The thing about LOLITA is that most people misinterpret it. It begins with a foreword by a fictitious psychologist (the author in disguise) straight up saying that this is a tragic book and the narrator is a monster. From there, the reader is left to choose how they’ll respond to the book. Will they give in to Humbert’s suave persona and smooth voice, believing everything the says? Or will they look past his hand-waving to see what’s actually quite obvious and plain: the victim’s suffering?
Nabokov himself was the victim of sexual abuse when he was a child, which I’m sure must have influenced his desire to tell this story, and to tell it in this particular way. It’s a very effective work of art in that way too many readers get sucked in by Humbert’s manipulation and see it as a “taboo love story” when the author clearly intended it to be a mirror held up to the reader, to face the question of whether we even see victims in this culture, or whether we choose instead to believe whatever stories we’re told.
Red flag, though? I think that depends on why it’s on the bookshelf, which you can only discover by talking about the book with the owner of that bookshelf.
100% agree on THE FOUNTAINHEAD, though. Girl, run.
I don't disagree with you in the slightest, Lolita is probably one of the classic examples of a novel where a large swath of the interpretations don't match the intent or, it feels at times, the content. It reminds me a lot of Fight Club, where the clear point was probably the dangers of and mocking toxic masculinity but then it became a beloved story and totem for many toxic men. Reminds me a bit of the Francois Truffaut quote "every film about war ends up being pro-war" (maybe a subject for another newsletter). But you're so right, talk to the person, only THE FOUNTAINHEAD is a full proof red flag : )
Lolita is one of my favorite books and Fight Club is one of my husband's favorites, so we have had many similar conversations at the dinner table! They're both great books, and it's wild how often they are misinterpreted 180 degrees opposite of what their authors intended. Arrgh.
This was so much fun to read, and thanks for the rabbit-hole Reddit link :)
The thing about LOLITA is that most people misinterpret it. It begins with a foreword by a fictitious psychologist (the author in disguise) straight up saying that this is a tragic book and the narrator is a monster. From there, the reader is left to choose how they’ll respond to the book. Will they give in to Humbert’s suave persona and smooth voice, believing everything the says? Or will they look past his hand-waving to see what’s actually quite obvious and plain: the victim’s suffering?
Nabokov himself was the victim of sexual abuse when he was a child, which I’m sure must have influenced his desire to tell this story, and to tell it in this particular way. It’s a very effective work of art in that way too many readers get sucked in by Humbert’s manipulation and see it as a “taboo love story” when the author clearly intended it to be a mirror held up to the reader, to face the question of whether we even see victims in this culture, or whether we choose instead to believe whatever stories we’re told.
Red flag, though? I think that depends on why it’s on the bookshelf, which you can only discover by talking about the book with the owner of that bookshelf.
100% agree on THE FOUNTAINHEAD, though. Girl, run.
I don't disagree with you in the slightest, Lolita is probably one of the classic examples of a novel where a large swath of the interpretations don't match the intent or, it feels at times, the content. It reminds me a lot of Fight Club, where the clear point was probably the dangers of and mocking toxic masculinity but then it became a beloved story and totem for many toxic men. Reminds me a bit of the Francois Truffaut quote "every film about war ends up being pro-war" (maybe a subject for another newsletter). But you're so right, talk to the person, only THE FOUNTAINHEAD is a full proof red flag : )
Lolita is one of my favorite books and Fight Club is one of my husband's favorites, so we have had many similar conversations at the dinner table! They're both great books, and it's wild how often they are misinterpreted 180 degrees opposite of what their authors intended. Arrgh.