a lie within a lie…

is this book Laurent’s reality or what she wanted to be real? Does Dr. Neu exist? The article she showed to the psychologist was Dr. Neu’s paper. And the psychologist says it’s fake that Dr. Neu was another lie of Lauren “is that there is no Dr. Neu anywhere in the world who would perform a corpus colostomy on a patient with TLE. It’s just not done” (176). This whole book was made in order to fill Laurent’s void, created by her mother. She steal things, feint illness, played with words, lies and cheap. Everything, in order to close that whole within her “perhaps I’ve just felt fitful my whole life; perhaps I’m using metaphor to tell my tale, a tale I know no other way of telling, a tale of my past, my mother and me” (192).  Laurent talks about the gift again, and says that she didn’t became what her mother wanted her to be “a gift. And in that mirror we saw who I had not become, the gift I hadn’t given her, so I gave it to her then”(191)


This whole chapter involves Lauren’s growth. I think the surgery is a metaphor too, that divides Lauren child/innocent before the operation and the more mature 17 year old girl after the surgery. After the surgery her seizures were less, and less intense. Her body matures and she starts with auras, one of then happened while typing that lead to an orgasm “I had an aura that ended in an orgasm”(111).  Then we are introduced to her sexual live that began with Christopher. “In my brain there was a gap where Dr. Neu had separated the sides, and in my body there was a gap, barely stitched together rip, and all you had to do was press its seams and it would split..”(132) Lauren compares Christopher and Dr. Neu, who created a hole in Laurens brain, and Christopher who breaks her body.I never thought about it, but what Laurent says its true “ ..only human beings can lie”(133) not verbally speaking, but we are the only race that can fake, feelings emotions.


Lauren’s unreliability makes this book…so fake. I don’t know what to believe now; it’s taking the magic out of the book. Or should I say I haven’t understood her metaphor yet. Lauren says “I felt to speak would be to betray my mother” (37) when they were talking to Dr. Swan. But after the super maker accident “I wanted to answer, but the words got tangled in my throat” (43) is contradicting herself, because she betrayed her. As she learns how to “fall” she got addicted to it, at the point, where she just does it every time she pleases regardless whether it might be true or not. “I would do it for anyone who asked, and sometimes for anyone who didn’t” (55) I really don’t like being force to believe or lead by others. So far in this book Lauren, has leaded us to believe in scenes created by her and then reveals the truth through a metaphor. “I didn’t really fail into the grave I was using metaphor to try to explain my mental state.”(60) In other words, her spasm, her whole ill was getting worse.

The part where she starts to steal things from her neighbor, I think she was just trying to fill the whole she had. Or the whole epilepsy has created “I slipped her in my pocket, and before I left the house I saw the small space I had made on the Slonicks’ wall, a gap in the middle of human history where Henrietta used to be, and for a minute I felt full, and the emptiness now outside of me.”(70)

I think lying is a human nature, almost as of our body. If this book its call Lying and the first chapter is “I exaggerate” how can I assume everything that follows is real?  Feels like Humbert’s style, unreliable narrator. I was attracted to her description of epilepsy, how alive it feels; the first symptom the smell of Jasmine “I didn’t know, then, that epilepsy often begins with strange smells” (4). How she describes after her first seizure the visual of her teeth during spasms of epilepsy “your grit your teeth, you clench, a spastic look crawls across your face …you grind your teeth with such a force you might wake up with a mouth full of molar dust”(19).
The narrator’s mother, what’s up with her, she didn’t care about her first seizure “and so I waited, but she never appeared to nurse me that night, and this is a grudge I still hold.” (20). and the part before that, where she just played the all-knowing and never touch the piano.

Dolores ” i will create a brand new god…”

I am disappointed by the end of the book. During the time when Lolita is missing, Humbert affirms that without Lolita, Humbert is losing his little sanity he had left. “I understood my mind was cracking” (255). And that no matter how strong his love is, nothing will change his sick mind about pedophilia “the reader a fool to believe, that the shock of losing Lolita cured me of Pederosis” (257).

In order for Humbert to calm his demons, he uses Rita. “Solitude was corrupting me. I needed company and care. My heart was a hysterical unreliable organ. This is how Rita enters the picture.” (258). It’s funny because, during the description of Rita, Lolita is the first name that appears.

After Lolita re-enters into the book, Humbert ruined my hypothesis, I thought he would kill her and then her kidnaper. Humbert proof me wrong “I could not kill her, of course, as some have thought. You see, I loved hr. it was love at first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight.” (270). Humbert mental words shattered my mind, “he broke my heart, you merely broke my life” (279) this is what Humbert thinks he’s done to Lolita. The rejection of Lolita to go back in Humbert life, broke havoc in Humbert’s mind, he intended to kill Lolita kidnaper Quilty “I was quite sure I had to go. I had to go, and find him, and destroy him” (280)

I was disenchanted by the way Humbert kills Quilty. I would have preferred to see more mental bloody scenes. I would picked all of the Spanish inquisition tortures to Quilty such as, judas cradle, the rack and my favorite the saw torture (when saw cuts victim in half).


During this part, I see H.H first as the hunter then as the prey… “The hunter becomes the hunted”. H.H. travels around the country, by traveling H.H have evaded the trouble with society and his sick affair with Lolita. H.H also at the first chapter tries to manipulate Lolita by saying that she has no one else but him “so I go to jail. Okay. I go to jail. But what happened to you, my orphan?” (151). in one occasion he jealous of a tall man that plays with Lolita, “noticed Lo in white shorts receding through the speckled shadow of a garden path in the company of a tall man” his sick obsess towards Lolita just grows bigger and bigger, to a point where H.H send Lolita to a School for girls. H.H ill delusion makes him imaging the scenario of Lolita toying with other nymphets at the school playground, but unfortunately, builders ruin his view “by means of powerful binoculars, the statistically inevitable percentage of nymphets among the other girl-children playing around Dolly” (179). H.H starts noticing how naïve he was and how was being control by Lolita “but I was weak, I was not wise, my schoolgirl nymphet had me in thrall.” (183). Lolita start to change, to rebel against H.H, when she demands higher fees for sexual favors, H.H paranoiac with the thought that, with the money Lolita has saved, so she cannot run away. Eventually H.H takes away the money.

H.H, after all his magical manipulation his cold thinking and all, he recklessly do something so irrational “unbuttoned my overcoat and for sixty-five cents plus the permission to participate in the school play, had Doly put her inky, chalky, red-knuckled hand under the desk” (198). Maybe I am thinking too much, maybe I am traumatized by how our professor makes us think outside the box, But she is masturbating H.H in front of Lolita’s unnamed friend “and there was another girl with a very naked, porcelain-white neck and wonderful platinum hair, who sat in front reading too” (198). This happened in a public place.

Lolita transforms from a nymphet (caterpillar) to where we are now, the metamorphoses into adulthood, and later the manipulation or seduction towards H.H. this fact occurs when they both fight and Lolita escapes in chapter 16.


“I had actually seen the agent of fate. I had palpated the very flesh of fate and its padded shoulder.” (103) Humbert blames many of his ideas to fate, not just in this session but throughout the few chapters I have read. When Humbert is at the hotel, after drugging Lolita, he tells us “Frigid gentlemen of the jury! By six she was wide awake, and by six fifteen we were technically lovers. I am going to tell you something very strange: it was she who seduced me”. (132) He has played with us before; he has through his book the power of confusion. He has proved himself, at times an unreliable narrator. He also admits he doesn’t remember details perfectly. Can I believe that Lolita truly seduced him? On the other hand, Lolita’s behavior does fit with her nasty, flirtatious nature “ You mean, she persisted, now kneeling above me, ‘you never did it when you were a kid?’ “ (133). As further matter, Humbert doesn’t describe the actual act of sex with Lolita in detail, as he says “not concerned with so-called ‘sex’ at all”. I think for Humbert, Lolita addiction goes beyond physical lust. Even when Humbert drugs Lolita, he only daydreams about her body. Humbers way of writing, transport me to his side of reality, where everything he has done is sane and nothing wrong with his action. As he is trying to convincing us, he was forced to do everything.

a perfect lover i would say. i love the way he uses the diary like a device for us to see Lolita through Humbert’s passionate eyes in an utterly subjective,supposedly private form. this might sound funny but the scene when Lolita sat next to Humbert and was playing with her apple”My heart beat like a drum as she sat down, cool skirt ballooning, subsiding, on the sofa next to me, and played with her glossy fruit”. it kinda resembled to me the Garden of Eden story. Lolita, as Eve, eats the red apple, while she is ignorant of what is happening, and i would say Humbert as Adam.
even though Humbert believe they are connected by fate, i think Lolita sees Humbert as a father figure, he says her running upstairs “interrupted the motion of fate” (pg 66)
Humbert is the puppeteer and we all are his puppets, the way he manipulates the people around like he admits to the jury(us) he has toyed with the idea of marrying a widow to have his way with her child. , the steps he plans ahead of time “when i had brought up for detached inspection the idea of marrying a mature widow..with not one relative left in the wide gray world, merely in order to have my way with her child(lo, Lola ,Lolita).(pg 70)


I totally hate this book; it’s so complicated to read. The little that I understood was that the narrator was raised by his father and that his mother had died suddenly and he describes this traumatic event with only two words: “picnic, lightning”. It gets more interesting when he met Annabel. Though they are just friends at the beginning, their friendship soon changes into passionate, adolescent love. It’s awkward because they never manage to consummate their “love”, and four months late she dies. I think Humbert started liking young girls because Annabel. He also says that he was only to able to break free of Annabel’s spell when he met Lolita. He tells the reader that he was only able to break free of Annabel’s spell when he met Lolita, more than twenty years later. I like when Humbert used Greek, Jewish, Latin mythology terms, like eve, Lilith, and nymphet, which is a girl between the ages of nine and fourteen(according to Humbert). He’s sexually attracted to this type of prostitutes. Then he gets married to Valeria, he chooses Valeria because of her childlike nature.

The Ones Who Walk Away

I found this story to be extremely creepy, and I got a cold feeling when I read it. In this story, Omelas is an Utopian city of happiness and pleasure, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. everything about Omelas is amusing, except for the secret of the city “the good fortune of Omelas requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness and misery”. i believe it’s wrong to live in Omelas. The citizens live in what they choose to believe is a perfect world, without despair or sorrow. in reality, when each person come of age, they are command to observe a small child that lives in constant misery. About it, the narrator says, “perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect”. The child is the one in particular in Omelas who lives without happiness, yet no one chooses to help it. Rather, most simply accept that, if anything were to change, the “…beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed”. On the other hand, those who cannot accept the idea simply “go out into the street, and walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out of the city of Omelas…”. The people who walk away from the city Omelas are people that can not bare to live a life of isolation and happiness , at the expense of another life. Are these people that walk away more compassionate than the ones that stay, is it a easy choice to make to walk away.
Leaving Omelas, like living there, I find immoral as well. Both actions require complete ignorance of the fact that in the town there is a young child who is suffering. After reading many question came to my mind such as, must one suffer so all can be happy? Is torture “justified” if it will save lives? is one life worth any more than another? It is the same as saying that we can trade one person for another, simply because one person is seen as lesser in the eyes of the world.