New Post
Search
Helpthey were both ridiculous caricatures (m)
in reply to a message by RDNZL
Lolita was the flaky brat and Humbert was the puffed-up literary snob who thought he was some kind of genius. Neither one of them were sympathetic or likable characters. Characters don't necessarily have to be likable, they should just be interesting enough that you want to find out what happens to them.
I hated the book "Lolita" because it was so pretentious and annoying, but it is accurate in that not all people in real life are sympathetic or likable.
"It's one thing to be open-minded and quite another to be so open-minded your brains fall out."--Dear Abby
"Let other people push you around, and you deserve whatever bad things happen after that."--Lauren Bacall
I hated the book "Lolita" because it was so pretentious and annoying, but it is accurate in that not all people in real life are sympathetic or likable.
"It's one thing to be open-minded and quite another to be so open-minded your brains fall out."--Dear Abby
"Let other people push you around, and you deserve whatever bad things happen after that."--Lauren Bacall
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I hated Lolita too.
And some of the literature I like is considered pretentious!
But you're right about it - characters don't have to be likable.
And some of the literature I like is considered pretentious!
But you're right about it - characters don't have to be likable.
This message was edited 7/30/2016, 6:02 PM
1
I thought Humbert was very interesting.
I didn't see him as a puffed-up, literary snob, I saw him as a pathetic predator who performed a ton of mental gymnastics to convince himself that his actions were justified, or at least not that bad. The book puts you inside the mind of a pedophile rapist, and it's not a pretty place to be. It made me uncomfortable, but it left a hell of an impression. I thought it was a very good book.
I didn't see him as a puffed-up, literary snob, I saw him as a pathetic predator who performed a ton of mental gymnastics to convince himself that his actions were justified, or at least not that bad. The book puts you inside the mind of a pedophile rapist, and it's not a pretty place to be. It made me uncomfortable, but it left a hell of an impression. I thought it was a very good book.
1
It's an excellent book, and it's worthwhile to discuss literature even though the events depicted never really happened.
1