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.

LassWiADelicateAir

I know I'm right. If I am being unpleasant, it is because I am very bored of people speaking to me as if I am a fool, just because they happen to disagree with an opinion I am entitled to hold, but they don't.

I did NOT say what Gerda is saying I said. I have attempted to explain why that is, but she is either being obdurate or is genuinely confused. I wouldn't mind confused, but she was rude too, and she isn't the only one.

Nobody is obligated to agree with me, but I do wish they would stop wilfully misinterpreting me in an attempt to prove me wrong about something that is inherently subjective and therefore not provable. It's embarrassing for them.

I think the second film does somewhat sympathise with HH which is abhorrent. It makes for uncomfortable watching.

'I know I'm right'

No you don't. More than anything else art is subjective. I don't think you've made your points well at all - you've just insulted people.

Why are you so angry about a book?

Yes I agree Purpleflower - Jeremy Irons plays the role in such a way that we're supposed to feel sorry for him. It's all wrong.

Electrascoffee

"Why are you angry about a book?"

What? Honestly, I think some people on here are just wind-up merchants. I am not angry about a book.

And "I know I'm right" referred to the issue of whether or not Gerda was correctly inferring meaning from my words (she wasn't), not to the issue as a whole.

This is a giant waste of my time. I'm going to save my energy to communicate with people who can read properly.

Goodnight.

You haven't made any points well Pengggwn

You have asserted that Nabokov must be "dodgy" because he wrote so convincingly on that particular subject.

Why should "dodginess " apply only to that subject? Why don't you think Dostoyevsky was "dodgy" for his convincing portrayal of Raskolnikov?

Jeremy Irons plays the role in such a way that we're supposed to feel sorry for him

Although, you could argue that that's how Humbert presents himself to the reader (and many of the characters) in the book.

I'm going to save my energy to communicate with people who can read properly.
Having just RTFT that’s pretty rich.

As the parent of a child with a learning impairment, if it interests you at all pengggwn, although judging from your tone it probably doesn’t, I don’t use the terms cretin or cretinous and I find it expedient to give a very wide berth to people who do.
I’m not much of a fan of defaming the dead either, although I suspect Nabokov had very little concern for the opinions of such as you.

So are we allowed to defame jimmy saville?!

'Although, you could argue that that's how Humbert presents himself to the reader (and many of the characters) in the book.'

He does, but I feel that because we hear Humbert's thoughts in the book first hand we see what an arsehole he is - that he thinks violence against women is acceptable- he is unashamedly physically abusive towards his first wife, he considers killing someone if he thinks they will stop him from abusing Lolita. He's an overt narcissist. I had no sympathy for him at all.

Lethaldrizzle, I thing defaming Jimmy Saville is totally fine. And it's not really 'defaming' is it? He is actually guilty and there is plenty of evidence.

You can't defame the dead. However I would also say you can't compare Nabokov with Savile!

Dear god. I’m not asking for the forensic precision of a qc but you don’t need to that to appreciate the difference between a situation where there is clear evidence and a situation where there is none?
Suggestion - if you get called for jury service, decline.for all our sakes

Electrascoffee Yes, that's true. It's another reason why the films don't really work. From an actor's perspective, I think it would be impossible to get 'into' the character of Humbert without appearing sympathetic, but the film medium doesn't allow for the sort of stream-of-consciousness that would be needed to show the inner narcissism behind the charming facade.

It was perfectly obvious NanaNoodleman was using defame in a layman's sense of "trashing reputation" not a legal sense.

I agree with her re Pengggwn's use of cretin/ cretinous.

Sorry, to clarify my last point - I am not an actor . I'm imagining how an actor would approach the part and might be completely wrong!

Yes, use of 'cretin' is completely unacceptable today I feel.

Nope. It made me very uncomfortable. It isn't clear enough that she is being groomed and taken advantage of.

Surely any child who is 12 and who is having sex with an adult has been groomed and is being abused by default?

It isn't clear enough that she is being groomed and taken advantage of.

Again, that's a subjective judgement not a fact. It was abundantly clear to me when I read the book.

I agree MC.

I think that’s part of its judgement on society though - that some people reading will think ah well, she deserved it / is into it / led him on / acted older than she was / insert victim blaming line here.

The book asks you to consider if you are capable of / have been conditioned to empathise with an abuser, because he is the voice we are so used to hearing in society - male, dominant, self obsessed.

I think it’s so effective because the writing style encourages a sort of cognitive dissonance. As narrator, HH almost draws you into his point of view at times but then Nabokov makes it jarringly obvious that HH is a vile, self-absorbed predator. Maybe if you were skim reading it very superficially you could interpret as a justification for paedophilia but it’s very much the opposite. It’s jarring and discomforting and made more so by the way HH’s self-indulgent narration is interspersed by the reality of his abuse.

I’ve read the book a number of times (and all of Nabokov’s work) and it is tremendous piece of literature. The prose is exquisite and the story fully-realised. I can see both perspectives, but in interests of clarity and brevity, HH comes across very badly in my view. At no point is the reader (IMO) unsure as to the evil of the man.

Also regardless of the writer and one’s opinions on him, it’s important to view the work as a separate entity I think