>>34
I wasn't the one who suggested Lolita, but here are some guesses as to why it might have been suggested:
1) Narrated in the first person - our only authority for the narrative is someone we instinctively come to dislike / pity / be suspicious of; yet we carry on reading his self-serving story.
2) The fact that he is urbane, educated, well-read, even self-deprecating - he isn't the most obvious kind of villain, especially to the kind of person who would read such books; then again, is this all just what he wants us to think?
3) Style and language - as (though in a different way) with Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, the story would probably strike us in a very different way if told in bare, clinical style and explicit detail: the fact that it isn't invites all sorts of questions about the narrative and readers' reactions to it, especially about whether its manner affects one's judgement.
4) The title character herself: it is hard to see her as just a victim of a predator, based on what we are told about her; then again, in view of (1), (2) and (3) above, how far can we trust that narrative, are we deluding ourselves as much as Humbert is himself, is he spinning us a line and we buying it?