adapted from the novel by Vladimir Nabokov Edward AlbeeLolita

This is a review for the way the item is being described on Amazon. This is a stage script of 'Lolita' as adapted by Edward Albee. The reviews seem to indicate that this is the actual work by Nabokov, it is not. Since I'm not interested in reading a stage version of the book before reading the book, I have no idea if the adaptation was any good.

Edward Albee brings us a creative script based on Lolita, the novel of Vladimir Nabokov. Lolita is a famous forbidden love story, about a mature teacher who falls in love of a almost-a-kid teenager. I recommend it.

Sure it arrived in timely fashion but it is junk. Half the pages were printed upside down and reversed making it unusable for my purposes. The frustration of dealing with returning just one script makes it all worse. Please check the quality of your products before shipping.

Yes, H.H. is sick. Yes, he is perverse. Yes, at times he is sadistic. Yes, he is ignoble, a monster, and all other horrible things that should be jailed, put away, and never allowed to see the light of day.But those who read this novel without finding the love story contained within have allowed themselves to entirely miss the point. And so have those who claim it to be "dirty" or "exploitave" of children should read the book PERIOD. And those who feel this novel is misogynistic are conveniently forgetting that H. H. is contemptuous of ALL of the characters within, including himself and his relations, regardless of race, creed, OR GENDER. Oh, of course, he dwells on certain women, but that's because the people he spends the most time with in this novel ARE women. And he certainly dedicates quite a bit of time to denigrating Quilty; let us not forget that!We must first also realize that Lolita is not only about a middle-aged man's decidedly unhealthy obsession with a teenaged girl. Lolita is also the tale of two (stylized and heavily stereotyped, of course) civilizations colliding, the "hypercivilized" Europe and the "barbaric" America (postwar). It is also a fable about the conflict between the overly analytical mind and the entirely emotional one (people who have studied psychology can probably elucidate on this better than I can). It is a satire on Freudian psychoanalysis. Finally, it is the result of one man's remarkable love for a language, which I think that no one can refute, no matter how appalled they are at the novel's content.Where is the love in the midst of all this horror, you ask? Perhaps those who cannot find it have never experienced the terrible things that people do in spite of and BECAUSE of the strength of their love. Humbert's sexual addiction to Delores Haze is nothing less than an animalistic need to possess the object of his obsession in the most obvious way. Humbert's patient attempts to foster his captive's skills (whether they be tennis, literature, etc.) reveals a desire to cultivate, as you will, what he sees as a supremely fertile field.And the sadism, I feel, was introduced for numerous reasons. Of course, it was to show just how horrible a person can by taking pleasure in the pain of another. But Nabokov also relayed the agony that Humbert experienced while BEING sadistic, while hurting the one thing that mattered most to him. Another significant, albeit rather twist, sign of love.Of course Dolores' thoughts and feelings matter to Humbert, but one must remember that he is bent on possessing her. Therefore, her opinions on life and the world at large matter not a whit to him; he is only interested in what she thinks of him, but he is also able to ignore that part of her because of he is battling to possess the rest of her, and because of his "obvious" superiority to her, being a cultivated and educated adult European and all.And of course, the most obvious overture made to Venus within this novel is the transference of Humbert's life (i.e., his assets) to Dolores. Of course, he could have blackmailed her, tried to buy her favors, kidnapped her for a second time, etc. But no, he cedes over all that is his to her and leaves. Granted, it is a small reparation, but it is all he can do by that point. It is the closest he can come to giving her back the life that he stole (her own, not Charlotte's) away and casually tore apart, and it is his attempt at absolution, not only for himself, but for her sake (read the last few paragraphs if you're shaking your head). It is this action that thinly separates H. H. from the everyday male monsters within our society.Of course, I've focused on defending the love story within from H. H.'s point of view, since there is none from the character of Dolores. I will not go into Dolores' blatantly whorelike nature, which granted, was partially due to H. H.'s influence, but was clearly present BEFORE any contact was made between them. I will skip over (because of space) Charlotte's utter disregard and contempt for her own daughterWhat's the upshot of all this? Well, first of all, I would like to make a few admissions. Yes, I am male. No, I am no professor of English, of literature, or of anything. But I do love the English language, I do love wonderful writing, I abhor H. H., and I find his actions within repulsive, horrifying, and warranting the harshest punishment available. I think spouse abusers should be beaten to a pulp and that rapists should be castrated. I don't think this is an appropriate book for most children and some adults.And I am certainly no pedophile.The upshot is that I firmly believe that Lolita is one of the finest and horrifying novels in the English language. And I, for one, feel that it is clearly a love story. And I'm not alone; I have many women friends and colleagues who have expressed similar opinions to mine, some of whom are English literature teachers, all of whom are strong and independent women (feminists, if we must use that silly and degrading label).Those who cannot see the horrible and tragic drama of love in these pages should step off of their soapboxes, take closer look, and recognize this text for what it's for. Lolita, unlike such trash as Romeo & Juliet, is work of art, of literature. Romeo & Juliet is bad teenage hormones. Lolita is a labor of love.

Thought it was the actual book. Not the fault of the company they delivered it on time and it was of excellent quality, the way it read I apparently read it wrong,

I like to think of myself as open minded and when i first heard about lolita in an english class i decided to read it, before i'd had chance to read it i noticed that Adrian Lynnes version was on TV and i decided to watch it, i actually remmeber thinking "thats not too bad" but of course the girl involved was 14 going on 15, she was at an age that she could be sexually aware and sexually active. then i came to read this novel and as hard as i tried i just couldn't understand it, she was 12, how could a 12 year old girl seduce a grown man? To me an innocent 12 year old girl would only just beginning to coy with the idea of holding hands with another little boy. And because of this i just couldn't enjoy reading the novel, it didn't seem real, i could just about begin to understand humberts side but the 12 year old lolita just got to me, i just found it to unbelieveable that a girl of that age would be capable of doing any of things she is described to have done in 'Lolita'.Having said that i'm still awarding a high score because of language, the style , the potrayal of Humberts character and every other aspect of this novel except lolitas age.I would reccomend reading Lolita but only if you can get your heard around the idea of her and him (obviously no one could understand the attraction)and you are not too easy to judge a person or let your morals jump in the way of your judgement (although some may say thats exactly what i did)Read it with an open mind and make yourself aware of the content so you can be more understanding, (maybe??) and you will find lolita a truly brilliant novel, one of the very best the 20th century has to offer.

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

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

Hmm, this is an okay play to read, and I guess an okay play to perform, but the only person doing the monologues are HH. I haven't seen the film or read the book, but I don't think the play is a great idea.