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.
It is important to remember that a lot of Nabakov’s style is perspective based. For me the primary message of Lolita, and Pale Fire as well, is it forces the reader to shift though information to find what they find meaningful rather than the opinions of the narrator. Humbert Humbert would have said anything to justify his actions and given more paper the character probably would have written a longer book. I think the real “question”, for lack of a better word, of these books is are you as a reader able to read a highly opinionated story and then from that separate the opinion from the plot?
Just my two cents