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
You can try reading Flannery O Connor. She will be easier to get through than McCarthy at least