This was an interesting watch, I'm glad youtube recommended it to me. I personally enjoyed reading "Lolita" as a late teen, and, methinks, for exactly the reason intended by Nabokov - to me it clearly read as a self-aggrandising account of a child abuser: Humbert was so clearly a small and sick man who, though some masterful talking, was almost able to whitewash his crime, whitewash his perversion, give it a flair fo romanticism and an honest coping mechanism with his own trauma (a story told by so many abusers), but then slip up over and over though some small detail about how Dolores was behaving or other quick description of how he was fearful of being found-out and persecuted, and it would become clear that he knows he's wrong, Nabokov knows and shows this is wrong, and it was that sway between nearly falling for the narration and getting jolted back to reality by the overly explicit (for Nabokov) descriptions of Humbert sexualising, molesting and abusing Dolores and being disgusted by it, which was so interesting and enjoyable. Since reading it, I watched both the horrible film adaptations and I realised that they actually do more disservice to the book than any Nabokov's own statements. I strongly believe that the films actually romanticised the story even more than his writing style and popularised it in a truly twisted and horrible way. I would strongly argue, that those adaptations gave "Lolita" its full notoriety, and I am not denying the novel's original controversial nature, but it's hard to pretend that more people watch movies than read the source material. But you didn't watch the videos and talked more about how Nabokov's own reflection on the work arguably informs the message. Imo, a fairer video title would have been "Nabokov on his Lolita" or something like that, as it had less to do with the text and more to do with how Nabokov didn't do a correct press tour after the book's release. To that, the intro of him you did in the beginning was actually really informative, very well presented, I didn't know a lot of these things about him. But it was quite surprising to hear the type of criticism of his statements that followed, given what we had just learned of his background. I thought, in literature analysis, comprehending the author's context and life was crucial to forming a coherent understanding of the text. So judging a work of a male member of Russian nobility, the eldest son of the Tsar's Russia intelligentsia family, written in 1955 when he was 56, by the modern standard of where we have progressed to in terms of women's rights, psychological health, victimology, emotional intelligence and all the other relevant fields is.. questionable. So I would strongly argue that yes, Nabokov was extremely arrogant so he felt it's beneath him to explain his work and characters, yes, he understood zero to none about the nature of a female child victim of a predator (and, broadly judging by his other works , young women in general) and yes, he cared very little about the reader, he cared mostly about his own legacy in the world of literature. I don't think that blackens "Lolita" . I think that means it's high time editors put introductions about authors' relevant background at the front of books, instead of words from themselves, and readers go into reading mindfully, not applying the lens of their modern culture to the writing done 70 years ago and expecting to extract all the current lessons, morals and narratives.
I’m not sure I agree that Nabokov’s discussion of his own work is meant to represent him justifying Humbert’s perspective. I think it’s pretty clear from the novel that Humbert’s obsession with Lolita is perverted and grotesque and in my opinion the poetic prose only served to reinforce to the reader the severity of Humbert’s delusion. IMO the quotes you selected only show that Nabokov understood his character, not that he endorsed him - although I do agree that in general Lolita’s victimhood is sidelined in a story of abuse in favour of her abuser. But then again, it’s repulsiveness is sort of what makes the book so interesting. I also think that arguing that it would have been more effective to employ Hitchcockian tactics in order to frame Humbert differently does a disservice to the subtlety of Nabokov’s work and assumes a lack reading comprehension skills from the reader. The genre is part of the story and to argue that he should have written it in a different one is a bit of a bad-faith criticism. I just don’t find it very interesting to engage with this particular piece of literature from a moralising perspective when it’s immorality is literally the point. Thank you for your video though, it was a thought-provoking watch!! ☺️☺️
Well, unfortunately not everyone who can read or watch a movie is smart or gentle enough to understand subtle messages. In modern world it might be necessary to be tidiously plain in condemning the evil, not giving it a chance to sneak and grow. Unfortunately we see some ill-natured people believing that Nabokov had blessed pedophilia with his novel. Also Nabokov's name gives to this crime an intellectual charm, a sence of belonging to a higher class. Therefore a clear comment from the author about his view of Humbert's behavior would help a lot. I agree in general with your point about giving the readers some credit on their ability to draw sane conclusions, but safety of kids in this case is totally worth a humiliation smart innocent people would get from a boring and plain message.
I am sorry you had to read through all this! I had read it in my teenage and at the time it didn't strike me, but now I would be really traumatized... Really, "Lolita" should be published with a huge preface with critique and a reader agreement that cannot be skipped.
It's a comic novel. Merely depicting something does not endorse it. Apart from the fact that there is no actual sexual content. Poe wrote stories from the POV of murderers. Dostoevsky embodied horrible people as well.
This was an interesting watch, I'm glad youtube recommended it to me. I personally enjoyed reading "Lolita" as a late teen, and, methinks, for exactly the reason intended by Nabokov - to me it clearly read as a self-aggrandising account of a child abuser: Humbert was so clearly a small and sick man who, though some masterful talking, was almost able to whitewash his crime, whitewash his perversion, give it a flair fo romanticism and an honest coping mechanism with his own trauma (a story told by so many abusers), but then slip up over and over though some small detail about how Dolores was behaving or other quick description of how he was fearful of being found-out and persecuted, and it would become clear that he knows he's wrong, Nabokov knows and shows this is wrong, and it was that sway between nearly falling for the narration and getting jolted back to reality by the overly explicit (for Nabokov) descriptions of Humbert sexualising, molesting and abusing Dolores and being disgusted by it, which was so interesting and enjoyable. Since reading it, I watched both the horrible film adaptations and I realised that they actually do more disservice to the book than any Nabokov's own statements. I strongly believe that the films actually romanticised the story even more than his writing style and popularised it in a truly twisted and horrible way. I would strongly argue, that those adaptations gave "Lolita" its full notoriety, and I am not denying the novel's original controversial nature, but it's hard to pretend that more people watch movies than read the source material.
But you didn't watch the videos and talked more about how Nabokov's own reflection on the work arguably informs the message. Imo, a fairer video title would have been "Nabokov on his Lolita" or something like that, as it had less to do with the text and more to do with how Nabokov didn't do a correct press tour after the book's release. To that, the intro of him you did in the beginning was actually really informative, very well presented, I didn't know a lot of these things about him. But it was quite surprising to hear the type of criticism of his statements that followed, given what we had just learned of his background. I thought, in literature analysis, comprehending the author's context and life was crucial to forming a coherent understanding of the text. So judging a work of a male member of Russian nobility, the eldest son of the Tsar's Russia intelligentsia family, written in 1955 when he was 56, by the modern standard of where we have progressed to in terms of women's rights, psychological health, victimology, emotional intelligence and all the other relevant fields is.. questionable. So I would strongly argue that yes, Nabokov was extremely arrogant so he felt it's beneath him to explain his work and characters, yes, he understood zero to none about the nature of a female child victim of a predator (and, broadly judging by his other works , young women in general) and yes, he cared very little about the reader, he cared mostly about his own legacy in the world of literature. I don't think that blackens "Lolita" .
I think that means it's high time editors put introductions about authors' relevant background at the front of books, instead of words from themselves, and readers go into reading mindfully, not applying the lens of their modern culture to the writing done 70 years ago and expecting to extract all the current lessons, morals and narratives.
I’m not sure I agree that Nabokov’s discussion of his own work is meant to represent him justifying Humbert’s perspective. I think it’s pretty clear from the novel that Humbert’s obsession with Lolita is perverted and grotesque and in my opinion the poetic prose only served to reinforce to the reader the severity of Humbert’s delusion. IMO the quotes you selected only show that Nabokov understood his character, not that he endorsed him - although I do agree that in general Lolita’s victimhood is sidelined in a story of abuse in favour of her abuser. But then again, it’s repulsiveness is sort of what makes the book so interesting. I also think that arguing that it would have been more effective to employ Hitchcockian tactics in order to frame Humbert differently does a disservice to the subtlety of Nabokov’s work and assumes a lack reading comprehension skills from the reader. The genre is part of the story and to argue that he should have written it in a different one is a bit of a bad-faith criticism. I just don’t find it very interesting to engage with this particular piece of literature from a moralising perspective when it’s immorality is literally the point. Thank you for your video though, it was a thought-provoking watch!! ☺️☺️
Well, unfortunately not everyone who can read or watch a movie is smart or gentle enough to understand subtle messages. In modern world it might be necessary to be tidiously plain in condemning the evil, not giving it a chance to sneak and grow.
Unfortunately we see some ill-natured people believing that Nabokov had blessed pedophilia with his novel. Also Nabokov's name gives to this crime an intellectual charm, a sence of belonging to a higher class.
Therefore a clear comment from the author about his view of Humbert's behavior would help a lot.
I agree in general with your point about giving the readers some credit on their ability to draw sane conclusions, but safety of kids in this case is totally worth a humiliation smart innocent people would get from a boring and plain message.
I am sorry you had to read through all this! I had read it in my teenage and at the time it didn't strike me, but now I would be really traumatized... Really, "Lolita" should be published with a huge preface with critique and a reader agreement that cannot be skipped.
It's a comic novel. Merely depicting something does not endorse it. Apart from the fact that there is no actual sexual content. Poe wrote stories from the POV of murderers. Dostoevsky embodied horrible people as well.