
There are 2 components to this book that radically affected me, the writing and the subject matter.
The Writing
The story is a retrospective from...from...from where? What? Prison. Ostensibly. And yet, there hasn’t been a trial yet--no judgement. Nabakov tantalizes you, “ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” to pass judgement on Humbert Humbert yourself. Are you willing? Or will you just turn your head, wincing?
I have never read another book written quite like Lolita. The writing has depth, layer upon layer, strata against strata, texture among texture, breathless, eloquent, exacting, alluring, inventive, sexy, pleading, conceited, lurid, savory, languid, and slyly self-deprecating. The author is flagrant, unapologetic, a dandy even and he has absolute command of the English and French and Latin language. He invents words. He hyphenates them. He nymphorizes them. It’s a gamboling and frolicking story in the rarefied air of an unrestrained, unapologetic and unadulterated polyhistoric writer. He whiffles the writing in so many little stylistic flourishes. He writes sentences and paragraphs in ways that I would never have guessed to try. It’s insanely periodic writing; I grab my head akimbo in pure awe of the sentences. It’s subtle and raw at the same time; it’s pure. Pure, like what happens in your neighborhood behind closed doors, just before an arrest. He incorporates a dry, brittle sense of humor--even a bit of sass. He taunts the reader to follow. He dares the reader to like and enjoy Humbert Humbert. He pokes you in the eye. He scandalizes you, but with a pen that is at once brutal and sensitive, but always careful. There are echoes of Joyce and Poe.
The Subject
Lolita is supposed to be shocking, revolting even, many people not able to finish it. Titillating, serious fiction about pedophilia is the clear edge of the literary envelope, something banned in many different communities, even today.
This 300+ page book chronicles a crime against a minor. Nabakov makes this an even more difficult sexual arrangement for his readers to contemplate, because the 12 year old is an eager, compliant and willing partner to the crime.
Enter Humbert Humbert. He suffers an atavistic urge to procreate with young nymphets. This is a social problem driven and turbocharged by the midbrain. He understands (his cortex understands) that the culture of the late 1940s and early 1950s find this taboo and perverse, definitely criminal. But our poor Humberto doesn’t care. He reasons with his midbrain, and pleads to us, "the jury." In the not too distant past within our own Western culture, and certainly in modern cultures of tribal peoples, 12 year old girls are ready to mate. Lolita has already menstruated and had sex with a boy her age. In many cultures of the world, Lolita would be given up as a wife in exchange for dowries of cattle, land, political favor. The whole story, then, brings this taboo to a moral question. And its a question that you--modern citizen--find uncomfortable, like I do.
Even more disturbing, Nabakov makes Humby Humberty a caring, loving, protective paternal figure that wishes Lolita the best in life. There is no direct, lewd reference to the act of sex; nothing salacious; nothing pornographic. No, that would be too easy to damn Humbo to the devil. Instead, Nabakov explores the possibility that real love may exist betwain the tween.
And, as much as I feel ashamed for being so taken in by Humby, I was fooled but, believe me, Lolita is a victim and no amount of saddening flashbacks to Humbert's past can change that.
There are 2 version of lolita's movie, one is filmed in 1962 and the other is 1997. When making a film about pedophile and a nymphet you are going to offend someone, The key is not to offend the whole audience. Kubrick's (1962) film cuts out a fair amount of the back story to turn the movie into dark comedy, where's as lyne's (1997) stays true to the story, making the movie much more dramatic.
Not to say that Lolita (1997) is bad. It's a very interesting take on the story and could be great if it was better executed. Its extreme shots shows its lack of commitment to the drama genre and are what ultimately bring down this film. Lolita (1962) is a truly beautiful and original film, so I really recommend you guys to watch Lolita (1962)

Modern art museum - Munich |
It is dangerous and exhilarating. The moment of contact is indescribable, like the crack of illumination that breathes over the horizon at the instant dawn rises.
When he turn his face to me, I feel as if I should hide mine in response, buried in the crook of his elbow, where his cold blood flows so close to the surface. It is too bright a light, too strong a sun. I recoil and retreat ever so slightly into the cave of my feelings that are too dense to decipher. I pick at them and sort then out as a bone collector does. Here is a scapula, my intention to wrap my body around his; here is a calcaneus - my longing to walk beside him; here is a sternum - my desire to give my heart over to him. I sift through my heavy thoughts, feeling the calcium in the ridges of each piece of what draws me to him. But he call me from my sanctuary, and I silently scamper to the doorway, hesitant and hovering. He beckon and I reach out again, hand faintly shaking as it comes close to his smile and the teeth within it.
I say I'm crazy but I try so hard to not sound crazy. I think I want to be crazy so I won't feel bad about not being normal. Or what I perceive to be normal. But is crazy person's perception of normal really worth anything? But then again, perhaps the fact that I even compare myself to a norm means I can't be crazy. Maybe I'm riding the margins, skimming the borders between semi-crazy and crazy-crazy...
The only thing holding me back from the land of returns is the compulsion to fit into society. This will facilitates my facade of normality and restrict the expression of insanity. By pretending to be normal, I can almost convince myself I am, and I can certainly convince the rest of them. Ignorance is my defense. Because without suppressing my swollen mind of self-made complications surely only chaos would ensue.
![]() |
I'm doing charity in my own time, doing activities my own way, that would extend what I have to the less fortunate, or those who needed my help. |
I find happiness in children that with every giggle, laughter, and smile, makes my heart melt and want to be with them more. |
![]() |
It has always been a practice of my family to always lend a helping hand. Up until now that I’ve grown up, I still carry that value that I am truly proud of. |
![]() |
My baby brother & me |
Finally, there is compassion. I'm not sure from whom I picked up on the importance of compassion. It is not an attribute that is particularly encouraged in my family. Perhaps it is based upon a collection of experiences, wherein I was treated with unexpected kindness or generosity. Perhaps it is merely a projection of my own frailty, a need to feel that the universe will extend forgiveness for my failures, because I will surely fall to be strong and loyal when I am called upon to be both. Regardless, though listed last, I think compassion is the most important of the three qualities to which I aspire, because it is the most difficult. I sit here, claiming my heart aches for this or that, but I refuse to do anything about it. Compassion entails discomfort and pain, and I abhor both to such an embarrassing degree, I fear I will always be deficient in this regard.

She's the one who likes standing on a moving bus or going into a library and using her outdoor voices. When she go over to the dark side she always bring cookies and tea. Sometimes when she's really wild and crazy, she'll even bite into a piece of fruit without giving it a good rinse first.
Does it taste sweeter? You bet your sweet ass it does. She believes one of the most courageous acts you can do it think out loud. She does it often. Sometimes she does it here. With her own words.
To her, words are sacred as they are profane. Each word is a small story, a thicket of meaning. Words are such sacred objects to her. With words she explore all subject that cross her strange and dark mind from herself to madness, hope, memories, childhood, regret, courage, fear, nature, love, sex, reading, writing, life or what drifts through her cerebral cortex on any random morning or afternoon.
Mostly with cookies and a cup of tea.
He gets excited, when in his drunken wisdom, thinks he knows what it was. But then, clumsily trips over some careless words that were left on the doorstep. He drops the glass and it shatters, leaving wet stains which could be confused for tears.
It's alright because similar to him, it's part of n interchangeable set. We can always buy more at the shop, if the store runs out, they can always order more from the factory. They build them on site, in their workshop.
Looking someone eye to eye take a lot more effort. And time. Trying to relate not really means understanding someone else; it also means sharing who you are. This kind of give and take - not simply taking, is a measure of true inner strength. It show that we are comfortable with who we are; or at least, ourselves. Dominating makes us feel bigger, but relating is what truly makes someone a bigger, and stronger person.