Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what you expect to get from the synopsis— that’s probably the worst way to engage with literature or art. It’s like me saying Robert Mapplethorpe took pictures of penises— what do you think of that?

NP. Even if the photos are "arty", not interested in a gallery full of that kind of art. Likewise, I've skimmed bits of Lolita to better understand the cultural references and the Nabokov phenomenon. Came away with...it's pretty gross, I still don't understand Nabokov-worship, and I don't have enough life left to waste time on a full read-through.

A lot of stuff that people liked in the 50s-70s because the works were topically transgressive seem pretty shite now. I read Myra Breckinridge once while stuck at a ski cabin...another trashy but (once) popular novel. The World According to Garp, etc. Lolita's just slightly more literary than those. Because Nabokov was fancier...foreign, academic, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's masterfully written.
And I loathe the story.
And it's masterfully written.
And the main character is so odious.
And also it's so masterfully written.

I hate it. I admire it. I hate that I admire it.

It's all a very confusing feeling.

Yes to all of this. I actually love reading controversial, well written books. Something that makes you feel, even if that feeling is terrible.

Two other Lolita type books that are more current:

- Becoming Lolita by Alisson Wood
- Tampa by Alissa Nutting - adult in this book is a female teacher

All the Ugly and Wonderful Things by Bryn Greenwood is probably the most similarly problematic type of book that I've read, but it certainly made me think.

These books you're mentioning aren't literature, they are just like reading a tabloid - salacious hangers-on to one concept from the original.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's masterfully written.
And I loathe the story.
And it's masterfully written.
And the main character is so odious.
And also it's so masterfully written.

I hate it. I admire it. I hate that I admire it.

It's all a very confusing feeling.

Yes to all of this. I actually love reading controversial, well written books. Something that makes you feel, even if that feeling is terrible.

Two other Lolita type books that are more current:

- Becoming Lolita by Alisson Wood
- Tampa by Alissa Nutting - adult in this book is a female teacher

All the Ugly and Wonderful Things by Bryn Greenwood is probably the most similarly problematic type of book that I've read, but it certainly made me think.

Anonymous wrote:It's masterfully written.
And I loathe the story.
And it's masterfully written.
And the main character is so odious.
And also it's so masterfully written.

I hate it. I admire it. I hate that I admire it.

It's all a very confusing feeling.

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!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what you expect to get from the synopsis— that’s probably the worst way to engage with literature or art. It’s like me saying Robert Mapplethorpe took pictures of penises— what do you think of that?

NP. Even if the photos are "arty", not interested in a gallery full of that kind of art. Likewise, I've skimmed bits of Lolita to better understand the cultural references and the Nabokov phenomenon. Came away with...it's pretty gross, I still don't understand Nabokov-worship, and I don't have enough life left to waste time on a full read-through.

A lot of stuff that people liked in the 50s-70s because the works were topically transgressive seem pretty shite now. I read Myra Breckinridge once while stuck at a ski cabin...another trashy but (once) popular novel. The World According to Garp, etc. Lolita's just slightly more literary than those. Because Nabokov was fancier...foreign, academic, etc.

It’s fine if you want to make a judgment about how you want to spend your time based on entirely superficial characterizations as long as you get that that’s all they are (and calling Lolita a slightly fancier World According to Garp is barely even that).

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what you expect to get from the synopsis— that’s probably the worst way to engage with literature or art. It’s like me saying Robert Mapplethorpe took pictures of penises— what do you think of that?

NP. Even if the photos are "arty", not interested in a gallery full of that kind of art. Likewise, I've skimmed bits of Lolita to better understand the cultural references and the Nabokov phenomenon. Came away with...it's pretty gross, I still don't understand Nabokov-worship, and I don't have enough life left to waste time on a full read-through.

A lot of stuff that people liked in the 50s-70s because the works were topically transgressive seem pretty shite now. I read Myra Breckinridge once while stuck at a ski cabin...another trashy but (once) popular novel. The World According to Garp, etc. Lolita's just slightly more literary than those. Because Nabokov was fancier...foreign, academic, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I read it in high school and wasn’t as horrified as I would be now, much closer to Humbert’s age. I thought that it was kind of funny then; I would find it much sadder now.

Overall, it’s a good book. It’s satirical but unfortunately isn’t always taken that way. (Like “Fight Club” in popular culture is pretty antithetical to the ethos of the book.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what you expect to get from the synopsis— that’s probably the worst way to engage with literature or art. It’s like me saying Robert Mapplethorpe took pictures of penises— what do you think of that?

NP. Even if the photos are "arty", not interested in a gallery full of that kind of art. Likewise, I've skimmed bits of Lolita to better understand the cultural references and the Nabokov phenomenon. Came away with...it's pretty gross, I still don't understand Nabokov-worship, and I don't have enough life left to waste time on a full read-through.

A lot of stuff that people liked in the 50s-70s because the works were topically transgressive seem pretty shite now. I read Myra Breckinridge once while stuck at a ski cabin...another trashy but (once) popular novel. The World According to Garp, etc. Lolita's just slightly more literary than those. Because Nabokov was fancier...foreign, academic, etc.

It's a pretty short book. You're not going to waste much of your life if you decide to wear it. We're not talking about Rise and Fall of the Third Reich here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what you expect to get from the synopsis— that’s probably the worst way to engage with literature or art. It’s like me saying Robert Mapplethorpe took pictures of penises— what do you think of that?

NP. Even if the photos are "arty", not interested in a gallery full of that kind of art. Likewise, I've skimmed bits of Lolita to better understand the cultural references and the Nabokov phenomenon. Came away with...it's pretty gross, I still don't understand Nabokov-worship, and I don't have enough life left to waste time on a full read-through.

A lot of stuff that people liked in the 50s-70s because the works were topically transgressive seem pretty shite now. I read Myra Breckinridge once while stuck at a ski cabin...another trashy but (once) popular novel. The World According to Garp, etc. Lolita's just slightly more literary than those. Because Nabokov was fancier...foreign, academic, etc.