To think that 'Lolita' is an amazing literary masterpiece?

[Electrascoffee]

I have never wanted to read this book until now, having seen the film which, imo has done the book a great disservice.

Having read it now I think the narrative is exquisite. The book is in no way suggesting that paedophilia is acceptable or normal - quite the opposite in fact. Humbert is clearly a monster - the author leaves us in no doubt about that.

My friend said it's 'a pervy book' but he's never read it! The film, I feel tried to present Humbert in a more sympathetic light which is very annoying.

In my opinion it's a masterpiece that was way ahead of its time. And challenges views about misogyny, victim blaming culture in our society wrt sex crimes.

'Then please, report it and get it taken down. I have used the word as I have said, but if it offends you, object to MN.'
Yes but if mn too think it's ok within a context then they won't delete it will they? As I said earlier many words have dual meanings. Spastic, mongoloid etc but language develops so the actual offensive definiton is what people know.

You seem adamant that it's ok to use cretinous to describe something. It really isn't.

craxmum

Maybe it’s because wrote and published in both Russian and English? (And French as well, I think?)

Yes but if mn too think it's ok within a context then they won't delete it will they? As I said earlier many words have dual meanings. Spastic, mongoloid etc but language develops so the actual offensive definiton is what people know.

Well, that's MN's call, isn't it? I don't think spastic does have an acceptable usage, nor does mongoloid. Perhaps, in time, nor will 'cretinous', but at the moment - according to the dictionary - it has a definition that is not intrinsically linked with that condition.

I’ve just googled “cretinous meaning” and 4 out of 6 online dictionaries include phrases like ‘a physically deformed individual with learning disabilities” in their meaning.

I don’t think the language has moved on as much as you think.

nolongersurprised

And yet, still, that doesn't change the fact that one meaning - and the one I was deploying - is simply "foolish".

Anyway, like I say, report it if you would like it removed.

I think Lolita is beautiful in its use of language and in the way it constructs its unpleasant but seductive story. I think it’s offered as, and I take it as, a piece of art and craft which wants to explore this narcissistic, self-deceiving, libidinous man but in a way which prevents us from experiencing him as ‘just’ a monster. It’s what artists do, and what their own motivations are might or might not be interesting but they aren’t the same thing as the work.

You can’t control readers’ readings of a piece of work (like the Bible, inspiration for a number of serial murderers of women), you can’t control a reader who would like to take Humbert Humbert’s own narration at face value because that would justify his own desires and lack of empathy, you can’t control people being bored by it, or delighted, or disgusted, especially if they feel their own libidos have been hijacked by the skill of an artist. A well-written story can be many things at once. If art represents a complexity of experience to the point of provoking passionate arguments then that’s part of what art’s for.

The thing that would really disturb me is if some gormless, shouty ‘movement’ arose from social media to argue that it was high time this novel was banned.

No way to it being banned, too depressing to consider what that would entail

Given that it's was not the first time he had written about the topic, it seems it was a subject that rather interested him!

"so are there any classics about older women seducing 12 year old boys"

It's not a classic but there's 'Tampa' by Alissa Nutting.

Tolstoy was able to convincingly describe how it felt to nurse an infant. I'm somehow convinced that he knows how it feels to die. Neither of which he'd experienced when he wrote about them.

I must say I think the author was rather too close to the subject for comfort. Also I could never get past the film poster of the child with a lollipop in her mouth. I'm sure that never attracted any dirty old pervs to go and see the movie and have a surreptitious wank in the back row

What does the film poster have to do with Nabokov, though. Lethal? And what are the other novels where he wrote about paedophilia? Not any of the ones I've read (but then, he wrote a lot and I've only read a few of them).

Tolstoy was able to convincingly describe how it felt to nurse an infant.

In which novel?

I agree OP, it is brilliant.

I might have to re-read it now.

Beautiful? FFS. You have the entire history of literature to choose from, but oh I think I'll reread that one about raping and destroying a 12 year old child, it's so BEAUTIFUL. And obviously this isn't happening all the time, so it's a nice bit of escapism.

Genuinely baffled- it's not even that engaging in a literary sense.

You have the entire history of literature to choose from, but oh I think I'll reread that one about raping and destroying a 12 year old child, it's so BEAUTIFUL.

This is a very odd argument.

Do you also think we should not read The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, Brave New World, Beloved, We Need to Talk About Kevin, or any other literature which deals with difficult, violent issues?

Fine, I guess I will just stick to non-controversial books like The Wind in the Willows.

Beautiful? FFS. You have the entire history of literature to choose from, but oh I think I'll reread that one about raping and destroying a 12 year old child, it's so BEAUTIFUL. And obviously this isn't happening all the time, so it's a nice bit of escapism.

The child isn't real. It's just words on a page.

Sigh. I've already had the straw man argument that I'm implying all novels that deal with difficult subject matter are somehow on a par with a "beautiful" story of paedophilia and rape told "beautifully" from the perspective of a paedophile. Or that I'm some kind of unsophisticated yokel unable to understand the literary qualities. I won't bother anymore as there's no point. Just think about your own internalised misogyny. Because the men raping and abusing through the millennia - they've had the pen in their hand all this time. They've told us their story over and over again. It's not interesting and it sure as fuck isn't beautiful.

Genuinely baffled- it's not even that engaging in a literary sense.

That's a completely subjective judgement, though - I found it one of the most haunting books I've ever read, and that was in part because it was so disturbing. No one's saying you have to want to read it, but it's so close minded to say that no one should.

Genuinely baffled- it's not even that engaging in a literary sense

That’s subjective opinion not fact though

It's not interesting and it sure as fuck isn't beautiful

Prose can be deliberately beautiful whatever the subject matter. I rather think that’s the point of the way it’s written.

It's no Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging, that's for sure.

Hont1986

pachyderm, I am baffled that you can't see that Nabokov is making the exact same point that you are making. He is showing the ugliness of a man talking for women.

Plenty of classical literature is misogynist (War and Peace, Madam Bovary, Three Musketeers, you name it) because it was written in misogynist times from within a misogynist culture. Nabokov is a rare writer who actually notices this fact and demonstrates it in all its evil. "Lolita" invites us to question all male narrators who tell stories about women without any awareness of their own misogyny.

This might seem like an obvious point from your position in a contemporary society, but it's not for everyone on the planet and certainly was not when "Lolita" was written.

Pengggwn In Anna Karenina