All posts by Kage

Movies, Reviews

Kageoween: Hell House LLC, Movie Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     I cannot stand found footage films. I loathe this genre with every fiber of my being. One might think that being 13 when the film that started it all, The Blair Witch Project, came out, would of impacted me. It would be like being around when the original Halloween came out and propelled one of my favorite genres in Horror, the slasher, into the stratosphere. It wasn’t the same for me. In fact, the only influence The Blair Witch Project had on me was making me realize that any idiot could do a film and that made me want to make a movie more. Otherwise, I thought the flick sucked. I have seen the majority of movies in this genre up until Paranormal Activity 3 and that was when I stopped bothering. Those films were way too polished and obvious in set up.

     This film, on the other hand, I found to be pretty decent and not just for a found footage film, but I mean for horror in general. This is one of the more unique films out there at the moment.

CHARACTERS
     So we have our typical group of decent looking, young twenty something’s who run a business. You have the leader, his girlfriend and couple of his friends. Instead of partying though, these kids are Hallopenuers! They’re looking to set up another haunted house and make money, like any typical young capitalist. I would mention their names, but they’re slightly forgettable. That is actually a slight problem with this film. The characters are slightly shallow. Thankfully, they’re real characters and not your run of the mill, drink, fuck and bone types, albeit, some beer is imbibed.
None of the characters are really developed either, this is a typical horror aspect at work and a really sad aspect of the film because it would of made the movie feel like a lot more was at stake and we would care, but atlas, that t’was not to be.

     The leader is an awkward character, it’s hard to believe he cares too much about his girlfriend or if he does care, it’s poorly expressed. One dude has a slight thing for the leader’s girlfriend, this is about as much depth as a character gets and is very weird to give a B character the character flaw. Normally flaws are reserved for the hero, not the first victim on the chop block. At one point, we’re told through exposition, about the deep boyhood friendship shared by two of the characters. I know showing this through hours and hours of video tape would be a pain in the ass, but it should have been better than some random being interviewed who is an expert on this case, maybe? I don’t know, it doesn’t really mention his credentials or why the hell he would be interesting to us to listen to, but by today’s “standards”, random internet trolls are all over the documentary scene, so it works. Regardless, the characters, while not as full or well-rounded as they could have been, worked out well enough for the story being told.

ACTING
     The acting was unusually better than most these films have. Although the actors seem like actors, as opposed to genuine characters. Perhaps the fault of a rookie director or maybe just the best take they could muster. Either way, I’ve seen much worse and don’t find this to be a horrible display of acting.

STORY
     The story was very interesting and well thought out. The tension building was right, it was slow and methodical, with each moment heightening the tension. It’s an old school horror movie in a modern skin and it shows, crafting a fantastic throwback to older 70’s and 80’s horror, where suspense and story was king. This does old school well and only those with a love for the genre of horror will really appreciate this detail, I think. Especially with all the Saw style editing. The only two flaws with the story is the twist, which I saw coming a mile away, but that didn’t detract from the fact it was interesting, even if done before. Also, the last year the hotel being active was late 80’s or early 90’s. It hasn’t operated in nearly 20 years, yet a modern bottle of Jack Daniel’s can be seen, among the artifacts.

VISUAL
     This movie looks like shit and that is part of its charm. It is hard to call your movie found footage when your lighting is professionally done and that has always been a gripe I had with these films. This movie feels like a compromise between being able to see the film and what is going on, but looking home movie like and keeping with a home video quality at the same time. In fact, only a few scenes looked awkward, one after a freak out moment in the field seemed out of place, like they didn’t bother to edit it in post, but besides that, it was very well shot and very well lit, creating a great balance between practical lighting and storytelling.

OVERALL

     The film, despite its flaws, is very enjoyable. One could point to any number of flaws in the classics and those are still held in high regard, which is why I am focusing on what it did right, as opposed to some of the weaker aspects. This film nailed storytelling. It knew suspense as well as atmosphere, it built well, even if the climax didn’t shock me. Overall, this movie is a welcome addition to the horror genre, regardless. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a film not rely on jump scares, music in place of suspense and a lack of gore, in order to tell a story. This is where it stands out and what it ultimately did best.

     I give the movie 3 ½ stars out of 5.

——————————————
Minor edits to the text: 10/2/18 11:35 pm

Books, Reviews

Kageoween: Frankenstein Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION

     Frankenstein, for all the pop culture surrounding it, isn’t a horror novel. Not in the traditional sense anyways. I see that as a shallow view of the book and a literal interpretation. Much has been said over the years about it dealing with fear of technology, science and modern advancement and given the history of the era, one cannot be faulted for thinking such, especially because Christianity still had a massive foothold. What about the book in 2018 though? If anything, Frankenstein is about the horror of humanity and its decrepit ugliness towards anything that is left of center or queer and the plight of humanity vs growth.

     The book follows multiple narratives and interweaves an intriguing story that really only drags in the middle. The rest of the book advances at a great pace and tells the story with prose that is stylistic, as opposed to seeming outdated. It’s quite easy to understand, although the narrative switch for me, wasn’t exactly clear at one point. Despite all that, the book and its central themes are fantastic with very little to complain about.

CHARACTERS
     The book has three main point of views, Victor Frankenstein as told through a primary narrator named Robert Wolton, the monster itself and various others through letters. Legend has it that the book was created as the result of a party were all guest agreed to write a horror story and this is the result of such. Marry Shelly was alleged to have struggled with coming up with an idea, which the multiple point of views tend to allude to.

     Victor Frankenstein has the most development of all the characters with the monster coming in second place. Everyone else, even when they seem important to the plot, are kind of just there. Not like background characters, but given the fact they have names and we’re exposed to some of their history through exposition, one would think they would have been important enough to warrant more development then they had.

STYLE AND PLOT
     Having been written 200 years ago, the prose hold up, very well. It’s similar to the modern novel in a lot of ways by exhibiting concise, basic prose, but still with evocative imagery, so that allows anyone to follow along with the story. Very accessible to the average reader with enough depth to satisfy anyone who demands more from their lit.

     The overall plot, if you can call it that, is as follows: Dr.Frankenstein created a being from unknown science, his monster took on a mind of his own. The monster taught himself to read, speak and learn. Unable to live in society, he is basically exiled and doomed to a life of loneliness, when returns to ask the good doctor to make another in his image and is refused, turning the monster to enact revenge upon him, which results in the death of both.

THEMES
     Besides writing, the themes is where the story is truly at. One could cull so many different interpretations from this work. It could be seen as the story of Lucifer, cast from heaven, making the renegade angel of enlightenment a lot more sympathetic. Given the time frame though, I doubt Mary Shelly or anyone would of consider admitting to such. One can view this as being a woman in the time frame, constantly turned away from manly endeavors that they’re just not built for, which is why this book was originally published anonymously, I’m sure and only bore her name years later.

     Other interpretations could be relating to being a monster or outcast as a teenager or in our modern area, being an Incel, since the monster is very much Incel like in demeanor with similar demands for a wife.

     Still, none of these seem like very good interpretations, but a few are dated. My own personal interpretation is the monster is representative of intellectualism, which is why the monster’s story is similar to Lucifer in the bible. There is innumerable evidence to back this up, including, but not limited to: The monster rebelling against his creator, the love for learning, being cast out and most importantly being misunderstood by the more emotional humans that plague the lands of this tale. Frankenstein is doing his best to live in a world that values emotion over logic and intelligence and is doing a poor job at such. No matter what, he is constantly exiled and seen as a monstrosity.

     When a young woman is executed for murder of a young child, the monster is undoubtedly to blame. This is fantastic use of metaphor, since the monster is intellect and the child is innocents and people fear that knowledge would lead to a loss of that innocence. So not only are the townspeople enraged, but they are also hasty to point the finger and hang an innocent woman.

     Almost every negative thing in this book is a direct cause of others letting their emotion rule them as opposed to being in control of themselves. They project their worst habits on the monster, enough though the monster is never really described. It leaves one to see the monster as the hero instead of everyone around him, who are all too willing kill, point the finger, flip out or destroy someone without due cause. It is the intriguing concept of humanity in all forms that really drives the narrative and makes it an enjoyable read.

CONCLUSION
     Frankenstein isn’t horror and the idea it is, 200 years on, is ashame. It’s called the original science fiction novel and while it has those tropes, I wouldn’t call it that either, since Sci-fi is often denoted by its obsession with technology. In a lot of ways, it is a gothic weird tale, but even that doesn’t really do the story justice in terms of describing it. The only way to really describe it, would be to call it what it is, that is character driven lit and our attitudes, prejudices and intolerance to difference in this world, no matter the era that keep this book being reprinted over and over again, to be enjoy and inspire future generations.
Five out of Five Stars

Books, Review

Ghostly: Book Review

Leave a comment

     This is going to be one of my shortest reviews. Ghostly, the anthology is a collection of older writers and modern writers. Most the stories are excellent, but Audrey’s is where i’m perplexed by its consideration for inclusion.

     You may know her from the movie based on her book The Time Traveler’s Wife as opposed to horror, although, she has a few credits in that genre.

     The books central theme is ghost. Although the cover would make you think it was cats, especially since her story and Edgar Allen Poe’s The Black Cat are both printed in this. The art on the cover is beautiful and the book is bound with sturdy binding. The text and pages are bright and easy to read.

     Each story has a introduction blurb to the story you’re about to read and all stories are a great inclusion into this set.

     The problem I’m trying to figure out, as stated above, is the reason for the inclusion of her story. Out of all the stories, this one is by far the most amateurish of them all. It lacks suspense, character, story and most of all, everything is told, as opposed to show. This wouldn’t be a bad thing if this collection was like Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark but it isn’t. It seems like the only reason to bother with this anthology was to publish this one story of hers. I cannot see any other reason she needed to put this together. I would presume that she had a lot of emotion invested into that story and as such, she wanted it published somehow and this was the only way to get it to the reader, editor be damned!

     Interestingly enough, the story still works, albeit, with extremely poor prose and structure, but I can only imagine how much more powerful the climax might of been had she attempted to build up suspense, instead of this awkward telling which ultimately leads to a let down and cliched ending.

     Had this just been an anthology with works that influenced her style that had introductions and maybe even scholarly notes about each individual work, it would of been a fantastic book. As it stands, it just an unnecessary collection using work of other authors to push her own into the spotlight and that is one of the saddest take away besides the list of notable authors who go second billing to herself.

     I give the collection 3 out of 5 stars.You won’t be saddened for having spent your money, since almost every story is excellent, but you’ll scratch your head as to why this book even needed to be made in the first place.

Non-fiction, Review, Uncategorized

Cult of Personality

Leave a comment

Today’s topic of interest is the cult of personality, also known as the celebrity fetish. While America isn’t unique in its love of other people business, it does it best and with typical American swagger. This isn’t an indictment of the country, but rather the throngs of “human” beings that worship other people for what they themselves will never be able to accomplish, which is apparently “greatness.”

There is a quote I’ve always been fond of and it comes straight outta 1985: If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything. Spoken by a Doc Brown, in Back to the Future. Penned from the hands of writers, through the mouth of an actor and forever ingrained into the public consciousness.Writers are the modern day philosophers, but rather than stand on a podium, we have a plethora of ways to let out some of the pithiest aphorisms of our day. The privacy challenged (Celebrity for the Layman) are no different from anyone else, in fact, I mean to prove it within the confines of this blog.

What is a Celebrity?

I want to have a look at basic definitions. It’s integral to understand what it is we’re dealing with, before we dissect it to its root.
1
: The state of being celebrated : fame
2
: A famous or celebrated person

The definition of celebrated is as follows

: Widely known and often referred to

These are too fucking vague. Allow me to rewrite a definition that better encompasses what people seem to think about celebrities.

Celebrity (U.S. Edition)

1. Anyone who is of interest to the public for doing what they themselves wish they could do, but for whatever reason, are unable to do.
2. Idolatry
3. A person who is in the “Public Eye.”

4. Someone who is considered, by the worshiper, far more “fascinating” than the person from whom the worship occurs.

5. A person who is ill-equipped to be a role model for the nation’s youth.

6. A built up fantasy from the primitive mind

7. “Hero.”

8. “God.”

9. Pinnacle of perfection

10. Someone who ignites religious fervor.

11. A Flawed HUMAN.

This is what the term has seemingly evolved into and it’s come to mean by today’s standards.

I’m taking a position here that we’re all celebrities. Not even the 15 minutes of fame, but rather in a much more realistic way. Allow me to express now, how the United States seems to see celebrity.

Let’s start out with a small anecdote to give background into my train of thought.When I was a child, I met a few “celebrities.” Not by my own desire, but because I was usually dragged along or in the wrong place, wrong time. Given the choice, I don’t bother with most of them. The list is quite paltry and meaningless to me. Some off the top of my head, Sam Kennison, A Celtics basketball player, Ted Kennedy, and a few musicians. Quite frankly, as a child, I didn’t understand who I was meeting, why I was meeting them and who the hell they were. I’ve managed to maintain this worldview well into my adult years and quite frankly, I still don’t get it. Not a single one of these people have done a single thing that you are incapable of. In fact, I know so.

One of my problems with the term is how fucking vague the definition is. I’ve been searching for something that goes a bit deeper than it does. I’ve found nothing, so allow me to make some arguments as to the needed change and why we should take a step back as to what celebrity is and isn’t.

If you refer to the definition above, it’s a celebrated person. Celebration is straightforward. How many people are celebrated every day? We celebrate people every day. Loved one, friends, ancestors, children and even the beautiful woman that makes one hell of a cup of coffee. We celebrate these people on a lesser scale, though and not a massive scale. Yet, I would venture to say they are no less celebrities than the superstar.

Now I want to bring light to the part of celebrated that is even vaguer than the definition. “Widely known.” What does this mean, does it have to be state wide, nationwide or worldwide? There are people in my city that have followings. They are known, but you might not considered them a celebrity. Is celebrity, then, only people who are known by a certain sect of people or do you have to be known even by people who detest you or indifferent to you?

The president should be considered a celebrity, he fits the known by loved, hated and indifferent. That just might be nationwide, though. Other countries have presidents you might not even know of. Maybe they don’t cause a ruckus that sends them through the internet or newspapers. They run their country efficiently and retire when their term is up, like ninjas, you never knew they were there.

Here is one other thing to really get to the crux of the matter when it comes to celebrity and that is “Public Eye.”

What does this mean? Aren’t we all in the public eye? A famous character one said the “How to we first begin to covet?”
The answer, of course, is that we covet what we see every day.

A little aside here. I was bullied in middle school, everyday, from 6th to 9th grade. Four years of brutal harassment that would have made a lesser man break down and lash out. I didn’t. I kept going, despite my detestment of school and outright loathing of those who would attack me, verbally or sometimes, violently. I’m not an angel, I fought back with fist and words, myself. One day, after being told by the principal that I was being called something horrible, which I won’t repeat here, but it was slanderous, she refused to express which students were saying such, due to fear of recourse. In other words, I having my name sullied was far less important than what I might do, such as sue the school. After all, the football team needed New jerseys, didn’t they? She had knowledge of slander and I had no recourse. Sound familiar? Apparently being in school made me a “celebrity.”

Sounds familiar, right? I’m aloud to scrutinize someone like Glen Beck, which I have, to the point of what would be considered slander and he has little to no recourse.

The government isn’t allowed to interject on freedom of speech, so most of this is covered as freedom of expression. When all it is, is the principal protecting the bullies and blaming the victim.

To add another bit of fact into the mix, some places, such as the state I live in, allowed for anyone to take a picture of you, your kids, friends, relatives, etc. Their only recourse was that if it was done enough, perhaps they could get a restraining order. Sounds a lot like, well, celebrities.

When celebrities have no more rights afforded to them than the “Commoner” then why are protecting slander? Why can I take pictures of them with their kids and make a profit off of it?

Not everything is open to the public unless you make it so. Yet a person’s sex life can be when they’re in the “public eye.” Even when the details of which have no bearing on their ability to do a job well done.

High School never ends. When they say high school prepares us for life, they don’t kid around. Not with knowledge, but with the typical assholes we’re going to have to deal with the rest of our lives.

When someone goes to a WWE event, which is televised, they can become a meme just like anyone else. A child. Let that sink in. They are not a celebrity by anyone standards, but apparently being in the public eye makes him/her open to scrutiny, I guess. I hope the kid doesn’t have a “deviant” sexuality, such as homosexuality, because the public has a right to know.

I’m not asking for special rights for anyone, in fact, quite the opposite. I’m asking for this to extend to anyone and everyone. If privacy is for a privileged few, those are special rights and it’s something I’ve always been against, baring few instances.

Some people can take the abuse. I’ve run for office and loved every second of it. Nothing like being so squeaky clean they have to lob fallacies and other bullshit at you, in an attempt to discredit you. Yet not everyone is like me and should not be subjected to it. No one really ask for it, they accept it as part of the job they desire to get into. Yet, once more going back to the definition, celebrity is someone who is regarded in their field as a go to person. This is encompasses even less people than the vague definition above, which means a person is only a celebrity when they become a master in their field, which I think, is a much more appropriate definition, since mastery of one’s craft, career or field is a lot more appropriate for such a status. Kids should not be celebrities, regardless of what they’re doing.

I know this is a long piece, so if you stuck with it so far, thanks, but to paraphrase a famous song from the 60’s. Human respect is disintegrating and this whole crazy world is so fucking frustrating.

I personally think something should be done and if I can add something, I’m going to do so.

Non-fiction, Opinion

Boys 2 Men: Sexual Socialism and you!

Leave a comment

 I’m tired of weak ass niggas whinin over puss
That don’t belong to them, fuck is wrong with them?
They fuck it up for real niggas like my mans and them
Who get it on on the strength of the hands with them, MAN-DMX

     I’m a misogynist! Granted, not in the traditional sense of the word, but the modern evolution of the term. It used to mean “Hate” of females, with the opposite being misandrist. In modern America, it seems to be a carnality in regards to woman. What can I say, I like tits, pussy and ass and make no qualms on my desire to visually quaff the beauty that is the female form. Albeit, When it comes to hate though, I have plenty reserved but it isn’t based on genitals, skin color or otherwise. I’m misanthropic, which is the antonym of philanthropist. I’m not very fond of our species and I find myself having to sort through the bullshit of your average troglodyte on a daily basis. I can claim no special omniscience, even though I can be perceived that way. I merely pay attention, imbibe on the libations that are the words of intelligent authors before myself and through due diligence of thinking, fact checking or more, to the best of my ability, be able to draw a conclusion with what is available.

     What I don’t tend to understand is this weird return to a time when “adult men” were waited on, hand and foot, by a woman, simply because. There is something emotionally stunted with it and I cannot wrap my mind around being ok with the equivalent of a mother, whom is also my sex partner. Never mind Freud and psychoanalysis on such, just the very idea that impinges on the fabric of my being.

     I know I’m being judgmental here and I am ok with that, in fact, that is my desire, to judge thusly those imbecilic, vacuous and insipid “humans” that are into this inane idea of perpetual adolescent and a weird Oedipus complex they need to work out with a shrink.

     Now, anyone who wishes to work out whatever arrangement they desire, is ultimately up to them. I’m not one to talk, because a lot of what I enjoy could be taken out of context. Here though, that isn’t what I am doing. It is the idea, concept, and through having listened to braindead people who enjoy this abject bullshit.

     Men and woman were always meant to be a team, working together, not a child with a mommy watching over the dullard. I believe that toxic masculinity is a positive thing. A man being independent, educated, pulling ones weight on the team and ultimately bringing something to the table is a must. The same must go for woman, because what good is a childlike woman for an independent man?

     Now, I write this in part, due to the insanity of InCels in the modern age. The repugnant concept that anything but natural selection will do is beyond me and incomprehensible to a thinking brain, which, if you’re reading this, you most likely are! The pedestrian brick a brac of internet troll dwellings are strung with vitriolic attacks about woman owing this idiots some gash, is enough to consider forcible sterilization at best and turning them into eunuchs at worst. The entitlement is strong and attacks at “Chads” and “Stacy” types spills across the digital landscape with the same vigor as an impotent, spurting a tad bit pre-cum, overly excited that his penis is slightly functional still.

     I have never had an issue with getting some pussy when I want some. It is quite simple, yet this pariahs complain and complain, never taking personal responsibility for themselves, and bitch that the government should give them free cunt. What in the great blue fuck, is all I can muster at these types! Sexual socialism and the redistribution of pussy. Even a double face palm is an understatement in an attempt at expression of unbearable dismay.

     Now, while I undoubtedly believe that prostitution should be legal, since a woman has the right to sell what she can give away for free and putting woman in jail for it is absurd. What I cannot agree to government subsidized sexual deviancy, in regards to woman being given to men, because they cannot get vagina themselves. Not only would we be allowing horrible genetics to breed itself into society, continuing to damn the genepool with inferior specimen, but we’re not teaching them how to be self-sufficient adults.

     These morons lack the capacity to be self-critical and reflect in order to do better in the world. It is always someone else’s fault. Now, I know some InCel men critique their looks and obsess about it like a woman looking at her thighs in a mirror, after a slice of pizza, because God forbid they indulge in a decant treat, least the bottom of the barrel cuckhold no longer wants to stick his microdick in her twat for copulatory actions.

     When I was a child, my middle-school was rife with sexual assault. I favored older woman, anyways, not prepubescent girls. Regardless, I didn’t indulge myself in such cuckoldry. Men are born to be douchebags, it gets us tang and I brazen do whatever it takes to enjoy the fruit of her loins, but Sexual assault is the hallmark of inferior genetics, using such as a reproductive strategy in an attempt to sire more progeny that will go on to cuck the species through horrible violent, entitle outburst at the hands of InCel tyranny as they attempt to install a patriarchy of TIMMAYS and engage in, what Nabokov called in Lolita, a parody of incest.

     Unlike the beta bitch of yore, this type was excessively groomed from day one to grow up to be the entitled little cock sucking faggots they are. The big bad world showed them they aren’t special little fuckers and they’re pissed about their overall banality. Unlike the old beta bitches, they’re also aggressive and will kill innocents over their lack of penile penetration into hot, juicy, cunt. Hey, don’t fret, you can always fuck a piece of lasagna, not like they could tell the difference anyways.

     One of the worst things is the intensity of the hatred for woman doing anything sexual at all and the queer ideas these ignorant assholes come up with. The idea that every woman is getting gang-fucked by 10 to 15 chads. If they are, kudos to those woman for being able to get their boxes fucked out like that and still make it into work the next day. It should be common knowledge by now that men who think every chick is having porn star style sex is normally of a lower I.Q. strata. Also, woman are very unlikely to be into such, since it would be bad reproduction strategy for them.

     Speaking of horrible reproduction strategies, the idea that woman are out their seeking polygamous lifestyles. This couldn’t be further from the truth and here is why: woman look for a man who is fit for reproduction. During times of income inequity, woman will seek out whom are superior, but the difference is, smarter woman, will be more likely to share a man with other woman, because it makes more sense for them to allow a man to have more partners than it does for him to bugger the fuck off. Given the average I.Q. regardless of sex, race or anything else is about 100, I highly doubt too many of these woman are making mini Huge Heffner’s out of the local chads, even once they get a taste of that sexy, sexy chad spunk. Mmmmm, Chris Hemsworth!*Homer Simpson drool* I digress, but a slight interjection on Thor’s huskiness was much needed. That said, those saying that return to more monogamous ways will end the bullshit with Incels, because then woman will have to settle for one of them, settle down and just like yesteryear, all will be good. Except for one thing, we still live in a predominately monogamous society, there isn’t a million wannabe Hue Heffners with harems out there and such a feat will be few and far between.

     Perhaps maybe the reasons these guys don’t get laid is just a blatant and horrible ignorance to the females of our species? I don’t know, but accusing every chick of being a Friday night episode of Debbie Does Dallas on Chaturbate.com isn’t really a way to get your nuts off. Maybe try treating them like people that would be a start too! Also, the THOT shit as denigration for wearing a dress and man-spreading herself is dumb. It is simple jealously of being more secure in their sexuality. If you’re a woman and want to show off ya twat, please do! No amount of pussy ever gets old! In fact, I encourage topless’ on the beach or anything else that will trigger these abnormal snowflakes into hysterical fits of rage quitting on Reddit and other websites. Just do it for the lulz!

Books, Review

Lolita:Book Review

Leave a comment

INTRO

What can be added to a book that is over 50 years old? What new insight, Easter eggs, subtext or discussion could matter? Very little, I would presume, so I’m just going to go over the book and give my opinion on what I took away and if it is worth the time to read.

SUMMERY
Lolita see protagonist Humbert Humbert, who has suffered a grave childhood trauma of losing his first love come upon a family of two in the 1940’s. Humbert is instantly smitten with young Delores Haze, who he affectionately refers to as Lolita. Humbert is unable to woo his would be child lover into his arms in the beginning, so he marries the sexually aggressive mother, just to stay close to Lolita. One day, the mom gets struck by a car and H.H. decides he and Lolita are to take a road trip, where they would make dozen of stops, as a May-December version of Bonnie and Clyde, but with less tommy guns and more sexual deviance. One day, while hospitalized, Lolita is kidnapped by a man who had been following them and H.H. spends the next several years attempting to track her down. In the end, a message from Lolita and her new husband, that allows for the reconnection between her and H.H. and the resulting down fall of our protagonist, whom cannot handle having lost his beloved.

Ultimately, Lolita is a “serious comedy” if you will and funny, even to those who won’t get the references and Easter eggs the Nabokov left within the text. I have never read any of the romances for which the book parodies, but I could help but laugh out loud at the right times. The fact that young man such as myself, can pick up on the humor, being 31 years removed from the publication date and still laugh out loud, is the hallmark of a brilliant writer.

STYLE
The prose is fantastic and very vivid, for a guy who wasn’t a native English speaker, he really, really understood how to woo us with the beautiful word choices and evocative imagery. There are natives of the language that can barely utilize English to craft a book report, let alone an entire novel and do it so well, that one has to wonder about their own prose and if they’re using their native tongue to its fullest. Nabokov really seems to love English and it shows.

CHARACTERS
The characters is where we run into a slight bit of trouble, but not too much. Lolita is barley developed, no pun intended. She has no internal monologue in regards to the adventure these two are one, this isn’t a new criticism but a valid truth hood. Would it have suffered to give her an internal monologue? No, because there is enough exposition to let us be aware what she is thinking. Albeit, internal discussion for the character in regards to a development of Stockholm syndrome, may have made the poignancy of her kidnapping a tad bit more shocking and sad to the reader.
Humbert is the narrator and unreliable at that. He is charming, witty, well read and ultimately a lovable protagonist when he should be reviled for his sickness. This is great character development, since writing likable characters requires a flaw they possess in order to make them enjoyable, just as the villain must have a likable trait to make him less than one dimensional. There can be no greater flaw than pedophilia and the fatal attraction between H.H. and his love interest.

With the exception of Cue Quilty, whom needed far more development than he had so the ending resolution would carry far more gravitas than it ultimately did.

The rest of the characters were merely background.

CONCLUSION
We shouldn’t like Humbert, but we do. The interesting character arch from pedophile to actual dad has got to be the most unqiue arch in history. His liveliness draws us and takes hold as we become party to sexual assault. The beautiful prose is used to merely cover up the indecency of an adult man having kidnapped and forced Lolita into a life of running and rape at every motel and hotel they could afford and would have lasted until Humbert was done with her. The down ending is really an upbeat one, as Lolita has managed to escape her past to an extent, but since Humbert is writing this as memoir, she will never truly be able to escape it, always looming over her, like a black cloud. Not long after getting away from Humbert, she starts to already exhibit some symptoms of PTSD and for something that wasn’t as well known in the post-World War Two era, it is shocking how Nabokov could understand it so well and enhance his work with it. No to mention that little was known on Pedophiles and yet, he created the grandest of profiles on exactly how a lot of Humberts ilk are. This is FBI profiling in prose form and excellent at that. It should be taught in those courses, if it isn’t. The fact that it was decades ahead of people who analyzed criminals for a living is a testament to the genius of Nabokov. You are better off for having read this book than you would be by advoiding it, the fact that it has survived over 50 years is widely read is very telling. Nabokov is ultimately the Shakesphre of his time period, with only a fistful of others living up to such a moniker. Five out of Five stars!