My new word is "Nymphet"

[bondo_ba]

Everyone seems to be doing it, so I'll pop in with my own new word.  As you can probably tell by the title of the post, I've just finished reading Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.

This book is often called the greatest novel of the twentieth century, and one can immediately see why.  The brilliant interweaving of colloquial usage and higher-end

Comments

[msstacy13]

However well written,
the subject of Lolita is just not something I'd ever want to read.

Just for the sake of discussion,
I guess maybe I'd say
Sergeant Getulio by Joao Ubaldo Ribeiro

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/03/bestbooks.fiction

[bondo_ba]

Wow, haven't read that one!

And yes, the subject of Lolita is a bit difficult, of course, and that's probably what got it noticed in the first place. I won't try to convince you other than to say it's a pity because the book is worth reading.

[msstacy13]

Slaughterhouse Five is a contender, yes.
Maybe also Cat's Cradle.

[bondo_ba]

Slaughterhouse Five is a fun little book, but not sure if I'd count it as "great". I guess time will tell!

I need to read Cat's Cradle ASAP.

[msstacy13]

Player Piano is my favourite KV book,
but it's even less likely to be counted as "great"

I reread Cat's Cradle a couple years ago,
hoping to do a dystopian homage from it,
but didn't...
*sigh*

[wendigomountain]

Lolita is one of those books that English professors say are the best things ever written. I never could get into it; the pederasty sorta put me off.

I liked A Confederacy of Dunces.

[bondo_ba]

That s a good choice. It seems to be a pretty common problem with Lolita: the theme puts people off of the literature. I respect that, of course, but it's a pity. The words in that book do wonderful things.

[sartorias]

I never thought Lolita great, in spite of Nabokov's brilliant prose; of his works, I suspect that Pale Fire is better.

Best novel (in English) of twentieth century? Have to think about that.

[bondo_ba]

I need to read Pale Fire - other comments mentioned it, too. As for your take on the question, I'll be looking forward to it!

[bogwitch64]

Lolita ranks up there in my personal top ten books. The depths Nabokov sinks into Humbert's twisted, egomaniac, completely rational-in-his-own-mind brain is beyond brilliant. Take into account that Vlad was a synaesthete (I believe he saw letters and numbers as specific colors, which probably meant he saw other things as colors and just didn't know it) and it gives an even cooler look into his prose, the phrasing he chooses, the way Humbert thinks.

The story itself it squicky in many, many ways, squicky before its time. But the squickiest part is that Nabokov creates a somewhat sympathetic character that NO ONE will admit to sympathizing with, and that makes people VERY uncomfortable.

I chose this book for book club years ago, and on the outset, every woman in both groups said they hated it--until we started discussing it. And then most of them said, "I guess I liked it better than I thought I did."

And THAT is the genius that is Lolita.

[kimberlywade]

Yes, you nailed it! No matter how much you want to hate Humbert, who is indeed a hateful character, you end up sympathizing with him in the end and that is most brilliant!

[msstacy13]

I'm afraid I might accomplish that same thing with Hitler,
although I think I'd rather not.

[kimberlywade]

Yes, i admit that reading Lolita is *very* uncomfortable, but you have to remember that it is fiction and we are allowed to experience things in fiction that would be unconscionable in real life. That's perhaps its greatest power.