i will admit i've yet to have read your praised 'Beneficence' but i have read a few of his other works similarly to the gp's effort to 'see what all the fuss wa

i will admit i've yet to have read your praised 'Beneficence' but i have read a few of his other works similarly to the gp's effort to 'see what all the fuss was about' i very much disliked lolita i'm unable to speak to story construction because i only vaguely recall the structure but i can speak to my distaste for the prose i have a lot of respect for multilinguals and the fact that nabokov wrote lolita in english is commendable but it reads to me like posturing i felt it was humorless yet aggressively attempting to be funny i feel people who like it inexplicably excuse its shortcomings as intentional or representative of the narrator, and i always felt if that was the penultimate interpretation i'd rather find meaning and enrichment in work that engaged with me as a reader instead of trying to troll me while hoping i grant its assumed brilliance credence i felt it self serving while being acutely self aware; further promoting said service which is also why in my opinion the only thing even slightly worth reading by nabokov is pale fire i feel it explicitly exhibits my interpretation of nabokov as an author someone obsessed with one's own literary importance based on one's own criteria of what makes good literature