[neild]

There are many answers to why Lolita was well received by many people. (It's worth noting that it was certainly not universally well received--many, many people share your opinion of it.)

One is that many of the people who like it seem not to have read it; or if they have read it, they did not understand it. Many men have described it as "a love story" or otherwise indicated that they feel the book approves of pedophilia. Two movies have been made based on the book, and both portray Dolores Haze (the girl the narrator calls "Lolita") as a seductress rather than as a victim. A substantial portion of the fan base of the book are, rather distressingly, men who appear to be quite enamored of the notion of having sex with children.

Another is that Nabokov was a clever writer who excelled at writing books which reward close reading. Lolita is the story of Dolores Haze, but the narrator is a man who has no interest in her other than as than the victim of his sexual attentions. He drones on at great length about trivialities, while completely skipping over vital information. He is deliberately constructing an exculpatory narrative, which opens fascinating questions about how we can find any truth when everything we read is lies. Sifting through his self-serving prose to find glimpses of the actual Dolores Haze is challenging, and--to me at least--interesting.

It's not an easy book, in many senses. The narrator is a monster. The bulk of the story is obscured behind lies and misdirection. There is no catharsis, no happy ending.

Contrary to the opinion of many people who have not read the book, and some who have, Nabokov was extremely well aware that "Humbert Humbert", the narrator, is a monster. Humbert is a pedophile who abducts a 12-year-old girl and rapes her repeatedly over the course of years. Dolores Haze is a victim, not a seductress, and is in no way responsible for or desirous of her abuse. Humbert is not a reliable narrator, and nothing he says can be trusted.

Nabokov himself was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. He knew what he was writing about. There's one scene that is almost certainly directly based on his own personal experience.

I'd have difficulty saying that I enjoyed Lolita, but it's a rewarding book, and I'm glad to have read it.

[Cpoll]

> Nabokov himself was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.

Is there a definite source for this? I was under the impression this was just a 'fan-theory' of sorts.

[mise_en_place]

I've only seen the Kubrick adaptation but it was very heavily implied that the narrator is impotent. He's shown to be a character to be laughed at, nervous in his behavior, and quite hapless in romantic overtures.

Contrast that with the movie Pretty Baby where the main character becomes obsessed with a 12 year old prostitute and then sleeps with her. I find that movie to be more bordering on the obscene than Lolita.

[mlindner]

> Contrast that with the movie Pretty Baby where the main character becomes obsessed with a 12 year old prostitute and then sleeps with her. I find that movie to be more bordering on the obscene than Lolita.

It surprised me to find that this movie is available on several streaming platforms. Given the content I always wonder how this works within the legal framework of the US. BTW, my take on that movie was that he actually didn't sleep with her (though likely planned to eventually).

[pessimizer]

Brooke Shields' childhood career was very strange. It's like she was the child that America decided that it was alright to be sexually attracted to, and alright to exploit that sexuality to make money on a pretty huge scale.

[ericlewis]

I’ve not read it either, but perhaps it’s similar to how a horror movie is less horrifying than reading a horror book. Artistic license occurs and you are compressing source materials. Based on other descriptions in the threads here, the character is terrible but trying to make himself sound good. How your brain interprets that can differ. Abject monster seems what everyone else thinks, but movies probably would change that and make him into an awkward idiot.

[neild]

Kubrick is one of those men who looked at Lolita and saw a romance, when it is plainly and clearly a story of appalling abuse and rape. Watching a movie adaptation will not tell you anything at all about the book, because the movies are made by men who did not understand the book in any way.