Should I read Lolita?

The fictional preface explicitly identifies Humbert, and his narrative, as a psychiatric case study. Of degeneracy. The narrative itself is his literary self-defence in a murder trial ("You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style... Ladies and gentlemen of the jury").

And you're not wholly seduced, are you? You feel the pull, and at the same time you're repulsed. That is how people have always responded to Lolita, and insofar as Nabokov's intentions "matter", that's clearly what he intended. Anyone who comes away from the novel thinking "I totally understand why Humbert did what he did, what a stand-up guy he is"... Well, that's on what they brought to the novel, not what's in there.

The sexual abuse of children and adolescents is now heavily tabooed enough that its existence in a novel like this, even as something directly criticised and obviously explorative, causes this kind of performative panic-rejection in people. "I would never, I am morally superior, so morally superior even discussion which criticises this topic is discussion I can't tolerate". You're taking a failure to condemn the novel as a condoning of the sexual abuse of minors, but do you see how very far you're leaping from one to the other?

Yes.

It is beautifully written. Nabokov composes with words, he doesn’t just string them together. I first read it when I was nineteen and all these years later phrases from the novel float into my head whenever it is mentioned because they are so perfectly crafted they are unforgettable.

It is not in the least graphic or salacious, although it is sad. It’s also funny. “They call those fries French, grand Dieu!” is a phrase that often springs to mind when contemplating a cardboard packet of soggy motorway station offerings.

Nor is it in any way an apologia for paedophilia. Humbert might think it is, but as witty, erudite and polished a narrator as he is, the reader is aware that he is wholly unreliable.

Despite Lolita being shown through the distorting lens of Humbert’s obsession it is obvious to the reader that she is just an ordinary child who should be leading a normal life and who, heartbreakingly, isn’t.

If it turns you on, then that’s on you, not on the novel.

Texts didn’t live in a vacuum in 1960, either - which you must know, given you presumably chose that date purposefully because it’s the year of the landmark trial against Penguin for obscenity for publishing Lady Chatterley’s Lover? Which Penguin won, of course.

I haven't read Lolita so am just reading this thread with interest.

The idea of wanting to go and watch a screening of real people being tortured and murdered is utterly incomprehensible to me.

Lolita is fiction. I like fiction that makes you think, which it sounds like this book does. I'm unsure if I would choose to read this subject matter though.

I know incredibly awful humanitarian atrocities are happening in Gaza. I believe the reports without wanting to inflict seeing it on myself - and I just don't understand the mindset of people who say we should bear witness to it all on video. It won't change a single thing apart from making the person who watched it feel sickened and probably be unable to remove those images from their brain. We are very lucky if we are not in the warzone that we do not have to see it with our own eyes, and I don't think the potential impact on mental health is taken seriously enough. And to what benefit? None, as far as I can see.

Reading not watching is more bearable to me, as is knowing something is fiction not real.

Just my thoughts - hope I don't derail this into too much discussion about Gaza, it's just musing in response to one of the OP's posts.

I haven’t read it, exactly because of the ‘anticipatory crawly skin’ but @SylvieLaufeydottir‘s post has made me want to. Thinking about it, I do find it harder to read fiction with a morally horrifying narrator / POV, for example John Fowles’ Collector or Pinkie Brown in Brighton Rock so that’s a good thing to recognise.

I was hoping he wouldn't succeed, but I agree it is a brilliant work of art. I'm not so sure about some of Alberto Moravia's short stories.

I can't imagine being 'turned on' by the book. It is subtly creepy. The way Humber Humbert recounts the happenings in such a matter of fact way, as if it was normal, is quite chilling.

I first read it when I was 12 and was fascinated, did not feel the horror but of course I was too young to fully understand. It was the same for the other girls in my class at school who read it.

However, when I re-read the book as an adult I was quite unnerved, troubled even; the fear and distaste gradually built up as I went through the book.

Nevertheless, it is extremely well-written and seems to be an authentic but dramatised case study of someone with that particular perversion. I imagine it is valuable to people who work with perpetrators of sexual abuse and grooming of minors because it gives insight into the workings of their minds.

Maybe - she is a great actress - but the whole idea that Lolita was sexually attractive only existed in Humbert's head, in reality she just an ordinary kid. I think the whole cultural thing of portraying her as a seductress is absolutely disguising and a total misunderstanding of a book.

It really isn't, if you are getting turned on by it there is something very wrong with you, not with the book.

You can appeal to authority in lit-crit terms all you like but it’s a novel designed to turn you on about the seduction of a child. It’s 2023 not 1960 - texts don’t live in a vacuum.

I always thought Jodie Foster would have been ideal in the role. And she was 12 in Taxi Driver.

The book isn't graphic. And Lolita is not a real person.

I don't think any film versions of Lolita work particularly well, I haven't seen any filmmakers being able to produce the same subtle layered effect book has, they all rather blunt. Also, all the actresses I have seen playing Lolita are girls who look like young sexy women, which is kind of not what the story is about - but thanks God no one made Lolita with an actual 12 year old, that would be gross.

It's a great piece of literature because Nabokov knows most people would be repulsed by child abuse, so he deliberately sets it on the edge of 'acceptability' by making the child a bit older (Humbert, the protagonist is a hebephile), so as a reader you're going against your own better judgement by continuing to read. Then you gradually find yourself following Humbert to the point where you feel sorry for him by the end, because his obsession means he's ruined her life and his own.

Its subtle manipulation of its readers is why it's a great piece of writing, and its also a brilliant example of how grooming works, as that's what's happened to the reader.

You are seeing Lolita through Humbert's eyes, and you are able to understand his thinking and motivations - and he is also funny, observant and quite intelligent. But, despite all this, even through this distorted lens you are still able to see the situation as it is - and you feel incredibly sorry for Lolita. The most shocking and sad part for me is that Humbert himself understands what he is doing is hurting the girl, he cares for her (loves her, I guess?) and a lot of what he says shows he even feels sorry for her - but its like his lust is more powerful than any guilt or compassion he feels. He is quite revolting, really. But the book is amazing.

There's no 'should' about it, if you want to read it, do so and if not, don't.

I've read it twice, once as a youngster when the book was passed around my class at school, and once as an adult. When young I was fascinated and, as an adult, somewhat repulsed. It is creepy and written from the point of view of the man, Humber Humbert, but it's well written and interesting (though I'm not sure I would find it interesting now).

It's up to you but you could try. Start reading and if it gets too much, just stop. The subject is distasteful but there is nothing gory, no torture or the like. My tolerance levels are quite low so I could not have got into reading anything of that nature.

You could try finding and watching the film or both films, the first with James Mason and Sue Lyon, the second with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain. They must be available on the internet somewhere. I found James Mason as Humber Humbert more chilling but cannot remember how true to the book either film was. Here are the details about the Jeremy Irons version from IMDb, it's quite comprehensive and will give you a better idea of what it's about: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/plotsummary/

So the Marquis de Sade fantasising about rape, torture and child abuse is not problematic?

What I have seen of de Sade's work is extremely graphic, and often more like a catalogue of his fantasies and fetishes than a properly structured story. I can't judge his prose as I'm not competent to read it in the original French but I don't think it's regarded as great prose. It would be highly problematic if people were reading it to 'get off' on it. I read some from curiosity when I was a teenager and it was pretty revolting.

It is so beautiful. I first read it at Lolita's age. I am now reading it at Humbert's.

Good analysis.

It is disturbing, because of how well Nabokov succeeds in making the reader feel complicit with Humbert. But it is nothing like de Sade, which I had to read for a course on ethics (wouldn't happen now, I'm sure - imagine the trigger warnings), and which I found vile with no redeeming features and no literary merit. Lolita is a work of art. Art is meant to challenge us - to make the invisible visible.

If you don't like it, OP, you can just stop reading it. It builds gradually; it doesn't plunge you into to scenes of rape and murder, like de Sade.

If you read for writing rather than story (if you get the distinction), then I recommend it. It is a beautifully written book. Probably in my top 10 favourite and most memorable books.

This interesting. I read it at a similar young age and I'd be intrigued to see what my take would be on it now.

Suspect I'd find it hard as I have 10 and 13yo ds

Another point to ponder on: the novel climaxes with Humbert murdering a man in cold blood (although it can't be denied that this bit doesn't linger like the farewell to Dolly does). What makes people think that the novel is, in any way, an endorsement of Humbert's perspective and actions?

I haven’t read it but I worked in child protection for a few years and I avoid the subject matter if I can. That being said I don’t believe in censoring literature because the subject matter is considered off-limits or immoral. I know the OP wasn’t talking about censoring anything but there is no committee that sits to decide what’s acceptable or not acceptable - the only way to know is by reading it and finding out yourself.

Genuine question: so it follows that if something is labelled art, normal moral frameworks are suspended? The better the art, the greater the suspension of ethics?

To engage with this: labelled "art' by who? What does it mean to be "labelled art'"? Whose moral framework are "normal"? Who said anything about artistic value being in inverse proportion to ethical value?

The postmodernists would say that the novel is created anew for you when you read it. It has no independent existence. And you bring your own moral framework to it, as everyone does. Nabokov knew you would read it through that lens. A genuine question for you: do you think Nabokov=Humbert? If so, why? If not, why not? Have you ever fundamentally disagreed with something a character did, but still valued a piece of fiction? If so, why? Where does this leave Paradise Lost, where the protagonist is - quite literally - Satan?