Vladimir Nabokov Books

I read this book when I had my military training. I must admit that it really gave me much fun and I found fantastic items in those not so famous Nabokov novels such as Mary that I had not seen before. But to most expertised Nabokovians it provides less information than it should have.

These days, biographies seem to be reaching new extremes at both ends of the "length spectrum." At the long end we have all those exhaustive multi-volume essays on political figures and the literary life; at the short end has stood the compact line of Penguin Brief Lives books that cover everyone from Saint Augustine to Elvis Presley.

Now comes Overlook Press with the second entry in its Overlook Brief Lives series --- thin volumes loaded with pictures and text not much longer than an ambitious New Yorker profile. The first of these dealt with Samuel Beckett. Now comes a similar effort, devoted to Vladimir Nabokov and written by Jane Grayson, a British academic and Nabokov specialist.

Nabokov, who died in 1977 at the age of 78, makes a fascinating subject. Most general readers remember him best as the author of LOLITA, that literary sensation of the late 1950s whose title has become a lower-case noun in our dictionaries. But Nabokov also wrote several other estimable novels too, in addition to many short stories, poems, essays, translations and literary criticism (much of it in The New Yorker). He was also an expert on butterflies, a master chess player, the constructor of the first Russian crossword puzzle and the translator of ALICE IN WONDERLAND into Russian.

He inherited a fortune and a vast estate at the age of 17, but was forced to leave Russia because of his father's political activities at the time of the 1917 revolution. He matriculated at Trinity College, Cambridge (England) and lived and wrote in Germany until the advent of Hitler. This forced him to seek a livelihood in the U.S., where he practically had to start his life over again --- both personally and professionally.

LOLITA was published in Paris in 1955 but was greeted "in silence," until Graham Greene singled it out for high praise in a London newspaper. Publication in America three years later gained Nabokov instant notoriety on this side of the Atlantic. His tale of sexual predator ...was condemned as highfalutin pornography. I was so they did not print it.

Nabokov returned to Europe in 1958 and lived out his life in Switzerland. The biggest event during this time was a sulfurous literary feud with Edmund Wilson, who had been a close friend during his years in America.

Jane Grayson covers all of this ground quickly and efficiently in this short biography. Understandably there is little development of themes or in-depth literary criticism here, but the basic facts are laid out concisely. She stresses Nabokov's aloofness from political action and his butterfly-like agility in crossing borders between languages, literary styles and nations alike. Her own style is eminently readable and obvious errors are few (she places the rise of McCarthyism in the "late 1940s" although it did not begin until 1950 and a picture caption tells us that Boris Pasternak was "pressurized" into refusing the Nobel Prize for Literature). The pictures are mostly interesting, though there are a few that are only vaguely relevant to Nabokov's career.

Vladimir Nabokov was a colorful character, a brilliant teacher and a masterful writer in two languages. LOLITA put him on the literary map, but his other novels (PNIN, PALE FIRE, ADA) are worth reading too. If this little book leads more readers to them, it will have served a useful purpose.

--- Reviewed by Robert Finn

This casebook looks at Nabokov's controversial novel from different angles based on diverse critical schools. It comments on the narrator,on the Americanisation of Humbert Humbert, on the rhetorical tools used to capture the reader and illuminates the way readers have reacted to this wonderful novel. It also takes into account the films on Lolita and discusses them in relation to the book. All in all it is an important aid in deciphering the rhetorics of Nabokov's fiction and glimpsing what it is that makes him such an important author.

After becoming involved with a production of Jekyll & Hyde, the musical, in the local community theater, I decided to re-read the original novel by Stevenson. In the book Jekyll/Hyde admits that he had no honorable motive for the transformations (other than curiosity). In the musical he is experimenting to develop a treatment or cure for his father's mental illness. Also, in the book there are no major female characters like the fiancee, dance hall girl(s), etc. If you are familiar with the Broadway show the original book might be a disappointment, but read it anyway. It is a classic and the commentaries at the beginning and the end of the edition for sale on Amazon.com effectively put the cultural signifcance of the plot of the novel into perspective.

A wonderfully crafted masterpiece, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the must-reads of all time. This beautiful piece of literature appeals to many different senses and emotions. It is inspiring to see a plot so innovative and novel in the way the story presents itself. This story is just absolutely amazing.

Written like an investigative report, Robert Louis Stevenson slow guides the reader through the story. The story progresses, not to slow and not to fast, but just enough to get the story moving and not lose the reader's interest. The story tells of how a Dr. Jekyll is able to separate the evil in him into an entirely different form- Mr. Hyde. I love how the reader is always anticipating what happens next as the reader is fed clues throughout the story, but the answer remains dangling and untouched- tempting readers to continue and read. The story is well-constructed in that readers can also see into the view of other characters and not just Mr. Utterson himself.

Stevenson's portrayal of the good and bad side of man is wonderful. I have never seen a book where the author portrays the evil in a person by an entirely different character. The different transformations and continual action scenes in the book kept me on my toes. The mood and atmosphere is set by Stevenson's vivid description of the environment. Because Stevenson's style is not complex for his sentences are really direct and straightforward, it was not burdensome to read the book.

I guarantee if you read this book, you will not be disappointed. It is a light and easy read, which you can probably finish in no time at all because Stevenson's writing makes you glued to the book- always anticipating the next action. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an absolute must-read.

A scientist events a formula that can bring out man's dual nature. His opposite number, in this case, is somewhat of super-powered wanton, who does whatever he likes. Free of the social restraint of his other half, he happily commits any crime that comes to mind as he feels like it.

Eventually, investigators begin to suspect something, and a hunt is on.

Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde is one of the most popular horror classics.
It is one of my favorites. Dr. Jekyll's experiment goes fowl.

A quick, enjoyable read, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde provides something of a reflection on the end of the spirit of alchemy which strove to connect the physical and the metaphysical through an almost-mystical mingling of the sciences with spirituality. Without cutting into the deeper considerations of philosophical schools, it is without question that humanity exists as a combination of various good and wicked impulses, although the promptings of such impulses will forever be relegated to the reflections of theologians and philosophers. In any case, the story of Henry Jekyll and his desire to remove from himself the inherent weakness of our somewhat duplicitous, multi-faced nature is the story of each member of humanity. It is our combined quest to always aim higher and to overcome those weakness which chain us to the lower strata of the waking world.

However, Henry Jekyll's story is also that of each fallen man who often attempts to ameliorate his condition by using his own power. It is also the story of a society which believes that it is within its collective power to create the world anew in holiness without the internal rectitude necessary to affect true change. His isolated alchemical processes expose him to the dubious character of Edward Hyde, an apparition of his dark, untamed humanity, which arrives on the scene precisely as Jekyll attempts to create himself anew by his own strength alone. The story of the good doctor's fall into a fancy for this darker side of himself is a fine example of the destruction of spirit which comes when the individual believes himself to be the sole master of his own amelioration. His own individualistic tendencies and their ultimate end are a continuous warning to all of humanity, for the same character flaws which are expressed with such noble intentions in Dr. Jekyll's character are those same well-intentioned hopes of all humanity which often lead to our own power-derived slip into the bowels of hell.

"Lolita", the novel, is a sylistic masterpiece, similar to "Madame Bovary". But Edward Albee has slaughtered it by leaving out the fate (being tried and sentenced for murder)of Humbert Humbert. You might say that whereas Nobokov has humor, Albee simply attempts to shock. Well, he fails on several counts.

For some reason, on the Amazon site section devoted to the Edward Albee stage adaptation of Lolita, there are only the same customer reviews and editorial reviews that are found on the site section devoted to Nabokov's novel. Someone at Amazon needs to notice that the Albee play and the Nabokov novel are separate works, and that they should not be mixed up in this way.

The title and author make it look like the novel. However, this item is a play by Edward Albee, based on the work by Nabokov. You can see this if you read the full review. I am rating this a "1" because I wanted the book, not the play. However, the play maybe fantastic, so if a play is what you really want, disregard my review.

I like to think of myself as open minded and when i first heard about lolita in an english class i decided to read it, before i'd had chance to read it i noticed that Adrian Lynnes version was on TV and i decided to watch it, i actually remmeber thinking "thats not too bad" but of course the girl involved was 14 going on 15, she was at an age that she could be sexually aware and sexually active. then i came to read this novel and as hard as i tried i just couldn't understand it, she was 12, how could a 12 year old girl seduce a grown man? To me an innocent 12 year old girl would only just beginning to coy with the idea of holding hands with another little boy. And because of this i just couldn't enjoy reading the novel, it didn't seem real, i could just about begin to understand humberts side but the 12 year old lolita just got to me, i just found it to unbelieveable that a girl of that age would be capable of doing any of things she is described to have done in 'Lolita'.

Having said that i'm still awarding a high score because of language, the style , the potrayal of Humberts character and every other aspect of this novel except lolitas age.

I would reccomend reading Lolita but only if you can get your heard around the idea of her and him (obviously no one could understand the attraction)and you are not too easy to judge a person or let your morals jump in the way of your judgement (although some may say thats exactly what i did)

Read it with an open mind and make yourself aware of the content so you can be more understanding, (maybe??) and you will find lolita a truly brilliant novel, one of the very best the 20th century has to offer.

Yes, H.H. is sick. Yes, he is perverse. Yes, at times he is sadistic. Yes, he is ignoble, a monster, and all other horrible things that should be jailed, put away, and never allowed to see the light of day.

But those who read this novel without finding the love story contained within have allowed themselves to entirely miss the point. And so have those who claim it to be "dirty" or "exploitave" of children should read the book PERIOD. And those who feel this novel is misogynistic are conveniently forgetting that H. H. is contemptuous of ALL of the characters within, including himself and his relations, regardless of race, creed, OR GENDER. Oh, of course, he dwells on certain women, but that's because the people he spends the most time with in this novel ARE women. And he certainly dedicates quite a bit of time to denigrating Quilty; let us not forget that!

We must first also realize that Lolita is not only about a middle-aged man's decidedly unhealthy obsession with a teenaged girl. Lolita is also the tale of two (stylized and heavily stereotyped, of course) civilizations colliding, the "hypercivilized" Europe and the "barbaric" America (postwar). It is also a fable about the conflict between the overly analytical mind and the entirely emotional one (people who have studied psychology can probably elucidate on this better than I can). It is a satire on Freudian psychoanalysis. Finally, it is the result of one man's remarkable love for a language, which I think that no one can refute, no matter how appalled they are at the novel's content.

Where is the love in the midst of all this horror, you ask? Perhaps those who cannot find it have never experienced the terrible things that people do in spite of and BECAUSE of the strength of their love. Humbert's sexual addiction to Delores Haze is nothing less than an animalistic need to possess the object of his obsession in the most obvious way. Humbert's patient attempts to foster his captive's skills (whether they be tennis, literature, etc.) reveals a desire to cultivate, as you will, what he sees as a supremely fertile field.

And the sadism, I feel, was introduced for numerous reasons. Of course, it was to show just how horrible a person can by taking pleasure in the pain of another. But Nabokov also relayed the agony that Humbert experienced while BEING sadistic, while hurting the one thing that mattered most to him. Another significant, albeit rather twist, sign of love.

Of course Dolores' thoughts and feelings matter to Humbert, but one must remember that he is bent on possessing her. Therefore, her opinions on life and the world at large matter not a whit to him; he is only interested in what she thinks of him, but he is also able to ignore that part of her because of he is battling to possess the rest of her, and because of his "obvious" superiority to her, being a cultivated and educated adult European and all.

And of course, the most obvious overture made to Venus within this novel is the transference of Humbert's life (i.e., his assets) to Dolores. Of course, he could have blackmailed her, tried to buy her favors, kidnapped her for a second time, etc. But no, he cedes over all that is his to her and leaves. Granted, it is a small reparation, but it is all he can do by that point. It is the closest he can come to giving her back the life that he stole (her own, not Charlotte's) away and casually tore apart, and it is his attempt at absolution, not only for himself, but for her sake (read the last few paragraphs if you're shaking your head). It is this action that thinly separates H. H. from the everyday male monsters within our society.

Of course, I've focused on defending the love story within from H. H.'s point of view, since there is none from the character of Dolores. I will not go into Dolores' blatantly whorelike nature, which granted, was partially due to H. H.'s influence, but was clearly present BEFORE any contact was made between them. I will skip over (because of space) Charlotte's utter disregard and contempt for her own daughter

What's the upshot of all this? Well, first of all, I would like to make a few admissions. Yes, I am male. No, I am no professor of English, of literature, or of anything. But I do love the English language, I do love wonderful writing, I abhor H. H., and I find his actions within repulsive, horrifying, and warranting the harshest punishment available. I think spouse abusers should be beaten to a pulp and that rapists should be castrated. I don't think this is an appropriate book for most children and some adults.

And I am certainly no pedophile.

The upshot is that I firmly believe that Lolita is one of the finest and horrifying novels in the English language. And I, for one, feel that it is clearly a love story. And I'm not alone; I have many women friends and colleagues who have expressed similar opinions to mine, some of whom are English literature teachers, all of whom are strong and independent women (feminists, if we must use that silly and degrading label).

Those who cannot see the horrible and tragic drama of love in these pages should step off of their soapboxes, take closer look, and recognize this text for what it's for. Lolita, unlike such trash as Romeo & Juliet, is work of art, of literature. Romeo & Juliet is bad teenage hormones. Lolita is a labor of love.

Ok, so the chapter headings are a bit tongue in cheek: "Supple Girls," "Lolita as Demon", "Little Lotte and the Fuhrer," etc. Nevertheless, "Two Lolitas" is essential reading for anyone who has fallen madly, madly, madly in love with Nabokov's book. Or for anyone interested in Nabokov or "Lolita" studies, which I've heard spoken of in rumors. The book traces the history of Heinz von Lichberg's short story, "Lolita" which Nabokov's far more notorious novel was inspired by...or was ripped off by.
The author compares passages from both of the "two Lolitas" as well as other works by Nabokov that could have been influenced by Lichberg. Part biography, part comparative literature, part European history, somewhere in penumbra of who did or did not know what, and the mystery that is inspiration's origins, "two Lolitas" raises some interesting questions. First of all, does Lichberg's story exonerate Nabokov, who has oft been accused of a pervert writing a semi-autobiographical novel? Or does it lend "Lolita" itself (herself?) a mythic quality...the quality that would help explain the tale's immense success (not merely because of Nabokov's illustrious writing...he did, after all, write many other far less famous novels) as well as the idea that perhaps, nobody "owns" Lolita. As you read more and more of this excellent examination of history and two interesting personalities, it begins to seem as if "Lolita" is in fact, a mythic narrative, full of archetypes and symbolism, for the 20th and 21st century. As the author says near the end, "This is no tall tale, but a story with namy unresolved qustions-for the time being and possibly forever."
The book also contains two stories by Lichberg in the appendix, which is extremely helpful for most readers who will probably not be familiar with his work.

Not very surprising that people would seek to gain financial success through the malignation of perhaps the greatest American author of the 20th century. Reprehensible.

The book will be of interest to Nabokov fans, illustrating a relatively little known period of his productivity. The drawback is that considerable portions will be useless unless you know some Russian, as there are extensive quotes in the latter. Although this seems awkwardly done. The quotes are not in Cyrillic, but are Romanised. Which I guess aids the pronunciation, if you do not know written Russian. But this is a meaningless combination.

Otherwise, you can get an appreciation of what are rather obscure writings. All that were overshadowed by his later seminal works. There is early talent discernible in the book's excerpts, suggesting a promise that was later achieved.

I'm not axactly what you'd call a Nabokovian scholar; I read the book as part of a research paper. Nabokov and the Novel is extremely complicated to understand. Pifer is attempting to answer critics' attacks on Nabokov as far as style goes. (manipulating plots and characters, etc.) Her focus throughout the book is that Nabokov had a radical sense of what "real" is, and that affects all his novels. Read it to find out what it is 'cause it's highly philosophical, and I won't even attempt to summarize it! What I thought it lacked was a focus on what makes people love Nabokov in the first place: his unbelievable command of the English language, and his beautiful lyrical prose. I'm not in a position to refute Pifer's claims, but to me, Nabokov seems much more interested in saying what he wants to say than in his plot (and I don't- nor anyone I've spoken to about it find that "offensive" at all). The ideas she introduces may not be that original, but it was very interesting to see how she ties it all up in a neat bundle using so many examples from Nabokov's English and Russian novels.

nabokov, while being a superb writer of fiction, isn't the best poet there is. i'm not saying the poems in this collection were bad, just nothing spectacular. (the chess problems on the other hand were a joke, way too easy)

which is a shame because, like many other fiction writers, he found great dissapointment in the world not viewing him as a poet. but, once again, it's because he didn't produce that many stellar poems. it was interesting to see a well-known translator translate his own work. it has to bring something new to the world of translation. i wonder if it has any special problems...

This book is great. Wood is an absolute genius.

I really feel that the first review I wrote was not specific enough, and for that I do apologize. As a long time rereader of Nabokov, the thing that MOST glaringly turned me off about Mr. Wood's book was his propensity to incorrectly refer to the original Nabokov text. (Example: On page 208 Wood writes, "...and the word [incest] hovers in the children's Scrabble games (insect, scient, incest)..." The incest, scient, nicest word play is on page 85 of the Vintage editon. Ada is playing anagrams with her governess on pencil and paper. The Scrabble game enters the novel on page 223 and the ensuing game makes no reference to incest. I know it seems a nitpicky criticism, but the detail is all.) I opened with his chapter on Ada, as that was the book I was most involved in, and was immediately turned off by his lack of precision. I skimmed some of his critique of the short stories, but then gave up on the whole thing. When writing the previous review, I believed that any attentive Nabokovian would agree with me, but it appears I have erred, and possibly offended. I must admit that even Mr. Boyd gave Mr. Wood a certain amount of credit as a scholar in the opening of his most recent book. So...so I've reread the Ada chapter and looked at a few other chapters and I still can't bring my self to think that's this book is good for much more than helping me solidify my opinions of VN's work by refuting about 95% of Wood's arguements. Apologies for my too strong condemnation, it was ridiculous, but I still do not like this book.

I've been reading Nabokov for about 27 years, and re-reading it just as long, including almost every novel, short story, essay, and criticism I could find, as well as the Boyd two-volume biography, to which the previous customer referred. While Boyd's work is thorough and might be called "definitive," Wood's book is purposefully limited in scope. However, I certainly found in-depth analyses of the points and themes Wood chose. The subtitle of this book should also inform the prospective reader, i.e., "Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction." The book is made up of relatively short (the entire paperback is only about 250 pages), somewhat overlapping critical analyses regarding a specific point in six of VN's novels, two short stories, and his translation of EUGENE ONEGIN. Perhaps a few examples from the table of contents will help clarify: 3. The Cruelty of Chance: BEND SINISTER, 'Signs and Symbols', 'The Vane Sisters'; 4. The World Without Us: SPEAK MEMORY; 5. The Language of LOLITA; 8. The Demons of our Pity: PALE FIRE; 9. Happy Families: ADA. I have underlined so much of Wood's text and written so much in the margins that it is difficult to pick out a single example that might illuminate Wood's approach. But here's a try: In "The Language of LOLITA" Wood approaches the novel from Nabokov's games and play with language, and uses them to go into the many oppositions, ironies, and mysteries that abound in the book. For example, Wood cites the passage, "No matter, even if those eyes of hers would swell to myopic fish, and her nipples swell and crack...even then I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of your dear wan face, at the mere sound of your raucous voice, my Lolita." Wood notes the apposition of "wan" and "raucous"; and then goes on with his analysis (within the context of this and other previous essays), "[these] are the notations of desperate love, and Humbert writes here the purest, most precise Nabokovian prose. What we question is not [Humbert's] passion but his supposed new respectability. The whole of [LOLITA] has been asking us to trust Humbert's obsession, even as we are repelled by it. We can't leave off trusting it now...[when the obsession] is so lyrically mourning what it claims it won't miss." Wood goes on to say that it may not be necessary for us to believe what Humbert believes at the end. "Indeed we may understand his crime more fully if we are sceptical about his repentence and altered love...It is easy to confess...and it may actually be to Humbert's credit that he is not entirely convincing in this line, in spite of his ambitions." These critical essays clearly are not meant to go into deep and thorough dissertations of a given work by Nabokov. Rather, I feel Wood is trying to give an overview of Nabokov by examining these particular works, each with a different, purposefully limited thesis. Wood may offend some Nabokov lovers perhaps because he does point out specific places in which he finds VN's prose and/or approach lacking or perhaps too gamesy for its own good. On the whole, however, I found Wood's book an excellent example of literary criticism "dedicated to the appreciation and interpretation of a single author, addressed to the general reader," to quote David Lodge from THE NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW OF BOOKS. I am also in agreement with John Banville of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, who writes, "[Wood's book] offers us an entirely new set of insights into the work of a modern master." I feel this book is a MUST for the reader who is, say, on his/her second or third book by Nabokov. Yet I would also recommend MAGICIAN'S DOUBTS to anyone who is thoroughly familiar with Nabokov's life, his work, and its criticism for a fresh, cogent look at some of VN's work. I found it an especially good book for aspiring writers, as Wood dissects many of Nabokov's techniques, such as the way VN uses inversion, the use of connected references to accrue power, surface detail to reveal the object's depth, and how VN maintains the mystery in his work without losing its narrative drive. For myself, I most enjoyed reading THE MAGICIAN'S DOUBTS with the subject of each chapter (i.e., the particular Nabokov work) alongside, re-examining with delight the points and overall themes Wood expresses so elegantly in this compact but dense-with-insight book.