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 honestly feel like it should be studied in school. Deconstructing all the small and big manipulation tactics of this monster would be life saving for teenage girls
It’s one of my faves but I’m always nervous to say that because people think liking a book means agreeing with the main character.
And a third man in this thread blocked me. How interesting
Need 5 karma ⏫
I didn’t have a problem with the content. It was pretty clear, at least to me, that we’re not supposed to be sympathetic towards this dude. I just thought the pages on pages of description of the freaking country side, amoungst other things, was such a slog to get through.
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.
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.
A nothing thing people forget.
https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/society/family/marriage.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12285484/
region and 100 year difference of when people dated etc.
issue with the book is some context is lost.
Time to read Genet
Lolita was way ahead of its time. Humbert is despicable, but he’s “charming” and literate and uses that to manipulate the reader to garner sympathy. The most horrible aspect is that that’s not fictional. To this day there is a tendency to blame the victim (victim blaming) and make excuses for the abuser. Lolita being a seductress is not an uncommon opinion.
I love this book. I first read it when I was 14. Humbert isn’t a good guy, and that was definitely evident to my teenage brain. And when adult ass men hit on me, I would just think of them all as gross Humbert Humberts
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.
I’m not sure we’re meant to slightly sympathise with Humbert. His voice is very compelling in the sense that you want to keep reading, but not at all in the sense that he’s charming or makes you root for him. He’s more Raskolnikov than Tom Ripley. There’s a visceral yuck factor - just very beautifully written yuck! According to Lolita Podcast, one of the assault scenes was based on Nabokov’s own experience as a child.
We get just enough glimpses of Dolores to make her the sympathetic character, and not just because she’s the victim. Her voice is as different from his as it’s possible to be and it’s very satisfying when it cuts through his pompous narration, and when she outwits him.
My experience was the same. I’ll never forget the line “in and out of my heart flowed my rainbow blood”.
Humbert Humbert is an amazing protagonist. He’s fun, he’s wacky, he’s witty, and of course yes, he is a monster.
People are able to read and appreciate Paradise Lost, Grendel, and heck, the Bible, all of which have protagonists that do evil things but present themselves as the victims. (Actually, it’s been a while on Grendel, that one might have genuinely portrayed Grendel as innocent.)
Idk what number I am to recommend it, but The Lolita Podcast is an absolutely incredible examination of the book, its origins, its reception, its adaptations, and the various cultural phenomena adjacent to the book.