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 think any accurate portrayal of grooming has to be both subtle and repulsive. It's easier to write/read about the monster lurking around dark corners, with abuse centred on outright violence, threats of violence, and a victim who is physically unable to leave (eg the first part of the book Room). None of that's pleasant to contemplate, but it taps into simpler-to-resolve conflict patterns: there's a goodie and a baddie and the goodie must take steps a, b and c to escape.

What Lolita portrays is a much more disquieting (as opposed to in-your-face terrifying) story of a trusted and well-presenting adult insinuating himself into a child's life and taking advantage whenever the situation permits it: at first occasionally, then constantly. This would be a very sad and horrible read if told in the third person, or by Lo herself, but the fact that 95% of the book is narrated by the abuser is what makes the whole thing so brilliant (but of course still sad and horrible).

Humbert is an eloquent narrator who tries to justify his behaviour in a million ways: citing historical context, analysing his own childhood, elevating lust into a great mythic romance of fate and reincarnation, portraying himself as the love-struck victim and Lo as the goddess/temptress, claiming that the whole affair is of her own volition.

It's all bullshit and, at very rare moments, he acknowledges it. We see that his behaviour is disgusting, that he is sane enough to see the damage he's done, and that he wrecks this child's life anyway. I don't buy the final 'she's not a child any more but I love her anyway and always shall' excuse. IMO, that's just Humbert's final attempt at justification. They're not star-crossed lovers. He barely knows this girl. But: UNREQUITED LOVE, so that's okay, he's suffered too.

Taking all his justifications at face value just proves how scarily persuasive people can be. Poor Humbert is the hapless suitor, the dazed foreign academic, the nice guy who's done everything he can to avoid hurting children. Lo must share equal (if not more) blame, for being sexually active and 'wayward'. In the end, theirs is a great, eternal and inexplicable love -- that's what Humbert implies. That's not what the book itself claims. If anything, the fact that people can and do fall for this reverse-victim/respectable-man/immortal love manipulation from an abuser is exactly what the book demonstrates.

Get a grip. Nope, no irony there

I actually think that narratives told by the abused rather than the abuser can be far more tasteless and voyeuristic.

I attempted to read it for my book club. I found it dull as dishwatervand the subject matter uncomfortable. I'd rather eat a shabby dog than try and get through it again.

Scabby not shabby

CuriousaboutSamphire

Not seeing it myself. I hold a perfectly valid opinion, as far as I am concerned.

Pengggwn

It is an interesting thought. There are countless authors who write about murder - some very convingingly from the pov of the protagonist.

Do you feel the same about that?

I tried to read it. Was a Russian student. But found it hard going. Maybe I'll give it another try?

Never read Lolita but someone up thread mentioned "We need to talk about Kevin" which I thought was utterly brilliant. From the first page I was gripped by the writing style, then drawn into the story. Could not put it down.

Yet most people I lent it to abandoned it after the first chapter!

Tis all subjective after all

pachyderm, Morris and others who disagree with adulation of the book: you may be interested in Rebecca Solnit's essay 'Men Explain Lolita to Me': lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/ (quite long)

For some others this may help contextualise why some well-informed people feel that way.

I don't feel that essay speaks for me, but I would say it is a masterpiece and can also be unpleasant to read. Often the case with well-written unreliable narrators.

JacquesHammer

I haven't seen it done convincingly. But yes, if I saw someone write, convincingly, from the perspective of someone who - for example - wanted to torture and mutilate people, I would believe there was something wrong with them. The empathy required to be an effective writer is a stretchy fabric, but I don't believe it extends to acts of extreme depravity. I believe you have to, on some level, be able to connect with desire to hurt people or abuse them, to put yourself into those shoes.

It's an incredible book, very well-written.

The audiobook read by Jeremy Irons is well worth the money, too.

Pengggwnn, I don't think you don't hold a valid opinion, I just thing it lacks depth. Many authors write about things that are incredibly distasteful, explore the depths of human depravity. But it doesn't follow that they themselves are depraved.

William Golding, Matthew Stokoe, Ian M Banks, Samuel R Delaney, J G Ballard, etc etc. They all explore the worst. weirdest of human nature. All dystopian, all fascinating, shocking and enlightening, if you read them without prejudice.

Humbert is an unreliable narrator

Like all of Nabakov's books (or all the ones I've read). All his narrators/ central characters have some mental disorder/something deeply skewed in their personality. Some of them are benign (poor old Pnin), some of them very unwell (Luzhin), and some of them completely off-the-scale insane (Kinbote in Pale Fire).

Completely agree with you OP, Lolita is a great book - and the grotesque misreading of it by (normally male) critics says much more about them than about the book. Anyone who thinks Humbert's narration is supposed to be trusted doesn't know how to read fiction hasn't read much Nabokov.

I'm a novelist and the more different a character is from me, the easier they are to write.

CuriousaboutSamphire

'Lacks depth'? Not patronising at all

I am a reasonably well-read woman. I understand that some (indeed, some of the best) writers explore the darker side of human nature. I just don't believe a person writes like Nabokov without having some of those darker impulses there to drawn upon. That is some distance away from thinking JK Rowling believes she is a wizard.

The empathy required to be an effective writer is a stretchy fabric, but I don't believe it extends to acts of extreme depravity. I believe you have to, on some level, be able to connect with desire to hurt people or abuse them, to put yourself into those shoes

See I tend to disagree. I just think some people are able to be incredibly imaginative. I also don't think that we can suggest that if someone writes something they have no experience of that is positive then its acceptable, but there must be some depravity lurking if it is negative.

Of course for some people it will be true, but I don't think it is a given.

I toyed with writing a murder for a while, until I had an idea for something else but I certainly didn't want to act out any of the things I wrote about. I can't even kill insects

Pengggwn would you also say that forensic psychologists and others who work with offenders are disturbed because they often understand how their clients' minds work?

JacquesHammer

In order to write about murderous impulses convincingly, I believe you have to have experienced at least strongly violent impulses; and I think most of us have experienced such.

In order to write about sexual impulses convincingly, I believe you have to have experienced them. How else would you write about them?

In order to write about the impulse to rape a child convincingly, well, I don't know - I have never experienced that. But in my view, I would struggle to make that sound real. And I am thankful for that.

It's my absolute favourite book. It's beautifully written.

pennycarbonara

They think they understand something of the way their clients' minds work. I doubt many of them actually do, and I doubt they are arrogant enough to say they do, beyond certain patterns and behaviours that, clinically speaking, appear to run together, or beyond what their subject has intimated to them. A lot of psychology is bollocks, as far as I am concerned.

Patronising? Possibly. But it is my point of view! I disagree with you and think you have missed something in your analysis! If you disagree, fine. But as this is a discussion board, AIBU at that, I don't think it is incumbent upon me not to engage with comments/perspectives I disagree with - just as you are doing!

In order to write about sexual impulses convincingly, I believe you have to have experienced them. How else would you write about them?

Case in point, Emily Bronte managed sexual longing and desire and abusive relationships very convincingly.

CuriousaboutSamphire

And your facile Harry Potter example is what you think my 'analysis' was missing? Okay.