CCHCRC, Day 16

To the woman walking around the office today dressed as Catwoman: What may have been a foolish career choice for Halle Berry is a horrific and terrifying costume choice for you. See you at the gym!

Here’s a joke I made up this morning:

Q: How many Mexicans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Dos. Uno para cambiar el bombilla, y el otro para hacerme un taco. El ha ha ha.

Go show, old chap!, January 3, 2000
Reviewer: richardroeper (Chicago, IL) – See all my reviews
Mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmm! Whenever I see my 12-year-old neighbor, I can’t thank [Creator of Halloween Costume #16] enough for expressing what I feel in my heart! God bless him!

Because you were already sexy nurse last year:



Along with catch-22, the worst book I have ever read., February 29, 2004
Reviewer: J. LIN (Hawaii) – See all my reviews

Before you hate me, realize that hating me is analogous to me hating this book, because some people like me! What i’m trying to say is that some people like this book, but I do not. Which is okay.
I admit I have only read 30 something pages. But that is just testament to how bad this book is (in my opinion). Despite its reputation, and my entire summer’s worth of free-time, i could only get 30 pages in. What do I remember from these 30 pages? NOTHING.

The language is INVENTIVE, but in the same way that it’s INVENTIVE if I took ten bananas and duct tape and I tape all the bananas together in one big, random bundle. Actually, it is not in that same way. Because my banana-thing is kind of funny. Nobakov’s inventiveness is NOT FUNNY. It is extremely academic and DULL. Someone once cited Nobakov’s genius in his description of dog’s pee in fresh snow as “XANTHIC HOLES”. Do people not realize that this is just describing dog’s pee in fresh snow as “YELLOWING HOLES?” To me, that is SO SO SO dull a description. It’d be better to just write “dog’s pee in snow.” Nobakov probably thinks he’s some kind of genius. At one time, I thought maybe I was too dumb to UNDERSTAND Nobakov. But not anymore. Now I just think that readers are too PRETENTIOUS to admit that this is dull dull dull, UNFEELING, DISHONEST writing. (I know this mention of lack of emotion is just thrown in here at the end). Okay.

A Guilty Pleasure, January 29, 2003
Reviewer: A reader
I absolutely adore this book. It is a genius of the english language. Bravo! I am appaled by all the people who misunderstood this book. I believe that the author was writing about tragedy all right, the tragedy of young girls who seduce and therefore ruin men’s lives. Lolita was the persuer here people. The proof? Lolita went on to have immoral, premarital affairs after she is finished with her stepfather. How could she have been a victim when she went along with it? All she had to do was say no. Girls are supposed to be pure. This book is a guilty pleasure I will admit. Especially because my wife is getting older.

Utter rubbish masquerading as good literature, April 18, 2002
Reviewer: Roger (Buffalo, NY) – See all my reviews
Many have praised Lolita as an example of first class literature and highly polished art. Much of this praise derives from Nobokov’s reputation as a writer, his frequent literary allusions, ample dashes of French, and his clever use of the English language. However impressive, in my mind these attributes aren’t enough to compensate for the deplorable nature of his subject matter (dressed up pedophilia), and his offensive depictions of women as sex objects (Dolores/Lolita) or brainless slugs (his two wives).
So what if Nabokov has written other notable novels? So what if he is fluent in three languages and writes well in English? So what if his characters are rich and three dimensional? Are these adequate excuses for the sick relationships he describes for his pathetic characters, or his obnoxious, degrading, chauvinistic attitudes towards women?

In my mind Lolita is nothing more than trash wrapped up in a pretty package by a famous writer. People continue to be drawn to it (men mostly, I suspect) by its titillating subject and Nobokov’s reputation as a writer. They use the excuse of “good literature” to read a lurid book that they otherwise would be too embarassed to pick up. It provides little else but mental masturbation and is nothing more than an arrogant, self indulgent exercise in language manipulation.

I wouldn’t recommend this novel to my worst enemy.

(NOTE: It begs the question, what novel would you recommend to your worst enemy?)

el amor a las ninfas, May 16, 2000
Reviewer: Luis Méndez (Republica Dominicana) - See all my reviews
esa pequena desviacion del amor, esa busqueda incansable por la nina perfecta, la perfecta ninfa, la nina de 12 a 17 anos que vive en los suenos y recuerdos de H. H es tal vez la ilusion de muchos hombres y el comienzo de pedofilia. aunque la novela no muestra directamente escenas de sexo, el lector las intuye a plenitud y mucho mejor, ya que la imaginacion de cada uno adornara la escena de las cosas que solo se refieren de manera indirecta en la novela. la pelicula debe definitivamente verse despues de leer el libro para que se capte la trama. esta es una obra maestra de nabokov , quien juega con el idioma ingles de una manera increiblemente buena.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>