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.

Can I just say, I'm loving some of the writing just in this thread.

I am not going to pretend I don't believe X just because the likely consequences of X (if everyone else believed it to) are Y. That isn't my concern. I am just saying what I think.

That's such a cop-out ending. So: 'I think the book shows the writer has paedophilic tendencies, but that's just my opinion, never mind what this implies about Nabokov in particular, or how we deal with difficult literature in general'.

There's so much potential for an interesting argument here. How convincing is too convincing when you're writing about terrible things? At what point can/should you judge the author for even thinking them? Does make a difference to our view when the writer is male and writing about violence against women and children, since that form of abuse is so prevalent?

If Nabokov wrote more than once about paedophilia, does that increases the odds he was one? If he wrote about nothing BUT that subject, would I be defending him still? Would I still think Lolita is a brilliant book if it turned out that Nabokov was abusive himself? Do paedophiles enjoy reading Lolita? Has it ever inspired or encouraged anyone to act like Humbert, or made an abuse victim feel like it normalised or glorified their abuser? Should there be an age limit on reading it?

I don't know the answers to most of these. But they're important considerations, both in terms of what fiction writers should be allowed to write (without judgement or suspicion about their personal lives) and whether anyone needs protection from books which depict questionable ideologies and horrible actions.

Matcha

It isn't a "cop out" - I don't have to and probably can't quantify the exact point in a hypothetical text where it would make me feel that way, and I certainly wouldn't advocate censoring it.

You then continue with a long list of questions, and they are interesting questions, but my not answering them in preceding posts doesn't mean I am "copping out" of anything - they are your questions! Answer them yourself!

I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord.

My view of that scene is more grim. Wasn't she an adult woman by then? He wants the child to fantasize over a lot more than he misses the company of the real woman that she is now. He's regretting her growing up.

(or really, the adult she would be if she was alive)

No, he's remembering a time when he was still out looking for her, so she would still have been a child.

I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord.

The criticism I've read, and I tend to agree, suggests that this is another self-serving rationalisation on the part of Humbert; it's sententious and twee, and he's hard up against the end of the line at this point. I see it as Nabokov's acknowledgement that Dolly's* voice is missing, and that is a sacrifice he made to facilitate Humbert's self-indictment.

*Lolita is always Humbert's name for her; she was Dolly to herself.

My reading of the playground voices thing was that he was upset he didnt have another Lolita, a young girl, waiting for him.

Like a frustration that once she was absent from his side he’d have to go through all the work of finding another girl, because it all has to be done on the quiet etc.

‘Demure murmur’ is definitely referencing back to his desire for children to my mind

Fascinating thread (derailments aside), in my opinion it is perhaps the greatest novel ever written, precisely because of the juxtaposition of liltingly beautiful prose and dark and ugly subject matter (as @jacqueshammer and others have stated on this thread). It challenges perceptions, plays with one's mind as much as it plays with language. It is shocking but beautiful.

I first read it when I was about 16, loved it from the first sentence, and I think I've understood it more with each reading. I now have to re-read it on my holiday. Great discussion.

@MiaowMix

Really interested in your last point. I probably first read at a similar age. I think we were 14/15 when we read it in school.

I'd be really interested to see how feelings surrounding the book differ (if they indeed do) by first reading it as a child yourself.

@JacquesHammer yes, I think on first reading I took it more literally, at face value, not really understanding the concept of an unreliable narrator.
But, while I was fully aware that this was narrated by a grown man who was a paedophile, I think on first reading I believed it to be a 'love story'.I still knew it was wrong though. Edgy and disconcerting because of the plot, plus the quality of the prose. I do think it's a masterpiece.

Matcha thank you for your brilliant analyses and painstaking efforts to try and get Peng to draw any more general conclusions from her comments.

Pengggwyn - this isn't how it works. You are saying something which has general application and could raise further interesting points, yet whenever any of us questions the logical implications of what you are saying, you cop out and claim you're talking only about this specific instance. We are entitled to see your argument as flawed. You did me the courtesy of saying I had read what you said carefully. I think I have done.

Your argument boils down to "There is something specifically The Worst Thing Ever about this One Particular form of sexual crime and desire to commit it. Anyone who writes about the mind of a paedophile ( oh yes...OR the mind of a psychopath - BUT NOTHING ELSE !!) must feel those feelings themselves". Can't you see how weirdly precise this is? It is far more likely that your imagination fails you, at the point where you can't envisage the transposition of emotions to new situations, than Nabokov's failed him at the point of trying to evoke a monster.

I think the playground voices part is a moment where a heavy dramatic irony is pointed up... We know her voice, in every sense, has been excised from every concord of innocent voices. HH feels a disquiet which is horrible to us partly because it's so close to the truth- he is almost, almost remorseful and almost has a human response. But doesn't. So we are disgusted again. The layering of meaning is so masterful.

Pengggwyn - this isn't how it works. You are saying something which has general application and could raise further interesting points, yet whenever any of us questions the logical implications of what you are saying, you cop out and claim you're talking only about this specific instance. We are entitled to see your argument as flawed. You did me the courtesy of saying I had read what you said carefully. I think I have done.

Again, that is nonsense. I am not saying there is no more general application. I am saying it is not possible to be sufficiently specific about a general application to draw up a set of 'rules' by which I can categorise my responses to books I have not yet read. That's surely not something any reasonable person can expect?

I am not here for debating club. This is simply my opinion when I read this book. Again, it baffles me that people are so intent on trying to start an argument about it.

And actually, this is exactly how it works. I have an opinion, I am entitled to that opinion, and I am not trying to persuade anyone else of that opinion.

Your argument boils down to "There is something specifically The Worst Thing Ever about this One Particular form of sexual crime and desire to commit it. Anyone who writes about the mind of a paedophile ( oh yes...OR the mind of a psychopath - BUT NOTHING ELSE !!) must feel those feelings themselves".

Here, however, you reveal yourself to be as hard of reading as the other people who have levelled at me this criticism. Where have I said this?

No. It's superficially well written but it's a long apologia for paedophilia, full of self-pity and self-aggrandisement disguised as self-abasement. It wasn't the only story Nabokov wrote about sex with children, which would make you wonder

This. 100 per cent this. I found it utterly repugnant. I have a first class degree in English literature and have read a wide variety of literature, but this was beyond the pale for me. I have read some of the other 'books' that Nabokov wrote about sex with children. Pure paedophilia in my opinion.

Amazing how all of us are hard of reading. I've got two degrees in English and another one in linguistics as it happens. Never had a problem before.

RosyPrimroseface

Then it is a shame to see someone with such excellent qualifications allowing them to go to waste in this fashion. Please, use your skills and pay attention to what I have actually said. At no point did I suggest paedophilia or paedophilia and psychopathy were standalone examples. In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite: whatever the emotional or psychological subject matter, an effective writer will, in my view, be drawing on some personal experience.

Whether nabsy is a dirty old man or not, we can probably neither prove nor disprove but i'm pretty sure its been lasciviously devoured by a few grubby types over the years - but then maybe its the exquisite prose they love m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/clairelouise-meadows/sexual-abuse-he-asked-me-if-id-read-lo_b_2143280.html

Whether nabsy is a dirty old man or not, we can probably neither prove nor disprove but i'm pretty sure its been lasciviously devoured by a few grubby types over the years

Probably. The use of the material doesn’t negate the value of the piece.

I can think of a number of erotic classics that are classified thereas despite the more lascivious content

In which case, you're simply wrong then Peng - it's not true that an effective writer is always drawing on some personal experience- or at least not in the linear way you're describing. Other posters have tried to make this point to you. The metamorphosis by which individual experience, other sources and imagination is translated into art is a lot more complex than you seem to believe.

This linearity is dangerous in my view and (ad absurdum) leads to burning books.

RosyPrimroseface

I believe you believe I am wrong (although I haven't suggested a linear anything - not at any point). Repeating yourself, though, isn't going to work, because this is a matter of subjective opinion, not objective fact.

You've suggested a single point and are totally uninterested in the conclusions or inferences which can be drawn from it. So in that sense you're not being linear. You're being... a dot?!

Your subjective opinion is that every writer takes from personal experience- in a way that can be 'worked out' or interpreted by the reader to say something about the writer. This is what I mean by linear- the line between writer's feelings and character's. You are wrong. There is not one line. Saying "I'm not talking about a line" is just disagreeing with my words not defending your point.

jeez it's like debating Trump. You are saying it's your subjective opinion that blah blah but not engaging with the logical issues arising.

Anyway I'll stop! As I am, as you correctly point out, repeating myself! Have a good evening all
I've enjoyed this thread!

Thank you.

I think on first reading I believed it to be a 'love story'.

I did exactly the same on reading WH aged 9. I guess for me the lack of sophistication of my reading surrounding the nuances of love. Hasn’t diminished my love of the work in anyway to grow with it every time I read it!