishes--in a way that obstructs both story and character."

"Modern" and modernism (the early-mid 20th century literary movement) are not the same thing. The wikipedia entry for "literary modernism" is pretty informative if you wish to learn about it.

Anyway, I wanted to post the following link. It is to Yale's ENG291 class (The American Novel since 1945 via Yale's "Open Yale") and lectures 5, 6, and 7 are on Lolita. Warning, there are spoilers. If you are still in the process of reading Lolita, stick to just lecture 5.

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291#...

[Gary]

Chris wrote: "Anyway, I wanted to post the following link. It is to Yale's ENG291 class (The American Novel since 1945 via Yale's "Open Yale") and lectures 5, 6, and 7 are on Lolita."

Thanks for the links. Looks like a good series outside the Nabokov stuff too.

[[deleted user]]

i Thought i was just the only one feeling this way. it was hard for me to understand. but somehow i was able to grasp the whole point of the story but have missed the details and the beauty of the words used.

[Feliks]

Chris wrote: ""Modern" and modernism (the early-mid xxxx century literary movement) are not the same thing. The wikipedia entry for "literary modernism" is pretty informative if you wish to learn about it...."

Oh, please. Teach yer grandma to suck eggs, would ye?
All I ask from the internet is that people address my points squarely, geez..

[Sandy]

I wanted to read it, given how well it is written. But I could not get past the content. I gave up.

[[deleted user]]

Feliks wrote: "Chris wrote: ""Modern" and modernism (the early-mid xxxx century literary movement) are not the same thing. The wikipedia entry for "literary modernism" is pretty informative if you wish to learn a..."

He's not wrong though. "Modernist" is a different concept from today's meaning of "modern". It coincides with science being more popular than religion.

I disagree that the writing style obstructs anything. Humbert's character is almost too intelligent for his own good. He brings a weird beauty to paedophilia that makes people squirm. It's rare to have a smartarse character that's likeable, or even tolerable. If you see past his mask of erudition because you want people to think you're cynical or whatever, you miss part of the point of the book.

I do agree that a lot of novels would be better if they had simpler vocabulary, though. Ever read The Scarlet Letter? Ridiculous stuff. Lolita isn't one of those books though, I feel.

[Brian]

Only Norman Mailer is more over rated than Nabokov!

[Rebecca]

I loved Lolita. I thought it was a beautiful story, albeit contentious. However, at 19 years old, and not an English Literature student, it was difficult for me to read because of it's many literary references and allusions. I succumbed to the tendency to get lost in the allure of Nabokov's prose rather than really "get" the references.
Eventually, I do want to give it another shot with the references explained.

[Heather]

I listened to the audio book eleven times (literally eleven times -- I love it that much) before I read it in print. If you get the Jeremy Irons audio book version, I don't think you'll find it difficult to follow at all. Another thing that could help is reading the Annotated Lolita, which has all kinds of footnotes that help with the many French phrases and other foreign language asides.

[Bess]

I found some parts a bit difficult but I found it fairly straightforward to follow, perhaps that's because I watched the film first (not the Jeremy Irons one though)

[Liis]

I started it and never finished... I think reading a book should be enjoyable and I just felt irritated throughout the part that I did read... Probably won't try again, but never say never...

[Andrea]

When I first started it I didn't get what was happening so much because I was so caught up in the language. It's gorgeous, lyrical and funny, but a bit of a show all on its own. After I got used to the language and Humbert's voice, I was able to get into the plot and characters. It's really demented and funny. Lolita is like a Chuck Pahlaniuk novel of its day. Amazing that English was not his native language.

[Andrea]

I disagree that the writing style obstructs anything. Humbert's character is almost too intelligent for his own good. He brings a weird beauty to paedophilia that makes people squirm. It's rare to have a smartarse character that's likeable, or even tolerable.

Yes!

[Pachinko]

Just read this in two sittings - marvellous!

[Anne]

You are not alone. Took me years to read it. I agree with Brian that this book is overrated by a large margin. I can't divorce the content from the style or characters. The book is about child rape for heavens sakes, it isn't beautiful. I much prefered crime and punishment for getting inside the head of a wacked out criminal.

[Kallie]

As said, Lolita is best followed if you imagine Humbert talking to you; hard to forget that voice. Azar Nafisi's take on Lolita (Reading Lolita in Tehran) is worth thinking about, but after you read the novel. She sees Lolita as an exploration of how those with power oppress the powerless. The subject matter is not so disturbing when you think about the many forms this sort of inequality assumes in all societies (all the while pretending to love, to mean well, while self-serving in every move).

[Anthony]

Chris wrote: "So my friends from my book club and my wife had trouble with the book too.

I like to give the following 2 tips to people that have trouble with the book:

1. Read Lolita like Humbert is speaking ..."

well said and good advice

[Karen]

Anne wrote: "You are not alone. Took me years to read it. I agree with Brian that this book is overrated by a large margin. I can't divorce the content from the style or characters. The book is about child rape..."

No, the content isn't beautiful, the writing is. It is not funny laugh out loud, but more darkly humorous and absurd regarding Humbert; the way he sees himself. Haven't read the book in a long time and due for a re-read.

[Pru]

yes! hard time paying attention and can only read a little at time before falling asleep...it's been months and i haven't picked it back up but will eventually try.

[Bobbie]

I too found this difficult to read and took a break halfway through, coming back to it after about six months and managed to finish it. The subject matter was disturbing so that made me feel uncomfortable reading it.

[Karnika]

I pushed myself to read it. It was not difficult to follow although, the story was extremely disturbing. I could not give this one any rating because the writing style is impeccable, but the storyline is very harsh. I could not decide if, I like it for being beautifully written or loath it for the harsh reality of an unspoken social issue.

[Kallie]

Karnika wrote: "I pushed myself to read it. It was not difficult to follow although, the story was extremely disturbing. I could not give this one any rating because the writing style is impeccable, but the storyl..."

Again, I recommend 'Reading Lolita in Tehran' for Nafisi's point of view on why she and her students risked arrest to read the book and meet to discuss its subjects. Living in Iran during the Khomeni regime, where females had scant rights and status, she understood Nabokov's intentions. It's a mistake to identify Nabokov's point of view with that of Humbert, an extremely unreliable narrator, an obsessive and perhaps deranged person who passes for normal. Sound familiar?

[Anne]

There are apparently lots of us in this category. Sarah and Karnika nailed it with 'disturbing'. I was talking to my 20 year old son about disliking war movies and he thinks I am anti-dark themed and only like rainbows and unicorns. Karen might agree. So now I'm on a darkness kick and will venture out and see if I can appreciate something scary. I considered re-reading this book but think I'll go with something gory instead. Maybe I'm already wimping out but I hate to devote so much time to this book when there is other art out there that is dark but does not ignite the disgust instinct.

[Anne]

Thanks Kallie, I have a copy of that book and have been avoiding it. You just handed me my dark book to satisfy my new "appreciate the dark side" kick.

[Scott]

Andrea wrote: "When I first started it I didn't get what was happening so much because I was so caught up in the language. It's gorgeous, lyrical and funny, but a bit of a show all on its own. After I got used to..."

So glad to see someone acknowledge the humor; few people do.

[Steve]

Anne, you want disgusting...look for Haunted

[Karen]

Scott wrote: "Andrea wrote: "When I first started it I didn't get what was happening so much because I was so caught up in the language. It's gorgeous, lyrical and funny, but a bit of a show all on its own. Afte..."


It is funny, especially the way HH describes himself

[Anne]

Agrimorfee thanks. I may have to work my way up to that level of scary. o-O

[Bill (Just a)]

Joshua wrote: "Does anyone else find this book extremely difficult to follow or am I just a complete idiot? Its very well written but for some reason I'm having the hardest time getting through it. The subject ma..."

You are supposed to have trouble with the material in terms of the subject matter. In terms of the language, go for the audible book and listen to it. Jeremy Irons does the reading and he does an outstanding job.

You can get it free with a 30 day trial membership to Audible. And then you can listen as you commute, mow the yard, or whatever.

Here you can listen to a sample...

http://www.audible.com/pd/Students/Lo...

You have to get past the introduction to about 6:30.

[Cathy]

I just finished reading it with a book club, but I am not a literary genius, so my discussion was limited. However, after reading it, I read Reading Lolita in Tehran and it made that reading more enjoyable and yes, the author does a super job at analyzing Lolita! I also watched the two films and began reading Chasing Lolita, a book that goes into detail about the plot and references connections to society pre and post Lolita. I think I will read it again now that I have more of a background and I may enjoy it better. I too found the subject matter disturbing, but I did finish it. I agree, without that language HH wouldn't be HH. Keep with it and let us know if you did finish it Joshua!

[Gary]

Cathy wrote: "owever, after reading it, I read Reading Lolita in Tehran and it made that reading more enjoyable and yes, the author does a super job in analyzing Lolita! I also watched the two films and began reading Chasing Lolita, a book that goes into detail about the plot and references connections to society pre and post Lolita."

Kudos on the extended research and connected reading efforts. That's one of the best ways to get an appreciation of something literary: look at it from different angles and perspectives.

[Cathy]

Gary wrote: "Cathy wrote: "owever, after reading it, I read Reading Lolita in Tehran and it made that reading more enjoyable and yes, the author does a super job in analyzing Lolita! I also watched the two film..."

Thanks!

[Joe]

If you're bothered by how over-the-top the style is, you really don't have any business reading Nabokov. That's kind of his whole thing.

[Laura]

I agree with Chris, it is useful to remember that the narrator is not impartial, because it's Humbert himself. So, naturally, he will give you his version of the story and ignore the rest.

Now, that said... If the subject makes you too uncomfortable, I honestly think that you should not read it. Just close it and forget about it. I don't think that any book is a MUST, unless you have a very strong reason to read it.

[Ed]

It's like a job that when you're finished you have a good feeling of accomplishment. Miss one sentence and you might miss an entire event. For example he manages to slip in almost unnoticed when the two actually have sex for the first time.

Many think the style was intended to be misleading and I wonder about it myself. Having questioned perpetrators of crimes, many of them will tell a gloriously elaborate story consisting of complete lies to cover up their crime.

[Yoana]

i've started reading it about 12-15 times and i've never fully finished it.. Nabokov is a great writer but I find it way too difficult to read that particular novel..

[Stephen]

Amanda wrote: "While Nabokov isn't American born, I think it is helpful to look at Lolita as an American novel. The focus should be on the characters and how they illustrate a particular perspective on America an..."

Spot-on!

[Bill (Just a)]

Ed wrote: "It's like a job that when you're finished you have a good feeling of accomplishment. Miss one sentence and you might miss an entire event. For example he manages to slip in almost unnoticed when th..."

I have given this advice before. This novel is the perfect novel to have read to you. And Jeremy Irons is the perfect person to read it to you. Check out the CD (or MP3) and listen to it. You will be glad you did.