What do you think?
Rate this book
Roger Fishbite: A Novel
Thirteen-year-old Lucky Linderhoff offers a candid account of how she was seduced by her mother's husband, Roger Fishbite, at the age of eleven, during a hectic odyssey of motels
- GenresFiction
187 pages, Hardcover
First published March 16, 1999
7 people are currently reading
257 people want to read
About the author
Emily Prager
20 books11 followersEmily Prager is an American author and journalist.
Prager grew up in Texas, Taiwan, and Greenwich Village, NY. She is a graduate of The Brearley School, Barnard College and has a Masters Degree in Applied Linguistics.
(from Wikipedia)
Prager grew up in Texas, Taiwan, and Greenwich Village, NY. She is a graduate of The Brearley School, Barnard College and has a Masters Degree in Applied Linguistics.
(from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
May 28, 2010
OK, I think this will be the last retelling of the story of Lolita for me for awhile. I've read the Nabokov original (or actually, his second attempt; see: The Enchanter, which I haven't read), Pia Pera's Lo's Diary, and now this.
This one, Roger Fishbite is fairly spare and breezy; certainly more streamlined and refined than the distended, rambling Lo's Diary, but I have to admit a preference for the latter due to its sardonic edge and even possibly due to its shambling messiness.
Prager's book reads like YA; definitely a lot smoother than the jagged Pera tome. Even so, I'm not sure that it brings anything new to the table, apart from an unsubtle preachiness throughout about the wrongness of child sexual abuse. It seems less bound to the Nabokov text than Pera's book. This version takes place in the '90s, so the pop cultural references are more up-to-date. The book gets heavy handed and implausible toward the end, especially with its street theater play against child sex slavery, one of Prager's several attempts to render some kind of moral significance to the story.
In this iteration, Humbert/Fishbite is even more a cipher, a blonde broad-shouldered Texan of bland taste and almost no aesthetic quality. He makes for a very dull character. One of the interesting things about the original Humbert is his epicurean justifications for his actions. Not so here.
In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter Thompson puts his drugged-out protagonists in a hotel amid a convention of narc cops. The result is literary gold. In this book, Prager offers a similarly promising set-up by placing the pedophile and his sexually abused stepdaughter in a hotel where a child modeling convention is taking place. The result is nothing. It just lays there. There's a proto-feminist bonding moment where the young sisters all establish a sense of solidarity. Yawn.
The good thing is that this is short and quick, but for me it seemed a bit perfunctory.
This one, Roger Fishbite is fairly spare and breezy; certainly more streamlined and refined than the distended, rambling Lo's Diary, but I have to admit a preference for the latter due to its sardonic edge and even possibly due to its shambling messiness.
Prager's book reads like YA; definitely a lot smoother than the jagged Pera tome. Even so, I'm not sure that it brings anything new to the table, apart from an unsubtle preachiness throughout about the wrongness of child sexual abuse. It seems less bound to the Nabokov text than Pera's book. This version takes place in the '90s, so the pop cultural references are more up-to-date. The book gets heavy handed and implausible toward the end, especially with its street theater play against child sex slavery, one of Prager's several attempts to render some kind of moral significance to the story.
In this iteration, Humbert/Fishbite is even more a cipher, a blonde broad-shouldered Texan of bland taste and almost no aesthetic quality. He makes for a very dull character. One of the interesting things about the original Humbert is his epicurean justifications for his actions. Not so here.
In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter Thompson puts his drugged-out protagonists in a hotel amid a convention of narc cops. The result is literary gold. In this book, Prager offers a similarly promising set-up by placing the pedophile and his sexually abused stepdaughter in a hotel where a child modeling convention is taking place. The result is nothing. It just lays there. There's a proto-feminist bonding moment where the young sisters all establish a sense of solidarity. Yawn.
The good thing is that this is short and quick, but for me it seemed a bit perfunctory.
March 13, 2016
This was a fun read, despite the disturbing content. Prager did an excellent job of parodying the source material while still creating a believable (and mostly likable) protagonist. It actually could have been a bit longer and Roger Fishbite could have been fleshed out a little more, but I found it exceptionally well-written. Thank goodness! I was beginning to despair of ever finding a decent take on Lolita from the child's perspective. I found the social commentary witty yet poignant, and it felt extremely true to the spirit of Nabokov's intentions. Delightful.
September 16, 2016
DNF at 63%. This is supposed to be a parody of Lolita, and I think it's supposed to be humorous in an absurd way.
It has very little in common with Lolita, besides the fact that I didn't find Nabokov's brand of humor to be amusing either. I recommend reading Lo's Diary instead—a true parody, told from Lo's perspective, tender and darkly funny.
It has very little in common with Lolita, besides the fact that I didn't find Nabokov's brand of humor to be amusing either. I recommend reading Lo's Diary instead—a true parody, told from Lo's perspective, tender and darkly funny.
May 18, 2023
GOOD FOR HER!!!! GET HIS ASS!!!!
October 24, 2022
Interesting retelling of Lolita from her perspective. A bit heavy handed in parts but engaging.
December 15, 2008
Although this book does have a few awkward moments, it is a brilliant spin off of its inspiration: Lolita. Prager tells Lolita's side of the story with a contemporary twist. The writing is breathtaking, and the story told is long overdue. This is an under-celebrated literary triumph!
Read
February 24, 2022Is that Alexis Bledel on the cover?
December 25, 2022
You are likely to find this review strange. That's okay. Some people find the Lolita icon of Nabokov's 1955 novel strange. Some people, including some of the same people, find Prager's 1999 Lucky strange as well. The idea of being "lucky" is also strange. How is this 13 year old girl lucky? She has only a broken-down widow/drunk/mother passed out between her and the sad realities of life. In steps an older man looking for a room to rent. It's out of the question that the room will not be offered and taken.
This male stranger looks decent enough. Perhaps he will be the Linderhofs' salvation. Perhaps he will fall in love with the mother, cherish the opportunity of giving paternal love and nurturing to Lucky, and move them to a better neighborhood where Lucky can become all she wishes to be.
But isn't it equally just as likely that this Fishbite guy is a modern-day Aqualung?
Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little girls with bad intent
Snot's running down his nose
Greasy fingers, smearing shabby clothes
(Jenny Anderson, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull)
But Jenny Anderson apparently felt a bit of guilt when she saw a homeless man and instantly thought of him as a child molester . . . but her thoughts did make an outstanding opening for the song. Ironically, it is the man who "looks decent enough" that you need to watch out for. Did Hans Beckert of "M" infamy look the part? Do all creepy little men kill innocent little girls?
Is it merely coincidental that these "frilly panties" chasers, Humbert, Fishbite and Beckart are all of Germantic heritage? Nein! Is it the intrinsic scariness of those Frankensteinians of Deutschland? Natürlich nicht. Maybe the link is that Nabokov spent many years writing in Berlin, that Prager is the German word for "Prague", and Beckert is from the German film "M", written and directed by Fritz Lang.
Like most things in life, if you don't "know" take your best guess. So I am going with the prejudicial feeling that Germans as shadowy and evil. How does that work for you?
Prager waits until the end of the novel to define it for the reader. Her reason(s) for doing so is unclear. Perhaps she feared that readers might attack on social media if she didn't. That's how things are today. Perhaps she felt a little pinch in her psyche that required some explanation for taking such a serious issue so lightly. She'd be in good company.
Nabokov didn't come up with the idea that some older men sexually desire young girls. He gave a name to it when the time was right. The film "M" predates "Lolita" by almost over two decades, but at the time I guess the idea of sexually molesting little girls was too much for society . . . so Hans Becker was "merely" a child murderer. Of course, what the male audience was thinking in dark theaters across Berlin filled in any gaps.
Prager's novel stands on its own. It is thought provoking and allows the reader to laugh out loud sometimes without feeling guilty or diminishing the realities of such situations. After all, Prager isn't saying it, Lucky is. Isn't she Lucky.
All over the place for you.
Dan Keefer
PS - Proofread? I need to get out of this while I can!
This male stranger looks decent enough. Perhaps he will be the Linderhofs' salvation. Perhaps he will fall in love with the mother, cherish the opportunity of giving paternal love and nurturing to Lucky, and move them to a better neighborhood where Lucky can become all she wishes to be.
But isn't it equally just as likely that this Fishbite guy is a modern-day Aqualung?
Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little girls with bad intent
Snot's running down his nose
Greasy fingers, smearing shabby clothes
(Jenny Anderson, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull)
But Jenny Anderson apparently felt a bit of guilt when she saw a homeless man and instantly thought of him as a child molester . . . but her thoughts did make an outstanding opening for the song. Ironically, it is the man who "looks decent enough" that you need to watch out for. Did Hans Beckert of "M" infamy look the part? Do all creepy little men kill innocent little girls?
Is it merely coincidental that these "frilly panties" chasers, Humbert, Fishbite and Beckart are all of Germantic heritage? Nein! Is it the intrinsic scariness of those Frankensteinians of Deutschland? Natürlich nicht. Maybe the link is that Nabokov spent many years writing in Berlin, that Prager is the German word for "Prague", and Beckert is from the German film "M", written and directed by Fritz Lang.
Like most things in life, if you don't "know" take your best guess. So I am going with the prejudicial feeling that Germans as shadowy and evil. How does that work for you?
Prager waits until the end of the novel to define it for the reader. Her reason(s) for doing so is unclear. Perhaps she feared that readers might attack on social media if she didn't. That's how things are today. Perhaps she felt a little pinch in her psyche that required some explanation for taking such a serious issue so lightly. She'd be in good company.
Nabokov didn't come up with the idea that some older men sexually desire young girls. He gave a name to it when the time was right. The film "M" predates "Lolita" by almost over two decades, but at the time I guess the idea of sexually molesting little girls was too much for society . . . so Hans Becker was "merely" a child murderer. Of course, what the male audience was thinking in dark theaters across Berlin filled in any gaps.
Prager's novel stands on its own. It is thought provoking and allows the reader to laugh out loud sometimes without feeling guilty or diminishing the realities of such situations. After all, Prager isn't saying it, Lucky is. Isn't she Lucky.
All over the place for you.
Dan Keefer
PS - Proofread? I need to get out of this while I can!
May 14, 2025
I’ve steered clear of satire for as long as I can remember, but a university course has finally stopped me. And I’m pleasantly surprised!
What I was most concerned about was the author having a codependency with the source text, or taking such creative liberties as to not resemble the source text at all. Prager balances this well, keeping to the main events of Nabokov’s work, while pulling back the curtain on the details of Lucky’s (ie. Dolores’s) life with enough new material to be unique and engaging. The voice she gives to Lucky elevates the novel from good to great; I related to, sympathised with, and loved Lucky the more I read of her. This narrative voice did wonders for handling themes such as grief, in particular. Having a pretty young girl act out the ugliness of a parental loss is difficult at best, and offensive at worst. Prager manages to depict grief in a way that feels realistic (ie. age-appropriate) and impactful.
Other reviews critiqued Fishbite’s blandness, which so starkly contrasts Nabokov’s. I thought this was a great way to underscore Humbert’s unreliable narration with tact and humour. However, I do agree with some critics that found some aspects rather heavy-handed. This could be explained away by the narrator being a child, and regardless, it didn’t take away from the book itself enough for me to dislike it.
What I was most concerned about was the author having a codependency with the source text, or taking such creative liberties as to not resemble the source text at all. Prager balances this well, keeping to the main events of Nabokov’s work, while pulling back the curtain on the details of Lucky’s (ie. Dolores’s) life with enough new material to be unique and engaging. The voice she gives to Lucky elevates the novel from good to great; I related to, sympathised with, and loved Lucky the more I read of her. This narrative voice did wonders for handling themes such as grief, in particular. Having a pretty young girl act out the ugliness of a parental loss is difficult at best, and offensive at worst. Prager manages to depict grief in a way that feels realistic (ie. age-appropriate) and impactful.
Other reviews critiqued Fishbite’s blandness, which so starkly contrasts Nabokov’s. I thought this was a great way to underscore Humbert’s unreliable narration with tact and humour. However, I do agree with some critics that found some aspects rather heavy-handed. This could be explained away by the narrator being a child, and regardless, it didn’t take away from the book itself enough for me to dislike it.
July 30, 2020
The cover caught my eye more than once at my favorite local bookstore, so I grabbed a copy during a great sale. It took a bit for me to get into it, as I'm usually prone to devouring a book in one or two sittings, but about midway through, I couldn't put it down. It's not my favorite by any stretch, but it's an entertaining and quick read. The book is funny and tragic at the same time and I am impressed by the writing, even though I find it a bit odd that this is coming from a 13-year old; though apparently, she is quite smart. I am terrible at reviews and comparing books to one another and I've not read 'Lolita' so all I can say is that, while it is not my favorite book, it was definitely not a waste of the $3 and few hours I invested in it.
November 11, 2025
"This novel is in part a literary parody of that great work by Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita. This is my reply both to the book and to the icon that the character Lolita has become." aka one of the smarter books I read this year! (I also grow to love the fact, that all of these Lolita-Retellings have hideous covers which mostly don't match the cleverness of the books at all.)
November 11, 2022
i did not realize what this book was about when i started it. not a bad book, and i’m glad i read it, but definitely not for everyone
February 23, 2016
I actually gave this book a 2.5
The prose style (and Linda’s voice) is delightful and kept me reading to the last page. The story, however, lacks substance. Fishbite is honestly a bland sexual predator to read about. He has very little charm to him. I just wish he could have been more intriguing. The only part in the story where I found him to be interesting, perhaps even amusing, was when he discovered that Lucky Lady Linda were no longer a virgin – and it made him really, really upset. But the story in Roger Fishbite is largely the same as in the original Lolita. Accept Roger Fishbite has a “twist” at the end in which it reverses the original ending. The book is a respectful addition to Lolita, but it didn’t really do much for me in terms of intellectual enlightenment. Roger Fishbite just wasn’t very daring or provocative.
The prose style (and Linda’s voice) is delightful and kept me reading to the last page. The story, however, lacks substance. Fishbite is honestly a bland sexual predator to read about. He has very little charm to him. I just wish he could have been more intriguing. The only part in the story where I found him to be interesting, perhaps even amusing, was when he discovered that Lucky Lady Linda were no longer a virgin – and it made him really, really upset. But the story in Roger Fishbite is largely the same as in the original Lolita. Accept Roger Fishbite has a “twist” at the end in which it reverses the original ending. The book is a respectful addition to Lolita, but it didn’t really do much for me in terms of intellectual enlightenment. Roger Fishbite just wasn’t very daring or provocative.
May 27, 2008
pretty twisted telling of a lolita type story, from the young girl's point of view. read it originally as a candy woman myself and thought it brilliant, read it again as a mom and it was downright painful to see how she views things in any coping mechanism she can grab on to. quick read, great writing. similar to lo's diary but with a more scathing review of pop culture in general.
Currently reading
November 16, 2008I found this to be an eerily deep book. Personally, I loved it and I sorta understood what she was going thru, since the abuse was so clearly talked about,and it felt like I was literally there. I think I'm going to read Lolita now because of this book. ^-^
March 7, 2010
It took me quite awhile to get into the book, hence the reason it took me so long to finish reading it. Overall, I thought it was very interesting (but also a little bit awkward) being able to catch a glimpse into the mind of a young girl who is being sexually abused by her step-father.
June 20, 2008
Didn't really grab me. A good read for reading's sake.
November 1, 2008
It's hard to give a glowing appraisal for a book with this content, but I really liked the girl and I appreciated being in her head rather than his.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews