I have wanted to read Vladimir Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’ for a while now. I got a hardbound edition of the book as a present from a friend sometime back. When my friend Delia (from Postcards from Asia) also said that she wanted to read the book, we decided to host a readalong. After a lot of hardwork and many despairing reading moments, I finally finished reading the book. Here is what I think.
The story told in ‘Lolita’ is very simple. The narrator is a forty-something year old man who lusts after girls who are between ten and thirteen years old. He calls them nymphets. The story describes his affair with one such girl whom he calls ‘Lolita’.
Once when our narrator tries to move to a new town to work on his writing, he discovers a house for rent. He doesn’t like the landlady much. But when he discovers that his landlady has a daughter and he feels attracted towards her, he immediately rents the house. He plots and fantasizes about things. But things don’t happen according to plan. The mother – the landlady – falls in love with him. Our narrator doesn’t give up easily. He marries the mother. Now he believes that he will have the license to behave in whichever way he wants with the daughter. But the mother discovers the ugly truth. And she tries to expose it. But, unfortunately, she gets killed in an accident. Our narrator, Humbert, then takes his step-daughter Lolita out of school and the two unlikely companions go on a road trip which stretches for months, during which time they live in motels every night and become lovers. They finally decide to settle down in a town and Lolita goes to the local school. But Humbert is jealous whenever Lolita attracts the attention of boys of her own age. At some point he decides to move out of that town and they embark on a road trip again. During the road trip, Humbert has a suspicion that they are being followed by someone. But he is not able to find out the identity of their pursuer. Lolita also disappears briefly for a short while whenever they are making stops and seems to become friendly with a stranger. At some point Lolita disappears. Humbert searches for her, but is not able to find her. He spends the next few years just floating around with another woman. And one day he receives a letter from Lolita asking him for money. He tracks her down and asks her who kidnapped her and why she disappeared. What happens after that is the rest of the story.
‘Lolita’ was hard for me to read. For most of the first half of the book, Humbert tells us a lot about his fantasies and it was quite difficult to read those parts of the book. Many times I stopped and asked myself why I was reading the book. And precisely at that time, Nabokov would come up with a beautiful sentence like this :
If a violin string can ache, then I was that string.
It was sentences like these that kept me going.
As Humbert says on the first page of his account :
You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.
When I finished the first part of the book, I found it extremely hard to get started on the second part. That is when I read this piece about the ’51 Most Beautiful Sentences in Literature’. There was a quote from ‘Lolita’ in that article, which went like this : “And the rest is rust and stardust.” That sentence touched me deeply and gave me goosebumps. I wondered how Nabokov had taken the creepy narrator with his creepy story to the place where this beautiful sentence springs out of the story like a beautiful star. I wondered how that happened. I wanted to find out. That made me read the rest of the book. I did finally manage to find that sentence, but it didn’t have the same impact as part of the text. Outside the text, standing on it own, it shone like a bright beautiful star.
I have to say something here about Nabokov’s prose. There were passages and pages which were filled with Dickensian sentences and these were interspersed with passages and pages filled with sentences in our everyday, contemporary style. It clearly showed that Nabokov had one literary foot in the Victorian age and another in the modern era and he was trying to navigate between both these universes with easy felicity while trying to come out with one coherent unique style. I don’t know whether he managed to succeed in that, but I felt it was an interesting experiment. (I have seen some contemporary Australian authors do that – writing in a combination of Dickensian ornate prose and contemporary plainer style. One of my favourites, Elliot Perlman, pulls it off successfully.)
The book is littered with beautiful sentences and passages, like beautiful pearls. That is what kept me going. As someone said, how in life beautiful happy moments come only after long gaps and how we have to keep working hard during those dreary long gaps to reach those beautiful moments, I kept working hard to reach those beautiful sentences. They brightened my day of hardwork.
This is a spoiler and so if you haven’t read the book, please be forewarned.
Towards the end of the book, Nabokov pulls a rabbit out of the hat. He introduces a new villain who is even worse than Humbert. I don’t know whether we were supposed to feel sympathy for Humbert after that. At that point, Lolita is also portrayed as a not really innocent girl. I didn’t know what to make of that. If we look at it from an outsider’s neutral perspective, it looked like two grown up men used their considerable influence and power to exploit a young girl. Whether she was innocent or not was irrelevant. The fact was that she was young, she was a girl and she was exploited. When we look at it from this perspective, it is hard to like the narrator even if he is the one who is telling the story.
While reading the book, I remembered two things. One of them is a book by Yoko Ogawa called ‘Hotel Iris’. It has the exact same story as ‘Lolita’ – an older man lusts after a young girl. The difference is that in Ogawa’s book, the story is told by the girl. I found that narrator likeable. Also Ogawa’s book doesn’t spend time on fantasies and imagination, but describes events as they happened and in the end, the girl survives to tell the tale, while the man disappears.
The second thing is a Spanish movie called ‘La Flaqueza del Bolchevique’ (‘The Weakness of the Bolshevik’). It has a similar story – an older man and a schoolgirl have a relationship. But what the scriptwriters have done in that movie is that they have removed all the things which are uncomfortable to the reader in ‘Lolita’ and have created a beautiful love story. It is a convincing story, the main characters are adorable and it is one of my favourites. If you want to read ‘Lolita’ but are not ready to take the leap because it makes you uncomfortable, I would recommend this movie to you. If you have read ‘Lolita’ and decide to watch this I would love to hear your thoughts on they compare.
So what is my verdict on ‘Lolita’? I am not sure I can say that I liked the book. The first half of the book made me really uncomfortable. (I have read a few disturbing books in my time, but still…) It was impossible to like Humbert but it was equally impossible to resist knowing his insightful thoughts on different things. I felt sad for Lolita – she must have had a hard time with perverted older adults around. I loved parts of Nabokov’s prose and I will be reading some of those beautiful sentences again.
I will leave you with some of my favourite passages from the book.
There are two kinds of visual memory : one when you skillfully re-create an image in the laboratory of your mind with your eyes open; and the other when you instantly evoke with shut eyes, on the dark innerside of your eyelids, the objective, absolutely optical replica of a beloved face, a little ghost in natural colors.
I now warn the reader not to mock me and my mental daze. It is easy for him and me to decipher now a past destiny; but a destiny in the making is, believe me, not one of those honest mystery stories where all you have to do is keep an eye on the clues. In my youth, I once read a French detective tale where the clues were actually in italics; but that is not McFate’s way – even if one does learn to recognize certain obscure indications.
I have often noticed that we are inclined to endow our friends with the stability of type that literary characters acquire in the reader’s mind. No matter how many times we reopen ‘king Lear’, never shall we find the good king banging his tankard in high revelry, all woes forgotten, at a jolly reunion with all three daughters and their lapdogs. Never will Emma rally, revived by the sympathetic salts in Flaubert’s father’s timely tear. Whatever evolution this or that popular character has gone through between the book covers, his fate is fixed in our minds, and, similarly, we expect our friends to follow this or that logical and conventional pattern we have fixed for them. Thus X will never compose the immortal music that would clash with the second-rate symphonies he has accustomed us to. Y will never commit murder. Under no circumstances can Z ever betray us. We have it all arranged in our minds, and the less often we see a particular person the more satisfying it is to check how obediently he conforms to our notion of him every time we hear of him. Any deviation in the fates we have ordained would strike us as not only anomalous but unethical. We would prefer not to have known at all our neighbor, the retired hot-dog stand operator, if it turns out he has just produced the greatest book of poetry his age has seen.
Have you read Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’? What do you think about it?
Other Reviews
Vishy's Blog 
I first read Lolita many years ago as a student. It had been recommended to me in a list of books from one of my tutors. I struggled with it though and didnt finsih it. I read it again and finished it about 15 years later in my early thirties. Did I like it? I dont think I really did, and yet it was a powerful book. I remember being engrossed in reading it that second time even though it was just too uncomfortable to say it was enjoyable! Your review captures exactly what I remember – that contradiction between the talent in some of his writing and yet the sheer awful vile characters he created. I’ve often wondered about re-reading it, but I now have a teenage daughter around Lolita’s age now and it just doesnt feel right. But your review makes me think that someday, I should read it again.
Thanks for sharing your experience of reading ‘Lolita’, Col. I can understand why you found it so hard to finish, when you read it the first time. I loved what you said about the contradiction between the beautiful prose and the vile nature of the characters. I don’t know whether I will ever re-read the book from the cover to cover, but I have highlighted all my favourite passages, and I will get back to them again someday.
[…] I postponed reading Lolita for quite some time. I wanted to, yet something kept me back. Finally, when Vishy said he got the book from a friend (what a coincidence, so did I) and wanted to read it, we decided to do a read-along. His review can be found here. […]
“You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.”
That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? I very much liked the writing but the story…I started out pitying Humbert and then hating him and then being somehow in the middle. Strange book, powerful, beautiful language, yet it left me with a bitter taste.
Yes Delia 🙂 That does describe the book perfectly. Glad to know that you liked the writing, and I agree with you very much that it was hard to like Humbert, though in the beginning he makes every attempt to us, the readers, on his side. Thanks a lot for hosting this readalong and reading this book with me.
Wow, what a terrific review, Vishy! It must be almost forty years since I read Lolita at university and yet it is as if you were channelling my feelings from so long ago!
I look back on that course, and I wonder, what made them choose *this* book rather than some other book for a bunch of innocent would-be school teachers to read? I think now that it was to shake us into a different kind of writing and a different way of looking at the world – with the very issues you’ve identified i.e. a narrator that no one could possibly like, and a narrator that no one could possibly trust.
It was certainly a shock to me. Most of my reading up to that point had been Victorian classics and the books that shaped my father, the ones he’d kept in his personal library wherever we travelled in the world (Huxley, Orwell etc.). Apart from Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Tom’s Cabin, I think Lolita was the first piece of American fiction I’d read!
Thanks Lisa 🙂 Thanks for sharing your reading experience of ‘Lolita’. I think the person of the committee who chose this book in that essential reading list nearly forty years back, must have been incredibly brave. I loved what you said about the narrator – he was impossible to like, but it was also impossible to resist reading what he had to say. Your dad’s reading list sounds like that of my dad’s and mom’s – they also loved Victorian classics (though I don’t think they read Huxley or Orwell). My first American fiction was ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer’, I think.
Guessing that your parents are about the same age as mine, they would have been young people during the colonial era? Forgive my ignorance, were there many Indian authors writing and publishing then, or were they mainly English?
My parents were young during the colonial era, Lisa. As the education system here at that time, was based on the British education system, all students read Victorian classics and Shakespeare and things like that. Readers here also loved French books which were typically popular in the UK at that time – like those by Alexander Dumas and Victor Hugo. Because my parents inducted me into reading, for a long time, the only French books I knew when I was a child were by these two writers. I hadn’t even heard of Balzac and Flaubert and Zola. And neither had my parents 🙂
On the second part of your question, Indian literature had started to thrive during the latter part of the colonial era. There was, of course, classical literature which was hundreds or thousands of years old (in Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil), but during the middle / late 19th century, Bengali literature had a big renaissance and led to many great writers like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Michael Madhusudhan Dutt and Rabindranath Tagore. Tagore went on to win the Nobel prize in 1913 for his poetry in Bengali. Urdu poetry also flourished during the Mughal era and it continued to do so into the 20th century. Hindi literature came into its own during the beginning of the 20th century and by the end of the colonial era (late 1940s), it was thriving, with novelists like Premchand, playwrights like Jaishankar Prasad and other poets and writers. In my own language, Tamil, prose works on contemporary themes were starting to be written during the latter part of the 19th century. Tamil poetry has always had a rich tradition and it continued to be written during the 20th century (Bharathiar was the most famous Tamil poet of the 20th century. Many of his poems have been set to music and feature in movies). By the middle of the 20th century, there were novels in most genres and themes – literary, social, murder mysteries, historical etc. But the fiction part of the literature really took off at the end of the colonial era when writers started exploring more Indian themes in their works.
So, yes, my parents did read some of these writers.
Sorry for the long answer to your question 🙂
That’s a great answer, Vishy, thank you:)
Have you read The Mirror of Beauty, shortlisted for the DSC prize? It’s set in the Mughal era – and there are lots of duelling poets in the story!
I haven’t read ‘The Mirror of Beauty’, Lisa. That is a beautiful title. I will add it to my wishlist and look for it. Mughal era, duelling poets – it sounds quite wonderful! I have a friend who is a poet, who frequently participates in these poetical gatherings. They don’t exactly ‘duel’ these days, but it is fun to attend, as the participating poets come up with spontaneous lines which are very beautiful. I have been to a few of them and loved them.
I read Lolita a few years ago and didn’t have any problems with; I mean Humbert is creepy but I sort of knew what to expect as I’d seen the Kubrick film. Have you seen it?
Nice to know that, Jonathan. I saw the Kubrick film version of the book a few years back, and I don’t remember feeling that uncomfortable with it. I remember though that the first scene was Humbert shooting Clare Quilty and I remember wondering why he was doing that. But my memory of the film is mostly sketchy now. I should watch it again and compare it with the book. Thanks for mentioning it and inspiring me.
Dear Vishy and Delia,
I have been looking forward to your responses to “Lolita” for some time, well at least since Vishy first posted this information. I must admit that I don’t know your gifting friend Delia, but sometimes the cosmos does interesting things!
I also wanted to re-read this book and make comments, but time passed and it didn’t happen. I have read this book three times and each time I am more in awe of Nabokov’s writing.
You probably noticed that it was published in 1955. I think that the time frame may be significant here. At that time people were aware of situations of rape, but the obsessive intrigue that Humbert exhibits also occurred then. I think that most people were not aware of the long term perversion compared to the violent act of rape. To choose this excessively perverted man as a main character was a very bold step. I can tell that it still has that effect for many readers.
In my initial reading I was most interested in the psychological aspects of the characters. As was discussed, we start out by being sympathetic with Humbert and then are startled, shocked, or disgusted by him, while at the end of the book I felt exhausted by his obsession. Lolita surprises many of us by being less than the naive virginal young girl that we imagine her to be initially. Still, from that reading I really admired the book. I felt that Nabokov was really an original thinker and very brave to write and publish this book, because of the perversions and specific subject matter that he covered.
In the second reading….probably about ten years later I wanted to reread the book to see if I was still so impressed by it as I was as a college student. I liked it even more and felt that the second reading was so worthwhile because I wasn’t reacting the the shock value of the characters and the story. I was more aware of the beauty of Nabokov’s writing.
A few years ago, after many, many years I picked up the book again. It was to my mind, a true masterpiece. I was struck by what I still am convinced is brilliant writing, and lingered over Nabokov’s choice of words and phrases.
I suppose that there is the inevitable question of wondering how Nabokov could conceive of such a story. What kind of person was he? That is something that we may never know for certain.
Because I read “Lolita” for the first time in the late 60’s I think that may have had something to do with my initial response to the story. In those crazy psychedelic, mind-expanding days many of us lit majors were trying to understand what motivated Humbert. What made him tick? What makes a person become an obsessive pervert? To see through his eyes was a unique experience.
I liked Vishy’s comparisons and contrasts to other media with similar themes. When I saw “American Beauty” I was reminded of “Lolita” once again. Kevin Spacey playing Lester Burnham, among other things, was obsessed with his daughter’s best friend, Angela Hayes played by Mena Suvari. The movie and book are not “the same” but I do think that there are some interesting comparisons to be made here.
I couldn’t remember much about the author so I must admit that I went to Wikipedia to review some information about him. He actually finished writing this book, at one point which he almost destroyed, in Oregon, my home state. It is only an odd and curious bit of information. There was however a quote which I would like to paste, as it can say better than I can, what is remarkable about his writing.
Nabokov’s Lolita (1955) is his most famous novel, and often considered his finest work in English. It exhibits the love of intricate word play and synesthetic detail that characterised all his works. The novel was ranked fourth in the list of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels (Wikipedia)
Thanks for the lovely, long comment, Heidi 🙂 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Nabokov’s book. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the historical and cultural context in which Nabokov wrote his work and the boldness with which he addressed the themes. He must have been really brave to publish the book at the time he did. The perspective that Nabokov offers is definitely unique and fascinating – to take the reader into the mind of a perverted man and show us how it works. It was a bit uncomfortable and scary to be so close to Humbert’s thoughts, and I had to really step out of my comfort zone to read the book, but I am glad that I did.
It was very fascinating to read your thoughts on re-reading ‘Lolita’ – on how the book changed with every reading and how you saw new things every time and how Nabokov’s prose shone more and more with every new reading. I can imagine that happening – his prose is definitely beautiful and it definitely requires reading and being lingered on many times to understand its depth and appreciate its beauty.
Your comment – “I suppose that there is the inevitable question of wondering how Nabokov could conceive of such a story. What kind of person was he?” – made me smile 🙂 Martin Amis says in the introduction to the book that sometimes readers assume the worst about Nabokov and when they meet his son today they ask him how it was like, growing up with a not-so-nice dad like that. Amis also says that Nabokov was a kind person in the real world.
I enjoyed reading your comparison between Nabokov’s book and ‘American Beauty’. ‘American Beauty’ was a beautiful movie and I enjoyed the performances of Kevin Spacey and the others. Angela Hayes definitely evokes images of Lolita.
It is quite interesting that Nabokov finished writing his masterpiece in Oregon and nearly destroyed it. Glad that better sense prevailed, as otherwise a unique work of literature would have been lost.
I loved that quote from Wikipedia that you have posted, especially the part about Nabokov’s love for intricate word play. Nabokov says in his essay at the end of the book that ‘Lolita’ is a record of his love affair with the English language 🙂
Thanks for this beautiful present and for inspiring me to read this book, Heidi. Though I had to step out of my comfort zone to read it, I enjoyed Nabokov’s beautiful prose and I will be coming back to read my favourite passages again.
Hello Heidi,
Thanks for posting your insights about Lolita, it’s a lot to think about there. This was a book I’ve wanted to read for a few reasons and I do agree that the cosmos works in an interesting way, especially when it comes to books.
I am a very emotional reader and am particularly sensitive to the topic of abuse, which was my first and strongest impression when I read Lolita. I agree that perhaps a second reading will probably make me put this aside and appreciate the story more from a stylistic point of view. Now that I’ve had time to think about it more and to let it sink in, I find myself in awe of Nabokov’s writing. Sure, he may have been a nice person in real life but I think we never truly know someone and the things they are capable of.
On the other hand, we could think the same about people who write crime novels – how did they make it so believable? Maybe I’m going a bit too far with this but I think you get my point. Imagination is a wonderful thing.
It is possible Lolita would have had the same impact today due to its controversial nature, and I can only imagine the uproar it caused in 1955. What saved this story for me was the writing, those sensual, amazing sentences that had me literally staring at the page.
I think many people like Lolita and also admire Nabokov for having the courage to publish the book because it gives access to a very private area, something we know it exists but we can’t go right ahead and ask about. Nabokov peeled that curtain aside for us and let us in.
I’ve seen American Beauty and from what I remember Mena Suvari wasn’t portrayed as a 12-year-old (Lolita’s age). A few years can make a difference. Not saying it’s right, just that it’s a bit different.
I’m so glad for this review, Vishy. Because, to be honest, the topic was the reasons why I never really felt all that tempted to read it. I’ve read hist short stories and I know he’s an amazing stylist but, like you, I would wonder often “Why am I reading this?”.
It was a hard book to read, Caroline. But Nabokov’s prose is very beautiful in many places and I loved those beautiful passages. The book must have also been unique for its time, as it takes us into the mind of someone who is disturbed and shows us how this person’s thoughts work. Seeing it from that perspective is not really pleasant and is quite scary.
Wow, great review Vishy and the comments are like another review in response. I have it on the shelf, but it’s never made it to the TBR. Heidi’s comments regarding the rereading are really interesting, few can manage a first reading without that shock and disgust and questioning of themselves and in subsequent readings it appears the reader stops questioning themselves and starts looking more analytically at the work and by the third reading have risen way above it. That said, I’m not sure I’ll be moving it up the list any time soon, given I don’t reread too often and would prefer to study the works of someone other than Nabakov if I did.
Well done on getting through it and putting together an honest and thought provoking review.
Thanks Claire. It was quite a hard book to read, but as Heidi has said it must have been quite unique for its time, taking the reader into the mind of someone disturbed and showing us his thoughts at close quarters. I loved what you said about re-reading. I can imagine how re-reading the book will help us get more out of it. Nabokov’s prose is places is exquisite and I will definitely be reading those passages again. If you do get to read the book, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Actually my first book of the year Beside the Sea was a little like that, exquisitely written but from the perspective of a character with mental health issues that cause her to behave in ways that are hard for the reader to endure. It becomes a complex decision to say whether we liked it or not, because we can appreciate the skill on the one hand but yet not enjoy the discomfort it causes on the other. Personally, I did not really enjoy being inside the mind of a person like that.
[…] it all the more, ironically, after following recent discussion on Vishy’s review of Nabakov’s Lolita . They discuss that dilemma many readers have when they recognise an exceptional prose style but […]
Realist Screenplay Writer.
MCR-JROTC Too CIA. Journalist Physiologist Film Screenplay Writer Job Type Entertainer-Comedian.
CIA… We Are Psychoanalyzed Mathematical Genius 1 A+ Students All Special Forces Spy. If Not Your Requirements Are Off. Top Bottom Line A+.
Topic. MCR-JROTC Paid To CIA-MOS-‘Mathematical Genius 1 A+’. CIA To Young Marine, MCR-JROTC, MCR-ROTC, Marine-Cadet, All-Marine-Clubs. Military Physiologist. La St. Catherine Military Academy Anaheim Ca. Hollywood La. La City College. La State University. USC Media. UCLA Media. UCI Irvine Media. Military Supply Shop Owner MRC-JROTC Mixed Orders Big 5er. Game FBI-CIA-CPU-IBM. KGB Radio Television.
Major. 1. Major P-Eye-Admin 10 Babysitting. 2. Major Physiologist 10 Babysitting. 3. Major Military Scientist 10 Babysitting. 4. Major Shaolin Kung Fu 10 Babysitting. 5. Major Film UCLA Media KGB Radio Television 10 Babysitting. 6. Major Chaplain 10 Babysitting.
Training. MCR-JROTC Paid To CIA To Air Guard Camps. All Special Forces Spy Educations-Complicated Camps. Post MCR-JROTC, CIA Kiddy Country Plant-Genetics {Scientist Cover.} Nursery In Big-Hollywood-La-Christian-Catholic-Church-Hollywood-La-Hospital-School-Of-Doctors 0 People.
Hobbies. Cheer-Football-Click. Philosophy Requirement. Professor Requirement. Crowds 0. Risk 0. WB. Universal. Paramount. Sony. 20th. Nickelodeon 5-10 year olds. Disneyland. UC Riverside Media. UCF Fullerton Media. Star Wars Studios. Sci-fi. Cartoon Studios. Conventions.
Grooming. ‘Special-Forces-Spy’. -Complicated.
Circuit. ‘Special-Forces-Spy’. -Complicated.
Learning Style. Complicated. TV. No Homework. No Chaplain Is Worker Butt Royalty. Complicated Books. Teaching Style Natural Progression Through Life. Taught Style Frequent Teachings. More Teaching Style Fixed Questions. Miscellaneous Teaching Style Rapid Changes. Teaching Methods Rapid Movements. Privite-Schools-Elementry-Fresno-State-Music-Entertainer-Comedian-School-UCLA.
Mon. Train 45 Min. CIA. We Are Maybe Work MCR-JROTC. Where UCLA Children’s Hospital Athletics. Too “With No Connections To The CIA”. We Are MCR-JROTC I Am, CIA Trained President George Georgian Kidding. Butt Screenplay Writer Okay. -Humor. KGB No Pay. KGB Radio Television.
Tues. Train 45 Min. MCR-ROTC. I Am President George Georgian Having No Connections Too The CIA. Maybe. KGB No Pay. UCB Berkeley Media, UCR Riverside Media, UCF Fullerton Media, USC Media. UCLA Media, UCI Irvine Media. IBM-KGB Radio Television.
Wed. Train 45 Min. Option. Jet Fighter Special Forces Spy. D/a’s P-Eye In Court Without Orders. CPU.
Thurs. Train 45 Min. Option. MCR-JROTC.
Fri. Train 45 Min. Option. Young Marine. –CIA Am I trained Director-President Swiss-KGB-CIA. Girls trained Director-1st Lady too President.
Job Day. Chaplain-Worker Government Worker In The Workforce Butt. Post-MCR-JROTC-CIA-10yrs-Olds-College-Hollywood-La-Hospital-Connected-To-Elementary-School-As-Corporate-Raiders. Shore Duty Hollywood-La-California Types.
Job Mid. Family We’re All Psychoanalyzed Jet Fighter Special Forces Spy, A+ School. This Is My Make Up Of Pond-Assassin-Paramilitary Entry. Air Guard Camps. All Special Forces Spy Camps. No Make Up.
Job Night. ‘‘Screenplay Writer’’.
Work Where. Shore Duty. We Agree Make Capital-Whitehouse-Governors-Houses-Mayors-Houses-Hollywoods-La-{Built for Movies}-University-Pre-Elementary-{We Chaplains Nursery To Exact 10yrs Olds As CPU W/ The FBI-CIA Mostly And Are CIA-CPU-Unit}-For Doctors-Degrees-Hospitals For Doctors. It’s Like A ‘’Little City’’.
Families Left Brain Mathematical Genius 1 A+. Psychological Warfare Anthropologist Realist King Queen.
Families Right Brain Mathematical Genius 1 A+. Scientist Warfare Physical Scientist Realist King Queen.
Worlds Wide Maybe Just A Screenplay Writer Ok Novel Writer Or So. Maybe Not A Movie Writer. Maybe Just A Writer.
We Are Worlds # 1 Fist-Fighters Athena -Achillies.
Az “George Howe” 0’Neill Anonymous.
Genius Physiologist Chaplain.
Psychologist Film Military Scientist.
Screenplay Write Sarcasm.
ROTC Chaplain ROTC- above goes on one page and is our Families Family life’s “‘{Family Life Outline.}’”. {Life line for now.}. You can use it as a guide too design your {Family outline} your outline Butt I, we get credit for it religiously. Yes homey I know how to pray butt I call it I Know how to hail-hell-Mary. Above is family, families lives, life outline goes too the ROTC. The J’S Too. It should be sent to Forkner Elementary School Fresno California Earth to Madi Llamez {Anonymous.}, Emma Llamez {Anonymous.}, Belly Llamez {ANONYMOUS.} For their work, school and then play butt no you’re in 1ST Grade for say get too work. Sidebar everything should be at the 1st grade level and then Emily Chavez {Anonymous} is the girls Young Marine represent for say. Post small air field Fresno Northside Herndon. Yo teach we get that could be our education, Educator Professor Doctor Educator do you.
Chaplain messy Religious Prayer Hail St. Mary true life story butt fantasy movie,
Navy we are settled up butt… I think you want to honor my contract because of all the bad in the worlds for say navy. Navy with you I was a marine trapped with the navy orders for say ok navy. Now United States navy this is what you had me in. You had me as a deck seaman. I was in deck being driven like a Whiteman slave. Yes 90% of all life wants this one on whites for say ok. You need to be ok okay ok with that one ok. Now I’ll go on… you had me as the navy seals, BUDS, marine Recon, all special forces as if their Deck-seaman-Ship-Driver-KP. That does settle us up ok okay ok. We are settled up navy butt… I, we needed to go with the Chaplains and bottom line at least jump school navy. Navy if I had my jump wings {marine jump wings.} that might of got me out of White-boy slavery ok okay ok. Navy I’m psychoanalyzed all Special Forces ok okay ok. Butt… all that was slavery and I thought all of us were working that hard butt… I didn’t realize to come off the worker orders navy. In my, our movies we are known as “‘except all work’” and “‘we give and take no orders’” you know in my, our Heaven Raiders Saga fantasy movies navy. In the movie I would respectfully request to be at least sent too “”Airborne Jump School”” and then sent on apprenticeship with the chaps on the USS Juneau LPD-10 ok. One dimensional in one 1 dimension words ok okay ok… in movie term words I would’ve been just fine with my marine jump wings and sitting on ship as with the navy chaplains. That’s about it butt… I’m all Special Forces and you somehow don’t know how much I, we had to offer you butt. It’s kind of on a need to know {bases. Spelling.}. We are all good butt… I wanted a little more from you that’s about it. I’m ok okay ok because you gave me, us my exact orders that I wanted ok okay ok. The seals kind of use the line “‘that’s own you’”, butt… my smile in Hollywood is or would be the cat that ate the {carney. Spelling.} We are settled up navy ok okay ok.
Entertainer-Comedian maybes.
We Are Worlds # 1 Fist-Fighters Athena -Achillies.
Az “George Howe” 0’Neill Anonymous.
Genius Physiologist Chaplain.
Psychologist Film Military Scientist.
Screenplay Write Sarcasm.