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.

QueenAravisOfArchenland

Why would you imagine it to be the same? Please, this is your comparison, your idea. You need to be the one explaining it.

Queen, I can only offer up a nail, for that jelly and the ceiling

""As already said, the sex/rape parts are not really talked about in the sort of detail that would bring out the censors or widespread condemnation as filth but the rape of a child still happens.""

The complete dehumanisation of her also happens. Her name is Delores. But she ceases to exist as a person, hence the different nicknames when he decides she has to fulfill a role. All sexual abusers and a lot of abusers do the same. Their victims don't have rights.

What was dangerous about the book was the opinions that mirrored that of Dorothy Parker "the engrossing, anguished story of a man, a man of taste and culture, who can love only little girls" and Lolita as "a dreadful little creature, selfish, hard, vulgar, and foul-tempered"

And Robertson Davis "the book is not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child. This is no pretty theme, but it is one with which social workers, magistrates and psychiatrists are familiar."

And that became the opinion of Society. Girls were responsible for being sexually abused. Men couldn't help themselves. We asked for it, if they found us attractive. Women were known and 'proven' to be cunning, manipulative and deceptive.

There were lots of Lolitas, there still are. But at least we now don't punish children for being sexually attractive. Put them in institutions, remove their babies, if they become pregnant.

I can't separate the narrative from the reality of the situation, particularly at that time, when the lives of unmarried Women were so oppressed.

Nabokov took themes and ideas, if not the whole story line of Lolita from other authors. He seemed very interested in men who groomed Girls under 13 throughout his life, which i find a bit iffy. It's been said that because the age of marriage was 13 in a lot of places, then 12 was similar to a 15 year old today, but i can't agree with that.

It just shows how we change our opinion of things based on context and how the perpetrator comes across. Which again I have an issue with because that was reflected in Law. Women and Children were powerless.

All the other similar works have been done from the Victims point of view. As said, we might as well celebrate Mein Kampf, as inspired and brave.

You are completely right OP. It's a book that is wildly misunderstood (and the films didn't help).
To me the whole theme of the book is about obsession and self delusion. We only see things through Humberts eyes.
We actually have no idea for most of the book what Lolita is really like, or what effect his abuse has on her, as it's all through the twisted lens of the abuser. It's genius.
The films didn't work because a) It's really hard to show an internal dialogue/perception and b) she was too old. At the start of Lolita Humbert talks about his perfect victim being 8-13 I think? He also describes hanging around children's play areas... He is 100 % a predatory paedophile, not the hapless object for a teenage seductress!
The fact that Lolita is seen as less than sympathetic is because he doesn't see her as sympathetic. We only see what he sees.
Of course when you read between the lines, you can make out the destruction of the victim.
Nabakov was a flipping brilliant writer. I read this when I was 16 and got it totally.

I didn't know that about it being a recurring theme Birds?
I always understood that Nabakov got fed up with trying to get people to understand that Humbert wasn't him and vice versa!

Completely off topic with this whole discussing whether Nabokov was a paedophile thing. But someone mentioned upthread about finding the Russian version hard going. I’m currently reading it to keep up with my Russian and honestly it really is. I think with the flowery language and such you need to be completely fluent in it to a high degree and even then it seems it doesn’t flow as well as in English. I’m finding it interesting, considering Russian was Nabokovs first language, that he could manipulate English in such an incredible and almost instinctual way.

I also agree the movies failed to portray the depth and complexity of the story, instead making Lolita seem like a slutty 15 year old and not much more. I think those have been much more responsible for the idea of “a Lolita” seeping into popular culture as a term for a seductive teenager. You can see stills from the movies used in anything from memes to tumblr photo sets to portray this idea and are very much used in “daddy dom” type crap. I really don’t see anything from the book being used in the same way.

Birdsgottafly "It's been said that because the age of marriage was 13 in a lot of places, then 12 was similar to a 15 year old today, but i can't agree with that." - me neither, because it's totally untrue. Women in this country used to get married for the first time at around 25 until the 1900s. (Now it's back to normal, women are getting married for the first time at the same age we always have apart from that unusual period.) Besides that, girls start puberty earlier and earlier nowadays, they certainly weren't women at 12 back then or any time, they were behind our girls today not ahead of them. The whole thing is making excuses for raping girls.

As is this book or the majority of readers wouldn't have gotten that from it. There is nothing "beautiful" (what the fuck? Why have multiple people said it's beautiful?) or interesting about the ramblings of a child rapist, whether that's the author or the character. No woman posting here saying this book is shit is actually simply too thick to understand how beautiful and special and exciting it is to destroy a girl, thanks.

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

Well clearly it didn't challenge you much if you can describe an abused and raped 12 year old child as a "little shit"

The book is stunning. Complex and sophisticated. Inspired.

And disturbing and grubby feeling. There are other books which disturb me similarly, Ian Banks books for example.

Nabokov does seem to have an understanding of the working of the paedophiliac mind. He does rely on us to see through Humbert, and I think he'd be devastated to think that Lolita has been turned into a byword for a dangerously seductive teenager.

There is a moment where he talks about the seductiveness of Lolita's grubby sock on her skinny calf which just acts like a splash of cold water on any ideas you may have fallen for of romance.

I really don't think anyone is saying it's "beautiful and special" to destroy a child. ..
Just that the construction and language of the book is very clever.
Look, this book could almost have been written about anything. Humbert could have been a man with a different kind of obsession or fetish. He could have been a South Anerican dictator or a serial killer. The point is how his self delusion only presents his version of events, either because he is incapable of seeing things any other way, or because he wilfully manipulates the story and the way it's told.
It makes you think how dangerous and frightening these people because they can seem so sophisticated and charming, so reasonable and even sympathetic.
I do agree that "Lolita" as understood by most people evokes a seductive and knowing teenager, and thats down to the film imo. I don't see how anyone could read the book and take that from it.

I read Lolita as a teenager before I understood the concept of unreliable narrator and it made me feel quite sick. It read to me like one big pile of victim blaming rape apologist garbage and the film adaptation reinforced that. I understand now there were nuances I didn't get but I've no desire to give it another go

Actually, it reminds me a bit of the book Dexter. There is a moment when Dexter realises that his adoptive father didn't help him deal with his psychotic impulses by helping him target villains so much as completely fail to help him manage his psychopathology. Dexter's charm and selection of evil targets blinds us and him to what a monster he is.

I do agree that "Lolita" as understood by most people evokes a seductive and knowing teenager, and thats down to the film imo. I don't see how anyone could read the book and take that from it.

Yes, rather like people who think that Wuthering Heights is novel about the romantic love between Heathcliff and Cathy -- that's down to film versions trying to make it fit more conventional genre expectations.

Also, of course, a novel is more than its plot. The literary brilliance of Lolita isn't because of its subject matter any more than you would admire WH for the fact that it's about brutal domestic violence, child and animal cruelty, vengeance, forced marriage, and grave violation.

It was me that described Lolita as a little shit and I stand by that. I think the character was deliberately written as an unpleasant child. That made the challenge of the book even tougher for the reader. Humbert is charming and nice, Lo is not. But Lo is unquestionably the victim who is brutalised by Humbert. But Humbert is able to plausibly present himself as the victim. And as PPs have said,the narrative of girl child predator and weak victim adult man has wormed its way into society in a dreadful way which says more abou readers than writers (or more specifically probably says mor about filmgoers and people who’ve never read it).

As I said before, I like the book as it presents a predatory paedophile as a charming and beguiling man. I think that is the scariest thing as it is a truism. These people are not horned beasts with identifiable marks, they are the nice people who are great with kids and ease their way into positions of trust. They also justify their own behaviour by blaming children for leading them on. I think it’s a very relevant book.

Ratonastick, you seem to have a lot of contradictory things mixed up in your argument. On one hand, you seem to be aware that it's Humbert who is telling the story and his presentation of himself as charming is a fake and dangerous facade. On the other hand, you say things like "Lolita is a little shit", forgetting your own point that it's Humbert who is telling the story and the consequent that that whatever description we have of Lolita is Humbert's and not some kind of objective representation.

I remember the opening sentence as being one of the most memorable and scene setting in any novel that I’ve ever read. It really stands out and it’s evocative and weird and you know instantly it’s obsessive and basically very wrong!

On the other hand, you say things like "Lolita is a little shit", forgetting your own point that it's Humbert who is telling the story and the consequent that that whatever description we have of Lolita is Humbert's and not some kind of objective representation

I agree. Ratonastick is pontificating about HH being an unreliable narrator (really? did any one not know that? It's Nabokov's trademark trope) yet is taking his word about Lolita.

Sorry to reignite the debate about whether Nabokov was 'dodgy' but... surely to judge whether he was 'too convincing' in his portrayal of a paedophile you'd actually need to have had those urges yourself? I found the book both compelling and disturbing, but I have no idea whether Humbert's thought patterns are like those of a real abuser, as I don't know how such people think - I can imagine, but I (like Nabokov?) am just making it up off the top of my head.

MargaretCavendish you make an interesting point, one of several that are considered in the following thesis:
chem.chem.rochester.edu/~wdjgrp/H-thesis.pdf
For those who don’t have the time, apparently the perspective and themes very accurately reflect those of actual paedophiles / hebephiles

Sorry to reignite the debate about whether Nabokov was 'dodgy' but... surely to judge whether he was 'too convincing' in his portrayal of a paedophile you'd actually need to have had those urges yourself?

I am not going to respond to that, other than to say it is fucking offensive and request that you refrain from suggesting it again.

I'm genuinely sorry you're offended and to be clear I don't at all think you're a paedophile - but for that reason I do think that you're ill-placed to declare other people 'dodgy' on the basis that they can imagine being a paedophile 'too well' - and I also think it's a pretty offensive (and nonsensical) claim in itself, one that actually quite seriously undermines the role of the fiction in fiction writing, and which if followed to its logical conclusion would lead to some pretty unpleasant censorship.

MargaretCavendish

And I think that is nonsense. A portrayal can be 'convincing' because of its development, detail, specificity etc. I have read of many places, events and emotions I have never experienced, but when someone writes particularly well, I believe in their portrayal. That is what I mean by convincing, amd it is a perfectly valid literary judgement, absent my personal experience of being attracted to children.

Now, please, stop it.

Really interesting point Margaret

@isadoraquagmire Ada is my fave Nabokov novel, that and King, Queen, Knave.