How real you want a story can feel? Nabokov wrote Humbert as isn't just telling a story, he's building a legal and moral defense with beautiful, poetic, and persuasive language to charm the reader and i must say he's very good at it. It’s a morally challenging, psychologically intense, linguistically stunning read. That tension is the entire magic. Some people think “this book is brilliantly written” = “I support Humbert,” which is like saying people who admire Breaking Bad’s storytelling want to cook meth. No, we just admire craft.

7,5/10 - 3,75/5 good book but didn't make me love it. This is such an unique book, that I have to approach and review it differently than I usually do. It took me almost exactly a month to finish it and this was my second try. I'm glad it's finally done. Anyone who comes out of this claiming that this is pedo porn or erotica either didn't really read the book, sorry to say, doesn't have good reading comprehension or has to sit down and think about how they view children. Because this in no way or form endorses HHs actions. HH is the villain of the story and while he is the protagonist it's pretty clear that he isn't the hero. <spoiler> Ultimately the book doesn't talk that much about pedophilia at all. It's a look into HHs mind and his pedophilia is only part of it. He is a morbidly fascinating and humorous but also disgusting creature. Not only towards Dolly but towards all the people in his life. After much thought and reading some interpretations I like the conclusion that the HHs crime isn't actually his (practiced) pedophilia but his dehumanization of Dolly. I agree with that. But I also think that was only possible because she was a child, because dehumanization is the only way you can “practice pedophilia”. Rape in itself is dehumanizing and you cannot have sex with a child without raping it, thereby dehumanizing it. HHs vision of the nymphet in itself is dehumanizing already, as he projects his desire onto probably regular children. Or even if they are not “regular”, they cannot be who he imagines them to be. HH in the book acts as a spectator, a voyeur of his own life and the people around him. He dehumanizes all the people around them, ridicules them, gives them silly, degrading names, doesn't care about whether they did or didn't say something he attributes to them and plainly gives them a role to play in the act that is his life. Dolly is an exaggeration of that, because it cannot happen in any other way (since she is a child) and because she is the subject of HHs desire and attention. From the start (of meeting her) he sees something in her and abuses her image and existence to fuel his perversions. When he gets the chance to finally rape her, he does and constricts her to two years confined with him, to be bribed and threatened and constantly raped. The stealing of her youth wasn't the crime, it was the confinement and stealing of her life in time and in crippling her development and future. This he did by abusing her helplessness and naiveté. HH is interesting because on one hand he constantly mentions what a horrible person he is but also shifts the focus completely away from his victim, Dolly, and thereby conceals the effect of his crime. And even though he views himself as the villain he often claims Dolly to be a manipulator and himself to actually be good man, especially on how he prides himself for not raping her sooner or how he tried to be a good father. In a way, even him recognizing that he is a villain and abused Dolly was an act, another way to dehumanize her and to project his vision of a crime and victim onto their situation. Only by reading further and through the lines you see the cracks in his illusion and self portrayal. When he gets an orgasm by playing with her knees he prides himself on not having tainted her innocence. When he rapes her, he paints it as if she initiated, which she maybe even did in the way of not understanding what was happening, but then a mere chapter later betrays this portrayal by having her shout at him that he raped her. It's unclear if she understood the claim, if things happened he way HH described them or if they happened totally differently. I tend to say the first, I think HH is a unreliable narrator in the way that he does describe things that really happened but he views them through a subjective lens that is very far from the truth and that he leaves out things that don't fit into his vision. E.g. he mentions offhandedly that he “loved her multiple times” after said first rape, which to me implies that maybe that first time was “on her accord” (I want to emphasize that children cannot give real consent) but I doubt that what Dolly viewed as a secret teenager ritual, “sex”, entailed multiple rounds which probably were painful as well, given HHs age and uh, passion. HH describes this year where they travel around as a paradise with some bad moments. Those bad moments are Dolly having a temper or being demanding. They are NOT how she doesn't want to engage in sexual activity and how he has to bribe her and blackmail her (threatening her with legal problems) to let him do it. Her refusal and disgust is only slightly mentioned because HH simply doesn't care about it. Only by paying attention to those cracks in the facade he puts up we learn (part) of the truth. When they get to Beardsley HH forbids her from having male friends, is controlling and continues on raping her. I'll never forget the scene where he mentions someone asking him if a cat scratched him - implying Dolly put up a lot or resistance. We don't know Dollys perspective and it's really difficult to discern between the reality and HHs portrayal of her. Not that it really matters. Even if Dolly really used the situation to get presents, even if she was manipulative and tried to seduce other men she still was being abused and was a child who needed someone to take care of her. What also really struck me was Charlotte and how she treated Dolly. It explains why Dolly would be drawn to HH, as an adult person who was showing her affection. The worst thing was how Charlotte seemed to blame Dolly and and wanted to punish her for HHs attraction to her. Sadly that is a very real occurrence. I think the best and most important chapter in this regard is chapter 32 when HHs vision shatters and he admits the reality. After seeing Lolita in her truth, 17, married and pregnant, no longer a nymphet, he acknowledges that throughout the time they spend together he didn't know anything about her (thereby admitting he was projecting his vision onto her) and her feelings. He admits to having neglected her emotional needs and having destroyed her life. When Dolly escaped she was shortly about to stop being a Nymphet and HH was grieving that. Despite that he was obsessed on getting her back and especially getting revenge. Why was he chasing her? Even years later. For some reason HH was obsessed with her (no I refuse seeing it as love like he said), even after he saw her no longer being a Nymphet. He even asked her to come with him. I guess I expected him to be completely disillusioned and the shattering of his vision to be more… directed towards Dolly? Not as in harming her, but him being disgusted and distraught by her “adult” form. But the opposite seems to be the case. And then he goes and kills Q. I guess that makes sense, given how he blames him for taking Dolly away and destroying HHs “perfect life”. That last chapter was… cathartic in a way. It was a bit annoying because it took so long but it was also melancholic in a way, seeing HH break down so badly. The repeated attempts at killing Q, how Q doesn't take him seriously and then after finishing it his friends joke about HHs admission to murdering Q. And then Q comes down the stairs, only now finally dying for real. That whole scene feels like a trippy nightmare. Some people interpret it as not being real, saying that after Dolly disappeared it's all HHs imagination. So the chase after Dolly, Rita, finding Dolly and killing Q didn't happen in this interpretation. I do kind of like it since there are some things I don't like about those final chapters. Like what is Rita supposed to do? And Dolly calling HH a good father. Or the chase where Q supposedly is mocking HH. And those chapters are very in line with HHs character. He would want and expect the “kidnapper” to mock him and give him hints, while I think that definitely wouldn't be the case. Whether it's all in HHs imagination or not, I don't think Q wanted HH to find him and frankly didn't care about HH. But HH would want that. I think he would fabricate this chase to be that way to feed his ego. The “hints” simply are too much like HH and his humor. Rita is a bit pointless, just another woman that HH carried around and who loved him, again feeding his ego. This would serve him to better his (self-)image. It would also fit HHs expectations that Dolly ended up in poverty and pregnant at 17, he was constantly saying that he was horrible. It would also explain why he still “loved” Dolly and why she told him he was a good father. The killing of Q also mirrors some dreams HH had and has some inconsistencies (e.g. doors being open even though HH closed them). Like i said, it just feels like a trippy nightmare. But I think it makes sense for all of that to be real as well. And it doesn't really matter, does it? Whether it's all fictional or not, HH is breaking down and finally seeing Dolly as a human being and not a doll (huh) to project his fantasy on. </spoiler> I honestly don't know where I stand with this book. The writing is really good and I like its cynical tone. HH is a fascinating protagonist and his way of walking through life and looking at people (not just children) is incredibly interesting to witness. But he can also get annoying when he talks for forever. And I have to admit that once the middle part simply didn't catch my attention as much. It was just so so much HH and the novelty of his mind was kind of gone, just annoying me. Then there were soooo many references. To books, poems, pop culture and so many French sentences. My edition had footnotes and those were around 100 pages of the book. At one point I stopped reading them becasue there were so many but one day I plan on going back and reading it in it's entirety. But those references really got annoying at some point. But I kind of feel like that was my problem and not really the book's? Like I wanted to finish the book and was bored by it but it wasn't bad, it fitted the book. Most things I didn't like, I feel the same about. *I* didn't like them, but they were needed in the book. I don't think it's a perfect book. But I liked it, in a way. It's a classic for a reason.

A masterpiece — “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.” Enough said.

☀️☀️☀️☀️☁️ Natürlich wiederliche Geschichte über pädophilen Erwachsenen und die 12jährige Lolita. Aber nach anfäglichem Ekel is es einfach nurnoch interessant. Humbert Humbert sah für mich aus wie Lars Eidinger. Anfangs hat der Schreibstil mich gestört aber sobald man Humbert Humbert als Person versteht, verstärkt diese metaphorische, auschweifende und teils extrem ünnötige Erzählweise einfach dieses Bild vom schrulligen Schriftstellers der komplett in seiner eigenen Welt lebt. Für ihn scheint es auch nicht verwerflich was er mit seiner „Nymphette“ Lolita treibt. Gegen Ende wünscht man sich mal Lolita‘s Sichtweise zu sehen, was sie denkt und plant, die natürlich ganz anders aussähe. Das Ende war seltsam ich hab nicht alles verstanden, aber immernoch ein sehr guter Klassiker