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.

  • WonThousand@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me, the biggest strength of the book and Nabakovs writing is how unlikeable he makes Humbert.

    Its like when an actor plays a terrible person so well that people end up disliking the actor in real life.

    So when i see people saying they dont like it because theyre “disgusted by Humbert” i think thats a testament to how well written it is.

    • velvetvagine@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the bigger magic trick is when the reader finds themselves identifying with Humbert, laughing at his jokes or sympathizing, because it’s so jarring to see and *feel *the humanity in such a monstrous person. And this is the reason I think so many people viscerally dislike the book. They don’t want to relate to him, they hate that common thread of humanity and seeing how fine a line separates us.