I recently read Lolita and was really conflicted as to whether I liked it or not. In one sense it was an uncomfortable read but I found I couldn’t put it down. I see a lot of people saying that they hate it because Humbert is such a monster but surely that’s the point? Nabokov makes it such an uncomfortable read through putting it in first person; we are meant to slightly sympathise with Humbert (because of his unreliable narration) and then feel disgusted with ourselves. Combined with the ‘American Dream’/Academia/Psychological Thriller aesthetic it’s almost as much a mockery of society and its romanticisation of crime as The Secret History. This is even proven by Lolita’s resurgence in popular aesthetics and romanticisation.
I have a different take. I went into reading the book, after a thousand many people had said, what it is to read an unreliable narrator. So, I began to accept it as art, without any judgements. The author was a great writer. It was an interesting read. But, over the time, I started introspecting on why I thought it a great piece of art, when I would never hear to any pedophile/rapist’s POV, at all.
Yes, you can call it an art. Like someone else mentioned,if Michelangelo painted rape, people would love to pay, admire, and dissect every stroke where the woman is raped, over, over and over, and appreciate the artist. That’s what people are. They just need to find amusement/entertainment, or attain philosophical enlightenment, at all costs. It is a worthless entertainment, just done to boost someone else’s ego.
Some people do not deserve POVs. There is no complexity in them. And there has to be a hard line drawn. I would rather prefer to read a victim’s POV, if they chose to share, even if it is not artistically legend, I would rather spend my time, money, to extend empathy, than to boost my own ego.