Has anyone read Lolita?

No very happy to read challenging books with challenging narrators. Just find this one unenlightning. As someone said upthread, my learning is that paedophiles are delusional and narcissistic Not enough of an insight for me to carry on exploring this world. And Nabokov is a good stylist - yes but that in itself is not enough. Clever but actually not telling me enough that's new or interesting to tempt me to reread it.

And then there's the issue that, once again it's a female victim being used by a male novelist to showcase his pyrotechnics.

Just had to post again because of the patronising tone of some of the earlier posts. No need for this kind of sneering in what is effectively a discussion of how we each experienced this book.

southeast I think its a perennial problem for a book that's all about the voice, that it will drag at some point. Very difficult to add texture and pace without the voice slipping IYSWIM. This is one of the reasons Ikve never yet tackled writing a 'voice' book. I often include scenes that are just about the technical craft of voice, but no more... Not yet anyway!

I thought it was awful; there was nothing "beautiful" about it at all imo. Disliked the plot, the characters and the style it was written in.
Had to read it for bookclub, otherwise I'd have stopped - life is too short to waste it reading books you don't get something from; and I don't mean they have to be cheery, happy, isn't-this-fun books, just that you have to feel that you're somehow better off having read it rather than not.

Just finished. It dragged a bit in the middle but I really enjoyed this on the whole. It’s been years since I read writing so beautifully written on a technical level - I even re-read some sentences, incredulous that someone was capable of writing that well. I enjoyed questioning what was real and what only went on in Humbert’s abhorrent mind - this ‘unreliable narrator’ device Nabakov deploys reminded me of Notes on a Scandal by Zoë Heller. I also agree with Remus who recently commented on the third '50 books in 2014' thread that she liked that there was no lengthy preamble into his sick vision - you're in there from the start and there's no let-up. I don’t feel I caught everything in the book, though, and plan to read this a few more times in the future. I’m glad I read it and glad it was never banned. The film adaptations are fab, too.

leBearPolar I have challenged sometimes but it isn't a club which enjoys heated debate,which is fair enough. I have opened my big gob in the past and it has not been well received...

Probably best that I don't drink any more.

Actually,this thread makes me want to go back to college and study lit again. Thank you

thurlow yes indeed.

Most writers I know, even if they don't like a book like Lolita will recognise the significant challenge of creating the voice. Structuring a book entirely in that voice and never slipping and never compromising, even though the writer knows the voice is unpalatable.

The content of such books are by the by of course. They're not about anything per se, just the inner world of the other...

I read Lolita at school. It's a book for teenagers, IMO: "let this be a warning to you about the dangers out there". I read and reread Christiane F: Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo around the same time. And the Diary of Anne Frank.

These sorts of books are like a challenge, for both the author and the reader. I like them. The Good Soldier drove me batty, the narrator was so clueless and you wanted to bat him upside the head.

And John Self in Money...was there ever a less likeable narrator?

Ooh, We Need to Talk About Kevin is an excellent example of a challenging narrative voice because the narrator herself is so unsympathetic in many ways. I was also thinking about American Psycho where the narrator is absolutely repellant and yet the cleverness of the construction of that voice and the way it satirises American society is remarkable.

We are given a narrative voice that is both repellant and beautiful, and that voice never slips

So well put, Word, and sums up what I was struggling to say about Lolita. I 'enjoyed' reading the book in the sense that it is a phenomenally well-written book.

It's up there as one of the great 'narrator' novels, alongside (for me) The Good Soldier by Ford, and We Need To Talk About Kevin. The 'enjoyment' of reading the book is in getting to explore and to know an unreliable narrator, and in unpicking what they tell us to discover the truth. A literary challenge, really.

Guggenheim - don't suggest The Help to her for heaven's sake. Or To Kill a Mockingbird.

The idea that books promote racism or sexism or paedophilia or murder simply by writing about them is a very odd one.

Have you asked her to explain her opinion and really challenged her to defend it?

Guggenheim,

Quite. Lolita promotes paedophilia like the Handmaud's Tale promotes sexism.

Fascinating book,lots of complexity. I've read it twice and intend to read it many times again.

We read it for bookclub and it provoked many different reactions,as it should. One member repeatedly stated that it promoted peadophilia (sp) and drowned out the opinions of others. She's a very nice women normally but is convinced that you can 'catch' all kinds of nastiness simply by resting your eyeballs on a page.She has also banned many other books on the grounds they are racist,often missing the entire fecking point...

Sorry,I just needed to rant...

Actually,I don't know what to say when she does this.

Or, as my more self-absorbed students would say, it's "relatable". Which I have banned them from saying, because I hate the word, but they think it nevertheless. They like poetry, novels, drama that are "relatable". I worry that this is because they don't like to be challenged to move beyond their comfort zone, either in terms of writing style or subject matter. They seek in literature something which reaffirms the world view they already have.

Thewordfactory,

I think I love you.

Everyone else, I'd apologise, but I do think there's something comical about dismissing Lolita because you don't like the narrator. Of course you're entitled to find Nabokov's prose style irritating (I can't stand Gabriel Garcia Marquez), of course you're entitled not to want to read books that you think might upset you. Bloody hell, there's a reason I've read Gaudy Night five times and Lolita once and it's not because Gaudy Night's the better novel.

What you can't do if you don't want to be mocked is complain that you don't like the book becauseHumbert Humbert isn't very nice. It's missing the point so catastrophically that, fuck it, I am going to find it funny.

It also ties in to the wider self-obsessed book group language of 'I like this book because I like the characters/identify with the characters.'

I didn't like Perfume & it is not as well written as Lolita, so really no redeeming features for me.

It is a good question, as I have just finished reading Half of a Yellow Sun, which deals with a very upsetting subject (Biafra) and I also remember the trauma of A Fine Balance, which has Jude the Obscure type levels of misery.

I think books can disturb (and perhaps should) and sometimes you are up for that and sometimes you aren't.

In the case of Lolita, it is also weighted with culture baggage, as popular culture has appropriated the image of 'jail bait' and that was brought out in the film adaptation, and it is hard to ignore the sexualised book jacket, which is highly inappropriate.

For that reason, Lolita throws a particular spotlight on our culture and view of young girls that is particularly difficult and uncomfortable to process as a reader, I think.

I was wondering that bear.

TBH, I personally feel that the narrative voice of a victim, can be much more voyeuristic.

Genuine question (as I agree that "grow up" is hardly useful as a way of entering into discussion):

Those of you that don't like it because of the subject matter - is it just Lolita that you object to in this way? Or do you not read any literature which deals with distasteful subjects? I'm thinking of things like Perfume, for example, or The Color Purple (where Celie is only fourteen when she is raped by her mother's husband). Or is the latter different because the narrative voice is Celie's rather than the perpetrator?

Do you just read books that don't make you feel uncomfortable?

Lolita, whether you like the book or not (and I remian unconvinced that Nabakov wanted anyone to like it), is a masterpiece of craft.

We are given a narrative voice that is both repellant and beautiful, and that voice never slips.

When you have to resort to "grow up" as a riposte there is no point in engaging further

Don't see why not tbh, nobody is saying Nabokov is cheap trash. He will get into your head. He is that good, seems to be the consensus.

It's thought provoking - that's the point. I personally don't want those thoughts.

Like I don't want particular people as friends.

7days. Yes, you have a point, that was a bit abrupt of me. I am very very bored, though, of hearing people say that they didn't like a book because they didn't like/couldn't empathise with the narrator. It's a sad misunderstanding of the world if you choose books like you choose your friends.

No need to be so insulting Idaho. Different opinions are allowed.

Personally wouldn't touch it. That's fine. I don't go out of my way to upset myself and probably never will, no matter how grown up I get. I don't need Nabokov to tell me peadophiles are self deluding, narcissistic and tell lies to themselves or others.

for those of you who love the book and Nabokov's writing, I urge you to have a look at Umberto Eco's "Misreadings" and his parody "Granita", narrated by Umberto Umberto. Clever, clever, funny man.