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.

Sorry, too slow and so cross-posted!

A 15 year old boy is quite different to a 12 year old girl

Both of those were hugely successful and both were filmed. Notes on a Scandal was shortlisted for the Booker prize.

Of The Reader Der Spiegelsaid it was one of the greatest triumphs of German literature sinceGünter Grass'sThe Tin Drum.It won the GermanHans Fallada Prizein 1998, and became the first German book to topThe New York Timesbestselling books list. It has been translated into 45 different languages and has been included in the curricula of college-level courses in Holocaust literature and German language and German literature.

Fair enough - so are there any classics about older women seducing 12 year old boys

Out of interest, what would it prove to you if someone could name a book that was 'Lolita but with the sexes reversed'?

It says that only a man could write some thing like lolita

I don't doubt that a young boy could be psychologically damaged by a sexual relationship with an older woman when he was too young, but I still can't compare it to the Humbert / Lolita scenario. The boy wouldn't end up dying in childbirth aged 17 for a start.

What about a story where an older man has sex with a 12 year old boy? Would it ever become a "beautiful" classic?

It is a brilliant book. It's clear that you'd trust Humbert about as far as you could throw him. The film came nowhere near to doing it justice.

The writing is beautiful but HH isn’t and neither is the relationship between HH and Lolita. I haven’t seen the film but the novel portrays HH and vile and grubby and depraved.

What about a story where an older man has sex with a 12 year old boy? Would it ever become a "beautiful" classic?

Tadzio in Death in Venice is 14 although von Aschenbach does not have sex with him.

The balance of power in Notes on a Scandal followed a very different path. The student ended up dumping the teacher and taking up with someone his own age; although, of course, the whole relationship is described in the third person from yet another unreliable narrator, so must be taken with a pinch of salt.

The student ended up dumping the teacher and taking up with someone his own age
The same eventually happened in Lolita, actually.
What I found a bit disappointing in Lolita, were certain out-of-tune moments (where it is directly spelled out that Humbert was physically violent, or when he takes back the money by force, etc.) It is totally read between the lines in other, more subtle passages - and is only scarier for that - but either the author was not fully confident in own expressive talent, or thought that the average reader won't get it unless it is pre-digested for them a couple of times.
Also I think the chapter where it becomes clear that Humbert suffers from paranoidal delusions (schizophrenia?) reads a bit different now compared to the 50's. I think, originally it was intended to add another layer of easy-to-digest darkness to the character, as mental illnesses were generally less acceptable.
I have a similar feeling re another classic mentioned upthread, i.e. Crime and Punishment. Where Dostoyevsky had to kill the sister of the old hag, and made her as innocent as a victim as possible (a character which generally sticks out from the narrative as a sore thumb). Probably also to elicit an emotional response from a "thicker" reader.
Or it could be that these are later editor's corrections, I don't know.

EuphoricNight

I did. I suppose it is rather an archaic word, but I don't think it' should beyond the pale in its usual sense. Report it if you feel it is unacceptable in this context.

It isn't so much archaic penggwn, but more a disablist word. You wouldn't say 'what a fucking spaz thing to say' or 'what a fucking mong thing to say' would you?

Of course if you Google cretinous it will give a 'foolish' definition as well as the one related to deformed people but ime most informed people associate 'cretinous' with disability slurs.

EuphoricNight

Oh, most 'informed people'. Well, as you say, I was using the first dictionary definition. I apologise if you are offended.

Erm.. Penggg you seem a bit out of sorts, lots of being both the pot and the kettle. Are you OK?

I am asking seriously, I promise. You are often a bit 'all corners' and I often disagree with your posts, but this thread just seems to have riled you more than usual! You are rarely quite so self contradictory or so lacking self awareness as you have been here, it seems odd, unusual for you.

CuriousaboutSamphire

People insinuating such unacceptable things about you will do that.

I have made a perfectly reasonable argument and don't believe I have contradicted myself in the slightest.

Thanks anyway, for your concern.

Penggg, I've read through the thread and as far as I can see, nobody is suggesting that you might be a paedophile

Actually I'm glad I started this thread - it has been very thought provoking.

Electrascoffee

Then you have missed the implication and need to read more slowly. I am not having this out again.

Cretinism was a specific medical term for people suffering the implications of congenital hypothyroidism. They had stunted growth, severe intellectual disability and quite distinctive facial features including a large tongue and large, late closing fontanelles as babies.

nolongersurprised

Yes, but the word also has a generic application and connotation, meaning "foolish", without the connotation of a specific disability, as per the dictionary. If people want to choose to believe I am talking about people with congenital abnormalities, let them. It seems liking spoiling for an argument to me, but as they like.

It is a mastery of language but I don’t think I could revisit it now

It’s been a great thread.

matcha what is the significance of the Grey Star reference?

Penggg - it's not ok to use disablist slurs whether or not you intend the term literally.
People do it a lot unthinkingly but it's reasonable to point out that maybe a better choice of words would avoid offending people.

Electra:

Then please, report it and get it taken down. I have used the word as I have said, but if it offends you, object to MN.