Could a book like Nabokov's 1955 classic "Lolita" be published today?

No. I think there would be too much of a backlash on it. People would probably burn copies if it was published.

I think the book would have to use the same strategy Lolita used to get published, but this time not Europe but somewhere else, Japan maybe.

It would embarrass conservatives too much.

No Republican sex scandal includes the words “consenting adult”.

The real question is, could the movie based on the book be made today?

The book could be published with less difficulty and far less controversy today. You can get damned near anything published. The question of recognition and acclaim is more speculative, but I suspect, the rule of cream “rising to the top” still holds.

I agree with @stanleybmanly, but with one corollary: It goes down easier with the public if the pedophile dies a horrible death in the end—divine justice is preferable, like a horrible fiery car accident, or by falling into a wood chipper.

Nabokov, who wrote many stories about crime, justice and moral injustice, is known mainly for this one novel—to his later personal regret. Before this book came out, he was already recognized as an accomplish author. He was a great artist and his body of work is amazing and worth looking into. It does meet the criteria for classic works.

Our social mores have become more stringent in the 60-odd years since he worked on this novel. Things like this happened in the home, but were never spoken of. At the time, the legal age to marry was as low as 14 years old in some states. It has been discovered, from Nabokov’s literary notes, that Lolita was heavily influenced by the highly sensational Frank LaSalle/Sally Horner case. If you read the news articles concerning this case, there is a lot of victim blaming, the victim’s name and address is printed, and there is at least one news story which hints that eleven year-old Sally may have been a willing, pre-pubescent nymphomaniac who’s father had died when she was six and she was out stalking for a dominant older male as a surrogate.

Today, we know a lot more about what pedophilia does to its victims, that the pedophile’s claims of the child seducing the pedophile is a common delusion, and that many victims are prone to later becoming pedophiliacs as adults. Nabokov addressed all this using various mechanisms such as an “unreliable” narrator throughout the novel and Humbert Humbert’s parenthetical thoughts while trying to convince himself that he really wasn’t a monster. It really is a great novel.

In case any of you are interested, the complete novel is available for free in downloadable pdf format HERE and HERE

wonderful answer.

I also concur with both @stanleybmanly & Espiritus_Corvus.
Funny because of this question I am half way through the 1997 version of Lolita now, with Jeremy Irons & Melanie Griffith. So complex, as Humberts character is smooth enough to almost, emphasis on almost, make you believe he is really not what he really is, a pedophile. I have never seen this version. More than 50 shades of gray here but, in the end, black is black.

Of course Jeremy Irons is one of the sexiest men of all time so I have to entertain the thought that in watching this version I am a tad bit biased. haha ( Humor, humor, not condoning. )

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaO_L0n0zhc

I have to re-read the book. It’s been almost thirty years, but it’s unforgettable how hard it hit me. It was on three levels.

The controlling freak abuser was one thing, how such a person can tell himself that he’s doing the right thing.

And Nabokov’s grasp of American culture was another thing. I think he grew up speaking French among the Russian upper class.

Third, his use of English was beautiful. I think it was his third language.

My parents were both writers and I was reading English from age 5. I am in awe how Nabokov arrived here as an adult and grasped our culture and language so thoroughly.