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.

I was 13 when I first read Lolita - I remember being fixated on the 'unfinished' romance with Annabel Lee as an explanation/justification for pretty much everything that followed. I hadn't really got to grips with the concept of unreliable narration at that age.

Good point SV. It's possible that Annabel was a victim of his unwanted advances...

I've just dug my 1962 edition out for a re-read (originally my mum's copy!). The reviews it quotes in lieu of blurb are interesting:

"In recent fiction no lover has thought of his beloved with so much tenderness, no woman has been so charmingly evoked, in such grace and delicacy, as Lolita; it is one of the few examples of rapture in modern writing ... I think the real reason why Mr Nabokov chose his outrageous subject matter is that he wanted to write a story about love" (Lionel Trilling).

"Nabokov's manner uses cool laughter and mockery. The hasty reader may suppose him to be cynical, even if he grants that the narrator is cold and hilarious because his situation is hopeless and indefensible. His is the laughter of self-hatred ... perhaps he would say that the only valid response to the conventional society of mass murderers and vulgarians he has been thrown into as a displaced person is to mock it with a private outrage." (V.S. Pritchett).

I am not sure I agree with Trilling about 'tenderness' - as pps have said, we don't see anything of the real Lolita, and the narrative is often quite scathing of her superficial character traits.

Pritchett seems to suggest the alienation of the narrator is the result of the society into which he has been placed being vulgar and conventional, which certainly chimes with Humbert's conceit; I am not sure if it stems from self-hatred, though.

I'm looking forward to re-reading Lolita with the various points made by posters on this thread in mind! It's a great thread which I think will enrich my reading of the novel.

Thank you so much for this thread and the quality of some of the posts. I felt as if I were back at university and enjoying a lively seminar - but with a much wider range of views.

I am one of those who read it as a young teen and have read it twice since - but not since becoming a parent in the late 1990s. Each reading has been different - but I remember phrases - especially the opening paragraph.

Time to get it back off the shelf and re-read.

What an interesting thread.

I have read Lolita twice and also seen the second film. On rereading it, I was struck by just how clearly it makes the point of how severely damaging the abuse is. A brilliantly written book.

One thing I remember was going to see the film in the cinema. There was a really odd, unpleasant atmosphere, and quite a lot of adult men viewing it solo.

Both films are problematic, I think (especially the Kubrick one, which plays it for laughs as a kind of dark comedy, with an actress who's clearly college-age). The Lyne version is better in tone, but still not right. I think to actually portray the story properly you'd have to use a 12-year-old actress - casting an older one, even 'dressed down', partially protects the viewer from the appalling nature of what HH actually did.

(Sorry, I know the discussion is actually about the book, not the adaptations. I love the book. I think the writing is exquisite, and almost unbearably sad.)

I'm rereading as a result of this thread and I can confirm that the writing is just so elegant and exquisite.
And the foreword is masterful, and of course unbearably sad. It's a very bittersweet novel but it's up there for me as one of the most skilled pieces of prose ever.

I've never read anything like it at all. The style of writing reminds me a little of Donna Tartt.

I agree with the PP who said the damage Humbert did was so raw. And he never ever, even once thinks about what would be best for Lolita. He doesn't care about her one little bit - he regards her as his possession.

His is the laughter of self-hatred ... perhaps he would say that the only valid response to the conventional society of mass murderers and vulgarians he has been thrown into as a displaced person is to mock it with a private outrage." (V.S. Pritchett)

That is awfully clever sounding and quite meaningless.

Yes, I struggled with it too, Lass. I discovered the review is appended in its entirety at the end of the text and it's all like that.

Some of the reviews at the time of publication, especially from Great Men of Letters , are pretty appalling. It's constantly referred to as a 'love story', a 'great romance', etc... She's fucking twelve.
No wonder Polanski got away with it.

(I don't blame Nabokov for that, as I really don't think that's the intent, or the natural effect, of the writing. Humbert's depravity and its effects on Dolores are pretty plainly depicted. There is never a sense that she is a willing participant in any of it.)

Yes, even Humbert himself uses the word 'rape' at the end of the novel to describe his crimes.

I read the book many times and saw both movies a few times. "Tainted by poor interpretation" implies that the film adaptations were meant to be identical to the literature they are BASED ON. It's okay for a work of art to differ slightly from its source material, and it's okay to view it as separate from its source material. I interpret these three pieces of art differently because they are different. When I interpret the book, I exclude any knowledge I have of the films. When I interpret either film, I exclude any knowledge I have of the book or the other film. Makes it more interesting that way. I get to have three different versions of Lolita instead of redundant carbon copies. There's really no point in watching a film adaptation unless it is at least a little bit different from the book.