This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lolita article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 6, 2013. |
"an acclaimed but failed Broadway musical." can someone fix this line? it is a Grammar felony.
I saw an episode of SVU tonight that was clearly an adaptation of Lolita...the mother's name was Annabel Hayes, the victim's name was Robert Schiller...the mother rented out a room in her house to a travel writer whom the daughter seduced despite the fact that her mother was interested in him... 70.92.12.24 ( talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)rubinia
In the Michael connoly detective books detective bosch finds a clue saying "dot the i humbert humbert" which is a clue about bringing down a peadophile ring using thier website
add as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 ( talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
What is up with the title of Quilty's play and the name of the motel. Recently, this article said that they were both called "The Enchanted Hunters." I thought I remembered that the play was called "The Hunted Enchanters" -- and I went to check in the book.
But to my surprise I found (or thought I found) that that version of the article was right -- the names were the identical, not mirror-echoes of each other -- it was "Enchanted Hunters" in both places (see section 13 of Part Two):
"I did not bother to read the complete text of The Enchanted Hunters, the playlet in which Dolores Haze was assigned the part of a farmer's daughter"
And section 27 of Part One:
"There it was, marvelously and inexorably, under spectral trees, at the top of a graveled drive--the pale palace of The Enchanted Hunters."
But now the article has been changed to match what I had found to be a false memory. Is "Hunted Enchanters" perhaps used by Humbert elsewhere in the book, or is my memory of the phrase simply taken from a recurring, incorrect version of this article?
Dybryd ( talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding "Xenophobic", which I hope I do not (as I consider myself only as intelligent as anyone else, anywhere), the last paragraph in the "Plot Summary" section needs "De-Britification". I understand the over all point of it, but at some points it is not clear what meaning the author intended to convey.
"After a mutually exhausting struggle for it, Quilty, now insane with fear, merely responds politely as Humbert repeatedly shoots him."
Responds politely to what? If the author meant that Quilty attempted to negotiate or rationalize with Humbert in a non-threatening manner, I think it needs to be re-written that way. I don't think most people would politely show their appreciation for being shot....
"He finally dies with a comical lack of interest, expressing his slight concern in an affected English accent."
That sentence made no sense either. How can someone be apathetic and concerned all at the same time? And it is not explained what the accent has to do with it.
That paragraph needs re-writing. It is a bit hard to comprehend. Oi2Life ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, the plot summary in general is far too ornate and long -- and some of it is original interpretation. It should be radically shortened. However, as usual this is a problem that I point out without have the energy to attempt a fix myself. I would be delighted if someone undertook to slash the section down to two or three tight, factual paragraphs.
Dybryd ( talk) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going for the slash and burn of the plot summary here, which is going to be hard as so many loving fans of the work added so much detail!! I'm planning to leave the first para intact, the second para as the story up until HH tells Lo her mother is dead (currently paras 2-4), third para on their travels and Quilty (currently 5 & 6), and then a short paragraph on HH's visit to Lo and the killing of Quilty (7 & 8) considerable~powers ( talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
@ ward3001- I didn't mean to get in an edit war with you there- my internet connection is ridiculously slow so I assumed it hadn't saved the edits when they changed back so quickly!! Does anyone else have an opinion on how to shorten this beast down? considerable~powers ( talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
He's not only sexually "obsessed" with lolita, also emotionally -as proves the book's end- in which he says that he loved her. I changed the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.111.228 ( talk) 05:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
the name changes to Annabel and straight to Lolita. was she reffed to Annabel in the beginning but switched to Lolita as the book progresses? if not, i suggest you use on of those names for the whole plot description. dont use both even if you state that both names can be used. it does confuse some of the readers. Haseo445 ( talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is in the category "Fiction with unreliable narrators" but does not justify this in its text. Brief research suggests the question of whether Humbert is unreliable or not is an open question with some quite respectable authorities coming down on the side of describing him as reliable ( [1] [2]). This debate should, I think, be covered, but preferably by somebody who is familiar with the novel (I am not). If it isn't covered, I don't believe the article belongs in the category. Opinions? JulesH ( talk) 10:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It is arguable whether or not Humbert is "unreliable" in the sense that his narration contains outright "falsehoods" but it is inarguable that he repeatedly manipulates the way in which he presents or omits information in an attempt to mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.55.37 ( talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Lichberg's Lolita (which has its own section) needs to be mentioned in the lead section, especially since the title of this article is simply Lolita (the title of Lichberg's Lolita as well). Sound Solkemon ( talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue: Is speculation about a 1916 short story serving as the basis for the novel significant enough to include in the lead? Ward3001 ( talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion:
Sound Solkemon ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly placed information about the influence of a 1916 short story in the lead, contrary to WP:LEAD. I would like opinions. Ward3001 ( talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of this material in the lead is specifically a violation of WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis. Having a separate section does not, in and of itself, make something worthy of inclusion in the lead. Ward3001 ( talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on the comment that was just self-removed by Xeno: The book is discussed in the section Lolita#Heinz_von_Lichberg.27s_.22Lolita.22. Maar's (German) Wikipedia biography was created in 2007, his biography speaks for itself, I believe, so I don't understand what you try to insinuate. His book on Lolita has been extensively discussed in the New York Times Magazine, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, The Times Literary Supplement and almost every notable source imaginable. It's notable and it's well sourced. Sound Solkemon ( talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Grcaldwell is quite correct. Per WP:WEIGHT, the Maar information has no more relevance to the novel than many other matters discussed in the article but not noted in the lead, such as those mentioned by Grcaldwell, as well as the style and interpretation information, real-life prototype, and film/theatrical adaptations. Sound Solkemon, please give us the specific reasons why the Maar information should have any more weight than these other aspects of the article. And please explain beyond the response "it's well sourced". "Well sourced" and "notable enough for the lead" are not interchangeable concepts. Everything on Wikipedia should be well sourced, but everything in an article does not belong in the lead. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this RfC, for what it's worth I agree with the arguments presented by Grcaldwell and Ward3001 above. In my opinion, this theory is not a fundamental aspect of the book's notability; as such, while certainly worth noting in the "Sources and links" section, it doesn't warrant coverage in the lead. -- Muchness ( talk) 06:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes in the article, no in the lead. Not important enough. Jumble Jumble ( talk) 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph says, "...first written in English and published in 1950 in Paris, later translated by the author into African and published in 1958 in New York." However, I do not believe that Nabokov spoke any languages besides Russian, French, and English, and,, even if he did, "African" is still far too vague. Perhaps the writer meant "American", although that is hardly a language either. Although Nabokov did translate the book into Russian, this was not until 1967, as the bottom portion of the article agrees. Nevertheless, I have not yet changed anything, for I am still unsure whether it is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.94.124 ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I started reading the "Plot summary" section of this article as I wanted to find out about the book, and was disappointed. Has anyone spotted the appalling English in that section? It is comparable to the raw output of a web translation engine. Occasional spelling mistakes can be forgiven and even corrected, as I was about to do, but I gave up on this one as I have not read the book.
Samples: 1) "The story starts with a forwards..." - What is "a forwards"? The introductory remarks section at the beginning of a book is called a "foreword" in English. (note spelling, see Oxford Dictionary)
2) "He states that the novel itself is very sexual and unusual but in the future will provide great inight to psychologists of the behaviors of individuals because of the personalities of characters in: "the panting maniac" "wayward child" and the "egotistical child"." - All this in one sentence without punctuation. What is "inight"? "behaviors" (why plural?) I can't work out what the rest of the sentence means.
3) "... set up travel to Americas." - Why is "America" plural?
Please, this is not good enough. It is as if somebody been vandalising by adding the letter "s" to the end of words, and worse. If you wrote this section or if you have read the book, and would like to improve this article, please do so. P0mbal ( talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The real problem with this section is that this novel seems to attract fans who love to summarize! Every week or so a new editor seems to add his own paragraph or couple of sentences, and it gets longer and longer and more and more disjointed over time.
Dybryd ( talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This is just an attempt to make child molestation legit as just another lifestyle choice. This book should be banned just like other child porn is and certainly Wikipeida shouldn't promote it in anyway except to clasify it as a weak way to expose children to adult manipulation and make child porn and NAMBLA a legit choice 99.53.169.153 ( talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)honrea
I have noticed a contradiction over the coinage of the word "nymphet":
The novel's flamboyant style is characterized by word play, double entendres, multilingual puns, anagrams, and coinages such as nymphet, a word that has since had a life of its own and can be found in most dictionaries, and the lesser used "faunlet".
from
Lolita
contradicts
A nymphet is seen to be a sexually precocious, attractive girl, and the term was notably used by French author Pierre de Ronsard, and popularised by Vladimir Nabokov in the novel Lolita.
fron Nymphet -- Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting too long. I propose archiving.-- Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence saying that the novel does not endorse pedophilia. Although this is the critical consensus, it needs a source. I removed it rather than just inserting a citation because until we have a source, discussion of how the judgment should be worded is completely beside the point.
I think I remember that Dmitri Nabokov has called the novel "the strongest possible condemnation of pedophilia" -- that quote would certainly be a notable source.
Lolita does not deal with pedophilia which involves sex with children but rather depicts sex acts with a very young teen which I believe has a special name all to itself I cannot remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane Caston ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if it bothers you but she wasn't a teen, she was twelve. The first "teen" being thirteen and she wasn't even that old. Therefore, she was a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 09:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Dybryd ( talk) 01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
hebephilia A Georgian ( talk) 18:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This section disappointed me. I find it over simplified and misleading. Humbert Humbert was clearly delusional to a greater or lesser extent throughout the book. This means, since the book was his description, we cannot be sure of many things, for example: it was HE who tells us that Lolita seduced HIM. But later in the book Lolita makes reference to "the first time you [Humbert] raped me". Humbert always believed he treated Lolita with the greatest kindness but again we had only his word to take and it is clear that he would blind himself to those things he did not wish to see (and in some instances he was aware of this).
This section should be written by a literary scholar rather than all and sundry trying to get their 5 eggs worth. For me, this is what devalues wikipedia. And maybe it would be a great idea not to try and just trot out the plot so as not to ruin the book for those that have not read it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.35.46 ( talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The description of Rita when Humbert received Dolly's letter might not be accurate, "Rita figuratively dies when...". In the book, the author mentioned that Rita was "dead to the world", implying that she was sound asleep when Humbert left. It might be true that to Humbert, Rita had "figuratively died" when Dolly's letter arrived, but to someone who have not read the book or noticed this part when reading, this description seems unnecessarily misleading. Killer199208 ( talk) 08:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In the last entry, (Glass Wave song), please somebody tell me what this means "The lyrics are sung in her own voice." Umm, what? whose voice? So the lyrics are sung by a fictional woman? I have not heard the song but I would assume that what was meant is something like "The lyrics are written in such a way as to sound as though they were sung by the character herself". yea? 174.88.27.200 ( talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My own inclination is to remove pop culture references that simply reference "Lolita" in a generalized sense without making specific mention of Nabokov -- the "Lolita" stereotype is familiar to many people who have never read the novel, and is more relevant to Lolita (term) than this article.
Accordingly, I've taken it upon myself to remove most of the pop songs a number of times. And sure enough, someone always come along a little while later and adds them back in. I don't want to seem like a simple snob, and if the consensus is that these songs are relevant to the novel, I'm happy to let them stand. But is that really the consensus, or is it simply the preference of the singers' loyal fans?
What do people think? I would like to agree on a consensus that can be a guide going forward.
Dybryd ( talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does the main article cite 36 chapters in Lolita? My copy has 69; 33 in Part I and 36 in Part II. 64.166.145.2 ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Olds88
Yes, part II of the novel ends in chapter 36. But part I ends in chapter 33. The 2 parts of Lolita are numbered 1-33 and 1-36 respectively. Please review a physical copy of the book.
No inaccuracy and nothing to look into. I repeat, this article is about the novel that begins in chapter 1 with "Lolita, light of my life ..." and ends in chapter 36 with Humbert killing Quilty. That is indisputable, and it is sourced quite well with a link to the Google view of the novel. If you want to discuss other chapters please stop disrupting this article and create another article. No one is stopping you from doing that. And stop your sockpuppetry and edit warring. Cresix ( talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making the Lolita article accurate. It's my favorite book! 66.234.215.165 ( talk) 22:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Dabrasha
I dont know about the 69 thing though going by the anagrams clues references and puzzles of that nature throughout the book I wouldnt discount it. One thing I do want to say however is that I am fairly sure the book is divided into several parts each containing numbers of chapters. Are you sure the version that has only 36 chapters in total is not an abridged version? Mine is the original and part one ends with chapter 33 and part 2 which ends in chapter 36 which does indeed add up to 69. Now I dont really care less but this appears to be facts and its right in front of me right now and I just rechecked. BTW Ive forgotten how to make my tag come up as a link to my contributor page. Kane Caston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane Caston ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody (re-)extends
to
That some singer "has admitted in interviews to a fascination with the Lolita concept, identifying with the character" to me says something about the pop singer but precious little about the novel. Ditto for her choice of name for her guitar, and ditto for having wanted, as a kid, to look like the main character in a movie that has its own, separate article within Wikipedia.
This is all part of "references in other media". I don't even know what the medium is in which the young Perry wanted to look like Swain.
Here's the edit summary:
Notability of what, to what? Perry doesn't affect Lolita a jot; if Lolita affects her, perhaps this should go into the article on her. Within this article, how is this stuff more than deletable trivia? -- Hoary ( talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody adds:
as a separate derivative literary work, after "Poems for Men who Dream of Lolita by Kim Morrissey".
This comes with the edit summary:
But they're not separate; they derive -- if I am to believe this, and I haven't looked it up -- from Morrissey's poems. And they're already mentioned in the article on Kim Morrissey, to which there is a conspicuous link. Again, within this article, how is this stuff more than deletable trivia? -- Hoary ( talk) 07:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following: 1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? 2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference? 3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference? If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia
Here's an item within the "Further reading" section:
My own copy is lying on my table in front of me. It's a lovely book, ISBN 0-19-501834-6. (Couldn't the people who created this article get any one paragraph right?) It has an index, in which Lolita appears. But not one chapter is devoted to Lolita.
Though it does say more about Lolita than does, say, the fantasies about Dominique Swain by some girl who'd later be a pop singer, it's less informative about the novel than is, say, The Garland Companion to Vladimir Nabokov (1995). May I remove it, and miscellaneous other papers that neither are cited by this messy article nor are obviously of great importance to Lolita?
(Normally I'd do so without asking, but others' enthusiasm for retaining and adding tangential trivia makes me pause.)
Apropos of further reading, I'd recommend that would-be contributors to this article did more of it. And not merely via Google but instead via books from university presses or comparable publishers, available in good libraries. The second half of Boyd's biography is a fine place to start. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, since the Wikipedia article on Umberto Eco documents to kingdom come that Eco is a professional scholar and the reference to him in this article has a wikilink to his article on WP, I honestly don't see why we need to reference here that he is a scholar, especially as this is well-known to readers of his novels. However, I have provided a link to his Amazon page, but somewhat under protest.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The "references in other media" section has become a pop culture trivia coatrack. Material, frequently unsourced, has accumulated there with no regard for relevance or weight. I've added a tag and reverted a recent addition of an unsourced fact. We do not need a vast bulleted list of random pop culture tidbits that happen to mention this very famous book.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. I do think that the incoming links need cleaning up. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Lolita → Lolita (novel) –
Oppose With 120,000 views a month, I would say it's a pretty notable novel. [5] It is also Google's No. 1 topic for the word Lolita. Topic No. 2 is the 1962 Stanley Kubrick movie with 24,000 views a month. [6] Topic No. 3 is the 1997 movie. Since both movies are based on the novel, they are not reasons to bump the novel out of primary topic. Kauffner ( talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The novel is what comes to (my) mind first, Lolita as a name became a term for a character like that in the novel, and many of the other "Lolitas" - if not most then the more important ones - are based on the novel, including the opera. Prime importance. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Outside the USA, this is generally regarded as one of the great American novels on par with The Great Gatsby and The Grapes of Wrath although Americans are in general disinclined to take credit for it as one of their great literary achievements.
The novel is listed as the 4th best novel of the 20th century in a list by Modern Library, listed in the century's top 100 novels (#11) by the Radcliffe Institute
[7] (Sandwiched between Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury"). The UK based "Telegraph" listed in #62 among the 100 best novels
[8] (oddly once again adjacent to Of Mice and Men) etc.
Outside of critic's polls, UK-based Waterstone publishing did a reader's poll of the best novels of the 20th century. Lolita came out #31
[9] (three places ahead of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" this time- they so often seem to be close on the list!!)
Anthony Appleyard, if this is the first time you have heard of this book, and you are having to ask just how notable it is, I can easily conclude you are a fairly young resident of the United States where the residents are shielded from the knowledge of just how highly reputable this novel is abroad.--
WickerGuy (
talk) 13:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - A reader interested in "Lolita" in many forms will find what they need on this page (plot, characters, etc.) or on a link from this page - as most of its uses are derived from the novel. Adding a disambiguation page will just slow them down to this information (IMO). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 19:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Most readers are looking for the article to the novel, and for those who aren't, the link to dab at the top of the page is quite sufficent. Cresix ( talk) 20:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment— Of 24 items on the dab page, at least 12 and maybe 17 are derived from or allude to the novel. — Tamfang ( talk) 00:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for Comment- I am a bit acronym-impaired here. I get that dab is "disambiguation", but I honestly don't know what OP is.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Other comment- I guess in terms of WP guidelines, what we are looking at is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The numbers- If you count articles ONLY, (not Talk pages or User Talk pages) there are 247 articles proper that refer to this article Lolita. But only 54 of them contain the Template:Nabokov Prose. User:Anthony Appleyard has written "Page Lolita has many incoming links (fewer if I call search for links from articles only), but I suspect that many of these links are via transclusions of Template:Nabokov Prose." It turns out just under 22% of the links are via such a transclusion, leaving 193 articles linking here without that template.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 04:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Lolita has been viewed 37479 times in 201105. This article ranked 2075 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. Lolita_(term) has been viewed 5018 times in 201105. [again on Wikipedia] (I would say this mitigates against the move, but I have only one vote.) Of the first ten Google hits, 7 are related to the novel, or films based on the novel, 3 relate to the term in general. (Ditto on mitigation, but again I have only one vote.)-- WickerGuy ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
(On the other hand, on Google hits 11-20, the term dominates over the novel.)-- WickerGuy ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
TheAwl has a Case History Of A Wikipedia Page: Nabokov’s 'Lolita', FYI. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes look at the Wikipedia as a way to link related terms to articles. As this is an article substantively about rape and incest, I found that such terms should be used to some degree to describe the events of the novel. I added sexual predator, rape, incest, child sexual abuse, and tragedy, plus mentioned "his criminal behavior." While these terms are not necessarily in the 50s era book, if this was a contemporary true story, these are the sorts of words that would be used in a newspaper article or a police report to describe Humbert's actions with his nymphet. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, perhaps discussing it clinically as literature, we might not use those words. But viewing it from beyond the presentation in the novel, an encyclopedia can call a spade a spade, and see through any barriers put up through the presentation of the story. A judge, a jury, or a prosecutor would prefer the words I used. The narrator, perpetrator, and the victim might prefer the words void of any clinical or legal meaning.
So you say that book critics who avoid these terms are right because they forgo criticism of the book's topics by concentrating on the literature? So the circumcision article should not link to genital modification and mutilation? If we look at circumcision as a religious practice, are we to ignore the fact that it is variously described as mutilation? If scientists, clinicians, and legal practitioners would describe events in Lolita terms like rape and incest or predation, why not use those terms? I am wondering if this is censorship or point of view? It's as if this story is inside a special fence in which terminology must relate to Humbert's view. And as long as we are inside his house of cards, we must submit to his morals and vocabulary.
I would submit that if a discussion on the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn article did not include the terms such as "racism" when describing Huck Finn and "bigot" or similar terms when describing other characters, we would be flabbergasted. The racism element is so widely debated; however, it was not a term used by Huck in his narration. ("Race" is used only to mention the "human race.") So how do you explain people labeling Huck a racist and yet Humbert isn't a child molester because of his vocabulary or semantics? Neither narrator thought it fitting to label himself anything but someone having the best of intentions. But no level of protestations by Huck or Humbert will convince me that "racist" on the one hand or "predator" on the other are unsupported accusations for these respective characters. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
When I added that category tag, I didn't realize the category had been deleted. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally, pop culture refs of Lolita have been removed from this page, because they seemed to lack a sufficiently broad cultural significance in and of themselves, and occasionally I have fought to include refs in this article that others deemed unworthy. But the attempted IP addition from a week and a half ago from the very recent Lana del Rey album is just plain false. There is no song on the album called "Lolita" and the lyrics to "Off to the Races" have nothing, repeat, nothing at all at all at all to do with this book. As they say in the zone.com game room, "Nice try".-- WickerGuy ( talk) 17:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
For some reason, someone is insisting on the first sentence in the "Erotic motifs and controversy" section should read "Lolita is frequently described as an 'erotic novel', not only by some critics but even in Facts on File: Companion to the American Short Story.. This doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes it sound as if there's something special about it being called that in Facts on File ("even" in Facts on File); what so important about the Facts on File mention, as opposed to, I dunno, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Desmond Morris, and the other citations in that first paragraph? If anything, the facts on file thing belongs at the end; as it stands now, it seems like a high school book report. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 06:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Another user uploaded a link to a lecture given by a literature professor on YouTube, and it has been deleted as not following WP policy. I restored it on Round 1 on the grounds that it was uploaded to YouTube by the copyright owner. Now it has been removed with appeal to WP:ELNO. Somebody care to say which stipulation of ELNO is being violated here?-- WickerGuy ( talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I have merged the list of characters back to the main article, as it was an unreferenced stub, and having it separate meant slightly fewer people will actually see the list, as opposed to it being here. I am neutral on whether the characters deserve their own section, having done little editing of such literary works, but i do know it belongs here for now, at least until it can be sourced and expanded. I respect the motives of the editor(s) making this bold move, but disagree strongly with the actual effect of separating the list out. I do agree that Humbert and Lolita may even deserve their own pages. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this paragraph:
"In chapter three of the novel The Gift (written in Russian in 1935–1937) the similar gist of Lolita's first chapter is outlined to the protagonist, Fyodor Cherdyntsev, by his obnoxious landlord Shchyogolev as an idea of a novel he would write 'if I only had the time': A man marries a widow only to gain access to her young daughter, who resists all his passes. Shchyogolev says it happened 'in reality' to a friend of his; it is made clear to the reader that it concerns himself and his stepdaughter Zina (15 at the time of marriage) who becomes the love of Fyodor's life and his child bride."
Should Zina Mertz be referred to as Fyodor's child bride? She was 15 when Shchyogolev married her mother, but I thought the marriage had gone on for a few years when Zina and Fyodor met.
-- 98.110.167.24 ( talk) 00:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
How is this justifiable? As a book written and set in the US by a long-term US resident in American English, how is that not violation of MOS:TIES? Curly Turkey ( gobble) 01:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Nabokov wrote an afterword in 1956 that first appeared in the American edition ... which didn't appear until 1958? Curly Turkey ⚞ gobble!⚟ 08:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Under plot the original editor writes "Instead, she initiates sex the next morning". Yet under style and interpretation he writes that Humbert is ashamed of his rape of Lolita. Rape is a link to the definition of rape which is forced sex without consent. I don't see how it can be rape if she initiated the sex. Whoever wrote this article can you please explain? Robotics1 23:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 ( talk • contribs)
not signed?
Yes but there is a difference between statutory rape which is defined in some countries laws (but not all) and rape in this context. What is more the word rape in this article is a link to the wiki definition of rape, not statutory rape, and that is defined as forced sex, which it was not. Whoever wrote this article should change the word rape to statutory rape and change the link or else not use the word rape at all. It's a shame that such an important article is so inaccurate on this point. It left me as a reader re-reading the article to see what I missed and I am sure I am not alone. Can someone please clean this up? Robotics1 08:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 ( talk • contribs)
I get that this isnt considered pornography, but i want to point out that the work has been featured at the Portal:Pornography for years now. if its ok to have it there w/o it being tagged by the project, thats fine with me, though i myself an am inclusionist with projects, this isnt my turf really, so i will gladly bow to others. if anyone feels it should be removed from that portal, im ok with that too, as its a really horribly dead portal, and a change of scenery is in order. just tell me and ill swap in another work of erotic literature there. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It is well-known that Vladimir Nabokov devised a riddle that he embedded in "Lolita" (e.g. a Playboy interview of 1964 among others: (about "Lolita") "She was like the composition of a beautiful puzzle—its composition and its solution at the same time, since one is a mirror view of the other, depending on the way you look") that scholars tried to solve since then (there are many papers on the subject, some directly freely available on the web).
1/ I think this wikipedia article should at least mention it.
2/ I think I have solved this riddle, and I'd like, if it's possible, to add a link to the blog where I have gathered a raw sketchy demonstration about this (several Nabokovian scholars that I contacted did respond positively about it). In order to have yourself an opinion about this claim, you can go there:
http://lolitasriddle.blogspot.fr/2014/10/lolitas-riddle-solved.html
When the key to the riddle is known, even the slightest details can reveal something (e.g. The allusion to an affair between Mona and Roy is explained, and we can even know why he is named Roy in the first place).
Waggg ( talk) 11:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. In this context, I think it can be interesting to mention he said in an interview in 1962 for the BBC when asked on why he wrote “Lolita”: « I’ve no general ideas to exploit, I just like composing riddles with elegant solutions.” Waggg ( talk) 08:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Though the article provides an external link to website showing several later-edition bookcovers of Lolita, it is missing any discussion of the topic. Even without specifically looking for them, I have come across numerous articles on the subject over the years (eg this New Yorker post). And there is even a book dedicated to the subject:
Here is a review of that work. Peter Mendelsund also has a chapter on Lolita in
Could some interested editor expand the article to cover this? Images of a couple of iconic bookcovers would also be helpful (and justifiable under WP:NFCC), but that is a secondary concern. Abecedare ( talk) 18:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Towards the end of the plot summary, there is this sentence: "He gives her a large sum of money anyway, which secures her future."
This is incorrect. He does give her a large sum of money, but she dies soon afterwards, in chidbirth. The money may have been intended to secure her future, and it was much more than she had anticipated from him, but it did not secure her future.
I have removed the mention of Humbert having a "close call with the police" because it simply isn't true (he just happens to stumble upon a relative of the young girl who maintains he is a former police officer), and I also have obliterated the reference to the bag full of toys bought by Humbert for the McCoo girl: none of this is mentioned in the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.157.190 ( talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The current term Lolita also refers to people (usually women but sometimes men) who dress in Japanese lolita fashion. I read the previous discussion about moving Lolita to Lolita (novel). Some comments referred to the number of searches/hits as the reason not to move it. However, since the word lolita also refers to those who do lolita fashion, the search results include results for both and no way to distinguish them. However, there is a need to distinguish the two. My previous edits to the Lolita page to address this were reverted multiple times. I request the page be moved to clarify it is the novel, with the main page having links to both Lolita (novel) and Lolita fashion, and edits to the Lolita (original or the novel) page should be allowed. Many 'lolitas' in the fashion industry have to deal with unwarranted sexual harassment directly due to this novel. It would be the responsible thing to add this clarifying information since the novel is the source of this behavior. When a Google search is done for "lolita", the second search result is "Lolita fashion." Therefore, this is not a trivial matter buried in minute details. The editor who reverted my changes did not want to consider my point of view or the information I provided and threatened me with spam, promoting Lolita fashion and vandalism and threatened to revoke my editing privileges. I hope I get with a more objective response. As a global encyclopedia, clarifying misinformation is in guidelines with Wiki's mission. If neither of my two suggestions are acceptable, I am looking for additional ideas to help with this or a clear directive that my edits were policy violation. Jalauna1 ( talk) 15:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. Are you providing extra information or stating you disagree with both options being requested based on that one data point? Jalauna1 ( talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. I misremembered. There was a book group, but she also taught a literature course in pre-revolutionary Iran to female and male college students. Ileanadu ( talk) 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lolita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a new book was published on 2018 Sept 11 re. the Horner case and its connection to Lolita. DailyMail has an article about the book here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6159725/The-Real-Lolita-Shocking-1948-kidnapping-11-year-old-girl-inspired-Vladimir-Nabokovs-novel.html Amazon sells the book here: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Lolita-Kidnapping-Horner-Scandalized/dp/0062661922/
A fan of Lolita may want to read the book and add relevant info from it to both this entry and the Wiki entry re. Horner. Phantom in ca ( talk) 18:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added "citation needed" to the end of the lead where we have
"Its assimilation into popular culture is such that the name " Lolita" has been used to imply that a young girl is sexually precocious"
with the comment
"citation needed re Lolita—a 12-year-old girl was not sexually precocious!"
I understand this to be a request for a citation that a 12-year-old girl can be sexually precocious (or that Humbert's Lolita was) - which is not what the sentence says. But I've left the request (well, converted it to the template) for now.
But, it made me realize that we don't have good coverage of the term "Lolita." There is nothing here other than examples of the word's use in other works, mostly popular culture. A section on how the word has been become a part of the language would improve the article and provide context for the rather long list of examples. If Lolita (term) were any where near useful, it would be a start. Anyone interested in taking that on? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 15:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
What was the original name of the book Think and Grow Rich????
This sentence, found under "Plot," makes no sense to me:
"Dolores reveals to Humbert that Quilty took her from the hospital and that she was in love with him, but she was rejected when she refused to star in one of his pornographic films."
There's one "her" and three "she"'s, the latter of which is where I got confused. Could someone who knows the story — I don't — please edit this so it makes sense? Or, at the very least, isn't so prone to confusing readers.
152.86.197.33 ( talk) 21:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this edit.
The sentence now reads Humbert knows he will feel guilty if rapes Dolores while she is conscious so tricks her into taking a sedative by saying it is a vitamin. The subject of tricks is understood, that's fair enough. But the subject of rapes needs to be explicit in my opinion. Other views? Andrewa ( talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Although the recent reverted anonymous edits were a bit tendentious, the current state of the plot summary isn't great -- too long, with far too much subjective language and frankly some slightly precious attempts to sound Nabokovian that don't belong in a Wikipedia summary. Can we work on shortening it an simplifying and neutralizing the language? Distingué Traces ( talk) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
There should be at least one small footnote or mention of important references to this story, such as Jeffrey Epstein's plane, the Lolita Express. 12.69.119.131 ( talk) 19:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lolita article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 6, 2013. |
"an acclaimed but failed Broadway musical." can someone fix this line? it is a Grammar felony.
I saw an episode of SVU tonight that was clearly an adaptation of Lolita...the mother's name was Annabel Hayes, the victim's name was Robert Schiller...the mother rented out a room in her house to a travel writer whom the daughter seduced despite the fact that her mother was interested in him... 70.92.12.24 ( talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)rubinia
In the Michael connoly detective books detective bosch finds a clue saying "dot the i humbert humbert" which is a clue about bringing down a peadophile ring using thier website
add as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 ( talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
What is up with the title of Quilty's play and the name of the motel. Recently, this article said that they were both called "The Enchanted Hunters." I thought I remembered that the play was called "The Hunted Enchanters" -- and I went to check in the book.
But to my surprise I found (or thought I found) that that version of the article was right -- the names were the identical, not mirror-echoes of each other -- it was "Enchanted Hunters" in both places (see section 13 of Part Two):
"I did not bother to read the complete text of The Enchanted Hunters, the playlet in which Dolores Haze was assigned the part of a farmer's daughter"
And section 27 of Part One:
"There it was, marvelously and inexorably, under spectral trees, at the top of a graveled drive--the pale palace of The Enchanted Hunters."
But now the article has been changed to match what I had found to be a false memory. Is "Hunted Enchanters" perhaps used by Humbert elsewhere in the book, or is my memory of the phrase simply taken from a recurring, incorrect version of this article?
Dybryd ( talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding "Xenophobic", which I hope I do not (as I consider myself only as intelligent as anyone else, anywhere), the last paragraph in the "Plot Summary" section needs "De-Britification". I understand the over all point of it, but at some points it is not clear what meaning the author intended to convey.
"After a mutually exhausting struggle for it, Quilty, now insane with fear, merely responds politely as Humbert repeatedly shoots him."
Responds politely to what? If the author meant that Quilty attempted to negotiate or rationalize with Humbert in a non-threatening manner, I think it needs to be re-written that way. I don't think most people would politely show their appreciation for being shot....
"He finally dies with a comical lack of interest, expressing his slight concern in an affected English accent."
That sentence made no sense either. How can someone be apathetic and concerned all at the same time? And it is not explained what the accent has to do with it.
That paragraph needs re-writing. It is a bit hard to comprehend. Oi2Life ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, the plot summary in general is far too ornate and long -- and some of it is original interpretation. It should be radically shortened. However, as usual this is a problem that I point out without have the energy to attempt a fix myself. I would be delighted if someone undertook to slash the section down to two or three tight, factual paragraphs.
Dybryd ( talk) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going for the slash and burn of the plot summary here, which is going to be hard as so many loving fans of the work added so much detail!! I'm planning to leave the first para intact, the second para as the story up until HH tells Lo her mother is dead (currently paras 2-4), third para on their travels and Quilty (currently 5 & 6), and then a short paragraph on HH's visit to Lo and the killing of Quilty (7 & 8) considerable~powers ( talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
@ ward3001- I didn't mean to get in an edit war with you there- my internet connection is ridiculously slow so I assumed it hadn't saved the edits when they changed back so quickly!! Does anyone else have an opinion on how to shorten this beast down? considerable~powers ( talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
He's not only sexually "obsessed" with lolita, also emotionally -as proves the book's end- in which he says that he loved her. I changed the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.111.228 ( talk) 05:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
the name changes to Annabel and straight to Lolita. was she reffed to Annabel in the beginning but switched to Lolita as the book progresses? if not, i suggest you use on of those names for the whole plot description. dont use both even if you state that both names can be used. it does confuse some of the readers. Haseo445 ( talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is in the category "Fiction with unreliable narrators" but does not justify this in its text. Brief research suggests the question of whether Humbert is unreliable or not is an open question with some quite respectable authorities coming down on the side of describing him as reliable ( [1] [2]). This debate should, I think, be covered, but preferably by somebody who is familiar with the novel (I am not). If it isn't covered, I don't believe the article belongs in the category. Opinions? JulesH ( talk) 10:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It is arguable whether or not Humbert is "unreliable" in the sense that his narration contains outright "falsehoods" but it is inarguable that he repeatedly manipulates the way in which he presents or omits information in an attempt to mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.55.37 ( talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Lichberg's Lolita (which has its own section) needs to be mentioned in the lead section, especially since the title of this article is simply Lolita (the title of Lichberg's Lolita as well). Sound Solkemon ( talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue: Is speculation about a 1916 short story serving as the basis for the novel significant enough to include in the lead? Ward3001 ( talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion:
Sound Solkemon ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly placed information about the influence of a 1916 short story in the lead, contrary to WP:LEAD. I would like opinions. Ward3001 ( talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of this material in the lead is specifically a violation of WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis. Having a separate section does not, in and of itself, make something worthy of inclusion in the lead. Ward3001 ( talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on the comment that was just self-removed by Xeno: The book is discussed in the section Lolita#Heinz_von_Lichberg.27s_.22Lolita.22. Maar's (German) Wikipedia biography was created in 2007, his biography speaks for itself, I believe, so I don't understand what you try to insinuate. His book on Lolita has been extensively discussed in the New York Times Magazine, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, The Times Literary Supplement and almost every notable source imaginable. It's notable and it's well sourced. Sound Solkemon ( talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Grcaldwell is quite correct. Per WP:WEIGHT, the Maar information has no more relevance to the novel than many other matters discussed in the article but not noted in the lead, such as those mentioned by Grcaldwell, as well as the style and interpretation information, real-life prototype, and film/theatrical adaptations. Sound Solkemon, please give us the specific reasons why the Maar information should have any more weight than these other aspects of the article. And please explain beyond the response "it's well sourced". "Well sourced" and "notable enough for the lead" are not interchangeable concepts. Everything on Wikipedia should be well sourced, but everything in an article does not belong in the lead. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this RfC, for what it's worth I agree with the arguments presented by Grcaldwell and Ward3001 above. In my opinion, this theory is not a fundamental aspect of the book's notability; as such, while certainly worth noting in the "Sources and links" section, it doesn't warrant coverage in the lead. -- Muchness ( talk) 06:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes in the article, no in the lead. Not important enough. Jumble Jumble ( talk) 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph says, "...first written in English and published in 1950 in Paris, later translated by the author into African and published in 1958 in New York." However, I do not believe that Nabokov spoke any languages besides Russian, French, and English, and,, even if he did, "African" is still far too vague. Perhaps the writer meant "American", although that is hardly a language either. Although Nabokov did translate the book into Russian, this was not until 1967, as the bottom portion of the article agrees. Nevertheless, I have not yet changed anything, for I am still unsure whether it is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.94.124 ( talk) 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I started reading the "Plot summary" section of this article as I wanted to find out about the book, and was disappointed. Has anyone spotted the appalling English in that section? It is comparable to the raw output of a web translation engine. Occasional spelling mistakes can be forgiven and even corrected, as I was about to do, but I gave up on this one as I have not read the book.
Samples: 1) "The story starts with a forwards..." - What is "a forwards"? The introductory remarks section at the beginning of a book is called a "foreword" in English. (note spelling, see Oxford Dictionary)
2) "He states that the novel itself is very sexual and unusual but in the future will provide great inight to psychologists of the behaviors of individuals because of the personalities of characters in: "the panting maniac" "wayward child" and the "egotistical child"." - All this in one sentence without punctuation. What is "inight"? "behaviors" (why plural?) I can't work out what the rest of the sentence means.
3) "... set up travel to Americas." - Why is "America" plural?
Please, this is not good enough. It is as if somebody been vandalising by adding the letter "s" to the end of words, and worse. If you wrote this section or if you have read the book, and would like to improve this article, please do so. P0mbal ( talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The real problem with this section is that this novel seems to attract fans who love to summarize! Every week or so a new editor seems to add his own paragraph or couple of sentences, and it gets longer and longer and more and more disjointed over time.
Dybryd ( talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This is just an attempt to make child molestation legit as just another lifestyle choice. This book should be banned just like other child porn is and certainly Wikipeida shouldn't promote it in anyway except to clasify it as a weak way to expose children to adult manipulation and make child porn and NAMBLA a legit choice 99.53.169.153 ( talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)honrea
I have noticed a contradiction over the coinage of the word "nymphet":
The novel's flamboyant style is characterized by word play, double entendres, multilingual puns, anagrams, and coinages such as nymphet, a word that has since had a life of its own and can be found in most dictionaries, and the lesser used "faunlet".
from
Lolita
contradicts
A nymphet is seen to be a sexually precocious, attractive girl, and the term was notably used by French author Pierre de Ronsard, and popularised by Vladimir Nabokov in the novel Lolita.
fron Nymphet -- Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 14:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting too long. I propose archiving.-- Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence saying that the novel does not endorse pedophilia. Although this is the critical consensus, it needs a source. I removed it rather than just inserting a citation because until we have a source, discussion of how the judgment should be worded is completely beside the point.
I think I remember that Dmitri Nabokov has called the novel "the strongest possible condemnation of pedophilia" -- that quote would certainly be a notable source.
Lolita does not deal with pedophilia which involves sex with children but rather depicts sex acts with a very young teen which I believe has a special name all to itself I cannot remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane Caston ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if it bothers you but she wasn't a teen, she was twelve. The first "teen" being thirteen and she wasn't even that old. Therefore, she was a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 09:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Dybryd ( talk) 01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
hebephilia A Georgian ( talk) 18:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This section disappointed me. I find it over simplified and misleading. Humbert Humbert was clearly delusional to a greater or lesser extent throughout the book. This means, since the book was his description, we cannot be sure of many things, for example: it was HE who tells us that Lolita seduced HIM. But later in the book Lolita makes reference to "the first time you [Humbert] raped me". Humbert always believed he treated Lolita with the greatest kindness but again we had only his word to take and it is clear that he would blind himself to those things he did not wish to see (and in some instances he was aware of this).
This section should be written by a literary scholar rather than all and sundry trying to get their 5 eggs worth. For me, this is what devalues wikipedia. And maybe it would be a great idea not to try and just trot out the plot so as not to ruin the book for those that have not read it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.35.46 ( talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The description of Rita when Humbert received Dolly's letter might not be accurate, "Rita figuratively dies when...". In the book, the author mentioned that Rita was "dead to the world", implying that she was sound asleep when Humbert left. It might be true that to Humbert, Rita had "figuratively died" when Dolly's letter arrived, but to someone who have not read the book or noticed this part when reading, this description seems unnecessarily misleading. Killer199208 ( talk) 08:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In the last entry, (Glass Wave song), please somebody tell me what this means "The lyrics are sung in her own voice." Umm, what? whose voice? So the lyrics are sung by a fictional woman? I have not heard the song but I would assume that what was meant is something like "The lyrics are written in such a way as to sound as though they were sung by the character herself". yea? 174.88.27.200 ( talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My own inclination is to remove pop culture references that simply reference "Lolita" in a generalized sense without making specific mention of Nabokov -- the "Lolita" stereotype is familiar to many people who have never read the novel, and is more relevant to Lolita (term) than this article.
Accordingly, I've taken it upon myself to remove most of the pop songs a number of times. And sure enough, someone always come along a little while later and adds them back in. I don't want to seem like a simple snob, and if the consensus is that these songs are relevant to the novel, I'm happy to let them stand. But is that really the consensus, or is it simply the preference of the singers' loyal fans?
What do people think? I would like to agree on a consensus that can be a guide going forward.
Dybryd ( talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does the main article cite 36 chapters in Lolita? My copy has 69; 33 in Part I and 36 in Part II. 64.166.145.2 ( talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Olds88
Yes, part II of the novel ends in chapter 36. But part I ends in chapter 33. The 2 parts of Lolita are numbered 1-33 and 1-36 respectively. Please review a physical copy of the book.
No inaccuracy and nothing to look into. I repeat, this article is about the novel that begins in chapter 1 with "Lolita, light of my life ..." and ends in chapter 36 with Humbert killing Quilty. That is indisputable, and it is sourced quite well with a link to the Google view of the novel. If you want to discuss other chapters please stop disrupting this article and create another article. No one is stopping you from doing that. And stop your sockpuppetry and edit warring. Cresix ( talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making the Lolita article accurate. It's my favorite book! 66.234.215.165 ( talk) 22:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Dabrasha
I dont know about the 69 thing though going by the anagrams clues references and puzzles of that nature throughout the book I wouldnt discount it. One thing I do want to say however is that I am fairly sure the book is divided into several parts each containing numbers of chapters. Are you sure the version that has only 36 chapters in total is not an abridged version? Mine is the original and part one ends with chapter 33 and part 2 which ends in chapter 36 which does indeed add up to 69. Now I dont really care less but this appears to be facts and its right in front of me right now and I just rechecked. BTW Ive forgotten how to make my tag come up as a link to my contributor page. Kane Caston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane Caston ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody (re-)extends
to
That some singer "has admitted in interviews to a fascination with the Lolita concept, identifying with the character" to me says something about the pop singer but precious little about the novel. Ditto for her choice of name for her guitar, and ditto for having wanted, as a kid, to look like the main character in a movie that has its own, separate article within Wikipedia.
This is all part of "references in other media". I don't even know what the medium is in which the young Perry wanted to look like Swain.
Here's the edit summary:
Notability of what, to what? Perry doesn't affect Lolita a jot; if Lolita affects her, perhaps this should go into the article on her. Within this article, how is this stuff more than deletable trivia? -- Hoary ( talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody adds:
as a separate derivative literary work, after "Poems for Men who Dream of Lolita by Kim Morrissey".
This comes with the edit summary:
But they're not separate; they derive -- if I am to believe this, and I haven't looked it up -- from Morrissey's poems. And they're already mentioned in the article on Kim Morrissey, to which there is a conspicuous link. Again, within this article, how is this stuff more than deletable trivia? -- Hoary ( talk) 07:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following: 1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? 2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference? 3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference? If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia
Here's an item within the "Further reading" section:
My own copy is lying on my table in front of me. It's a lovely book, ISBN 0-19-501834-6. (Couldn't the people who created this article get any one paragraph right?) It has an index, in which Lolita appears. But not one chapter is devoted to Lolita.
Though it does say more about Lolita than does, say, the fantasies about Dominique Swain by some girl who'd later be a pop singer, it's less informative about the novel than is, say, The Garland Companion to Vladimir Nabokov (1995). May I remove it, and miscellaneous other papers that neither are cited by this messy article nor are obviously of great importance to Lolita?
(Normally I'd do so without asking, but others' enthusiasm for retaining and adding tangential trivia makes me pause.)
Apropos of further reading, I'd recommend that would-be contributors to this article did more of it. And not merely via Google but instead via books from university presses or comparable publishers, available in good libraries. The second half of Boyd's biography is a fine place to start. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, since the Wikipedia article on Umberto Eco documents to kingdom come that Eco is a professional scholar and the reference to him in this article has a wikilink to his article on WP, I honestly don't see why we need to reference here that he is a scholar, especially as this is well-known to readers of his novels. However, I have provided a link to his Amazon page, but somewhat under protest.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The "references in other media" section has become a pop culture trivia coatrack. Material, frequently unsourced, has accumulated there with no regard for relevance or weight. I've added a tag and reverted a recent addition of an unsourced fact. We do not need a vast bulleted list of random pop culture tidbits that happen to mention this very famous book.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. I do think that the incoming links need cleaning up. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Lolita → Lolita (novel) –
Oppose With 120,000 views a month, I would say it's a pretty notable novel. [5] It is also Google's No. 1 topic for the word Lolita. Topic No. 2 is the 1962 Stanley Kubrick movie with 24,000 views a month. [6] Topic No. 3 is the 1997 movie. Since both movies are based on the novel, they are not reasons to bump the novel out of primary topic. Kauffner ( talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The novel is what comes to (my) mind first, Lolita as a name became a term for a character like that in the novel, and many of the other "Lolitas" - if not most then the more important ones - are based on the novel, including the opera. Prime importance. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Outside the USA, this is generally regarded as one of the great American novels on par with The Great Gatsby and The Grapes of Wrath although Americans are in general disinclined to take credit for it as one of their great literary achievements.
The novel is listed as the 4th best novel of the 20th century in a list by Modern Library, listed in the century's top 100 novels (#11) by the Radcliffe Institute
[7] (Sandwiched between Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury"). The UK based "Telegraph" listed in #62 among the 100 best novels
[8] (oddly once again adjacent to Of Mice and Men) etc.
Outside of critic's polls, UK-based Waterstone publishing did a reader's poll of the best novels of the 20th century. Lolita came out #31
[9] (three places ahead of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" this time- they so often seem to be close on the list!!)
Anthony Appleyard, if this is the first time you have heard of this book, and you are having to ask just how notable it is, I can easily conclude you are a fairly young resident of the United States where the residents are shielded from the knowledge of just how highly reputable this novel is abroad.--
WickerGuy (
talk) 13:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - A reader interested in "Lolita" in many forms will find what they need on this page (plot, characters, etc.) or on a link from this page - as most of its uses are derived from the novel. Adding a disambiguation page will just slow them down to this information (IMO). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 19:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for all the reasons stated above. Most readers are looking for the article to the novel, and for those who aren't, the link to dab at the top of the page is quite sufficent. Cresix ( talk) 20:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment— Of 24 items on the dab page, at least 12 and maybe 17 are derived from or allude to the novel. — Tamfang ( talk) 00:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for Comment- I am a bit acronym-impaired here. I get that dab is "disambiguation", but I honestly don't know what OP is.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Other comment- I guess in terms of WP guidelines, what we are looking at is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The numbers- If you count articles ONLY, (not Talk pages or User Talk pages) there are 247 articles proper that refer to this article Lolita. But only 54 of them contain the Template:Nabokov Prose. User:Anthony Appleyard has written "Page Lolita has many incoming links (fewer if I call search for links from articles only), but I suspect that many of these links are via transclusions of Template:Nabokov Prose." It turns out just under 22% of the links are via such a transclusion, leaving 193 articles linking here without that template.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 04:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Lolita has been viewed 37479 times in 201105. This article ranked 2075 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. Lolita_(term) has been viewed 5018 times in 201105. [again on Wikipedia] (I would say this mitigates against the move, but I have only one vote.) Of the first ten Google hits, 7 are related to the novel, or films based on the novel, 3 relate to the term in general. (Ditto on mitigation, but again I have only one vote.)-- WickerGuy ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
(On the other hand, on Google hits 11-20, the term dominates over the novel.)-- WickerGuy ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
TheAwl has a Case History Of A Wikipedia Page: Nabokov’s 'Lolita', FYI. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes look at the Wikipedia as a way to link related terms to articles. As this is an article substantively about rape and incest, I found that such terms should be used to some degree to describe the events of the novel. I added sexual predator, rape, incest, child sexual abuse, and tragedy, plus mentioned "his criminal behavior." While these terms are not necessarily in the 50s era book, if this was a contemporary true story, these are the sorts of words that would be used in a newspaper article or a police report to describe Humbert's actions with his nymphet. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, perhaps discussing it clinically as literature, we might not use those words. But viewing it from beyond the presentation in the novel, an encyclopedia can call a spade a spade, and see through any barriers put up through the presentation of the story. A judge, a jury, or a prosecutor would prefer the words I used. The narrator, perpetrator, and the victim might prefer the words void of any clinical or legal meaning.
So you say that book critics who avoid these terms are right because they forgo criticism of the book's topics by concentrating on the literature? So the circumcision article should not link to genital modification and mutilation? If we look at circumcision as a religious practice, are we to ignore the fact that it is variously described as mutilation? If scientists, clinicians, and legal practitioners would describe events in Lolita terms like rape and incest or predation, why not use those terms? I am wondering if this is censorship or point of view? It's as if this story is inside a special fence in which terminology must relate to Humbert's view. And as long as we are inside his house of cards, we must submit to his morals and vocabulary.
I would submit that if a discussion on the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn article did not include the terms such as "racism" when describing Huck Finn and "bigot" or similar terms when describing other characters, we would be flabbergasted. The racism element is so widely debated; however, it was not a term used by Huck in his narration. ("Race" is used only to mention the "human race.") So how do you explain people labeling Huck a racist and yet Humbert isn't a child molester because of his vocabulary or semantics? Neither narrator thought it fitting to label himself anything but someone having the best of intentions. But no level of protestations by Huck or Humbert will convince me that "racist" on the one hand or "predator" on the other are unsupported accusations for these respective characters. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
When I added that category tag, I didn't realize the category had been deleted. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally, pop culture refs of Lolita have been removed from this page, because they seemed to lack a sufficiently broad cultural significance in and of themselves, and occasionally I have fought to include refs in this article that others deemed unworthy. But the attempted IP addition from a week and a half ago from the very recent Lana del Rey album is just plain false. There is no song on the album called "Lolita" and the lyrics to "Off to the Races" have nothing, repeat, nothing at all at all at all to do with this book. As they say in the zone.com game room, "Nice try".-- WickerGuy ( talk) 17:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
For some reason, someone is insisting on the first sentence in the "Erotic motifs and controversy" section should read "Lolita is frequently described as an 'erotic novel', not only by some critics but even in Facts on File: Companion to the American Short Story.. This doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes it sound as if there's something special about it being called that in Facts on File ("even" in Facts on File); what so important about the Facts on File mention, as opposed to, I dunno, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Desmond Morris, and the other citations in that first paragraph? If anything, the facts on file thing belongs at the end; as it stands now, it seems like a high school book report. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 06:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Another user uploaded a link to a lecture given by a literature professor on YouTube, and it has been deleted as not following WP policy. I restored it on Round 1 on the grounds that it was uploaded to YouTube by the copyright owner. Now it has been removed with appeal to WP:ELNO. Somebody care to say which stipulation of ELNO is being violated here?-- WickerGuy ( talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I have merged the list of characters back to the main article, as it was an unreferenced stub, and having it separate meant slightly fewer people will actually see the list, as opposed to it being here. I am neutral on whether the characters deserve their own section, having done little editing of such literary works, but i do know it belongs here for now, at least until it can be sourced and expanded. I respect the motives of the editor(s) making this bold move, but disagree strongly with the actual effect of separating the list out. I do agree that Humbert and Lolita may even deserve their own pages. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this paragraph:
"In chapter three of the novel The Gift (written in Russian in 1935–1937) the similar gist of Lolita's first chapter is outlined to the protagonist, Fyodor Cherdyntsev, by his obnoxious landlord Shchyogolev as an idea of a novel he would write 'if I only had the time': A man marries a widow only to gain access to her young daughter, who resists all his passes. Shchyogolev says it happened 'in reality' to a friend of his; it is made clear to the reader that it concerns himself and his stepdaughter Zina (15 at the time of marriage) who becomes the love of Fyodor's life and his child bride."
Should Zina Mertz be referred to as Fyodor's child bride? She was 15 when Shchyogolev married her mother, but I thought the marriage had gone on for a few years when Zina and Fyodor met.
-- 98.110.167.24 ( talk) 00:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
How is this justifiable? As a book written and set in the US by a long-term US resident in American English, how is that not violation of MOS:TIES? Curly Turkey ( gobble) 01:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Nabokov wrote an afterword in 1956 that first appeared in the American edition ... which didn't appear until 1958? Curly Turkey ⚞ gobble!⚟ 08:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Under plot the original editor writes "Instead, she initiates sex the next morning". Yet under style and interpretation he writes that Humbert is ashamed of his rape of Lolita. Rape is a link to the definition of rape which is forced sex without consent. I don't see how it can be rape if she initiated the sex. Whoever wrote this article can you please explain? Robotics1 23:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 ( talk • contribs)
not signed?
Yes but there is a difference between statutory rape which is defined in some countries laws (but not all) and rape in this context. What is more the word rape in this article is a link to the wiki definition of rape, not statutory rape, and that is defined as forced sex, which it was not. Whoever wrote this article should change the word rape to statutory rape and change the link or else not use the word rape at all. It's a shame that such an important article is so inaccurate on this point. It left me as a reader re-reading the article to see what I missed and I am sure I am not alone. Can someone please clean this up? Robotics1 08:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 ( talk • contribs)
I get that this isnt considered pornography, but i want to point out that the work has been featured at the Portal:Pornography for years now. if its ok to have it there w/o it being tagged by the project, thats fine with me, though i myself an am inclusionist with projects, this isnt my turf really, so i will gladly bow to others. if anyone feels it should be removed from that portal, im ok with that too, as its a really horribly dead portal, and a change of scenery is in order. just tell me and ill swap in another work of erotic literature there. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It is well-known that Vladimir Nabokov devised a riddle that he embedded in "Lolita" (e.g. a Playboy interview of 1964 among others: (about "Lolita") "She was like the composition of a beautiful puzzle—its composition and its solution at the same time, since one is a mirror view of the other, depending on the way you look") that scholars tried to solve since then (there are many papers on the subject, some directly freely available on the web).
1/ I think this wikipedia article should at least mention it.
2/ I think I have solved this riddle, and I'd like, if it's possible, to add a link to the blog where I have gathered a raw sketchy demonstration about this (several Nabokovian scholars that I contacted did respond positively about it). In order to have yourself an opinion about this claim, you can go there:
http://lolitasriddle.blogspot.fr/2014/10/lolitas-riddle-solved.html
When the key to the riddle is known, even the slightest details can reveal something (e.g. The allusion to an affair between Mona and Roy is explained, and we can even know why he is named Roy in the first place).
Waggg ( talk) 11:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. In this context, I think it can be interesting to mention he said in an interview in 1962 for the BBC when asked on why he wrote “Lolita”: « I’ve no general ideas to exploit, I just like composing riddles with elegant solutions.” Waggg ( talk) 08:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Though the article provides an external link to website showing several later-edition bookcovers of Lolita, it is missing any discussion of the topic. Even without specifically looking for them, I have come across numerous articles on the subject over the years (eg this New Yorker post). And there is even a book dedicated to the subject:
Here is a review of that work. Peter Mendelsund also has a chapter on Lolita in
Could some interested editor expand the article to cover this? Images of a couple of iconic bookcovers would also be helpful (and justifiable under WP:NFCC), but that is a secondary concern. Abecedare ( talk) 18:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Towards the end of the plot summary, there is this sentence: "He gives her a large sum of money anyway, which secures her future."
This is incorrect. He does give her a large sum of money, but she dies soon afterwards, in chidbirth. The money may have been intended to secure her future, and it was much more than she had anticipated from him, but it did not secure her future.
I have removed the mention of Humbert having a "close call with the police" because it simply isn't true (he just happens to stumble upon a relative of the young girl who maintains he is a former police officer), and I also have obliterated the reference to the bag full of toys bought by Humbert for the McCoo girl: none of this is mentioned in the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.157.190 ( talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The current term Lolita also refers to people (usually women but sometimes men) who dress in Japanese lolita fashion. I read the previous discussion about moving Lolita to Lolita (novel). Some comments referred to the number of searches/hits as the reason not to move it. However, since the word lolita also refers to those who do lolita fashion, the search results include results for both and no way to distinguish them. However, there is a need to distinguish the two. My previous edits to the Lolita page to address this were reverted multiple times. I request the page be moved to clarify it is the novel, with the main page having links to both Lolita (novel) and Lolita fashion, and edits to the Lolita (original or the novel) page should be allowed. Many 'lolitas' in the fashion industry have to deal with unwarranted sexual harassment directly due to this novel. It would be the responsible thing to add this clarifying information since the novel is the source of this behavior. When a Google search is done for "lolita", the second search result is "Lolita fashion." Therefore, this is not a trivial matter buried in minute details. The editor who reverted my changes did not want to consider my point of view or the information I provided and threatened me with spam, promoting Lolita fashion and vandalism and threatened to revoke my editing privileges. I hope I get with a more objective response. As a global encyclopedia, clarifying misinformation is in guidelines with Wiki's mission. If neither of my two suggestions are acceptable, I am looking for additional ideas to help with this or a clear directive that my edits were policy violation. Jalauna1 ( talk) 15:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. Are you providing extra information or stating you disagree with both options being requested based on that one data point? Jalauna1 ( talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. I misremembered. There was a book group, but she also taught a literature course in pre-revolutionary Iran to female and male college students. Ileanadu ( talk) 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lolita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a new book was published on 2018 Sept 11 re. the Horner case and its connection to Lolita. DailyMail has an article about the book here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6159725/The-Real-Lolita-Shocking-1948-kidnapping-11-year-old-girl-inspired-Vladimir-Nabokovs-novel.html Amazon sells the book here: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Lolita-Kidnapping-Horner-Scandalized/dp/0062661922/
A fan of Lolita may want to read the book and add relevant info from it to both this entry and the Wiki entry re. Horner. Phantom in ca ( talk) 18:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added "citation needed" to the end of the lead where we have
"Its assimilation into popular culture is such that the name " Lolita" has been used to imply that a young girl is sexually precocious"
with the comment
"citation needed re Lolita—a 12-year-old girl was not sexually precocious!"
I understand this to be a request for a citation that a 12-year-old girl can be sexually precocious (or that Humbert's Lolita was) - which is not what the sentence says. But I've left the request (well, converted it to the template) for now.
But, it made me realize that we don't have good coverage of the term "Lolita." There is nothing here other than examples of the word's use in other works, mostly popular culture. A section on how the word has been become a part of the language would improve the article and provide context for the rather long list of examples. If Lolita (term) were any where near useful, it would be a start. Anyone interested in taking that on? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 15:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
What was the original name of the book Think and Grow Rich????
This sentence, found under "Plot," makes no sense to me:
"Dolores reveals to Humbert that Quilty took her from the hospital and that she was in love with him, but she was rejected when she refused to star in one of his pornographic films."
There's one "her" and three "she"'s, the latter of which is where I got confused. Could someone who knows the story — I don't — please edit this so it makes sense? Or, at the very least, isn't so prone to confusing readers.
152.86.197.33 ( talk) 21:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this edit.
The sentence now reads Humbert knows he will feel guilty if rapes Dolores while she is conscious so tricks her into taking a sedative by saying it is a vitamin. The subject of tricks is understood, that's fair enough. But the subject of rapes needs to be explicit in my opinion. Other views? Andrewa ( talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Although the recent reverted anonymous edits were a bit tendentious, the current state of the plot summary isn't great -- too long, with far too much subjective language and frankly some slightly precious attempts to sound Nabokovian that don't belong in a Wikipedia summary. Can we work on shortening it an simplifying and neutralizing the language? Distingué Traces ( talk) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
There should be at least one small footnote or mention of important references to this story, such as Jeffrey Epstein's plane, the Lolita Express. 12.69.119.131 ( talk) 19:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)