Live data from Hacker News

When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

scroll.in

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#11

I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…

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.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#12
Olympia press also published "the hero maker/fuzz against junk" which is a glorious paste-up collage cartoon story by Akbar del Piombo (a pseudonym for Norman Rubington)

I suspect Nehru might not have liked that one as much.

(a good review of his work is at https://www.emptymirrorbooks.com/literature/collage-novels-a...)

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#13

I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…

the 3 reasons that made you hate it are genuinely why people like it and/or find it fascinating..

Have you seen either of the films?

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#14
post #11

I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…

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 pedoph…

[deleted]

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#15
Regardless of what one thinks of it, it’s just a book. The idea that books can be dangerous is true, but not in the way that censors and moralists believe. Books can expand the way we think, opening up more possibilities for empathy and understanding.

In some political systems, empathy and understanding are viewed as undesirable characteristics in the population. I won’t name any in particular, but I live in one.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#16

> The book is certainly not pornographic in the normal sense of the word. It is, as I have said, a serious book, seriously written. > In this note, Nehru also pointed out that he would not hesitate to ban horror comics or books that deal with sex and crime and have no literary merit. > In the end, Nehru favoured the release of the stock withheld by the Customs > This case not only demonstrates Nehru’s sensitivity and…

[deleted]

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#18
post #11

I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…

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 pedoph…

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.

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#19
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pedoph…

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 .

> 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).

Re: When Jawaharlal Nehru Read ‘Lolita’

#20

I’ve tried to read Lolita a few times, and have never made it through. Between the turgid prose, the abominably horrible narrator, and the pedophilia, I simply lack the endurance and interest. My daughter had to finish it for a uni project and she confirmed for me that the depressingly boring tone continued to the morally inadequate end. I’ve read a few of the “greatest” books of the last 200 years and simply cannot…

But the pedophilia has an interesting twist: the child initiate then dismiss it while the main character, writing from jail, is a victim of it. At least on a first level, but sometimes you can feel it's not exactly how it is for Dolores. It's strange and surprising all along, it's in 3 parts: the rise up to the seduction, the american road trip and then the morale: youth is passing, children play and forget, whatever else you want to take from it.

It's an interesting book as a French since the character is French, the road trip was amazing for me because I dont know the backside america, and I like the fact americans are so prude they call that pedophilia, when frankly, it puts you off of it more than drags you.

Post reply on HN