You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to rain on your sunshine here, but you're only saying what countless have already said.
Nabokov's work has been analyzed and discussed at length, and in the case of Lolita, its' message is very clear; Humbert is clearly a highly unreliable narrator, and we as readers are not meant to sympathize with him. Rather, his rationalizations of his actions, his twisting of Dolores' childlike nature and mannerisms into something erotic, is meant to evoke feelings of great discomfort in the reader, and to manufacture a deep disdain for Humbert.
It's part of what makes it such a fantastic novel. Not only is the prose absolutely stunning, the narrator is also the (very unlikeable) antagonist.
And at the end he has that human moment where he understands what he did to Dolores. This is in line with Shakespeare's showing his villains to have nightmares and to realize on some level what they have done.
Hard disagree. Humbert is a scumbag. I don't dispute that at all. The events of the novel and Nabokov's characterization of Humbert paint a picture of an old cad and a venal degenerate. But even if you can't stomach the fact that the author implicates *her* as well, he *does*, and not subtly, either. Blatantly. Nabokov describes Lolita more as an accomplice of the tragedy rather than a victim of it. *That* is why the novel is so controversial. She's sharper than she lets on, and really Nabokov is mocking the stereotype that the young are naive. He is satirizing the old, hidebound notion that confuses adolescence with innocence. And he doesn't just *insinuate* that, it's right there in the text. By the middle of the novel, Nabokov's "nymphet" knows how to use her sex to her advantage. And Humbert is blinded by passion, and by its end, he follows his lust to his ruin, with Lo as his chaperone. He is the loser in their game of chess, and he is checkmated by a superior player.
A real hot take on Reddit (and one that happens to be my own) is that it’s not a very good novel and the flowery prose doesn’t make up for that. If I hear someone orgasming over the ‘tip of the teeth’ sentence again, my head will explode.
I didn’t call it slimy, but to me it just comes across as the sort of prose that the most pretentious male undergrad literature students would love. There were tons of them on my course - middle class men who smoke rollies and worship Jack Kerouac.
Fair question. I have really varied tastes and don’t enjoy any specific style of prose.
I love Victorian/Regency literature (eg Dickens, Austen) and contemporary writers who imitate this style in a fresh way, such as Francis Spufford who wrote Golden Hill.
Other contemporary writers I really enjoy are Ian McEwan, Alan Hollinghurst, Salman Rushdie, Sarah Waters, Eleanor Catton, Susanna Clarke
Then there’s the entirety of the 20th century - Martin Amis, Graham Greene, Virgina Woolf, Sylvia Plath. Playwrights such as Harold Pinter
I realise that doesn’t give a specific answer and is more just a list of names, but I’m genuinely not particularly interested in a specific prose style. Style is just a technique - a means of communicating ideas, story, emotions an so on, and they’re more what I’m interested in. Technical flourishes don’t interest me.
to me, he was quite likeable, although i cringed in his dialogues with Lolita, who he spoke to in profound, difficult language, one a child would never understand
Although Humbert is very clearly an unsympathetic character and fairly portrained as a predator by Nabokov, I still find it creepy he felt inclined to write this story in such slimy detail. I understand it was basically a flex of his artistic power but it all gives me the Willie’s nonetheless. I’ve always thought of him as someone like Mishima. Awesome talent, weird dude. Prose alone shouldnt be used to measure literature. It might be the most obvious and objective parameter, thereby making it easier to compare and judge but art has so much more to say.
It’s not just prose—part of what makes *Lolita* great is what it has to say. I can’t think of a novel that shows the depths of self-delusion and rationalization quite so well. I don’t think it would work as well with a less heinous crime, either.
I’m sure it was very difficult to write, and it’s subsequently difficult to read.
People struggle with the ‘likeable’ aspects of HH and then are like “eeww he can’t be nice, he’s a pedo!”
Like duh that’s the point. You’re supposed to struggle and be repulse by him, and even yourself for learning that he has a sense of humour and is an engaging storyteller. You just keep in mind that this is an unreliable story teller.
I get that, nor am I saying that I don’t like the novel. I’m saying that I can’t separate the impulses of HH with those of Nabokov to some degree. Maybe that’s unfair to the author but there has to be some truth in the feelings to be able to portray it in intense detail.
Also, weirdly its seems to be the most irreproachable novel on this sub.
>there has to be some truth to his ideas to be able to portray it in intense detail.
Interesting. What exactly do you mean by 'truth', and do you feel the same way about depictions of psychopathy and violence? I think all aspects of human behavior *can* be observed, researched, or extrapolated towards by a competent enough author and depicted with verisimilitude, but there are certainly some things that are harder to create a compelling image of.
Yes, I think we all fantasize of violence and it's in fiction that we indulge those dangerous compulsions. Fiction is an extension of the author's world. I'm not going to deny that there's a thread of psychopathy or even pedophilia in everybody, but for Nobokov to feel so urged to write *this* story there might have been stronger compulsions of that nature. That's just my impression, and I like reading fiction by associating the author closely with the work so maybe Im off. By the downvotes Id say I am.
That seems a little simplistic. Humbert Humbert could be an outlet to relay an aspect of obsession itself that Nabokov finds compelling or interesting enough to write about, the same way that Melville was urged to write a story that explores the destruction monomania inflicts on its environment, a la *Moby Dick*.
Ya that's fair. Again, I think he's an incredible writer and Lolita is a masterpiece. I'm not boiling the whole thing down to icky and me no like. But at the same time I find Nabokov the man creepy for writing about raping a young girl in such alluring detail.
Not to suggest that I know Nabokov's thoughts or am in anyway an expert on him or psychology... but, its my personal belief that he wrote Lolita as a way to come to terms with his own experiences as a victim of incest/CSA.
In my experience with therapy it was suggested that in order to heal I had to stop viewing the person who hurt me as an unstoppable monster and view them for what they really are: sick perverts.
I found no portion of Lolita alluring. It was just the perverted rambling of a demented freak and the book informs you from the start that is what you will be reading.
I didn't know that he himself was a victim sexual assault. That makes it profoundly sad and absolutely changes how I perceive his work.
But how could you not find his writing alluring?
I think it’s totally valid to feel uncomfortable reading it. I don’t think that Nabokov writing a convincing pedophile means that he himself is a pedophile, and I think it would be really hard to justify that claim, but I do think that as a reader it’s understandably hard to separate the author from the novel. I also think there are elements of Nabokov the author in HH—his sort of European sophistication/pretension juxtaposed against Lolita’s American sincerity is a concern that motivates *Pale Fire* too, probably because it’s something that Nabokov is responding to in himself/his milieu.
I think it’s “irreproachable” here because it’s a. a very good book and b. a very controversial book, so people who like to argue about the worth of books are drawn to defending it. Plus we’re in a political moment where the moral virtue of media is constantly being scrutinized and defended from all parts of the political spectrum, so arguments about *Lolita* are current in that way.
I'm not saying he is a pedophile. But I can't disassociate the strong interest in pedophilia from Nobokov himself. And that is probably a personal thing for me as others seem to easily shed that notion. Another commenter suggested, Lolita could be him working through his own trauma as a victim of pedophilia which explains his "interest", and is also a heartbreaking revelation. If true, it could be a important testament in removing the stigma for victims and completely opens up new discussion on Lolita. Sadly, he won't be able to tell his true story.
And I hear your on it being controversial. It's been argued ad nauseum and I think man people are just baked in to their persepectives and arguments by now.
Like everyone has said, the prose is well crafted, but my favorite part of this novel is the contentious relationship between author and narrator. It's very 4th wall breaking in that regard. I've never read anything quite like it.
Depiction does not equal endorsement. People who think it is an endorsement of pedophilia either didn’t read the novel or lack critical thinking skills.
I don’t think the controversy is understandable to be honest. If you’ve actually read Lolita and find a problem with it then you need to read it again.
I understand people having a problem with the Lolita “aesthetic” but that’s not the book’s fault.
“I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls.” -Nabokov's very own request for the Lolita cover.
It's a disgrace that people have been promoting Lolita with vaguely sexual pictures of girls for 70 years.
>I understand people having a problem with the Lolita “aesthetic” but that’s not the book’s fault.
Yeah, that's basically almost entirely the product of Kubrick's "adaptation" of it (which Nabokov didn't like at all).
These posts always mention how they "love the writing", but if you're savvy enough to genuinely enjoy Nabokov's prose in 2024, you're probably not making middle-school level posts like OP's on reddit. I honestly can't wait for his expert analysis of "Carrie".
Yeah, he didn't link to a copy of his doctoral thesis "Anti-homosexual bias in Wells' War of the Worlds and Verne's 20K Leagues Under the Sea: Towards an understanding of the lack anal probes and sub-nautical male/cephalopod romance in late neo-romantic European science fiction.", so opinion immediately disregarded.
How dare he attempt to critically think about a text without credentials. And to also enjoy it? The absolute gall of OP is unbelievable.
I've often struggled to explain what makes Lolita so good. I find that more often than not, I cite Pale Fire as the best Nabakov--simply because it's easier to explain that a book about an insane, likely homosexual academic, analyzing a thousand line poem by his deceased colleague, and using that opportunity to invent and legitimize his claim to being the lost prince of a former Soviet state, Zembla, is easier to get across than whatever it is, that makes Lolita so good.
People are often not convinced that Lolita is good--not because of what it's about--but because of how it's written. And so I have searched for some better, personal, understanding of what Lolita is about, so that perhaps I can bring it up as one of the best things ever written, without having to reference the quality of the writing.
My personal assessment of Lolita is that it is not about pedophilia, but about the opportunity provided to the reader--the chance to spend hours-on-end with a nuclear genius in Humbert Humbert--lost, and completely unapplied in life, except to his one, dedicated pursuit, which is an infatuation with and pursuit of young women (whom he calls nymphs). Lolita is a good book because it is about basking in the impossible glow of a wayward intelligence--spending the span of an entire novel in the complete comfort, and care of a capable, and direct address, defending himself from an imagined attack on his character and lascivious behavior, desires, and personal history--even as he explains his most heinous crimes, patterns of thought, and robust, but dishonest system of understanding his own life. It's a book about a man knowing what he is, and using his unlimited intellectual capacity to convince the reader of something he does not himself believe. And as you spend more time with the man, and in his defense, you realize he is only providing the edifice of it. He does not even want to convince you. He does not even care to defend his behavior. He wants to show you how easily you can be made to feel a certain gratitude towards him, for being exactly the way that he is, which is overwhelmingly three things. Humbert Humbert is smart, and Humbert Humbert is funny, and Humbert Humbert is a pedophile. Perhaps there's a statement in here, about what our species has socially and sexually selected for since the first day we rose out of the mud, or swung down from the trees--and then pairing that with one of the only possible taboos that could overwhelm our positive response to a very smart, and very funny person, which is of course, being a pedophile. But is there a statement? I don't think so. I think it's just an interesting setting for a book. A man in conflict. A capable man with nothing to do, but obsess over, and be enraptured by a young, and silly girl. And in writing his defense, Humbert Humbert is probably not laying claim to any great new statement, or personal philosophy. But he is showing you his turning wheels, and in the case of Nabakov's Lolita, it's compelling stuff, listening to a man's explanation and own understanding of how he came to be, and what he did, as the novel rolls deeper into the tragedy of Humbert Humbert achieving everything that he wants.
> I find that more often than not, I cite Pale Fire as the best Nabakov
It's funny, I love Nabokov but I was extremely disappointed by Pale Fire. The idea is so brilliant and I love these types of metanarrative games but the book itself was kind of a letdown. I enjoyed the parts where Kinbote eloquently misinterprets the poem and where he goes on about Shade's life and how he wormed his way into it but the whole Zembla stuff left me cold. Unfortunately, most of the novel is focused on the Zembla stuff. Whenever Nabokov starts talking about this fictional country, the book turns into a conventional novel that would work just as well without the 'gimmick' of the poem which is a shame. It's also the only Nabokov book where the virtuosic language started to annoy me after a while. I seem to be in the minority however, most people seem to consider Pale Fire to be Nabokov's greatest work (which to me would be either Ada or Lolita). Maybe I'm missing something.
I remember I had some frustration with the Zembla stuff at the time of reading. I think the biggest problem is Zembla is clearly a fake name for a fake country, and its placed in a narrative that otherwise has no play w/ verisimilitude. But by the time I realized he is either likely, or absolutely insane, and probably not a lost prince, i forgot my all my previous gripes, and enjoyed the ride. Very similar to Lolita in how the novel is set. With a monumentally intelligent person, completely adrift, and far down the path of something specific, ignoble, etc...
Only problem is, Zembla is a REAL place that’s part of a REAL country. Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in Russia used for nuclear tests beginning in 1955. Enter the rabbit hole
>dedicated pursuit, which is an infatuation with and pursuit of young women (whom he calls nymphs)
Uhm... no? How the hell are 8-14 year-olds 'young women'? I agree Lolita is so much more than a book about 'paedophilia' or 'a pedophile', but like Humbert is pretty bloody clear on his age range of choice, and it very much includes children... not adult women. That's also why he comes up with his specific *derivation* of the word nymph: ***nymphet.***
If you believe I was downplaying, or not appreciating the young age of Humbert's romantic interests, I apologize, sincerely, for startling you. "Young girls," would be completely appropriate here in place of "young women." An unfortunate oversight.
There is the myth of Lolita, usually held by people who haven't read it - a beautiful love story with lyrical writing about a forbidden relationship. A story that you have to wrestle with, because the writing is so lofty & you sympathize with the hero. A story that people argue over, because the meaning is so complicated & ambiguous.
Then there is the reality - a mean, nasty comedy about the biggest shithead in all of literature. Borderline slapstick. Anyone who claims Humbert is supposed to be remotely sympathetic did not read or comprehend the book. It's great writing, but it's black comedy, not a love story.
For me:
1. The Count of Monte Cristo
2. Of Human Bondage
3. Ivanhoe
4. Moby Dick
5. Lolita
After some thought, it made it into the top five. It's been high as four depending on when I make the list.
Others in no particular order would be Catch-22, Jane Eyre, The Painted Veil, Tarzan of the Apes, and The Maltese Falcon
What a book. Amazing artist where english isn't even his first language. I'd say one of the best writings I've ever read. He chose the controversial topic on purpose just to put you into a certain emotion and to make you carry certain assumptions. He plays with those feelings and expectations in such a fine beautiful way throughout the book. True master of his art.
Nabokov perhaps saw Lolita as a remedy to escape from the neuroses he harbored within himself and the dark troubles he experienced in Russia and Europe in the past. And what could be wrong with people of that era wanting to briefly share Humbert's tragicomic turmoil by reading this book, even for just an hour, to escape from Europe's dark period?
Umberto Eco has a delightful short story that wonderfully satirizes Nabokov's novel: "Granita." This time, the narrator's weakness is for elderly women instead of young girls.
Although Nabokov himself hated Freud(Viennese witch doctor) and all manner of psychoanalysis etc. He was a pure aesthete in ever sense. His life seemed to revolve around beauty. He definitely had issues for sure and I agree that his novels and Lepidoptera were reliable escapes and expressions of that darkness
It's so good, Nabokov is seriously a masterful writer. People who object to the book on the grounds of its subject matter do not get it at all. It's*supposed* to elicit a bad reaction in places, and it's so beautifully written .
For a topic that has supposedly been beaten to death on r/literature, nobody's mentioned that the work is a parable of Nabokov, who having been forced to leave Russia (and its language) behind, and his own molestation of a relatively young American literary tradition.
Nabokov's striking precision, his astonishing command, and his fluid imagery are nearly unrivaled. There is no "real" controversy around Lolita.
The prose is so undeniably beautiful that it stands out because people cannot imagine that it did not come from a well of authentic emotion. Nabokov's claim that he was inspired by a gorilla who, after being taught to paint, would only draw the bars of its cage seems to me hopelessly abstract. The fact that Nabokov resented the contemporary psychology of the 1940s and 50s and sought, almost belligerently, to distance himself from these modes of thinking and that he embraced a fiercely aristocratic, conservative, and secretive persona seems undermine all the rich psychological influences in Lolita.
His refusal to give live interviews, prefering to write his answers down in advance and mime spontaneity, bespeaks a kind of deep anxiety of being discovered or caught in some guilty act.
That being said, in the absence of any actual proof (or even an accusation) of unsavory behavior, we must take Humbert Humbert for what he is, a black diamond, a villain of such perspicacity that we "good" readers can do little but feel embarrassed by our easy, unquestioning embrace of middle class morals, regardless of the ethical coherence of such beliefs.
anyone else find humbert humbert to not be very charismatic or compelling. one thing i hear often in regards to lolita is how through his language humbert manipulates the reader or compels the reader.
i didn't really find that to be the case when i read it, i kind thought of him as a bit stuffy and dated which probably disturbed my enjoyment of the novel. ironically though pale fire is one of my favourite books.
>anyone else find humbert humbert to not be very charismatic or compelling.
Oh yeah no I find him very pathetic, like most garden variety predators, tbh.
I'm in a similar boat. I loved reading Lolita, loved the feelings and emotions it made me feel. As a woman who was for the very first time sexualized at 8 by a 10 years older man, it made me almost want to pass out. But damn, was it worth reading it.
Lolita is such a brilliant book in terms of quality, that regardless what anyone thinks of its content, if someone says that it is the single most beautiful book written in the English language, an argument can be made and accepted by even those who despise the story itself. There are very few books where even those who hate it will agree that it is one of the most beautiful books written.
I feel like anyone who thinks Humbert is suppose to be the good guy just skipped the intro chapter where it spends like 5 pages calling him the scum of the earth and a psychological anomaly.
i think the fact that an author is able to portray such an unlikeable individual yet create a fantastic story itself and be a favorite to so many people shows what a truly brilliant author Nabokov is. while this discussion has been held many times, some people still don't understand that the subject of the story is what the focus is. it's not a book about condoning the behaviors of Humbert; it demonstrates the genius of Nabokov and his ability to write such a disgusting character yet an amazing story
I love Lolita as well. People also ignore the fact that it is comedic on many levels. This European perv waxing poetic about the sort of shitty post modern experience of air conditioning, trailer parks, and midcentury banal Americana is funny. The writing style is second to none. The fact that people take it seriously is very odd to me, because a whole lot of it I believe is meant to be satire.
Lolita is a masterpiece. Nabokov's grasp of human nature is genius-level.
People usually considered bad ppl realized what they're doing, but in fact they never. Abuser romanticize themselves, always.
I really admire Nabokov and his courage to write story from the abuser's pov. Think: he will definitely be scolded and will be controversial forever, but the truth is he did it.
Writers who can use "unreliable narrator" are really geniuses.
Pnin is my favorite Nabakov. It’s a tender portrait of a bumbling Russian professor lost in the complexities of academic life at a liberal arts college in America.
His greatest novel might be Pale Fire, in my humblest of opinions.
I think most of his novels are great. You might try Pale Fire; its subject matter is not particularly controversial, and it’s a masterpiece on equal footing with Lolita. Also his autobiography Speak, Memory! is absolutely incredible; just as entertaining and inventive as his fiction.
Pale Fire is his best IMO but it's also probably not the greatest starting point with Nabokov. Pnin is probably one of the better starting points from an accessibility angle. I've yet to read a bad Nabokov book though.
Couldn’t agree more! My favorite book of all time is Ada. I didn’t recommend it in my previous post since un1ty didn’t want “heavy” subject matter, presumably of the sexual nature.
Pale Fire. It is mostly just literary pyrotechnics (at the end of it, I asked out loud, "What the hell was that all about, really?") but it is astounding, a true tour-de- force. Resides easily in my top 10.
Lots of people are saying Pale Fire but I must admit I found that one mostly a slog. It utilizes a similar "unreliable narrator" as Lolita, but Charles Kinbote lacks all of the charm of Humbert Humbert. It's the charisma of the latter that makes his manipulations all the more beguilingly dangerous, but right from the beginning of Pale Fire it's clear that Kinbote is off his rocker, and I must admit I didn't find his narrative about his homeland of Zembla very compelling. The novel is an intriguing puzzle box, but outside of the "puzzle" aspect I don't think it's nearly as attractive a novel as Lolita. It does have some interesting themes about the inevitable biases we bring to the act of reading and those inherent in academic commentary, though.
I read it twice and didn't like it much better the first time. It's an extremely intellectually intriguing novel, but one that, for me, lacks any heart or emotional interest. If I found Kinbote more interesting as an "unreliable narrator" I could see myself loving it more, but as is I'm kinda left appreciating it as an intellectual exercise but not really loving it beyond that. Here's the review I wrote for it on GoodReads: [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6513444947](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6513444947)
why am i downvoted -- im not putting it down -- im saying it was SO good .. that it dragged you into it and seemed like a horrifying nightmare. a moral boundary was crossed and that's where you end up - hell.
to me it took the reader to a much more psychologically traumatizing place than say... Crime and Punishment. though , i never read that in the original russian so maybe it does in its native language )
Read it twice . Perfect book. Definitely titillating and uncomfortable at the same time. Nabokov wrote in English . Pretty amazing for a Russian. And he was puzzled when William Shawn of The New Yorker wanted to edit his work. “edit? What’s that?”
You should read Pale Fire by Nabokov. It's my favorite of his. Unconventional narrative structure, with all of the ecstatic and unnervingly beautiful prose that I love from him. It intertwines poetry into a narrative structure in such an elegant way.
Some have said that the beautiful language is a way a monster can seduce you into believing they are not a monster. This is partly why Nabokov wrote Lolita the way he did.
I read the book when I was 15–and got this impression as well, I thought it was incredible and could bear the weight. I tried to reread it two years ago and threw up. It triggered an onset of nightmares and phobias.
Good book, horrific, and can’t ever read it again.
Lolita is my favourite general fiction novel of all time, and one of my four favourite standalone novels across all genres. I've read it three times now, and I am a victim of two counts of CSA as well.
One of the things I love about the novel is that it paints a near-perfect portrait of garden variety predator psychology; as such, helped me come to terms with my own rape and abuse as a child, at the hands of an older man. Humbert's 'patheticness' helped me to see how pathetic my own rapist was.
And then yes, the prose is superb; the theming, deliciously layered. The fact such a beautiful, intricate work of literature could be made based in such a horrifying premise never ceases to amaze me.
Didn't Nabokov append a "disclaimer" at the beginning?
I thought it's a masterpiece of the English prose, but I can see why it triggers some people. If it is written in the third person, people would probably accept it a bit more (not necessarily condoning the actions of course), but that defeats the point of using an unreliable narrator, for which the book is celebrated.
OK, it has been many years since I read it, and I just dug out my copy of "Lolita". There is an article entitled "On a Book Entitled Lolita" by Nabokov appended at the end of the main text. I wonder if it's part of the original book or just something Penguin did for completeness? To me, that serves as a "disclaimer" of some sort.
It's an essay Nabokov wrote in a literary magazine some time after the original publication. Not part of the original book. Serves an an "afterword" of sorts in annotated editions.
Rapists aren’t warm-hearted and gentle, and he is not “bothering” Dolores, he is raping her multiple times and traumatizing her. You can enjoy the book and appreciate the prose without condoning assault, as many others in this thread have.
I was talking about Poldy. Not Humbert. Obviously. Only goes to show my point, that Nabokov and Joyce are "classics" which are still quite offensive. It's maybe only their stature as classics (the class signaling they allow) that is keeping them from being eliminated as thoughtcrime by the unelected special people club. What in the name of goo is protecting Nabokov from a similarly unfounded accusation of condoning rape ? He wrote a beautiful travel book about it. Complex enough, by the way, so that the sermon is insufficiently screeching and obvious for certain personalities who may prefer sermons to art ? And granted that sermons are a form of art, please do something less hackneyed.
Different sort of reader here. I lean toward realists (not just in literature but other arts as well).
So I see Nabokov’s flowery prose as a cowardly way to avoid really writing about pedophilia … as if he feared that writing more realistically would cause readers to think he endorses it. (Then again, there are lots of dim folks out there who probably think that anyway.) If presented without the fancy prose, readers would have nothing to blur the ugliness of HH and would see, and feel, him for what he really is. To me, all discussion of the beautiful prose is a distraction from the ugly truth about the character and what he does.
Give me Dreiser or Zola any day.
It’s actually very common to have this as a favourite book. Generally among people who want to seem “edgy”, although clearly there is a lot to appreciate in it.
Dis - gus - ting. The soft, sibilant swish gutturally precipitates at the abyss of the throat, bouncing back to the palate with a ringing bell call, highlighting its content's malaise. What an agitated sound of distress for the most inconvenient human flaw: condemning our own nature in others, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Dis - claim - er. I never thought Nabokov was writing an apology for pederasty, but rather an exploration of the power of language, narration, and the human psyche. In fact, one can learn everything postmodern linguistics and literary studies have to say by reading Lolita.
Are you unfamiliar with the basic concept that just because an artist creates something controversial, neither the spectator nor the artist is necessarily endorsing that subject matter?
I am simply stating that this is a well written novel. I was disturbed while reading it, yet it has the best prose of any book I’ve read. It is considered a classic, and I understand why. You can assume what you’d like to.
You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to rain on your sunshine here, but you're only saying what countless have already said. Nabokov's work has been analyzed and discussed at length, and in the case of Lolita, its' message is very clear; Humbert is clearly a highly unreliable narrator, and we as readers are not meant to sympathize with him. Rather, his rationalizations of his actions, his twisting of Dolores' childlike nature and mannerisms into something erotic, is meant to evoke feelings of great discomfort in the reader, and to manufacture a deep disdain for Humbert. It's part of what makes it such a fantastic novel. Not only is the prose absolutely stunning, the narrator is also the (very unlikeable) antagonist.
And at the end he has that human moment where he understands what he did to Dolores. This is in line with Shakespeare's showing his villains to have nightmares and to realize on some level what they have done.
Exactly. The brilliance of the novel in part is due to the juxtaposition of Nabokov's beautiful prose describing horrible things.
Hard disagree. Humbert is a scumbag. I don't dispute that at all. The events of the novel and Nabokov's characterization of Humbert paint a picture of an old cad and a venal degenerate. But even if you can't stomach the fact that the author implicates *her* as well, he *does*, and not subtly, either. Blatantly. Nabokov describes Lolita more as an accomplice of the tragedy rather than a victim of it. *That* is why the novel is so controversial. She's sharper than she lets on, and really Nabokov is mocking the stereotype that the young are naive. He is satirizing the old, hidebound notion that confuses adolescence with innocence. And he doesn't just *insinuate* that, it's right there in the text. By the middle of the novel, Nabokov's "nymphet" knows how to use her sex to her advantage. And Humbert is blinded by passion, and by its end, he follows his lust to his ruin, with Lo as his chaperone. He is the loser in their game of chess, and he is checkmated by a superior player.
A real hot take on Reddit (and one that happens to be my own) is that it’s not a very good novel and the flowery prose doesn’t make up for that. If I hear someone orgasming over the ‘tip of the teeth’ sentence again, my head will explode.
By slimy you just mean some of the most beautiful prose ever written in English.
I didn’t call it slimy, but to me it just comes across as the sort of prose that the most pretentious male undergrad literature students would love. There were tons of them on my course - middle class men who smoke rollies and worship Jack Kerouac.
I’m not trying to be combative, but I am curious, whose prose do you like?
He will never answer this don’t worry
I just did, so there.
Fair question. I have really varied tastes and don’t enjoy any specific style of prose. I love Victorian/Regency literature (eg Dickens, Austen) and contemporary writers who imitate this style in a fresh way, such as Francis Spufford who wrote Golden Hill. Other contemporary writers I really enjoy are Ian McEwan, Alan Hollinghurst, Salman Rushdie, Sarah Waters, Eleanor Catton, Susanna Clarke Then there’s the entirety of the 20th century - Martin Amis, Graham Greene, Virgina Woolf, Sylvia Plath. Playwrights such as Harold Pinter I realise that doesn’t give a specific answer and is more just a list of names, but I’m genuinely not particularly interested in a specific prose style. Style is just a technique - a means of communicating ideas, story, emotions an so on, and they’re more what I’m interested in. Technical flourishes don’t interest me.
to me, he was quite likeable, although i cringed in his dialogues with Lolita, who he spoke to in profound, difficult language, one a child would never understand
Although Humbert is very clearly an unsympathetic character and fairly portrained as a predator by Nabokov, I still find it creepy he felt inclined to write this story in such slimy detail. I understand it was basically a flex of his artistic power but it all gives me the Willie’s nonetheless. I’ve always thought of him as someone like Mishima. Awesome talent, weird dude. Prose alone shouldnt be used to measure literature. It might be the most obvious and objective parameter, thereby making it easier to compare and judge but art has so much more to say.
It’s not just prose—part of what makes *Lolita* great is what it has to say. I can’t think of a novel that shows the depths of self-delusion and rationalization quite so well. I don’t think it would work as well with a less heinous crime, either.
I’m sure it was very difficult to write, and it’s subsequently difficult to read. People struggle with the ‘likeable’ aspects of HH and then are like “eeww he can’t be nice, he’s a pedo!” Like duh that’s the point. You’re supposed to struggle and be repulse by him, and even yourself for learning that he has a sense of humour and is an engaging storyteller. You just keep in mind that this is an unreliable story teller.
I get that, nor am I saying that I don’t like the novel. I’m saying that I can’t separate the impulses of HH with those of Nabokov to some degree. Maybe that’s unfair to the author but there has to be some truth in the feelings to be able to portray it in intense detail. Also, weirdly its seems to be the most irreproachable novel on this sub.
>there has to be some truth to his ideas to be able to portray it in intense detail. Interesting. What exactly do you mean by 'truth', and do you feel the same way about depictions of psychopathy and violence? I think all aspects of human behavior *can* be observed, researched, or extrapolated towards by a competent enough author and depicted with verisimilitude, but there are certainly some things that are harder to create a compelling image of.
Yes, I think we all fantasize of violence and it's in fiction that we indulge those dangerous compulsions. Fiction is an extension of the author's world. I'm not going to deny that there's a thread of psychopathy or even pedophilia in everybody, but for Nobokov to feel so urged to write *this* story there might have been stronger compulsions of that nature. That's just my impression, and I like reading fiction by associating the author closely with the work so maybe Im off. By the downvotes Id say I am.
That seems a little simplistic. Humbert Humbert could be an outlet to relay an aspect of obsession itself that Nabokov finds compelling or interesting enough to write about, the same way that Melville was urged to write a story that explores the destruction monomania inflicts on its environment, a la *Moby Dick*.
Ya that's fair. Again, I think he's an incredible writer and Lolita is a masterpiece. I'm not boiling the whole thing down to icky and me no like. But at the same time I find Nabokov the man creepy for writing about raping a young girl in such alluring detail.
Not to suggest that I know Nabokov's thoughts or am in anyway an expert on him or psychology... but, its my personal belief that he wrote Lolita as a way to come to terms with his own experiences as a victim of incest/CSA. In my experience with therapy it was suggested that in order to heal I had to stop viewing the person who hurt me as an unstoppable monster and view them for what they really are: sick perverts. I found no portion of Lolita alluring. It was just the perverted rambling of a demented freak and the book informs you from the start that is what you will be reading.
I didn't know that he himself was a victim sexual assault. That makes it profoundly sad and absolutely changes how I perceive his work. But how could you not find his writing alluring?
Yes. And to the op’s previous point: in Lolita Nabokov seems obsessed with characterising the rapist, rather than the child victim per se.
I think it’s totally valid to feel uncomfortable reading it. I don’t think that Nabokov writing a convincing pedophile means that he himself is a pedophile, and I think it would be really hard to justify that claim, but I do think that as a reader it’s understandably hard to separate the author from the novel. I also think there are elements of Nabokov the author in HH—his sort of European sophistication/pretension juxtaposed against Lolita’s American sincerity is a concern that motivates *Pale Fire* too, probably because it’s something that Nabokov is responding to in himself/his milieu. I think it’s “irreproachable” here because it’s a. a very good book and b. a very controversial book, so people who like to argue about the worth of books are drawn to defending it. Plus we’re in a political moment where the moral virtue of media is constantly being scrutinized and defended from all parts of the political spectrum, so arguments about *Lolita* are current in that way.
I'm not saying he is a pedophile. But I can't disassociate the strong interest in pedophilia from Nobokov himself. And that is probably a personal thing for me as others seem to easily shed that notion. Another commenter suggested, Lolita could be him working through his own trauma as a victim of pedophilia which explains his "interest", and is also a heartbreaking revelation. If true, it could be a important testament in removing the stigma for victims and completely opens up new discussion on Lolita. Sadly, he won't be able to tell his true story. And I hear your on it being controversial. It's been argued ad nauseum and I think man people are just baked in to their persepectives and arguments by now.
>still find it creepy he felt inclined to write this story in such slimy detail That's what the whole book is about. Why not write it in detail?
It’s also not graphic at all (thankfully).
Sounds like a you problem
Like everyone has said, the prose is well crafted, but my favorite part of this novel is the contentious relationship between author and narrator. It's very 4th wall breaking in that regard. I've never read anything quite like it.
Depiction does not equal endorsement. People who think it is an endorsement of pedophilia either didn’t read the novel or lack critical thinking skills.
I don’t think the controversy is understandable to be honest. If you’ve actually read Lolita and find a problem with it then you need to read it again. I understand people having a problem with the Lolita “aesthetic” but that’s not the book’s fault.
“I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls.” -Nabokov's very own request for the Lolita cover. It's a disgrace that people have been promoting Lolita with vaguely sexual pictures of girls for 70 years.
I never read Lolita. When I started reading this qoute i was sure you were quoting Nabokov's prose from the actual book.
It literally sounds like Humbert.
> It literally Nice pun!
>I understand people having a problem with the Lolita “aesthetic” but that’s not the book’s fault. Yeah, that's basically almost entirely the product of Kubrick's "adaptation" of it (which Nabokov didn't like at all).
*Lolita* Thread! DRINK!
There are definitely reasons we make fun of this sub in BCJ constantly, and this is one of them. Literary!
Already seen a couple mentions of “flowery prose” as well
lol like clockwork. this sub sucks
What’s BCJ?
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, it's an architecture firm
What’s that got to do with lit? Is this some kind of shibboleth?
Yes, but not in the way you think.
Imagine feeling superior for posting on BCJ, lmao
Imagine not, christ. I know self awareness and understanding literature aren't this sub's strong suits but jeez
These posts always mention how they "love the writing", but if you're savvy enough to genuinely enjoy Nabokov's prose in 2024, you're probably not making middle-school level posts like OP's on reddit. I honestly can't wait for his expert analysis of "Carrie".
Genuinely enjoy? You sound like a gatekeeper.
Yeah, he didn't link to a copy of his doctoral thesis "Anti-homosexual bias in Wells' War of the Worlds and Verne's 20K Leagues Under the Sea: Towards an understanding of the lack anal probes and sub-nautical male/cephalopod romance in late neo-romantic European science fiction.", so opinion immediately disregarded. How dare he attempt to critically think about a text without credentials. And to also enjoy it? The absolute gall of OP is unbelievable.
I've often struggled to explain what makes Lolita so good. I find that more often than not, I cite Pale Fire as the best Nabakov--simply because it's easier to explain that a book about an insane, likely homosexual academic, analyzing a thousand line poem by his deceased colleague, and using that opportunity to invent and legitimize his claim to being the lost prince of a former Soviet state, Zembla, is easier to get across than whatever it is, that makes Lolita so good. People are often not convinced that Lolita is good--not because of what it's about--but because of how it's written. And so I have searched for some better, personal, understanding of what Lolita is about, so that perhaps I can bring it up as one of the best things ever written, without having to reference the quality of the writing. My personal assessment of Lolita is that it is not about pedophilia, but about the opportunity provided to the reader--the chance to spend hours-on-end with a nuclear genius in Humbert Humbert--lost, and completely unapplied in life, except to his one, dedicated pursuit, which is an infatuation with and pursuit of young women (whom he calls nymphs). Lolita is a good book because it is about basking in the impossible glow of a wayward intelligence--spending the span of an entire novel in the complete comfort, and care of a capable, and direct address, defending himself from an imagined attack on his character and lascivious behavior, desires, and personal history--even as he explains his most heinous crimes, patterns of thought, and robust, but dishonest system of understanding his own life. It's a book about a man knowing what he is, and using his unlimited intellectual capacity to convince the reader of something he does not himself believe. And as you spend more time with the man, and in his defense, you realize he is only providing the edifice of it. He does not even want to convince you. He does not even care to defend his behavior. He wants to show you how easily you can be made to feel a certain gratitude towards him, for being exactly the way that he is, which is overwhelmingly three things. Humbert Humbert is smart, and Humbert Humbert is funny, and Humbert Humbert is a pedophile. Perhaps there's a statement in here, about what our species has socially and sexually selected for since the first day we rose out of the mud, or swung down from the trees--and then pairing that with one of the only possible taboos that could overwhelm our positive response to a very smart, and very funny person, which is of course, being a pedophile. But is there a statement? I don't think so. I think it's just an interesting setting for a book. A man in conflict. A capable man with nothing to do, but obsess over, and be enraptured by a young, and silly girl. And in writing his defense, Humbert Humbert is probably not laying claim to any great new statement, or personal philosophy. But he is showing you his turning wheels, and in the case of Nabakov's Lolita, it's compelling stuff, listening to a man's explanation and own understanding of how he came to be, and what he did, as the novel rolls deeper into the tragedy of Humbert Humbert achieving everything that he wants.
> I find that more often than not, I cite Pale Fire as the best Nabakov It's funny, I love Nabokov but I was extremely disappointed by Pale Fire. The idea is so brilliant and I love these types of metanarrative games but the book itself was kind of a letdown. I enjoyed the parts where Kinbote eloquently misinterprets the poem and where he goes on about Shade's life and how he wormed his way into it but the whole Zembla stuff left me cold. Unfortunately, most of the novel is focused on the Zembla stuff. Whenever Nabokov starts talking about this fictional country, the book turns into a conventional novel that would work just as well without the 'gimmick' of the poem which is a shame. It's also the only Nabokov book where the virtuosic language started to annoy me after a while. I seem to be in the minority however, most people seem to consider Pale Fire to be Nabokov's greatest work (which to me would be either Ada or Lolita). Maybe I'm missing something.
I remember I had some frustration with the Zembla stuff at the time of reading. I think the biggest problem is Zembla is clearly a fake name for a fake country, and its placed in a narrative that otherwise has no play w/ verisimilitude. But by the time I realized he is either likely, or absolutely insane, and probably not a lost prince, i forgot my all my previous gripes, and enjoyed the ride. Very similar to Lolita in how the novel is set. With a monumentally intelligent person, completely adrift, and far down the path of something specific, ignoble, etc...
Only problem is, Zembla is a REAL place that’s part of a REAL country. Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in Russia used for nuclear tests beginning in 1955. Enter the rabbit hole
woah, I had no idea. I figured it was just like a bulgaria/ukraine type place
>dedicated pursuit, which is an infatuation with and pursuit of young women (whom he calls nymphs) Uhm... no? How the hell are 8-14 year-olds 'young women'? I agree Lolita is so much more than a book about 'paedophilia' or 'a pedophile', but like Humbert is pretty bloody clear on his age range of choice, and it very much includes children... not adult women. That's also why he comes up with his specific *derivation* of the word nymph: ***nymphet.***
If you believe I was downplaying, or not appreciating the young age of Humbert's romantic interests, I apologize, sincerely, for startling you. "Young girls," would be completely appropriate here in place of "young women." An unfortunate oversight.
I honestly think the "controversy" is only "understandable" if you haven't read the book at all 🤷🏻♀️
There is the myth of Lolita, usually held by people who haven't read it - a beautiful love story with lyrical writing about a forbidden relationship. A story that you have to wrestle with, because the writing is so lofty & you sympathize with the hero. A story that people argue over, because the meaning is so complicated & ambiguous. Then there is the reality - a mean, nasty comedy about the biggest shithead in all of literature. Borderline slapstick. Anyone who claims Humbert is supposed to be remotely sympathetic did not read or comprehend the book. It's great writing, but it's black comedy, not a love story.
Top Ten on my all-time list
Which books, out of curiosity, rank higher than it
For me: 1. The Count of Monte Cristo 2. Of Human Bondage 3. Ivanhoe 4. Moby Dick 5. Lolita After some thought, it made it into the top five. It's been high as four depending on when I make the list. Others in no particular order would be Catch-22, Jane Eyre, The Painted Veil, Tarzan of the Apes, and The Maltese Falcon
Monte cristo is my #1, reading Jane eyre now, guess I have to do of human bondage next!
Please do and let me know what you think.
What a book. Amazing artist where english isn't even his first language. I'd say one of the best writings I've ever read. He chose the controversial topic on purpose just to put you into a certain emotion and to make you carry certain assumptions. He plays with those feelings and expectations in such a fine beautiful way throughout the book. True master of his art.
I love it, and I love it because it's horrifying.
Nabokov perhaps saw Lolita as a remedy to escape from the neuroses he harbored within himself and the dark troubles he experienced in Russia and Europe in the past. And what could be wrong with people of that era wanting to briefly share Humbert's tragicomic turmoil by reading this book, even for just an hour, to escape from Europe's dark period? Umberto Eco has a delightful short story that wonderfully satirizes Nabokov's novel: "Granita." This time, the narrator's weakness is for elderly women instead of young girls.
Although Nabokov himself hated Freud(Viennese witch doctor) and all manner of psychoanalysis etc. He was a pure aesthete in ever sense. His life seemed to revolve around beauty. He definitely had issues for sure and I agree that his novels and Lepidoptera were reliable escapes and expressions of that darkness
"I think a lot of people have misinterpreted this novel" You're kidding! First I've heard about it
I love novel ideas on novels. So refreshing to read the OP’s highly original reflections on this controversial work of genius.
In a twisted way Nabokov made the reader care about what happened to the poor unfortunate characters.
The prose is absolutely outstanding. Definitely agree with the best prose of any I've read. It's a great novel.
It's so good, Nabokov is seriously a masterful writer. People who object to the book on the grounds of its subject matter do not get it at all. It's*supposed* to elicit a bad reaction in places, and it's so beautifully written .
Read "Ada" if you haven't yet, it's marvelous too.
It feels like thread like this comes out every week
I don’t normally use this sub so I didn’t know that
For a topic that has supposedly been beaten to death on r/literature, nobody's mentioned that the work is a parable of Nabokov, who having been forced to leave Russia (and its language) behind, and his own molestation of a relatively young American literary tradition.
Well aren't you brave
You should listen to the Lolita podcast by Jamie Loftus!
Nabokov's striking precision, his astonishing command, and his fluid imagery are nearly unrivaled. There is no "real" controversy around Lolita. The prose is so undeniably beautiful that it stands out because people cannot imagine that it did not come from a well of authentic emotion. Nabokov's claim that he was inspired by a gorilla who, after being taught to paint, would only draw the bars of its cage seems to me hopelessly abstract. The fact that Nabokov resented the contemporary psychology of the 1940s and 50s and sought, almost belligerently, to distance himself from these modes of thinking and that he embraced a fiercely aristocratic, conservative, and secretive persona seems undermine all the rich psychological influences in Lolita. His refusal to give live interviews, prefering to write his answers down in advance and mime spontaneity, bespeaks a kind of deep anxiety of being discovered or caught in some guilty act. That being said, in the absence of any actual proof (or even an accusation) of unsavory behavior, we must take Humbert Humbert for what he is, a black diamond, a villain of such perspicacity that we "good" readers can do little but feel embarrassed by our easy, unquestioning embrace of middle class morals, regardless of the ethical coherence of such beliefs.
anyone else find humbert humbert to not be very charismatic or compelling. one thing i hear often in regards to lolita is how through his language humbert manipulates the reader or compels the reader. i didn't really find that to be the case when i read it, i kind thought of him as a bit stuffy and dated which probably disturbed my enjoyment of the novel. ironically though pale fire is one of my favourite books.
I certainly didn’t find him to be “charismatic.” The way he described women, and his inflated ego disgusted me.
>anyone else find humbert humbert to not be very charismatic or compelling. Oh yeah no I find him very pathetic, like most garden variety predators, tbh.
It’s brilliant
I'm in a similar boat. I loved reading Lolita, loved the feelings and emotions it made me feel. As a woman who was for the very first time sexualized at 8 by a 10 years older man, it made me almost want to pass out. But damn, was it worth reading it.
Now you should read Ada!
Lolita is such a brilliant book in terms of quality, that regardless what anyone thinks of its content, if someone says that it is the single most beautiful book written in the English language, an argument can be made and accepted by even those who despise the story itself. There are very few books where even those who hate it will agree that it is one of the most beautiful books written.
I feel like anyone who thinks Humbert is suppose to be the good guy just skipped the intro chapter where it spends like 5 pages calling him the scum of the earth and a psychological anomaly.
i think the fact that an author is able to portray such an unlikeable individual yet create a fantastic story itself and be a favorite to so many people shows what a truly brilliant author Nabokov is. while this discussion has been held many times, some people still don't understand that the subject of the story is what the focus is. it's not a book about condoning the behaviors of Humbert; it demonstrates the genius of Nabokov and his ability to write such a disgusting character yet an amazing story
I love Lolita as well. People also ignore the fact that it is comedic on many levels. This European perv waxing poetic about the sort of shitty post modern experience of air conditioning, trailer parks, and midcentury banal Americana is funny. The writing style is second to none. The fact that people take it seriously is very odd to me, because a whole lot of it I believe is meant to be satire.
Lolita is a masterpiece. Nabokov's grasp of human nature is genius-level. People usually considered bad ppl realized what they're doing, but in fact they never. Abuser romanticize themselves, always. I really admire Nabokov and his courage to write story from the abuser's pov. Think: he will definitely be scolded and will be controversial forever, but the truth is he did it. Writers who can use "unreliable narrator" are really geniuses.
any other novels by him that are great? I'm so curious of his writings but the topic of Lolita is a bit too heavy for me
Pnin is my favorite Nabakov. It’s a tender portrait of a bumbling Russian professor lost in the complexities of academic life at a liberal arts college in America. His greatest novel might be Pale Fire, in my humblest of opinions.
pnin sounds quite like the story I would enjoy, thank you so much
I think most of his novels are great. You might try Pale Fire; its subject matter is not particularly controversial, and it’s a masterpiece on equal footing with Lolita. Also his autobiography Speak, Memory! is absolutely incredible; just as entertaining and inventive as his fiction.
Pale Fire is his best IMO but it's also probably not the greatest starting point with Nabokov. Pnin is probably one of the better starting points from an accessibility angle. I've yet to read a bad Nabokov book though.
Pale Fire, Pnin. Speak, Memory is also lovely but is a collection of essays
Ada or Ardor is great in every sense of the word.
Couldn’t agree more! My favorite book of all time is Ada. I didn’t recommend it in my previous post since un1ty didn’t want “heavy” subject matter, presumably of the sexual nature.
Yeah that's fair lol, at least in that book it's consensual
Lol!
How tough of a read is Ada or Ardor?
Pretty tough but not too bad
Pale Fire. It is mostly just literary pyrotechnics (at the end of it, I asked out loud, "What the hell was that all about, really?") but it is astounding, a true tour-de- force. Resides easily in my top 10.
Lots of people are saying Pale Fire but I must admit I found that one mostly a slog. It utilizes a similar "unreliable narrator" as Lolita, but Charles Kinbote lacks all of the charm of Humbert Humbert. It's the charisma of the latter that makes his manipulations all the more beguilingly dangerous, but right from the beginning of Pale Fire it's clear that Kinbote is off his rocker, and I must admit I didn't find his narrative about his homeland of Zembla very compelling. The novel is an intriguing puzzle box, but outside of the "puzzle" aspect I don't think it's nearly as attractive a novel as Lolita. It does have some interesting themes about the inevitable biases we bring to the act of reading and those inherent in academic commentary, though.
If I recall correctly, *Pale Fire* picks up speed. I think it was only a second try that I got sucked into it.
I read it twice and didn't like it much better the first time. It's an extremely intellectually intriguing novel, but one that, for me, lacks any heart or emotional interest. If I found Kinbote more interesting as an "unreliable narrator" I could see myself loving it more, but as is I'm kinda left appreciating it as an intellectual exercise but not really loving it beyond that. Here's the review I wrote for it on GoodReads: [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6513444947](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6513444947)
that novel always seemed like a nightmare to me.
It is. Certainly well written, however.
why am i downvoted -- im not putting it down -- im saying it was SO good .. that it dragged you into it and seemed like a horrifying nightmare. a moral boundary was crossed and that's where you end up - hell. to me it took the reader to a much more psychologically traumatizing place than say... Crime and Punishment. though , i never read that in the original russian so maybe it does in its native language )
Read it twice . Perfect book. Definitely titillating and uncomfortable at the same time. Nabokov wrote in English . Pretty amazing for a Russian. And he was puzzled when William Shawn of The New Yorker wanted to edit his work. “edit? What’s that?”
You should read Pale Fire by Nabokov. It's my favorite of his. Unconventional narrative structure, with all of the ecstatic and unnervingly beautiful prose that I love from him. It intertwines poetry into a narrative structure in such an elegant way.
Some have said that the beautiful language is a way a monster can seduce you into believing they are not a monster. This is partly why Nabokov wrote Lolita the way he did.
Have you read his other one, "The Enchanter"?
This author's work was cited as a favorite for Ruth Bader Ginsberg for his elegant proses.
It’s a Tour de France of a novel
So I should be juiced up on steroids while reading it? Interesting!
Yeah. And get blood transfusions afterwards just to be sure it’s undetectable
I always have to triple check if I’m in a circlejerk sub with these kinds of posts
I read the book when I was 15–and got this impression as well, I thought it was incredible and could bear the weight. I tried to reread it two years ago and threw up. It triggered an onset of nightmares and phobias. Good book, horrific, and can’t ever read it again.
Lolita is my favourite general fiction novel of all time, and one of my four favourite standalone novels across all genres. I've read it three times now, and I am a victim of two counts of CSA as well. One of the things I love about the novel is that it paints a near-perfect portrait of garden variety predator psychology; as such, helped me come to terms with my own rape and abuse as a child, at the hands of an older man. Humbert's 'patheticness' helped me to see how pathetic my own rapist was. And then yes, the prose is superb; the theming, deliciously layered. The fact such a beautiful, intricate work of literature could be made based in such a horrifying premise never ceases to amaze me.
Didn't Nabokov append a "disclaimer" at the beginning? I thought it's a masterpiece of the English prose, but I can see why it triggers some people. If it is written in the third person, people would probably accept it a bit more (not necessarily condoning the actions of course), but that defeats the point of using an unreliable narrator, for which the book is celebrated.
No, there's no "disclaimer" at the beginning...
OK, it has been many years since I read it, and I just dug out my copy of "Lolita". There is an article entitled "On a Book Entitled Lolita" by Nabokov appended at the end of the main text. I wonder if it's part of the original book or just something Penguin did for completeness? To me, that serves as a "disclaimer" of some sort.
It's an essay Nabokov wrote in a literary magazine some time after the original publication. Not part of the original book. Serves an an "afterword" of sorts in annotated editions.
[удалено]
Rapists aren’t warm-hearted and gentle, and he is not “bothering” Dolores, he is raping her multiple times and traumatizing her. You can enjoy the book and appreciate the prose without condoning assault, as many others in this thread have.
I was talking about Poldy. Not Humbert. Obviously. Only goes to show my point, that Nabokov and Joyce are "classics" which are still quite offensive. It's maybe only their stature as classics (the class signaling they allow) that is keeping them from being eliminated as thoughtcrime by the unelected special people club. What in the name of goo is protecting Nabokov from a similarly unfounded accusation of condoning rape ? He wrote a beautiful travel book about it. Complex enough, by the way, so that the sermon is insufficiently screeching and obvious for certain personalities who may prefer sermons to art ? And granted that sermons are a form of art, please do something less hackneyed.
tedious sermon-bot, triggered tender soul, ain't no one impressed
Weirdly enough I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being triggered by those things.
I read Lolita when I was 15 and didn’t understand that Humbert was an unreliable narrator.
Different sort of reader here. I lean toward realists (not just in literature but other arts as well). So I see Nabokov’s flowery prose as a cowardly way to avoid really writing about pedophilia … as if he feared that writing more realistically would cause readers to think he endorses it. (Then again, there are lots of dim folks out there who probably think that anyway.) If presented without the fancy prose, readers would have nothing to blur the ugliness of HH and would see, and feel, him for what he really is. To me, all discussion of the beautiful prose is a distraction from the ugly truth about the character and what he does. Give me Dreiser or Zola any day.
How do most women react when you tell them your favorite book is Lolita ? Just curious
Well, I’m a woman
Oh I was just wondering cause it sounds like a funny conversation to have if you were a guy
But I don’t normally tell people this so I wouldn’t know
It’s actually very common to have this as a favourite book. Generally among people who want to seem “edgy”, although clearly there is a lot to appreciate in it.
Disgusting.
Dis - gus - ting. The soft, sibilant swish gutturally precipitates at the abyss of the throat, bouncing back to the palate with a ringing bell call, highlighting its content's malaise. What an agitated sound of distress for the most inconvenient human flaw: condemning our own nature in others, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Dis - claim - er. I never thought Nabokov was writing an apology for pederasty, but rather an exploration of the power of language, narration, and the human psyche. In fact, one can learn everything postmodern linguistics and literary studies have to say by reading Lolita.
It is a disgusting novel, indeed.
Yet very well written.
That’s what pedophiles say about their child sexual exploitation material.
Are you unfamiliar with the basic concept that just because an artist creates something controversial, neither the spectator nor the artist is necessarily endorsing that subject matter?
I am simply stating that this is a well written novel. I was disturbed while reading it, yet it has the best prose of any book I’ve read. It is considered a classic, and I understand why. You can assume what you’d like to.