Lolita

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean -- it's art. It's a reflection of life. People write about all kinds of troubling things. And the book is genius.

If you can't handle it, or just don't want to read anything challenging in this way, by all means go back to your Sophie Kinsella novels.

Why so rude? Why so all-or-nothing?
One can interrogate subject matter as a part of an inquiry into art, even genius art.

"Don't you dare question a work of art, and if you do, it's a sure sign that you don't belong" is a statement wholly at odds with...well, most of the entire history of art.

Because you're "questioning it" in the stupidest way, honestly. Humbert Humbert is bad therefore I won't read this book. It's literally about a guy who murders a girl's mother because he thinks he's in love with the girl. Him being bad is baked right into the premise - it's not morally ambiguous, no! But it's still a beautifully written, really engrossing story. What do you think you're questioning, exactly? Whether he's good or bad? He's bad!

I’m the pp but not the op. I weighed in because you met op with such judgement. I have read Lolita and happen to think it’s gorgeously written. But I also understand someone not wanting to read it and/or wanting to process its subject matter, and to do so without being insulted.

Defend Nabokov, sure. Say what you love about the book. Say what one loses by focusing only on subject matter to the exclusion of craft or structure or precision of language or the vertiginous sensation that results from all of these things coming together just so. But a cheap shot is just plain cheap, and that’s what you contributed. Look at this tangle of thorns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean -- it's art. It's a reflection of life. People write about all kinds of troubling things. And the book is genius.

If you can't handle it, or just don't want to read anything challenging in this way, by all means go back to your Sophie Kinsella novels.

Why so rude? Why so all-or-nothing?
One can interrogate subject matter as a part of an inquiry into art, even genius art.

"Don't you dare question a work of art, and if you do, it's a sure sign that you don't belong" is a statement wholly at odds with...well, most of the entire history of art.

Because you're "questioning it" in the stupidest way, honestly. Humbert Humbert is bad therefore I won't read this book. It's literally about a guy who murders a girl's mother because he thinks he's in love with the girl. Him being bad is baked right into the premise - it's not morally ambiguous, no! But it's still a beautifully written, really engrossing story. What do you think you're questioning, exactly? Whether he's good or bad? He's bad!

I’m the pp but not the op. I weighed in because you met op with such judgement. I have read Lolita and happen to think it’s gorgeously written. But I also understand someone not wanting to read it and/or wanting to process its subject matter, and to do so without being insulted.

Defend Nabokov, sure. Say what you love about the book. Say what one loses by focusing only on subject matter to the exclusion of craft or structure or precision of language or the vertiginous sensation that results from all of these things coming together just so. But a cheap shot is just plain cheap, and that’s what you contributed. Look at this tangle of thorns.

There's nothing cheap about the shot! PP said they were being lambasted for "questioning" Lolita based on being revulsed by the premise. I'm pointing out that there is nothing "questioning" about that. They are welcome to decide that a book isn't for them because they just don't want to spend time with that subject matter - that's how I feel about works involving animal harm; I work in the field of animal welfare and I do not care to spend my free time putting those sorts of images in my head. My head is dark enough. I think it would be very reasonable for someone to look at this premise and decide that it's just not for them.

But the OP and that PP aren't doing that. They're presenting the premise of the book as if that itself is some sort of a HA proving the book isn't worth reading. I'm sorry but it's dumb. And honestly it feels like it fits in with this whole younger generation thing of being so unable to engage with any kinds of grey areas. I don't get to say this out loud when my name is attached - but here, anonymously: I think that's stupid. There's a lot I admire about the younger gens, but I really detest how smug they are in their black and white views of the world. I hate it, I think it's harmful, I think this is one more example - a very low stakes example (who cares if htey don't read Lolita, other than them missing out) but I think this mindset is harmful and stupid.

Sorry if that's put too bluntly.

[Anonymous]

The op’s post literally said: “every once in awhile I think about reading (Lolita)….If you have read it, I'd like to hear what you think.” Your response was to tell her to go back to Sophie Kinsella. Maybe you don’t consider that a cheap shot but I (who — again — has read the book, and multiple times as a matter of fact) do.

At any rate, I’m done here. We shall all be dumped where the weed decays. The rest is rust and stardust. Have a great night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The op’s post literally said: “every once in awhile I think about reading (Lolita)….If you have read it, I'd like to hear what you think.” Your response was to tell her to go back to Sophie Kinsella. Maybe you don’t consider that a cheap shot but I (who — again — has read the book, and multiple times as a matter of fact) do.

At any rate, I’m done here. We shall all be dumped where the weed decays. The rest is rust and stardust. Have a great night.

And also thank you for working in animal welfare.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was really well written and funny.
Also very disturbing. But Lo was no dummy. She knew how to get out of that situation. She was written as a complex character that way, same as Holly Golightly was (unlike the movie version, the book version was an outright prostitute).
That was an age when characters were more complex. Today it seems like either one is an oppressor or a victim and nothing in between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean -- it's art. It's a reflection of life. People write about all kinds of troubling things. And the book is genius.

If you can't handle it, or just don't want to read anything challenging in this way, by all means go back to your Sophie Kinsella novels.

Why so rude? Why so all-or-nothing?
One can interrogate subject matter as a part of an inquiry into art, even genius art.

"Don't you dare question a work of art, and if you do, it's a sure sign that you don't belong" is a statement wholly at odds with...well, most of the entire history of art.

Because you're "questioning it" in the stupidest way, honestly. Humbert Humbert is bad therefore I won't read this book. It's literally about a guy who murders a girl's mother because he thinks he's in love with the girl. Him being bad is baked right into the premise - it's not morally ambiguous, no! But it's still a beautifully written, really engrossing story. What do you think you're questioning, exactly? Whether he's good or bad? He's bad!

I’m the pp but not the op. I weighed in because you met op with such judgement. I have read Lolita and happen to think it’s gorgeously written. But I also understand someone not wanting to read it and/or wanting to process its subject matter, and to do so without being insulted.

Defend Nabokov, sure. Say what you love about the book. Say what one loses by focusing only on subject matter to the exclusion of craft or structure or precision of language or the vertiginous sensation that results from all of these things coming together just so. But a cheap shot is just plain cheap, and that’s what you contributed. Look at this tangle of thorns.

There's nothing cheap about the shot! PP said they were being lambasted for "questioning" Lolita based on being revulsed by the premise. I'm pointing out that there is nothing "questioning" about that. They are welcome to decide that a book isn't for them because they just don't want to spend time with that subject matter - that's how I feel about works involving animal harm; I work in the field of animal welfare and I do not care to spend my free time putting those sorts of images in my head. My head is dark enough. I think it would be very reasonable for someone to look at this premise and decide that it's just not for them.

But the OP and that PP aren't doing that. They're presenting the premise of the book as if that itself is some sort of a HA proving the book isn't worth reading. I'm sorry but it's dumb. And honestly it feels like it fits in with this whole younger generation thing of being so unable to engage with any kinds of grey areas. I don't get to say this out loud when my name is attached - but here, anonymously: I think that's stupid. There's a lot I admire about the younger gens, but I really detest how smug they are in their black and white views of the world. I hate it, I think it's harmful, I think this is one more example - a very low stakes example (who cares if htey don't read Lolita, other than them missing out) but I think this mindset is harmful and stupid.

Sorry if that's put too bluntly.

OP here - I haven't posted since my first post, but let me clear up a few things. The assumptions about me are fascinating.

First, I never said Lolita isn't worth reading, just that I have never read it and was curious about the plot (other than the obvious), and that it surprised me.

Second, I'm not of "the whole younger generation" unless a lot of y'all are Silent Generation. I'm 53.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean -- it's art. It's a reflection of life. People write about all kinds of troubling things. And the book is genius.

If you can't handle it, or just don't want to read anything challenging in this way, by all means go back to your Sophie Kinsella novels.

Why so rude? Why so all-or-nothing?
One can interrogate subject matter as a part of an inquiry into art, even genius art.

"Don't you dare question a work of art, and if you do, it's a sure sign that you don't belong" is a statement wholly at odds with...well, most of the entire history of art.

Because you're "questioning it" in the stupidest way, honestly. Humbert Humbert is bad therefore I won't read this book. It's literally about a guy who murders a girl's mother because he thinks he's in love with the girl. Him being bad is baked right into the premise - it's not morally ambiguous, no! But it's still a beautifully written, really engrossing story. What do you think you're questioning, exactly? Whether he's good or bad? He's bad!

I’m the pp but not the op. I weighed in because you met op with such judgement. I have read Lolita and happen to think it’s gorgeously written. But I also understand someone not wanting to read it and/or wanting to process its subject matter, and to do so without being insulted.

Defend Nabokov, sure. Say what you love about the book. Say what one loses by focusing only on subject matter to the exclusion of craft or structure or precision of language or the vertiginous sensation that results from all of these things coming together just so. But a cheap shot is just plain cheap, and that’s what you contributed. Look at this tangle of thorns.

There's nothing cheap about the shot! PP said they were being lambasted for "questioning" Lolita based on being revulsed by the premise. I'm pointing out that there is nothing "questioning" about that. They are welcome to decide that a book isn't for them because they just don't want to spend time with that subject matter - that's how I feel about works involving animal harm; I work in the field of animal welfare and I do not care to spend my free time putting those sorts of images in my head. My head is dark enough. I think it would be very reasonable for someone to look at this premise and decide that it's just not for them.

But the OP and that PP aren't doing that. They're presenting the premise of the book as if that itself is some sort of a HA proving the book isn't worth reading. I'm sorry but it's dumb. And honestly it feels like it fits in with this whole younger generation thing of being so unable to engage with any kinds of grey areas. I don't get to say this out loud when my name is attached - but here, anonymously: I think that's stupid. There's a lot I admire about the younger gens, but I really detest how smug they are in their black and white views of the world. I hate it, I think it's harmful, I think this is one more example - a very low stakes example (who cares if htey don't read Lolita, other than them missing out) but I think this mindset is harmful and stupid.

Sorry if that's put too bluntly.

OP here - I haven't posted since my first post, but let me clear up a few things. The assumptions about me are fascinating.

First, I never said Lolita isn't worth reading, just that I have never read it and was curious about the plot (other than the obvious), and that it surprised me.

Second, I'm not of "the whole younger generation" unless a lot of y'all are Silent Generation. I'm 53.

I am the PP and sorry, I must have read you too quickly and reacted too strongly. I'm 51 so you're right, we're both gen x here. You didn't read Lolita in high school? I thought everyone our age did.

In any case - again, sorry for reacting as I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean -- it's art. It's a reflection of life. People write about all kinds of troubling things. And the book is genius.

If you can't handle it, or just don't want to read anything challenging in this way, by all means go back to your Sophie Kinsella novels.

Why so rude? Why so all-or-nothing?
One can interrogate subject matter as a part of an inquiry into art, even genius art.

"Don't you dare question a work of art, and if you do, it's a sure sign that you don't belong" is a statement wholly at odds with...well, most of the entire history of art.

Because you're "questioning it" in the stupidest way, honestly. Humbert Humbert is bad therefore I won't read this book. It's literally about a guy who murders a girl's mother because he thinks he's in love with the girl. Him being bad is baked right into the premise - it's not morally ambiguous, no! But it's still a beautifully written, really engrossing story. What do you think you're questioning, exactly? Whether he's good or bad? He's bad!

I’m the pp but not the op. I weighed in because you met op with such judgement. I have read Lolita and happen to think it’s gorgeously written. But I also understand someone not wanting to read it and/or wanting to process its subject matter, and to do so without being insulted.

Defend Nabokov, sure. Say what you love about the book. Say what one loses by focusing only on subject matter to the exclusion of craft or structure or precision of language or the vertiginous sensation that results from all of these things coming together just so. But a cheap shot is just plain cheap, and that’s what you contributed. Look at this tangle of thorns.

There's nothing cheap about the shot! PP said they were being lambasted for "questioning" Lolita based on being revulsed by the premise. I'm pointing out that there is nothing "questioning" about that. They are welcome to decide that a book isn't for them because they just don't want to spend time with that subject matter - that's how I feel about works involving animal harm; I work in the field of animal welfare and I do not care to spend my free time putting those sorts of images in my head. My head is dark enough. I think it would be very reasonable for someone to look at this premise and decide that it's just not for them.

But the OP and that PP aren't doing that. They're presenting the premise of the book as if that itself is some sort of a HA proving the book isn't worth reading. I'm sorry but it's dumb. And honestly it feels like it fits in with this whole younger generation thing of being so unable to engage with any kinds of grey areas. I don't get to say this out loud when my name is attached - but here, anonymously: I think that's stupid. There's a lot I admire about the younger gens, but I really detest how smug they are in their black and white views of the world. I hate it, I think it's harmful, I think this is one more example - a very low stakes example (who cares if htey don't read Lolita, other than them missing out) but I think this mindset is harmful and stupid.

Sorry if that's put too bluntly.

OP here - I haven't posted since my first post, but let me clear up a few things. The assumptions about me are fascinating.

First, I never said Lolita isn't worth reading, just that I have never read it and was curious about the plot (other than the obvious), and that it surprised me.

Second, I'm not of "the whole younger generation" unless a lot of y'all are Silent Generation. I'm 53.

I am the PP and sorry, I must have read you too quickly and reacted too strongly. I'm 51 so you're right, we're both gen x here. You didn't read Lolita in high school? I thought everyone our age did.

In any case - again, sorry for reacting as I did.

If you mean as part of a HS curriculum, no. The conservative town I grew up in would probably have had a book burning over that.

[Anonymous]

I never liked it. But, I found Reading Lolita in Tehran interesting.

[Anonymous]

Read it for the first time at age 44 when I was dating a man 20 years older. It was very clear from the jump that it a story of predation and abuse veiled in exquisite writing. Images from the book still haunt me to this day. It will be creepy for many, funny for some, and titillating for those with certain fetishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The op’s post literally said: “every once in awhile I think about reading (Lolita)….If you have read it, I'd like to hear what you think.” Your response was to tell her to go back to Sophie Kinsella. Maybe you don’t consider that a cheap shot but I (who — again — has read the book, and multiple times as a matter of fact) do.

At any rate, I’m done here. We shall all be dumped where the weed decays. The rest is rust and stardust. Have a great night.

DP. Actually, OP did come off unsophisticated. She admits she hasn't read the book. She reads a plot summary and concludes "it's bad" and wastes everyone's time with this post when she could have read up on the book, such as in wiki and come to
a basic understanding of what the book is about and why it is important in Western literature. It is masterful art. Beautifully written. Incredible character development. I especially liked the author's use of footnotes. It's an important novel whose theme has been taken up by theater, ballet, art and literature.

[Anonymous]

+

[Anonymous]

+1. Just google Why Lolita Great Novel and start with the AI summary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was really well written and funny.
Also very disturbing. But Lo was no dummy. She knew how to get out of that situation. She was written as a complex character that way, same as Holly Golightly was (unlike the movie version, the book version was an outright prostitute).
That was an age when characters were more complex. Today it seems like either one is an oppressor or a victim and nothing in between.

I had this reaction the first time I read it too - that Lo was almost a participant and surely could have gotten out of the situation. But the second time I read it, I felt I'd been manipulated into Humbert's POV.
That's why it's a brilliant book, IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure - I have never read Lolita, but every once in awhile I think about reading it. Something reminded me of it today so I finally looked up the synopsis/summary - and holy crap - it was SO MUCH WORSE than I imagined.

That's really it. If you have read it, I'd like to hear what you think.

I tried to read it but when he got aroused by smelling her "puppy dog scent" when she was 12 and playing outside, I had to stop.