[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Nabakov may have been a world-class jerk (and that seems accurate), but anyone who says that Lolita was "a gruesome celebration of pedophile rape" has the reading comprehension skills of a dull third-grader.

[fatez]

I read it and I don't buy the "allegory of Europe and the USA". It is sick and it represents exactly what he wrote.

I guess I am back to grammar school...

[Ace's Dad]

anyone who says that Lolita was "a gruesome celebration of pedophile rape" has the reading comprehension skills of a dull third-grader.

If this is accurate, and I personally think it is, then I should have been a literary critic. I, accurately, I think, suggest that Nabakov describes how devastating the relationship became to both subjects, and also very clearly indicates that it was not rape, but passion, that lead to the mutual sexual attraction. I've held this view since I read "Lolita" while in college.

[KosmicKitty]

Lolita may have been a literary masterpiece, but I make my computer crime investigation classes read it to see how a pedophile’s mind works.

[Pelham]

It’s a book slyly written from the POV of Humbert Humbert. If you can’t figure out by the end that Humbert has been manipulating your perception of events then you might be an easy mark for a clever liar.

As far as overt sexual content I think that you could point to several portions of the Old Testament that have it beat hands down. Judges 19 outdoes anything I can think of in Lolita.