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.

'it's a long apologia for paedophilia, full of self-pity and self-aggrandisement disguised as self-abasement. '

I completely disagree. We are not supposed to have any sympathy for Humbert on any level. He clearly is a monster.

it's a long apologia for paedophilia, full of self-pity and self-aggrandisement disguised as self-abasement. Only if you read it at face value, taking Humbert's view as 'the truth' - that's the whole point of the book!

Humbert is an unreliable narrator.

pachyderm you may as well say that The Handmaids Tale is Atwood endorsing sexism and despotic regime

Have to disagree pachyderm. I also think it is magnificent. Humberto is a monster but charming and beguiling so you can see the grooming of Lo (and others around her). Lo is a little shit who doesn’t understand sexuality but thinks she does. She is ultimately destroyed (by Humbert? I think so) and we are challenged to ask ourselves if we are blaming the victim in our own responses. It’s a fascinating examination of abuse and challenges us to ask when the abused becomes the abuser are they a victim or a perpetrator.

It always reminds me of Lord of the Flies. Totally different books, but both ones where you forget the protagonists are children until you are reminded with a sickening bump.

Isadora I hope you mean the prose is romantic. Otherwise did the grooming and raping pass you by?

@queenaravisofarchenland I do not think my response is "crass and stupid" or that to gloss over the paedophilia shows some lack of sophistication that Lolita fans obviously have in spades. I have a degree in English lit and have read very widely. I thought it was a repulsive book when I read it as a student and I haven't changed my view. Perhaps it's a skilful depiction of how an abuser works but beautiful? No.

Everybody's aware that it's paedophilia and that it's awful and tragic. Everybody.

I stand by what I said: it's an incredibly simplistic and surface reading to see it as an apology for paedophilia. And the writing is masterful whether you like the subject matter or not. You don't have to like it or consider it a personal classic, that's up to you, but if you like your morals spelled out in big capital letters and your endings neat and appropriate you aren't going to like a lot of great art

"Lo is a little shit" no she's a twelve year old child that he rapes after her mother dies. FFS. Dorothy Parker made the same mistake in her review at the time, talking about Lolita's unpleasantness as though it somehow intoduces some kind of moral ambiguity.
She is TWELVE and he rapes her.

"The Handmaid's Tale" don't be absurd. That's told from Offred's point of view. Maybe if it was the Commander talking about how much he enjoys raping her there'd be a comparison.

I'm in the minority here. I gave up on it. Prose felt so long winded I just wanted him to keep it succinct and to the point. Then gave a.m Holmes ago something or other Alice and I preferred that writing even though the content was grim

Yes, Lolita is an apologia for paedophilia, and The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole is the tragic tale of a young intellectual stranded in the East Midlands.

First person narrators aren't direct spokesmen for the author's personal opinions. Unless it's a really shit book, which Lolita isn't.

(Mind you, it's not a love story, either, unless it's between Humbert and Humbert. And calling Lo 'horrible' does call to mind some of the awful misogynistic attitudes that have enabled abuse scandals: she may be coarse/superficial/brash/irritating, but she's still a child in vulnerable circumstances being relentlessly exploited and used by adults.)

Mind you, it's not a love story, either, unless it's between Humbert and Humbert

This.

I think it is absolutely recognised that Humbert is utterly self-obsessed.

it's a long apologia for paedophilia, full of self-pity and self-aggrandisement disguised as self-abasement

The whole point of the book is quite the opposite.

Humbert is such a narcissist that I do disbelieve he's capable of love at all. It certainly isn't a love story imo.

I find the notion that the reader is bound to agree with the narrator strange though.

Pachyderm, to me that was the point. Humbert is the charming nice guy, Lo is a pretty unpleasant child. And that was the challenge to the reader the nice guy is a wicked abuser, the unpleasant child is the victim but you’re drawn to the abusive apologist when you should be drawn to the victim. And you have to shake yourself and remember that she is a child. It’s a bloody uncomfortable read but I do think it is a masterpiece that stays with you.

I also think it is a useful reminder that most paedophiles are, on the surface, charming and lovely people because that is how they get close to children and into a position of trust. They also target children who won’t necessarily be believed as they have other issues.

The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole is the tragic tale of a young intellectual stranded in the East Midlands.

Brilliantly funny analogy!

My reading is not simplistic or on a surface level. You're still doing it, attributing some level of aesthetic and moral sophistication to yourselves that someone "crass and stupid" (like me?) doesn't have. It's very patronising.

If you think art stands in some kind of moral vacuum you should google "Lolita" with your filters off. You might be urbane enough to see it as some kind of interesting exploration of fringe sexuality but for others it's a celebration and a normalisation.

I have never said it shouldn't exist or that it should be banned but it's an ugly work propping up the endless male perspective that passes for reality in art and culture. Young girls have been prostituted and married off since time began but their stories are not told and lauded in the mainstream. So I don't find Lolita revolutionary or interesting, I just see it as a dreary continuation; more of the same dressed up in pretty words.

Bloody dreadful book. Reminds me of my film obsessed ex who claimed that thrillers full of sexual violence were 'tongue in cheek' and that people who didn't like it had failed to 'get it'.

Thanks, but I'm intelligent. I get it. And I think it's shit.

I think anyone who reads it as 'an exploration of fringe sexuality' didn't get the point of the book.

Humbert knows what he is doing is wrong - he admits this at various points. And the reader certainly is in no doubt that he's a nasty predator. He hates women and his treatment of his first wife Valeria was bad enough.

I think the book also poses the wider question about how Humbert came to be the monster he is. What is different about him to the rest of us.

It is a fantastic book which I always intended to re-read but in all honesty I don’t think I will for a bit! DD is around the same age as Lolita and I don’t think I could bear it.

I don't think you can write so convincingly about paedophilia without being at least dodgy.

I know that it’s a novella and therefore open to interpretation but how could anyone see it as rape-apology? Humbert is horrible and quite clearly a criminal, groomer and abuser. He doesn’t know it, but we, the reader, definitely do!

Yep, he willingly admits the violent thoughts he has about his first wife and that he twists her wrist to get his own way. He also thinks we should admire him for managing not to murder Lolita's mother at the lake. He's vile. Poor Lo was desperate to escape (who wouldn't be) the film seems to suggest she should have been perfectly happy with Humbert which is not the impression I get from the book at all...

And that's why I so disliked the film. If anything that does try to justify Humbert. Whereas the book shows him up for who he is.

I don't think you can write so convincingly about paedophilia without being at least dodgy Yeah! And I always thought JK Rowling just has to be a wizard for exactly the same reason.

Or Richard Bach a seagull, Richard Adams a dog...

CuriousaboutSamphire

Oh, behave yourself. Of course being able to (convincingly) imagine yourself levitating a feather isn't in the same league as being able to convincingly imagine yourself shagging a child. Get a grip.