Ballocks. Every piece of art has been reinterpreted according to social norms of the time of the interpreter. This is what you are doing and nothing else. You need to learn that no one can have monopoly on truth . All interpretation are perspectives and thereby space and time dependent. You are elaborating on your perspective and while all perspectives can be valid none of them are "the truth", not even that of the artist himself unless it is nothing but propaganda in which case it is bound to be a lie. The sincerity of art is in what it reflects from the subconscious. This is why an authentic Jackson Pollock cannot be imitated by just anyone. But you are right that Nabokov is about language. This is why the adaptation can never live up to the text. Some people think an adaptation needs to remain faithful to the text but then it would be a translation and it is bound to have personal biases intruding on it. I think while that would be one perspective my preference is for authenticity. If an artist is going to have biases then it is more honest to use the text more as inspiration and represents what the text resonates in the adaptation. For example, I don't know if you have read Naked Lunch and seen David Cronenberg's film. The book is written is a nonlinear format and it more like a collection of anecdotes. The film does present some of the anecdotes but also put them in the context of William Barough's life story. So you get to know the writer as well as the book but in a metaphorical linear narrative that is much richer in so many ways. Once you know the artist your interpretation changes, you will automatically see hints of the artist in the work. You could divorce it but that perspective will reflect your own character. It is just another perspective and they are all valid but none of them are the complete picture. With regards to Lolita, Nabokov was consulted and was allowed to write the script. The result being a 7 hour movie shows exactly why literature is totally different to making a film. I would hazard the guess that Kubrick did it deliberately to show Nabokov why you cannot just translate a book into a film. Kubrick famously said: Making a film is like writing War and Peace on the back of postage stamp. You are, however, contradictory, and obviously biased. You say that the book is about abuse but not pornographic. To show the real ugly part of the book would be pornographic and violent but it would not be true Humbert’s perspective. Humbert is in denial. The way he portrays the kind of young girl he gets obsessed with are not just any young girl. The word Nymphet implies sexual attraction. Again I would hazard the guess that in his warped mind he sees a precautious reflection. He sees someone who is more sexual than she is aware of. This idea of children being asexual is a new construct in this politically correct world. It reflects anxieties of the helicopter parents, Children’s sexuality is dormant. Why do you think they play nurses and doctors? Evolution still hasn't been driven out of modern humans. There has always been a conflict between evolutionary forces and modernity. This is what has led to increase in modern mental illnesses, like anxiety, ADHD, or other depressive symptoms. I suggest you read the book Perfume by Patrick Suskind to see how the idea of turning from a child to woman is so fascinating by men and plays on observer's own trauma.
Returning to the art of cinema and Lolita, how can a film maker to portray a nine year old as a nymphet? To be able to do that you need to be Humbert not just retelling his narrative. You give me an example of how you would portray a nine year old as a nymphet and be able to get away with the censorship rules of the time and I will withdraw my comment. It is possible, I can imagine such a thing but that would be a sick image that would not be allowed to be shown in any cinema today, never mind then. Besides, it wouldn't be the image that Humbert sees. The images that you manufacture in your mind and find disgusting are the result of social influences too. So, they are not accurate either. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise. You ask why Kubrick made the film but you didn't ask why Nabokov agreed to write the script. Steven King was not happy with Kubrick's adaptation of his Shinning either . That is because those people deal with text where a movie deals with images. The richer the text the more difficult to turn it into visual language. Just look at the adaptation of Foundation on Apple TV. You also failed to mention the later adaptation of the same book that contrary to Kubrick's film disappeared and was forgotten almost immediately despite being far more sexual and probably closer to the images in your mind. Kubrick often took books that resonated with what was on his mind at the time and creates the narrative but he is led by images as he shoots the film. The narrative becomes just the basic skeleton. The flesh that he built on that skeleton can go off in tangents in search of visual magic. As Orson Welles put it: Directing a film is like presiding over an accident. Kubrick always respected the budget and the zeitgeist of the time. He wanted to make films that were accessible but wasn't prepared to compromise his own work unlike say Christopher Nolan who is a celebrity and is increasingly commercial. I don't know how old you are but we are living in the politically correct era that has given birth to a more Victorians morality. You are reflecting the same attitude and that is why it seems that you feel disgust over the film and in fact you twist Nabokov’s writing as well. I have read the book and seen the film. The book implies a lot more ambivalence but the reader can see the sickness of Humbert behind the text even though Humbert doesn't quite see it. Yes, he is an unreliable narrator but there is no other narrator involved. To try to impose your own judgement by conjuring up the images that Humbert only mentions almost in passing as if they weren't that horrible would not be Humbert's Narrative. Kubrick shows Humbert's misery that his delusions have created and how humiliating and paranoid he must have been because of his obsession over his object of desire. I doubt you have picked up on my reference to Buñuel's film. May be you should start there before talking about Kubrick. The film is about failure of plans. Humbert manipulates but he is never in control and loses the object of his desire to another more manipulative guy. It is about how obsession imprisons you and how the reality is different to your fantasy. It is like rape fantasies, that are void of the reality of real rape. Finally, whether you feel disgusted by paedophilia or not, it is part of human condition. 'this gen z kids’ have all been feminized and are too judgmental. Like it or not they are all affected by the crap like Pizza gate . You can't close your eyes to it because the images in your mind make you feel disgusted. These people are the product of the society just like yourself. It is ugly and it take courage to look at it but there are lot of ugly things in this world and it is getting uglier. Don't burry your head in the sand and get lost in your own imagination. You need to open your eyes and look out to see what is going on out.
thank you so, so much for using the words "rape" and "molested" instead of sex or flirtation, it reiterates the brutality of what Humbert Humbert did, and Dolores's suffering
Seconding this. I get tired of UA-camrs saying “r-word” or “intimate abuse” or shit like that. I get it’s for the algorithm, but I hate that our culture might be turning away from calling rape and molestation what it is.
@@guyanomalythat or when people say “game end”. While not as relevant, it’s just flat out disrespectful and I honestly feel if you’re not gonna take a topic as seriously as it should be taken, then don’t talk about it
@@emilinegabriele I respectfully disagree. I know “rape” is a heavy, loaded word, but that’s because it should be. When people use euphemisms and skirt around saying it, they (unintentionally) soften the blow. I’ve seen people censor themselves so heavily for UA-cam monetization’s sake that they make rape sound like consensual sex. We shouldn’t be skirting around calling rape rape. I’m very passionate about this as a victim.
@@guyanomalyYou know, seeing it in black & white like that, what a disgustingly deviant and unscrupulous way to stop using words! We become the ones sanitizing the vocabulary for their benefit.
The most disturbing and terrifying thing to me about the book is that Humbert in the end won. In real life as well Lolita is seen as hyper sexual child and that what Humbert wanted the reader to believe. Humbert wanted us to side with him and it seems that a lot of people did which is so depressing and disturbing
Not half as depressing and disturbing as the reflexive de facto misogyny that Nobovkov was commenting on. Thats the entire point of the book: "this thing exists & this mindset is why". We have to see both the misogyny & pedophilia as not just isolated events but cultural norms that though distasteful are PERPETUATED by society (e.g. it happened many times years ago, is happening many times now & will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of any single or group of isolated instances - bc there is no large enough group of instances addressed or even noticed to modify the culture). Finally our culture is in a place where we ARE addressing/noticing these things on a scale significant enough to truly challenge their place in our culture, but this was not the case in Nobokov's time - or even 20yrs ago.
@@dynomyte9357he did, I bought a copy a few days ago and on the back one of the reviews for the book calls if “one of the best romances” Humbert’s manipulative narration tricked most critics as well as readers.
The first time I heard of Lolita was freshman year of highschool. There was a band teacher that was pretty close with students and he told me it was his favorite book. I didn’t understand the concept much until looking into it further but he told me how poetic and romantic the book is. Two months later this teacher is arrested and jailed for having sex with a student even younger than me, she was 13, and he was 41 I believe. While out on bond, awaiting trial he killed himself. He left behind his wife and 2 year old daughter. That was my first introduction to the work of Lolita and it sticks in my head to this day. Edit: I’m rereading the police report back in 2014 and I didn’t even realize but he was also the girls softball coach 🤮. It’s wild that true predators work their way into spaces to prey on kids.
That 13 yr girl is so strong for going through what she went through and then taking him to trial. She inadvertently saved a 2 yr from lifelong s///ual abuse; we don't comment enough on how brave you have to be to open up about these things. I hope both can heal well
I feel so bad for Nabokov, he tried to write a cautionary tale/demonstrate how pretty words can hide an objectively hellish reality but with too much skill. I can just imagine him seeing the response to his book and the fun house mirror distortion version of it that is the movie and feeling this pit of dread because everyone was so whole heartedly and gleefully missing the entire point. Imagine you wrote a book about being a serial killer but dressed it up so well that suddenly everyone was mad at the people your main character killed. Now people make conventions and fashion based on having your MC (and worse, the real life versions of him) murder them.
What makes it worse was that he was a victim of CSA, too. He probably wrote Lolita to bring awareness on what an sexual abuser thinks. Then people proceeded to call the book an erotica.
I think he would be delighted at the response Lolita received. The entire "puzzle" of the book was "could he use language to manipulate his reader?" Nabokov was a creator of real life chess puzzles, and this was his most difficult puzzle - can you use language to seduce a reader and have them side with the worst human imaginable?
@towerofgodfan4107 Nabokov said many times that there was no meaning, symbolism, or message in his books - he created them simply for the pleasure of creating them; he hoped his readers would get a similar pleasure reading them. While I don't believe Nabokov was trying to teach us anything with Lolita, I do think that the book was a puzzle. How do you write about the most disgusting thing imaginable yet keep the reader reading to the end of the book? Can you write prose so beautiful (and funny) that the reader will actually laugh at the book, even though the most horrific things are being done? This was the puzzle; can Nabokov seduce the reader enough to make them overlook the things happening in the book? This is why I think he would have been delighted at the various responses to his novel. The (disturbed) people who think it's a love story got completely seduced by Nabokov. The people who laughed at Humberts jokes got seduced. The people who read all the way to the end got seduced. Nabokov many times said that enchantment was the most important aspect of writing, the reader had to be seduced and enchanted by the prose. There can be no denying that Nabokov completely bewitched his readers.
About serial killer: I feel that is basically "American psychopath" bc originally the book was all about toxic masculinity, and now incels think that Patrick Bateman is sigma gigachad
the way humbert becomes violent when his fetish object stops aligning with his make believe is one of the most accurate depictions of predators I've seen. it says a lot about how egocentric it all is.
Did a letter from Dolores’ point of view for a class project I literally couldn’t understand how people thought Lolita was a love story while reading the book. Humbert himself says he hears Dolores cry every night, Dolores even cries at one point because he hurt her so much during one of his raping sessions she believed he ripped her insides
Things like this used to be more normalized in society. People were expected to take traumatizing events in life for granted and be perpetually stoic about it. Whenever someone brings up that nowadays it feels like there's a spike in mental illness - that's because for a large part of human history, mental issues were not recognized or treated seriously as a concept, so most people didn't talk about them and oftentimes probably didn't even realize they had them.
@@kalinaribic6383 it was a letter written by Dolores towards Humbert, telling him of the pain he caused her. I mostly mentioned important scenes (pretty much because I had to prove I read the book), like their first meeting, the first time they came into contact when she was playing and sat on his lap, the death of her mother, his first time raping her, etc. I named it the rage of Dolores because I wanted to show her hatred after he ruined her and took everything away from her.
i wholeheartedly agree with you though have ya seen what's considered 'romance' (especially in books) nowadays or perhaps still? kidnapping, rape, misagony - essentially everything we see in lolita but without any of the writing skill is sill paraded around as romantic and sexy i sadly don't think that this will ever change..
As a way to cope with the horrible ending, I try to read the fact that "Lolita" died in childbirth more so alludes to the idea of Lolita. That the "nymphet" Humbert had crafted had died and Dolores was allowed to be free. Still traumatized but now with a child of her own she was no longer confined to the title of "Lolita". It's the only way I can really stomach the story.
Interesting, I see it just as the death of lolita, to Humbert at least, he despised the idea of "nymphets" aging, so to him lolita having a child was death to him
Unfortunately the foreword confirms that she dies in childbirth, and that Humbert dies of a heart attack while awaiting trial. The foreword refers to her as Mrs Richard Schiller. Even in death nobody calls her Delores or Dolly, her identity is defined by her partner. 😢
@@Eysc@Eysc It is an abbreviation for "Minor Attracted People", which the bad apples of alphabet community proposed as a "new gender". The name pretty much explains itself and it is a blatant attempt to normalize PD which predictably backfired for obvious reasons.
@Eysc It is an abbreviation for "Minor Attracted People", which the bad apples of alphabet community proposed as a "new gender". The name pretty much explains itself and it is a blatant attempt to normalize PD which predictably backfired for obvious reasons.
Sorry I don't have more, but as a female survivor, I had to say thank you so much for this accurate & insightful assessment. Excellent work. I pity the author who could have really taught us something but apparently overestimated his audience.
Honestly, I don't pity Nabokov at all. He was definitely fully aware of the various ways the work could be misinterpreted. He created it as an intellectual and aesthetic exercise, and vehemently denied that it was supposed to have any moral lesson one way or the other. I'm not saying he shouldn't have written it, but he was intelligent enough to know exactly what he was doing. He absolutely did not overestimate the average casual reader, but nor was he writing for them.
@@hughcaldwell1034 Everything can be misinterpreted, but people should not need a book to tell them a relationship between a grown man and a child cannot be a love story and that the child is in any way responsible for what happens to them. This argument of yours could be used against Crime and Punishment as well, "How is the average reader supposed to know murder is wrong when the narrator clearly justifies it?!?", "Dostoevsky knew people would misinterpret it." etc etc. If someone misinterprets a work as badly as "Lolita is a love story", that is on them, not the author. People are able to twist anything to suit their agenda.
@@lanavita6783 I'm not sure what you think my argument was. I didn't say people needed Nabokov to tell them that CSA is awful. It was the original commenter who said Nabokov could have taught us something. I just said that I didn't pity him for his work being received the way it was, because he was clearly aware of this danger beforehand.
Honestly, I was a teen when I read this book and even I got that this is a tragedy and Dolores is the victim. How daft do you need to be ? 😂 Humbert insofar is a tragic character too as he can’t help his perversion and there might be a reason for it in his childhood but that doesn’t exculpate him one bit, of course.
This guy is a writer, philosopher, but not enough people realize he must be a graphic designer as well. There is such a clear and consistent asthetic throughout the entire channel, and the merch is very artistic and interesting.
I dunno about graphic designer, because if he were one he could just create his own images, but instead, in a previous video as recent as 10 months ago, he admitted to be using AI to generate his images thus his “artwork”.
@@quinnlove5777 Alright don't be so gatekeepy about what counts as being an artist. Besides, I said he has an eye for graphic design. His thumbnails and the photos he picks alone are artistically done. You can't discredit his entire status as graphic designer because he uses AI as a tool.
i want "ain't no thang" on mine if I had one which I won't because if you're under 40 you're going to be more likely to die in one of the mass extinction scenarios that are likely to play out in the next 100 years and no one is paying for a tombstone for any of us.
When I was 14 years old, I came across the first paragraph of Lolita on Goodreads, and was immediately enchanted by Nabokov's language (still one of the best opening lines to a book of all time). So of course I went and read the book, even though I was definitely too young for it. There were other books that I read around the same age that definitely scared me (Lord of the Flies, Zel, Diary of Anne Frank) but Lolita never did. Probably because a lot of the sex scenes are glossed over, but mostly to me it seemed that Humbert was so clearly evil, and because the readers know from the beginning that he ends up in an asylum, I read it thinking that no matter what he did to Delores, at least at the end he would be justly punished. The only thing that absolutely surprised and horrified me Delores's ending. Because I was still a kid, and optimistic, I was expecting her to "win". I remember wishing she could kill Humbert, even though it didn't fit the flashback-style story structure. I was hoping that Delores could outwit him and save herself, or at least be saved by someone else, so the part where she trades him in for another pedophile just hit me like a gut-punch. Even though she's never presented in a positive light, to me it seemed like she was still obviously the sympathetic character, so she should clearly "win". And the part where she visits him and isn't even angry at him anymore just killed me, because I realized he was able to hurt her and get away with it - and that victims don't always get happy endings. I reread it again recently and it's still one of my favorite books of all time, but I hate the way people talk about Delores. Reading the book while being only a few years older than her character made me think I definitely would not want to be friends with her; but I still knew she was clearly traumatized and not at fault for anything. Way to long of a comment, but I absolutely love this book. Also - love all the butterfly imagery.
The butterfly imagery got me. Speaking to the beautiful horror of a bug collection. "Oh would you care to see my collection of dessicated insect corpses? The palpable fragility! The reverberant color! Dead and pinned to a board!" Horrifying. Very well done.
I read a book called ‘Go Ask Alice’ for a book report when I was a freshman. I got the book from a selection in my class. I honestly was shocked my teacher had the book and more shocked she was fine with my book report. I got to talk about it in class for extra credit. Messed up book. They present it as an anonymous diary 📔 though it’s a work of fiction. Apparently it is big on the banned list.
It's a great story if you understand that Humbert is the villain... Many people don't understand Humbert's perspective is supposed to be viewed with suspicion, disgust and distain, not to be believe or symphatized with. We are supposed to view him as a despicable con, but Nabokov conveys too well the perspective of such a con, and "Humbert's" manipulations seem to have convinced people I'd venture were already sympathetic to abusers that their view points have validity. I'm only about halfway through, so I dunno that Horses gets to it, but Dolores as a name has its origin in the Latin root "dolor", which means "sorrow", or "pain". Nabokov loved playing with language, and I think her name is key in understanding how he viewed the character. "Lolita" is a false name, only real in Humbert's mind, a coquette, a temptress, a somewhat willing participant. Really, she is Dolores, a child full of pain and sorrow, abused and let down by all the adults close to her in her life.
That's a great point. Dolor means "ache" in Spanish. I've never seen any film adaptation, but I read the book years ago. It is a disturbing read, and the reader needs to be alert to Humbert's attempts at flattery. The ending is so sad, that these vicious self-serving men used up a young child before she left her teenage years behind.
As someone who studied this book at university, I wished I had this video to reference for analysis. I also appreciate your perspective. Humbert as a pedophile, narcissist and sociopath has been sooo cleverly constructed, he’s managed to hoodwink many of the readers, because these types of people are artisans of manipulation. Look at actual reality…. How depraved men such as ‘charming’ Bundy got away with a lot and even got into politics, or Dahmer convincing authorities that his young escapee was drunk and acting immature before they handed him back to his killer. Lolita is a remarkable first person insight into the textbook capabilities, depravities and intelligence of people who commit abuse and how their justifications, positions of power and charisma allow them to reoffend.
Yeah exactly I remember being on Tumblr back in the day and being so confused by groups of girls who were really into Lolita. Then I actually read it and I later learned that a lot of those girls were survivors of SA and it all made sense.
When you brought up how people blamed Dolly it made me realize how many people will stop seeing children as children when rape or molestation happens. Dolly is 12 and in the beginning she was acting like a 12 year old girl. When someone is young they’re much more gullible. They see attention from older people in a better light even if we can clearly see that the attention is not okay. Dolly is a victim and will always be a victim.
It makes my blood boil that everyone just ignored the context of the book and the requests of the author to NOT USE A PHOTO OF A GIRL on the cover. It just feels intentional. And it makes me really mad. It's the same thing as victim blaming. They forgot all the terrible things the abuser does and hyper focus and become very critical of everything the victim does or wears instead of focusing in the CRIMES committed by the abuser.
It’s honestly upsetting how the original intention of this book was bastardized. I personally believe Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing when he decided to adapt Lolita. He didn’t care about the original subject matter, he wanted something controversial that he could exploit. Lolita is a book that was ahead of its time. I’m glad it’s being discussed more in recent years and that the subject matter is being taken seriously
@@flatterswhite it’s not about the adaptation being faithful to the original story, he took a story about abuse and turned it into a controversial romance. The entire movie and it’s marketing feeds into the idea of Lolita being the perpetrator rather than the victim. He clearly didn’t have good intentions when he decided to make that adaptation.
@@flatterswhiteI think the issue with it wasn't necessarily that Dolores was falsely portrayed, but that her story involving experiences of CSA were, which is an issue that isn't fictional
I love that you never call her Lolita throughout your video. Her name is Dolores and her nickname is Dolly, only in Humbert’s perspective she is Lolita. Thank you for making this important distinction
@@garynouban6453a detail like that makes the whole thing even more sad. Even when we try to say her name, it isn’t her name. It’s one he picked himself
I have a very vivid memory of being in high school 10+ years ago, at lunch, arguing with my older friend about Lolita. I had never read the book; she had. I told her it was a book that should never have been published and I was angry at its very existence. My friend tried to tell me that the book didn’t glorify the relationship, but I wouldn’t listen. I eventually read Lolita in my early 20s, shortly after my abuser died, and it was a hard read. I was so incensed at the very concept of Lolita because I had been abused as a child shortly before I had that argument with my friend, and I hated the idea of anything that represented anything like I’d experienced existing at all. Lolita actually was cathartic to read in a way, though-it’s hard to explain. It was painful and sickening but it made me feel like I wasn’t wrong, if that makes any sense. That friend and I are still friends to this day, and we’ve discussed that conversation we had where I yelled at her. At the time, she was being actively groomed by her English teacher (she was 16, he was ~40; I was never taught by him but I did witness him kissing her once). We were both lashing out from very disparate “readings” of Lolita-she had actually read it and took it as kind of aspirational while also intellectually knowing the relationship portrayed was wrong, and I hadn’t read it but knew the gist of it and was dead set on it being an evil book. The truth is that it’s just a book, open for interpretation and sometimes interpreted for the wrong reasons. For anyone curious, my friend cut all contact with the English teacher and is now happily engaged. I don’t know what happened to the teacher. As far as I know he’s still married with kids. :/
I was abused, only once but that was enough for me to understand all the feelings of shame regret and losing innocence. Didn’t talk about it for 10 years. I think Nabokov may have been molested by his uncle, it’s not fact but a lot of scholars think so. I think this was basically a story condemning the destruction of innocence. He came across quite pompous and pretentious but really was a highly moral man
Wonder if they kissed on the lips or cheeks? So crazy OMG, but i read this last year when i was 15 y.o. Tbh glad that i read this as I'm aware of older man grooming
As a woman and victim of SA I have never been able to bring myself to read Lolita but this essay is phenomenal and I'm very glad I watched it. I love the parallel you've drawn with the misinformation in this day and age.
H. H. never truly loved Dolores because he really couldn’t even see her as human and in my opinion this book does a great job at conveying the great lengths people like that will go to to lie to themselves and the world. As long as you don’t let him fool you…this is exactly how an abuser’s mind works and I appreciate Nabokov ( thou I find the novel disturbing) for writing it out this way and materializing the thoughts I always knew that abusers had.
Well he never really loved anyone but Annabelle, he never dealt with her death, that's why he always looked for Annabelle's traits in other girls, it's clear that this trauma was never resolved, so that's why he did what he did
if it's objective filming then the audience can finally understand what lolita is going through because it would be more reliable (unless they choose to show it through hos romanticized perspective)
The 90s one didn't do such a bad job imo, I watched it before reading the book and even then got the message Humbert is not a reliable narrator...but even if he was she is still just a child and he is the predatory adult responsible for the situation. I know people have taken issue with Dolores being aged up to 14 instead of 12, but atleast she wasn't aged up to 16 like Kubericks version. Could they have made a better film? Yes, but I'll take it over Kuberick's version because it definitely got the point of the book better
@@gRinchY-op5vr ⚠️trigger warning (mention of r***) tbh I just feel like lolita as a piece of literature shouldn't be adapted into anything else. Also just like it's writer wanted, the cover of the girl should also be removed. It's just that it's really hard to make a worthy adaptation and I just personally feel like it'll end up making the child who plays Dolores sexualized by disgusting men and that would be harmful to the actress.. I think Natalie Portman said somewhere that she got a mail letter in which someone wrote a sexual fantasy of ra**** her. I feel like Natalie is a strong woman but anyone would be affected by such BS so it should stay only as a piece of literature to better convey what the writer wanted to without putting someone at harm's way
@@AbdulRahman-vy7ko they have to show it through humberts perspective to get the point of the book across but then the average viewer isn’t smart enough to figure out his deception and see the movie as romance
The opening chapter, which I think is just two or three short paragraphs, is the greatest intro to a book ever written. In retrospect it perfectly sets up Humbert's attitude and forecasts the horror yet to unfold.
In Anthropology i had to watch and write a response about child marriage culture in Bangladesh. It was rough. 12 is about when the girl might be found a suitor, who basically pays the parents. The girl often gets pregnant immediately and having a child at 12 is unjustifiably risky to her health. They often either die or have unresolvable health issues afterwards. It gets into worse detail how poorly they're treated and if they're not able to have children anymore they must sleep in the barn with the goats. I couldn't think how any father could let this happen. I find it appalling that it's considered acceptable for men to treat a girl that way especially one so young, and that her life is an acceptable loss if she doesn't make it through the pregnancy. It's bizarre. Lolita is bizarre. Just because a girl "could" have a child that young doesn't mean it's okay to really do it.
This channel has proven to me that quality content is so much more important than a name. Dude literally picked one of the most common random words, and it does not matter in the least bit because his content is so well put together.
I remember reading Lolita for the first time at the age of 15. I had signed up to take the AP Literature exam, but my school didn't offer that class, so I had to prepare for it entirely on my own. I had a list of books that I knew I needed to read and I picked Lolita first. I'd heard so many people talk about the quality of it's writing, about how it'd been banned for it's subject matter, and I knew enough to walk in disgusted. I remember the 4 days I spent reading it. I took longer than usual for a book of it's size simply because I kept becoming utterly and completely disgusted and having to take breaks. There are phrases from that book that are burned into my mind simply because of the sheer mixture of beauty and disgust that they made me feel. It was fucking horrifying and yet I can honestly say it's one of my favorite books of all time. No work I've come across since has ever been as effective as Lolita, at least for me. The clarity of vision, mastery of tone and language, and realism of the circumstances depicted are going to live with me forever. I will never understand how anyone can read it and not be filled with utter disgust and rage. I think this essay excellently captured the feelings I had while reading and communicates the reality of how nuanced the work is.
I think people who read it without feeling disgusted by it, manage to do so because they try to be objective and leave their opinions and morals out. Something we as readers should always do, I too sometimes try to, sometimes I fail, that's why I read books more than once to get everything the author wanted to deliver
Perhaps some would not experience rage out of knowledge that this is fiction, and that no one is really being harmed. But if you cannot understand this, so be it. You do you! 😀
That's what people often forget about the book. Nabokov intended for the readers to recognize how messed up Humbert was and call out his justifications as little more than weak excuses.
Thanks.. Love from India Your videos are thought Provoking and deeply moving I haven't read the book or watched the movie But I do realise how people can be manipulated when the story is narrated in the first person perspective
I think the general response to Lolita is very telling of our society's view of more "muddied" victim stories. A personal example for me is when I was 16 years old there was a teacher I had developed a bond with, I had a very paternal view of him and I thought it was mutual until one night when he texted me late, around 11pm and we started to chat. Suddenly, he starts making innuendos and claiming how much I 'meant' to him and how 'soothing' my presence was. I was deeply disturbed and I immediately told my family and friends in the morning and we went to contact the principal who seemed supportive of me at first but then on a follow up meeting with just my mom remarked how "casual" I'd been in the chat and how I didn't seem to be put off. As if there is a "right" way to be a victim. As if only the good girls who cry or overtly display distress are the only ones who should be saved and the stoic ones are simply nyphos who secretly enjoy the romantic or sexual attentions from people we think of as mentors or caregivers. There is no style of victimhood, people all respond differently to being put in abusive or exploitative situations.
I'm so infuriated for you. This concept that victims should display certain behaviours (crying, wailing, screaming, etc) or else the abuse was not "really that bad," is a common misconception that police, judges, school principals, or any and all authority figures prescribe to because it means they don't need to sit with the discomfort of your abuse. The idea that abuse victims can freeze in fear or confusion, fawn to protect themselves from a threatening person, or, as in your case, remain calm, stoic, and rational does not align with the "Hollywood" version of expected victim behaviour. And, even if you ranted and screamed about the situation - which is the expected behaviour - it is not the acceptable behaviour, and you would be dismissed for being an overly dramatic teenager. Victims cannot win ever. You're either too strong or too weak, too stoic or too emotional, too brave or a coward. Victim blaming and shaming is pervasive because many, many men are perpetrators hiding in plain sight and they don't want to be too harsh on other men in case their dirty, secret behaviour comes to the surface. Men protect men, because perpetrators protect perpetrators.
You summed it up perfectly. People want to have a specific image of victims, someone who is broken and only crying and such. It is a matter of projection: They want to create the image that a victim has to be a weak person, because if that wasn't the case, then anyone could be a victim and then they could become one too. People always imagine a monster and a traumatized child. They think a traumatized child has to behave a certain way to "earn" being called traumatized. The idea that anyone can be a victim, that even the strongest of personalities can be abused in such ways, is horrifying to them. Because it is the horrifying reality. People victim blame so they don't have to face reality: Anyone can be a victim, no matter what they say, think, or do. I was groomed multiple times and it took me many years after the incidents to realize what actually happened. Part of that was because I didn't view myself as a victim and also wasn't treated as such. I was a loud, direct, confident girl, one fully brainwashed by overseggsualisation and the idea to grow up fast. And so, people viewed me the same way they view Dolores: A temptress, a seductress or in more modern terms, a sIut. I was the school sIut at 15 for being in a relationship with a 23 year or man. That is the reality. That is how people treat children of seggsual abuse.
@@zapazap It's a form of empathy, one in which you hear of the suffering someone went through and can't help but feel righteous anger toward the perpetrator(s) of the abuse. It's a concept that isn't foreign to any decent person.
There's a dark irony in the fact that Dolly thinks getting married and pregnant at 17 is her chance to finally have a "normal life" only to later die in a childbirth. The death was her only real escape. I think the book perfectly sums up the pure horror of being a child and a woman in the times it was written.
I think the horror still applies a lot to today; look in these very comments, or in pop culture and media which still sexualizes young girls or enacts very mild consequences upon those who perpetrate rape and/or paedophilia. I do think that as a society, we’re getting closer to grasping the point Nabokov was trying to make (see MeToo movement for ex) but we’re still not quite there. Thanks for your comment, it gave me some food for thought.
In truth, it seems that most accounts of pedophilia throughout history have largely referred to men and little boys. This is because female children weren’t seen as individuals who go through a transition of anything except body and that their mind remained largely the same - basically, women were often seen as inherently naive and ignorant throughout their life unless otherwise taught by a male figure. Now, we have guys who are so put-off by women wanting equal social capital, that they turn to young-as-possible children. Why? Because history has built a story that femininity is childish and strength of mind and character is masculine.
It also makes me think about just HOW important reproductive rights actually are for women and girls. That’s a point where we are moving into the past in many regions in the world. It’s frightening.
What do you mean “in the time that it was written”? There never has been and never will be a time when it was/will be safe to be born a female in this world. Never.
@@stephanieuzzell8436 My god imagine being this much of a dilettante that you reduce the message of the masterpiece that is Lolita to being the same as the fucking Metoo movement. Art is not for you bro, go play checkers
Your videos are beautiful even when it is entrenched in the darkest of themes. It's a testament to your storytelling, your visual editing, and your insightful analysis. None of it is lost on me. Thank you for sharing
That’s perhaps the worst part, and can’t be dismissed as simply being “fooled by the unreliable narrator” - it’s that any flash of her as being a human being or less than a perfect victim is seen by these men as reason she deserves abuse. An adolescent girl dares to be anything but the perfect doll for adults and she’s thrown under the bus. A double layer of being unseen, really, either “Dolly” the stainless child or “Lolita” the fetish object but never Dolores.
@@alice_atari I love the last sentence. It was really never Dolores. The little girl who was cheeky and bratty and tan and tomboyish and liked to read comics and practiced kissing with girls in summer camp and played tennis and loved riding her bike. Dolores was a young orphaned girl placed in horrifying circumstances... excuse her for not being little miss perfect🤦♀️
This, your work, is a stunning masterpiece. "They can't possibly get better than this" is what I am thinking when I leave one of these "thank you's"....and every time it seems that I'm incorrect. Keep spreading the word! I ❤ what you broadcast to the world Michael.
As a (terrible) python dev, I saw your username and thought I should tell you I appreciate your work, whatever the capacity may be. Maintained as well as any pypa package and fills a void in python GUI development that isn't already filled a dozen times over the way many public packages are (I'm looking at you, wrapper for a wrapper based on an old abandoned wrapper).
"Lolita is manipulation, as told by the manipulator himself." Brilliant summary, and I felt Nabokov made that crystal clear within the first few pages of this phenomenal book, then he never wavered. And yes, as for those who wildly misinterpret Lolita as a romance or a love story, I believe that says much more about them than they'd probably like us to know, or they are too entitled and narcissistic to care what others think.
hearing this book, I can't help but alighn Humbert with political issues we are facing today. it is a disturbing reality we live in and the argument over women's rights to their bodies and when, infact, they are mature enought to have children after their period. just recently there was a hearing in which a man stands in front of a courtroom and declares once puberty hits for a young girl, she is ready to have children and is mature enough to do so. it's disgusting how men with power can just say such things. girls as young as 9 have had their periods. when he heard that, he blatantly said it was untrue. My mother, her mother, and her mother's mother all began puberty before they were even in double digits. I hate how similar Humbert and the US government seem to think so much alike
Pretty sure I see way more alignment with ACTUAL p*dos that read this book, call it romantic, and seek solidarity and justification. *Cough MAPS* BUT OKAY.
I cannot begin to express how much i enjoy this channel. Theres no overlying arcs or agendas to what you make, and you make whatever you want, as best as you can. Keep going dude, keep doing you!❤
agreed. it"s a well maintained journey. a blend of topics i know well, a bit or not at all. the mellow delivery of very measured views on humanity's unique talent, to go from "inspired & hopeful" to "fear & darkness (because... 'reasons' )" , creates a compelling ride (for me, at least). An effort towards nuance, which makes essays like his, a created video ( especially compared to most "manufactured-content"). i already went to far into redundant "adjectives, commas & co" overkill^^ so: visuals also good i'm glad this channel keeps thriving
Exactly what I think and admire about Horses. I am in awe each and every time. Many of his themes and dissertations are things I was passionate about in the past - but I gave up. I really look up to this creator. He never ceases to amaze me.
The judge wasn't naive to his own self like H.H., as the Judge was sort of a baseline representation of pure, unflinching evil. H.H. is meant to show the frail and ugly justifications of a man weak to his desires, and displays a typical sociopath/ASPD, and the Judge is meant to show someone so uncaring and eager to harm that it's beyond human, and beyond sociopathy/ASPD
thank you so much for pronouncing Nabokov's name with the right stress! it's so nice to hear names from your native language pronounced as close to the original pronunciation as possible
What consistently blows my mind is that when Lolita was written, the view on teenage girls world wide was still very warped. Many men absolutely justified their attraction to children and teenage girls, society also closed their eyes to it and allowed predators to do what they pleased, making excuses, blaming the children. It's only quite recently that we as a collective society have truly called it out and called it what it is. Back then, many people, men and women, put blame entirely onto the child and refused to say it was wrong. Yet Nabokov wrote Lolita and managed to investigate and portray every element of perversion, outright exposing men like Humbert for what they are (pedophiles). It's not just that Nabokov was ahead of his time, he had an insight into issues that people didn't even dare speak about yet. He understood the evil contained in men like Humbert and the direct pain and trauma it causes to children like Dolores who are victims of abuse. He understood the patterns of predators, the objectifying that occurs on their part of the children they terrorize and he understood how then a child may feel and be impacted by this. Long before these things were publically known. I know I felt seen in the writing as a girl, and I am always just shocked that a Man wrote this piece that still to this day is a misunderstood masterpiece. We still don't know truly what drives these pedophilic predators, but Nabokov, back then, got goddamn close. My heart breaks for the character or Dolores, I cry when I read it. My controversial take is that Lolita shouldn't have been adapted to film. I think the books meaning is lost. The 1997 adaptation tries very hard to do justice but it misses the mark too. I don't think there is any way to adapt this novel to film without harming young actresses or pandering to predators. The book works because it is written from the pov of a monster and thats not something that we can convey through film. Not in a way that does the book justice anyway.
Talking about this book is often hard because of the audience surrounding it. Child sexual abuse is already hard enough to talk about, but when the book is misinterpreted as a romance and as a book of fetish, it is so much harder
@@OsnoloVrachi think what they meant is that the lasting traumas will still affect her whereas before humbert was in her life, she didnt have to cope with what would happen to her. forgive me if that was not explained well hahah
Bro, you deserve every little single piece of praise anyone ever gives you. Your content is not only absurdly on point, but the fact that you’re cranking it out at this pace gives us viewers a pleasure that I don’t think you’ll ever understand. Thank you Michael 🙏🙏🙏
The speed and quality you produce this stuff at is incredible! I just wish they would be on Spotify faster, because I usually like to listen to them on the go.
When I was school my English teacher said we shouldn't read lolita because it's pro pedophilia, crazy how people think you can't write from the perspective of someone without agreeing with his actions.
"Oh, a nice long horses video to listen to while I play fortnite." *30 seconds later* *"This is a story about a twelve year old girl getting kidnapped and raped"*
nah i like the light of my life part. but fire of my loins is not it, i dont think id ever associate the word loins with pretty and this context makes it disgusting
@@ajasilikonreffkmimmon OK. From google/wikipedia: from Middle English persone, from Old French persone, from Latin persona, "mask", probably from Etruscan phersu, "mask". Another sources, however, links the Etruscan word as a derivative of Greek πρὀσωπον prosōpon, "mask".
Nabokov did a masterful job of writing the most disturbed of minds and how crafty such a person can be to hide their true malevolence. and i think the key to understanding that is seeing how you can never really know Delores cause he doesn't actually care to know her.
The most beautifully written novel...one I wish I could read for the first time again. The craft, poetry, wit, language-- Nabokov astounds. My favorite aesthetic expressions are those which seem lovely, beautiful, floral, sweet, but like a pretty lace drapery over something which is dark, wrong, horrofying. Is there a word for this play between beauty and horror? "She was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet I had rolled myself upon with such cries in the past; an echo on the brink of a russet ravine, with a far wood under a white sky, and brown leaves choking the brook, and one last cricket in the crisp weeds."
Crazy that I just finished this book a few days ago and was wishing I had someone to discuss it with. Thank you for doing a deep dive into a book that’s difficult to talk about publicly.
Thank you for making this video. I’ve tried to read the book a couple times, even reading more Nobokov, but it makes me sick to my stomach. I’m glad I can have a better understanding of it now.
You'll never understand the novel if you don't read it, the videssay it's great but in half an hour it's hard to grasp the message of the novel to it's core the way Nabokov intended, I've read the book at least 4 times and I always found more messages and meanings
Great choice of visuals on this one, definitely breaking away from the sugarcoated hazy/romantic imagery that is so strongly associated with this book. It has a realistic vibe that grounds it very well. That footage of the shower through the partially open door was particularly chilling (not to mention that Humbert portrait as well).
In the novel, Dolly’s child was stillborn. Dolly gave birth to a corpse at the same time that she became a corpse. So not only did she never reach adulthood..her child never reached childhood either.
@@lupine.spiritI think he’s saying that the people who love the book because “it portrays an evil person being evil” are stupid. The writer could have whatever intentions he wanted, but regardless the book is still a detailed depiction of pedophilia and molestation. It’s kinda like Marquis De Sade’s writings. Yeah, you could say “BUT HES SUPPOSED TO BE EVIL” all you want, doesn’t change the fact that it takes a truly deranged person to even write about shit like this, whether he agrees or disagrees with the protagonist is meaningless. Why would he even have this character in his head? It’s fucking strange. I wouldn’t be surprised if the author of Lolita was a pedophile himself.
Also there’s a scene in the book where someone asks humbert if a cat had scratched him and it’s implied by him to the reader that it was Dolores further solidifying her trying to defend herself. My favourites excerpt is after assaulting her for the first time humbert says he feels like he’s sitting next to the ghost of someone he’d just murdered. Any survivor will tell you, you feel a part of you was killed and your childhood ends right there. It’s the worst feeling ever. In that same scene Dolores is the first to speak by saying (they’re in a car) “oh a squashed squirrel what a shame”. She is that innocent small animal that’s been crushed. God it’s heartbreaking yet brilliant
Lolita may have been grossly misinterpret but it’s not an inherently bad thing as it has unironically become a tool for pedo-detection. As if you’re twisted enough to sympathize with Humbert and undermine whet Dolores went through chances are you are like Humbert and you’re looking for justifications to hurt real-world Doloreses.
More charitable and probable is that it's a shame avoidance strategy rather than a justification out of a desire to replicate Humbert's crimes, but yeah otherwise I agree
Except that the vast majority of people who view it as a romance are women and girls who have suffered trauma. They are trying to romantasize the abuse they received to cope, just like dolores did in the book.
It is this flippant artitude towards privacy that leads be to securely encrypt alldata in my possession on Fri es with nested hidden partitions And it is your response to this that mark Yiu as an asshole or not. My default assumption is that you are not
I never really got it until i read the annotated version by Nabokov and his son Demetri. They tell you her fate early in the book. Delores Schiller , her married name, dies in child birth giving birth to a stillborn girl on Christmas eve. The saddest book i ever read.
I live the clarity and sensitivity with which you tackle all your videos, @Horses I feel I genuinely learn something from each of them and this is no exception. Thank you
Appreciate the tie in at the end for how we can apply the same criticism of this book's narrator to the current state of news and world events. We fail to realize how coloured our perspectives can become just by being enchanted by the one telling the story. Enjoy your channel so much.
the ppl who say rhe book is a love story about a “young seductress” and a “forbidden love” aren’t able to tell the book is against that shit, just like American Psycho
I say this as a "survivor" of childhood sexual abuse which very much changed the whole trajectory of my life and severely destroyed my personhood. -- Thank you for, in such a beautiful and articulate way, bringing justice to the malevolence of how twisted and misinterpreted this original work was and still is. I have read the book myself, a long time ago, (borrowing a copy from my sister who had the misfortune of acquiring only a used copy with a photo of a young girl's legs as the cover -- ick) but I think I was much too stunned at the time to truly embrace how horrific of a story Lolita is. It dawned on me much later, like nuclear fallout. Your video is also amazing in explaining the widespread cultural impact of Lolita's misinterpretation. Every time Lolita's true intent has another light shined on it, I heal and understand my own experiences of violence just a little bit more.
I think it also had to do with how the movie needed to be censored as that type of movie would have been unheard of especially for 1960s Hollywood. The movie took more of the dark comedy route from the book and made the heinous things more underlying
@@Sauceman10_ Kubrick himself stated that if he knew the censors would remove so much from Nabokov's script, he'd never have made it. Kubrick never even considered the film part of his "canon," putting it in the same pit as Spartacus, where he didn't have creative control of his project. This idea that Kubrick missed the point of the book is just crazy. He didn't, the constraints of film release in the early 60s made making the movie impossible. Kubrick learned his lesson and adapted a far more explicit novel not even a decade later.
So does his Tbe Shining". He does his own thing with them. I loved both the book and the movie for different reasons. Each stands on its own as a work of art
I am disgusted how lust over children is acceptable in media. Take anime for example, so many little girls dressed in skimpy clothing being excused because they are "1000 years old". There is no justification why one is attracted to children, even when Humbert 2x says he loves Dolly, it's not a good validation because all he sees in her is a toy, not a human. I really feel bad for the Author, who wants to warn people about the dangers of lust, only for said people to define lust as love, and then misunderstanding this whole tale as a "love" story.
A thing that disturbs me the most about Lolita was that it was "allegedly" inspired by the kidnapping case of Sally Horner, which happened around two years before the initial publication of Lolita. I write alleged because Nabokov never confirmed it himself but the parallels between Sally's story and Dolly's is uncanny, as well as newspaper clippings of the Sally Horner case being found in Nabokov's office after he died. There's a great book on the topic called "The Real Lolita: The Kidnapping of Sally Horner" it goes into great depth about Sally's case and draws parallels between chapters/story elements in Lolita and Sally's case.
You nailed it. Also check out the Sally Horner case (or Warner can’t remember) it’s basically this and is referenced in the book. It’s worth noting that Nabokov wrote himself into the script for the movie in a cameo to basically say “look me and humbert are not the same person”
Jeez I've never cringed for 30 minutes straight before, my composure is not easily broken... Seriously, thanks for breaking down this story. I've heard it's great for understanding the mind of both the victim and those who victimize. Though there's no way I could have gotten through this whole novel. This shortened version of events is already harrowing. I can only imagine the horror for someone who's had to live through such events. Even hearing about such things is terrifying and makes me recoil.
Also. This video is simply beautifully made. The graphics to the phrasing of certain words are so carefully chosen and executed, I am beyond impressed.
I think it takes a dedicated writer to create such a piece humanizing a character that they deeply despise. and it's a valuable piece. Paedophiles and child molesters are human beings, after all, and the perception of them as pure monsters has allowed countless crimes to go unpunished. Nabokov is a true artist.
This is a damn good review, man. Does a great job of stripping away the bullshit of Humbert's narrator position and just lays out his terrible actions and true motivations. Really it just makes me appreciate what a tremendous writer Nabokov was, man was writing in layers.
Well done for resisting any clickbait images for the thumbnail! As an older viewer, it is a bit weird to see Graham Greene pop up as a 'critic for the Times' (paraphrasing) - the reason his review made such an impact was because Greene was just about the most well-respected novelist in the UK at the time. He was a 'public intellectual' and people listened to what he said.
@@watermelonlalala I'm just saying that he wasn't best known as a 'critic for the Times'! I don't know enough about Greene to say if he worked for the state - he was too immersed in Catholicism for my tastes. But we do know for sure Eric Blair had secret service connections! Which has surprised a lot of people.
@@ZachariahJ Yes, GG was known as a novelist. One of his novels was made into the movie, "Ministry of Fear", about a Nazi spy ring working in England through rich old ladies raffling off cakes (with spy stuff hidden inside) at charity festivals. I did not know he was a Catholic. I see he converted as an adult, and that only adds to my suspicions of him. Almost every famous Catholic "intellectual" last century seemed to have converted as an adult. As a Catholic kid, I noticed a patten.
It is a masterfully written book… but may I say how blown away I was by the footage in this video of driving in Sedona az in the 80s! I grew up there, and it added to the wistful beauty of this visual parade
Very well made video. I love the section dedicated to explaining how Lolita’s meaning has changed from its original meaning over the years. Well said!!
@Horses a total shot in the dark but I would love to watch a video of yours talking about the history of Spain and its separatist regions such as Catalonia, the Basque Country, etc
This is making me reflect on a lot of things that happened to me when I was younger. I had this boyfriend who was 5 years older than me when I was 17, he once put the Lolita movie (Kubrick's version) for me, he was very excited about it, would call me Lolita... I didn't have a lot of background context on what the book was really about so overall I was just confused at the time
www.patreon.com/HorsesPT
FIRST
I wish I could spare even a few dollars. I love your channel!
Would you consider making a $1 tier? I would happily sub for a monthly dollar, even if I got nothing extra in return.
Ballocks. Every piece of art has been reinterpreted according to social norms of the time of the interpreter. This is what you are doing and nothing else.
You need to learn that no one can have monopoly on truth . All interpretation are perspectives and thereby space and time dependent. You are elaborating on your perspective and while all perspectives can be valid none of them are "the truth", not even that of the artist himself unless it is nothing but propaganda in which case it is bound to be a lie.
The sincerity of art is in what it reflects from the subconscious. This is why an authentic Jackson Pollock cannot be imitated by just anyone. But you are right that Nabokov is about language. This is why the adaptation can never live up to the text.
Some people think an adaptation needs to remain faithful to the text but then it would be a translation and it is bound to have personal biases intruding on it. I think while that would be one perspective my preference is for authenticity. If an artist is going to have biases then it is more honest to use the text more as inspiration and represents what the text resonates in the adaptation. For example, I don't know if you have read Naked Lunch and seen David Cronenberg's film. The book is written is a nonlinear format and it more like a collection of anecdotes. The film does present some of the anecdotes but also put them in the context of William Barough's life story.
So you get to know the writer as well as the book but in a metaphorical linear narrative that is much richer in so many ways. Once you know the artist your interpretation changes, you will automatically see hints of the artist in the work. You could divorce it but that perspective will reflect your own character. It is just another perspective and they are all valid but none of them are the complete picture.
With regards to Lolita, Nabokov was consulted and was allowed to write the script. The result being a 7 hour movie shows exactly why literature is totally different to making a film. I would hazard the guess that Kubrick did it deliberately to show Nabokov why you cannot just translate a book into a film. Kubrick famously said: Making a film is like writing War and Peace on the back of postage stamp.
You are, however, contradictory, and obviously biased. You say that the book is about abuse but not pornographic. To show the real ugly part of the book would be pornographic and violent but it would not be true Humbert’s perspective. Humbert is in denial. The way he portrays the kind of young girl he gets obsessed with are not just any young girl. The word Nymphet implies sexual attraction. Again I would hazard the guess that in his warped mind he sees a precautious reflection. He sees someone who is more sexual than she is aware of. This idea of children being asexual is a new construct in this politically correct world. It reflects anxieties of the helicopter parents,
Children’s sexuality is dormant. Why do you think they play nurses and doctors? Evolution still hasn't been driven out of modern humans. There has always been a conflict between evolutionary forces and modernity. This is what has led to increase in modern mental illnesses, like anxiety, ADHD, or other depressive symptoms. I suggest you read the book Perfume by Patrick Suskind to see how the idea of turning from a child to woman is so fascinating by men and plays on observer's own trauma.
Returning to the art of cinema and Lolita, how can a film maker to portray a nine year old as a nymphet? To be able to do that you need to be Humbert not just retelling his narrative. You give me an example of how you would portray a nine year old as a nymphet and be able to get away with the censorship rules of the time and I will withdraw my comment.
It is possible, I can imagine such a thing but that would be a sick image that would not be allowed to be shown in any cinema today, never mind then. Besides, it wouldn't be the image that Humbert sees. The images that you manufacture in your mind and find disgusting are the result of social influences too. So, they are not accurate either. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise.
You ask why Kubrick made the film but you didn't ask why Nabokov agreed to write the script. Steven King was not happy with Kubrick's adaptation of his Shinning either . That is because those people deal with text where a movie deals with images. The richer the text the more difficult to turn it into visual language. Just look at the adaptation of Foundation on Apple TV.
You also failed to mention the later adaptation of the same book that contrary to Kubrick's film disappeared and was forgotten almost immediately despite being far more sexual and probably closer to the images in your mind.
Kubrick often took books that resonated with what was on his mind at the time and creates the narrative but he is led by images as he shoots the film. The narrative becomes just the basic skeleton. The flesh that he built on that skeleton can go off in tangents in search of visual magic. As Orson Welles put it: Directing a film is like presiding over an accident.
Kubrick always respected the budget and the zeitgeist of the time. He wanted to make films that were accessible but wasn't prepared to compromise his own work unlike say Christopher Nolan who is a celebrity and is increasingly commercial.
I don't know how old you are but we are living in the politically correct era that has given birth to a more Victorians morality. You are reflecting the same attitude and that is why it seems that you feel disgust over the film and in fact you twist Nabokov’s writing as well.
I have read the book and seen the film. The book implies a lot more ambivalence but the reader can see the sickness of Humbert behind the text even though Humbert doesn't quite see it. Yes, he is an unreliable narrator but there is no other narrator involved. To try to impose your own judgement by conjuring up the images that Humbert only mentions almost in passing as if they weren't that horrible would not be Humbert's Narrative.
Kubrick shows Humbert's misery that his delusions have created and how humiliating and paranoid he must have been because of his obsession over his object of desire. I doubt you have picked up on my reference to Buñuel's film. May be you should start there before talking about Kubrick.
The film is about failure of plans. Humbert manipulates but he is never in control and loses the object of his desire to another more manipulative guy. It is about how obsession imprisons you and how the reality is different to your fantasy. It is like rape fantasies, that are void of the reality of real rape.
Finally, whether you feel disgusted by paedophilia or not, it is part of human condition. 'this gen z kids’ have all been feminized and are too judgmental. Like it or not they are all affected by the crap like Pizza gate . You can't close your eyes to it because the images in your mind make you feel disgusted. These people are the product of the society just like yourself.
It is ugly and it take courage to look at it but there are lot of ugly things in this world and it is getting uglier. Don't burry your head in the sand and get lost in your own imagination. You need to open your eyes and look out to see what is going on out.
Restock on SHAKESPEARE shirts please 🙏
thank you so, so much for using the words "rape" and "molested" instead of sex or flirtation, it reiterates the brutality of what Humbert Humbert did, and Dolores's suffering
Seconding this. I get tired of UA-camrs saying “r-word” or “intimate abuse” or shit like that. I get it’s for the algorithm, but I hate that our culture might be turning away from calling rape and molestation what it is.
@@guyanomalythat or when people say “game end”. While not as relevant, it’s just flat out disrespectful and I honestly feel if you’re not gonna take a topic as seriously as it should be taken, then don’t talk about it
@@guyanomalynothing wrong w censoring the word.
@@emilinegabriele I respectfully disagree. I know “rape” is a heavy, loaded word, but that’s because it should be. When people use euphemisms and skirt around saying it, they (unintentionally) soften the blow. I’ve seen people censor themselves so heavily for UA-cam monetization’s sake that they make rape sound like consensual sex. We shouldn’t be skirting around calling rape rape. I’m very passionate about this as a victim.
@@guyanomalyYou know, seeing it in black & white like that, what a disgustingly deviant and unscrupulous way to stop using words! We become the ones sanitizing the vocabulary for their benefit.
Nabokov wrote a realistic horror novel from the perspective of the monster, and its been mishandled so much since its release
Thanks for this video
Lolita is not a moralistic book, it does not have this distorted intention, you are lying
@@BrenoSobral71Explain
@@BrenoSobral71 you cant say everybodys lying and then not elaborate?? so sorry this video about pdf-philia being bad hurt your fee-fees :( /sar
@@BrenoSobral71 you clearly did not read the book
Of course it is realistic, Nabokov wrote "Lolita" after being inspired by an actual case of pedophilia in the USA
The most disturbing and terrifying thing to me about the book is that Humbert in the end won. In real life as well Lolita is seen as hyper sexual child and that what Humbert wanted the reader to believe. Humbert wanted us to side with him and it seems that a lot of people did which is so depressing and disturbing
Thankfully now ppl are smarter but it’s so sad that for so long this was allowed
Did he?
Not half as depressing and disturbing as the reflexive de facto misogyny that Nobovkov was commenting on. Thats the entire point of the book: "this thing exists & this mindset is why". We have to see both the misogyny & pedophilia as not just isolated events but cultural norms that though distasteful are PERPETUATED by society (e.g. it happened many times years ago, is happening many times now & will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of any single or group of isolated instances - bc there is no large enough group of instances addressed or even noticed to modify the culture). Finally our culture is in a place where we ARE addressing/noticing these things on a scale significant enough to truly challenge their place in our culture, but this was not the case in Nobokov's time - or even 20yrs ago.
@@dynomyte9357he did, I bought a copy a few days ago and on the back one of the reviews for the book calls if “one of the best romances” Humbert’s manipulative narration tricked most critics as well as readers.
It still is allowed@@Bleeeh_
The first time I heard of Lolita was freshman year of highschool. There was a band teacher that was pretty close with students and he told me it was his favorite book. I didn’t understand the concept much until looking into it further but he told me how poetic and romantic the book is.
Two months later this teacher is arrested and jailed for having sex with a student even younger than me, she was 13, and he was 41 I believe. While out on bond, awaiting trial he killed himself. He left behind his wife and 2 year old daughter.
That was my first introduction to the work of Lolita and it sticks in my head to this day.
Edit: I’m rereading the police report back in 2014 and I didn’t even realize but he was also the girls softball coach 🤮. It’s wild that true predators work their way into spaces to prey on kids.
good on him for leaving before something happened to his daughter
@@robindbank9670 agreed. He couldn’t handle the heat. And took his own way out. Good riddance
Kek
Of course he called it romantic...OF COURSE!!! 🤢
That 13 yr girl is so strong for going through what she went through and then taking him to trial. She inadvertently saved a 2 yr from lifelong s///ual abuse; we don't comment enough on how brave you have to be to open up about these things. I hope both can heal well
I feel so bad for Nabokov, he tried to write a cautionary tale/demonstrate how pretty words can hide an objectively hellish reality but with too much skill. I can just imagine him seeing the response to his book and the fun house mirror distortion version of it that is the movie and feeling this pit of dread because everyone was so whole heartedly and gleefully missing the entire point. Imagine you wrote a book about being a serial killer but dressed it up so well that suddenly everyone was mad at the people your main character killed. Now people make conventions and fashion based on having your MC (and worse, the real life versions of him) murder them.
What makes it worse was that he was a victim of CSA, too. He probably wrote Lolita to bring awareness on what an sexual abuser thinks. Then people proceeded to call the book an erotica.
I think he would be delighted at the response Lolita received. The entire "puzzle" of the book was "could he use language to manipulate his reader?" Nabokov was a creator of real life chess puzzles, and this was his most difficult puzzle - can you use language to seduce a reader and have them side with the worst human imaginable?
I’m getting massive Clockwork Orange vibes reading the serial killer thing you mentioned
@towerofgodfan4107 Nabokov said many times that there was no meaning, symbolism, or message in his books - he created them simply for the pleasure of creating them; he hoped his readers would get a similar pleasure reading them. While I don't believe Nabokov was trying to teach us anything with Lolita, I do think that the book was a puzzle. How do you write about the most disgusting thing imaginable yet keep the reader reading to the end of the book? Can you write prose so beautiful (and funny) that the reader will actually laugh at the book, even though the most horrific things are being done? This was the puzzle; can Nabokov seduce the reader enough to make them overlook the things happening in the book?
This is why I think he would have been delighted at the various responses to his novel. The (disturbed) people who think it's a love story got completely seduced by Nabokov. The people who laughed at Humberts jokes got seduced. The people who read all the way to the end got seduced. Nabokov many times said that enchantment was the most important aspect of writing, the reader had to be seduced and enchanted by the prose. There can be no denying that Nabokov completely bewitched his readers.
About serial killer: I feel that is basically "American psychopath" bc originally the book was all about toxic masculinity, and now incels think that Patrick Bateman is sigma gigachad
the people who take this book seriously through humbert's pov and call it a romance novel scare me so much.
sounds like you get scared easily
Romance is scary.
@tobymdev different kind of scare, mostly just sickening
@@tobymdevif you ever intend on having a daughter, it should absolutely scare the shit out of you
@Iksvomid no, but referring to pedophilia and rape as "romance" sure is.
the way humbert becomes violent when his fetish object stops aligning with his make believe is one of the most accurate depictions of predators I've seen. it says a lot about how egocentric it all is.
we have our own English Nobakov! the female Humbert! Check out "Tampa" by Alisa Nutting!!
Did a letter from Dolores’ point of view for a class project
I literally couldn’t understand how people thought Lolita was a love story while reading the book. Humbert himself says he hears Dolores cry every night, Dolores even cries at one point because he hurt her so much during one of his raping sessions she believed he ripped her insides
Omg
Things like this used to be more normalized in society. People were expected to take traumatizing events in life for granted and be perpetually stoic about it. Whenever someone brings up that nowadays it feels like there's a spike in mental illness - that's because for a large part of human history, mental issues were not recognized or treated seriously as a concept, so most people didn't talk about them and oftentimes probably didn't even realize they had them.
Could you tell me how did that letter go? What did it say?
@@kalinaribic6383 it was a letter written by Dolores towards Humbert, telling him of the pain he caused her. I mostly mentioned important scenes (pretty much because I had to prove I read the book), like their first meeting, the first time they came into contact when she was playing and sat on his lap, the death of her mother, his first time raping her, etc.
I named it the rage of Dolores because I wanted to show her hatred after he ruined her and took everything away from her.
i wholeheartedly agree with you
though have ya seen what's considered 'romance' (especially in books) nowadays or perhaps still?
kidnapping, rape, misagony - essentially everything we see in lolita but without any of the writing skill is sill paraded around as romantic and sexy
i sadly don't think that this will ever change..
As a way to cope with the horrible ending, I try to read the fact that "Lolita" died in childbirth more so alludes to the idea of Lolita. That the "nymphet" Humbert had crafted had died and Dolores was allowed to be free. Still traumatized but now with a child of her own she was no longer confined to the title of "Lolita".
It's the only way I can really stomach the story.
Interesting, I see it just as the death of lolita, to Humbert at least, he despised the idea of "nymphets" aging, so to him lolita having a child was death to him
Unfortunately the foreword confirms that she dies in childbirth, and that Humbert dies of a heart attack while awaiting trial. The foreword refers to her as Mrs Richard Schiller. Even in death nobody calls her Delores or Dolly, her identity is defined by her partner. 😢
humbert referring to himself as a nymphile reminds me of modern usuage of MAPS
ironic how the book which shows how pedophiles sexualize children, increased the sexualizing of children even more.
whats maps?
@@Eysc a term for pedophiles
@@Eysc@Eysc It is an abbreviation for "Minor Attracted People", which the bad apples of alphabet community proposed as a "new gender". The name pretty much explains itself and it is a blatant attempt to normalize PD which predictably backfired for obvious reasons.
@Eysc It is an abbreviation for "Minor Attracted People", which the bad apples of alphabet community proposed as a "new gender". The name pretty much explains itself and it is a blatant attempt to normalize PD which predictably backfired for obvious reasons.
Sorry I don't have more, but as a female survivor, I had to say thank you so much for this accurate & insightful assessment. Excellent work. I pity the author who could have really taught us something but apparently overestimated his audience.
Honestly, I don't pity Nabokov at all. He was definitely fully aware of the various ways the work could be misinterpreted. He created it as an intellectual and aesthetic exercise, and vehemently denied that it was supposed to have any moral lesson one way or the other. I'm not saying he shouldn't have written it, but he was intelligent enough to know exactly what he was doing. He absolutely did not overestimate the average casual reader, but nor was he writing for them.
@@hughcaldwell1034 Everything can be misinterpreted, but people should not need a book to tell them a relationship between a grown man and a child cannot be a love story and that the child is in any way responsible for what happens to them. This argument of yours could be used against Crime and Punishment as well, "How is the average reader supposed to know murder is wrong when the narrator clearly justifies it?!?", "Dostoevsky knew people would misinterpret it." etc etc. If someone misinterprets a work as badly as "Lolita is a love story", that is on them, not the author. People are able to twist anything to suit their agenda.
@@lanavita6783 I'm not sure what you think my argument was. I didn't say people needed Nabokov to tell them that CSA is awful. It was the original commenter who said Nabokov could have taught us something. I just said that I didn't pity him for his work being received the way it was, because he was clearly aware of this danger beforehand.
Honestly, I was a teen when I read this book and even I got that this is a tragedy and Dolores is the victim. How daft do you need to be ? 😂 Humbert insofar is a tragic character too as he can’t help his perversion and there might be a reason for it in his childhood but that doesn’t exculpate him one bit, of course.
This guy is a writer, philosopher, but not enough people realize he must be a graphic designer as well. There is such a clear and consistent asthetic throughout the entire channel, and the merch is very artistic and interesting.
Legit inspiring. It's so impress how clean and simple it is
He is (or has been) in fact a skilled professional chef, so presentation is important to him.
I dunno about graphic designer, because if he were one he could just create his own images, but instead, in a previous video as recent as 10 months ago, he admitted to be using AI to generate his images thus his “artwork”.
@@quinnlove5777 Alright don't be so gatekeepy about what counts as being an artist. Besides, I said he has an eye for graphic design. His thumbnails and the photos he picks alone are artistically done. You can't discredit his entire status as graphic designer because he uses AI as a tool.
@quinnlove5777 lol I guess chefs can't ever eat out only meals they cook themselves
"Worst Masterpiece" is what I want inscribed on my tombstone.
Aww 😢😅
I hope we are buried very far from each other
😊😊😊
Damn, I was gonna have "I was only here for the memes" on my headstone.
i want "ain't no thang" on mine if I had one which I won't because if you're under 40 you're going to be more likely to die in one of the mass extinction scenarios that are likely to play out in the next 100 years and no one is paying for a tombstone for any of us.
When I was 14 years old, I came across the first paragraph of Lolita on Goodreads, and was immediately enchanted by Nabokov's language (still one of the best opening lines to a book of all time). So of course I went and read the book, even though I was definitely too young for it.
There were other books that I read around the same age that definitely scared me (Lord of the Flies, Zel, Diary of Anne Frank) but Lolita never did. Probably because a lot of the sex scenes are glossed over, but mostly to me it seemed that Humbert was so clearly evil, and because the readers know from the beginning that he ends up in an asylum, I read it thinking that no matter what he did to Delores, at least at the end he would be justly punished.
The only thing that absolutely surprised and horrified me Delores's ending. Because I was still a kid, and optimistic, I was expecting her to "win". I remember wishing she could kill Humbert, even though it didn't fit the flashback-style story structure. I was hoping that Delores could outwit him and save herself, or at least be saved by someone else, so the part where she trades him in for another pedophile just hit me like a gut-punch. Even though she's never presented in a positive light, to me it seemed like she was still obviously the sympathetic character, so she should clearly "win". And the part where she visits him and isn't even angry at him anymore just killed me, because I realized he was able to hurt her and get away with it - and that victims don't always get happy endings.
I reread it again recently and it's still one of my favorite books of all time, but I hate the way people talk about Delores. Reading the book while being only a few years older than her character made me think I definitely would not want to be friends with her; but I still knew she was clearly traumatized and not at fault for anything.
Way to long of a comment, but I absolutely love this book. Also - love all the butterfly imagery.
The butterfly imagery got me. Speaking to the beautiful horror of a bug collection. "Oh would you care to see my collection of dessicated insect corpses? The palpable fragility! The reverberant color! Dead and pinned to a board!" Horrifying.
Very well done.
It made me think of the novel „The Collector“. The main character is equally despicable while less erm flamboyant. There are some parallels to Lolita…
I read a book called ‘Go Ask Alice’ for a book report when I was a freshman. I got the book from a selection in my class.
I honestly was shocked my teacher had the book and more shocked she was fine with my book report. I got to talk about it in class for extra credit.
Messed up book. They present it as an anonymous diary 📔 though it’s a work of fiction.
Apparently it is big on the banned list.
You’re commenting was so insincere as I have not read the book ..!
thank you fellow subscriber and human woman
Wow. My comment is gone and I am still getting a notification from a random comment that didn’t even tag me.
It's a great story if you understand that Humbert is the villain... Many people don't understand Humbert's perspective is supposed to be viewed with suspicion, disgust and distain, not to be believe or symphatized with. We are supposed to view him as a despicable con, but Nabokov conveys too well the perspective of such a con, and "Humbert's" manipulations seem to have convinced people I'd venture were already sympathetic to abusers that their view points have validity.
I'm only about halfway through, so I dunno that Horses gets to it, but Dolores as a name has its origin in the Latin root "dolor", which means "sorrow", or "pain". Nabokov loved playing with language, and I think her name is key in understanding how he viewed the character. "Lolita" is a false name, only real in Humbert's mind, a coquette, a temptress, a somewhat willing participant. Really, she is Dolores, a child full of pain and sorrow, abused and let down by all the adults close to her in her life.
That's a great point. Dolor means "ache" in Spanish. I've never seen any film adaptation, but I read the book years ago. It is a disturbing read, and the reader needs to be alert to Humbert's attempts at flattery. The ending is so sad, that these vicious self-serving men used up a young child before she left her teenage years behind.
As someone who studied this book at university, I wished I had this video to reference for analysis. I also appreciate your perspective. Humbert as a pedophile, narcissist and sociopath has been sooo cleverly constructed, he’s managed to hoodwink many of the readers, because these types of people are artisans of manipulation. Look at actual reality…. How depraved men such as ‘charming’ Bundy got away with a lot and even got into politics, or Dahmer convincing authorities that his young escapee was drunk and acting immature before they handed him back to his killer.
Lolita is a remarkable first person insight into the textbook capabilities, depravities and intelligence of people who commit abuse and how their justifications, positions of power and charisma allow them to reoffend.
shes built for speed like a black castrum dolores
@@abraxasjinx5207 yes omg I didn't think of this, the Latin root means "pain/suffering"! Such a profound addition to the message.
Yeah exactly I remember being on Tumblr back in the day and being so confused by groups of girls who were really into Lolita. Then I actually read it and I later learned that a lot of those girls were survivors of SA and it all made sense.
It’s so tragic she never got the normal life she deserved. Didn’t get to have a childhood and neither an adulthood really.
Lo-li-ta
Did she actually die during childbirth?? I just finished the book 30 minutes ago and don't remember her dying of a childbirth
@@aquapr901 yes, there’s probably different interpretations but as far as I know the most common one is that she dies giving birth
She wasn't a child. Being 18 doesn't make you adult
she was a pretty awful person herself.
Calling Lolita a seductress is insane. Even if she was trying to attract Humbert that doesn’t mean what happened wasn’t rape? She was a child???
The point is that this was Humbert's justifications for raping the girl. He saw attractions that weren't there. Or made himself believe it.
She wasn't a child 😂
@@enkidu9298wasn't rape.
@@mariomario14621/10 rage bate try harder next time pedo
@@mariomario1462 she was 12
This horse has better skills for editing than me
Man's is slowly fixing the video essay meta stggg
Well it’s more than one horse, so don’t feel too bad! Lol
*These Horses have better editing skills than you
Its actually multiple horses so they kinda share the workload.
Quite the horsepower indeed.
You’re telling me a horse fried this video essay
When you brought up how people blamed Dolly it made me realize how many people will stop seeing children as children when rape or molestation happens. Dolly is 12 and in the beginning she was acting like a 12 year old girl. When someone is young they’re much more gullible. They see attention from older people in a better light even if we can clearly see that the attention is not okay. Dolly is a victim and will always be a victim.
It makes my blood boil that everyone just ignored the context of the book and the requests of the author to NOT USE A PHOTO OF A GIRL on the cover. It just feels intentional. And it makes me really mad. It's the same thing as victim blaming. They forgot all the terrible things the abuser does and hyper focus and become very critical of everything the victim does or wears instead of focusing in the CRIMES committed by the abuser.
can you tell that this book is just not for you?
@@plasticweapon the book is good it's everything surrounding it that's terrible.
@@plasticweapon hey, sometimes it's good to delve into something we find disgusting, because it can teach us a lot about ourselves
It’s honestly upsetting how the original intention of this book was bastardized. I personally believe Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing when he decided to adapt Lolita. He didn’t care about the original subject matter, he wanted something controversial that he could exploit. Lolita is a book that was ahead of its time. I’m glad it’s being discussed more in recent years and that the subject matter is being taken seriously
Kubrick adaptations were never very faithful, I dont think he had bad intentions, I think it's just a different interpretation
@@flatterswhite it’s not about the adaptation being faithful to the original story, he took a story about abuse and turned it into a controversial romance. The entire movie and it’s marketing feeds into the idea of Lolita being the perpetrator rather than the victim. He clearly didn’t have good intentions when he decided to make that adaptation.
@@ddumbbee oh no the fictional character is being falsely portrayed :((
@@flatterswhiteI think the issue with it wasn't necessarily that Dolores was falsely portrayed, but that her story involving experiences of CSA were, which is an issue that isn't fictional
@@SnowBaller985 but that particular issue was fictional?
I love that you never call her Lolita throughout your video. Her name is Dolores and her nickname is Dolly, only in Humbert’s perspective she is Lolita. Thank you for making this important distinction
Her name isn't even Dolores, it's an alias Humbert designed for his memoir.
So calling her Dolores is basically the same thing as what you allege.
@@garynouban6453a detail like that makes the whole thing even more sad. Even when we try to say her name, it isn’t her name. It’s one he picked himself
@@invu_lynnDolores means “ dolor, pain, suffering “ which makes it even worse. :( It feels like he picked that name so intentionally…
@@tubbsthebigcatisn't Dolores just a normal name people have??
Or 'Dall E'...
I have a very vivid memory of being in high school 10+ years ago, at lunch, arguing with my older friend about Lolita. I had never read the book; she had. I told her it was a book that should never have been published and I was angry at its very existence. My friend tried to tell me that the book didn’t glorify the relationship, but I wouldn’t listen.
I eventually read Lolita in my early 20s, shortly after my abuser died, and it was a hard read. I was so incensed at the very concept of Lolita because I had been abused as a child shortly before I had that argument with my friend, and I hated the idea of anything that represented anything like I’d experienced existing at all. Lolita actually was cathartic to read in a way, though-it’s hard to explain. It was painful and sickening but it made me feel like I wasn’t wrong, if that makes any sense.
That friend and I are still friends to this day, and we’ve discussed that conversation we had where I yelled at her. At the time, she was being actively groomed by her English teacher (she was 16, he was ~40; I was never taught by him but I did witness him kissing her once). We were both lashing out from very disparate “readings” of Lolita-she had actually read it and took it as kind of aspirational while also intellectually knowing the relationship portrayed was wrong, and I hadn’t read it but knew the gist of it and was dead set on it being an evil book. The truth is that it’s just a book, open for interpretation and sometimes interpreted for the wrong reasons. For anyone curious, my friend cut all contact with the English teacher and is now happily engaged. I don’t know what happened to the teacher. As far as I know he’s still married with kids. :/
I was abused, only once but that was enough for me to understand all the feelings of shame regret and losing innocence. Didn’t talk about it for 10 years. I think Nabokov may have been molested by his uncle, it’s not fact but a lot of scholars think so. I think this was basically a story condemning the destruction of innocence. He came across quite pompous and pretentious but really was a highly moral man
Wonder if they kissed on the lips or cheeks? So crazy OMG, but i read this last year when i was 15 y.o. Tbh glad that i read this as I'm aware of older man grooming
As a woman and victim of SA I have never been able to bring myself to read Lolita but this essay is phenomenal and I'm very glad I watched it. I love the parallel you've drawn with the misinformation in this day and age.
I hope you are doing great, I am saddened to hear this horrible things to you.
H. H. never truly loved Dolores because he really couldn’t even see her as human and in my opinion this book does a great job at conveying the great lengths people like that will go to to lie to themselves and the world. As long as you don’t let him fool you…this is exactly how an abuser’s mind works and I appreciate Nabokov ( thou I find the novel disturbing) for writing it out this way and materializing the thoughts I always knew that abusers had.
Well he never really loved anyone but Annabelle, he never dealt with her death, that's why he always looked for Annabelle's traits in other girls, it's clear that this trauma was never resolved, so that's why he did what he did
In one hand, I think we are ready for an accurate Lolita adaptation. On the other hand, that can go so so wrong I wish it never occurs.
if it's objective filming then the audience can finally understand what lolita is going through because it would be more reliable (unless they choose to show it through hos romanticized perspective)
The 90s one didn't do such a bad job imo, I watched it before reading the book and even then got the message Humbert is not a reliable narrator...but even if he was she is still just a child and he is the predatory adult responsible for the situation. I know people have taken issue with Dolores being aged up to 14 instead of 12, but atleast she wasn't aged up to 16 like Kubericks version. Could they have made a better film? Yes, but I'll take it over Kuberick's version because it definitely got the point of the book better
@@gRinchY-op5vr
⚠️trigger warning (mention of r***)
tbh I just feel like lolita as a piece of literature shouldn't be adapted into anything else. Also just like it's writer wanted, the cover of the girl should also be removed. It's just that it's really hard to make a worthy adaptation and I just personally feel like it'll end up making the child who plays Dolores sexualized by disgusting men and that would be harmful to the actress.. I think Natalie Portman said somewhere that she got a mail letter in which someone wrote a sexual fantasy of ra**** her. I feel like Natalie is a strong woman but anyone would be affected by such BS so it should stay only as a piece of literature to better convey what the writer wanted to without putting someone at harm's way
@@AbdulRahman-vy7ko they have to show it through humberts perspective to get the point of the book across but then the average viewer isn’t smart enough to figure out his deception and see the movie as romance
Lolita is not a moralistic book
The opening chapter, which I think is just two or three short paragraphs, is the greatest intro to a book ever written. In retrospect it perfectly sets up Humbert's attitude and forecasts the horror yet to unfold.
You mean Humbert Humbert?
@@Dave_the_Dave yes edited
In Anthropology i had to watch and write a response about child marriage culture in Bangladesh. It was rough. 12 is about when the girl might be found a suitor, who basically pays the parents. The girl often gets pregnant immediately and having a child at 12 is unjustifiably risky to her health. They often either die or have unresolvable health issues afterwards. It gets into worse detail how poorly they're treated and if they're not able to have children anymore they must sleep in the barn with the goats.
I couldn't think how any father could let this happen. I find it appalling that it's considered acceptable for men to treat a girl that way especially one so young, and that her life is an acceptable loss if she doesn't make it through the pregnancy.
It's bizarre. Lolita is bizarre. Just because a girl "could" have a child that young doesn't mean it's okay to really do it.
Nabokov somehow wrote the most relatable depiction of a girl as a man…but ironically only with her absence
New horses video? Stop everything immediately!
True, I was watching a movie, got a notification, and boom, watching now.
Literally
Same.
real
This channel has proven to me that quality content is so much more important than a name. Dude literally picked one of the most common random words, and it does not matter in the least bit because his content is so well put together.
I remember reading Lolita for the first time at the age of 15. I had signed up to take the AP Literature exam, but my school didn't offer that class, so I had to prepare for it entirely on my own. I had a list of books that I knew I needed to read and I picked Lolita first. I'd heard so many people talk about the quality of it's writing, about how it'd been banned for it's subject matter, and I knew enough to walk in disgusted. I remember the 4 days I spent reading it. I took longer than usual for a book of it's size simply because I kept becoming utterly and completely disgusted and having to take breaks. There are phrases from that book that are burned into my mind simply because of the sheer mixture of beauty and disgust that they made me feel. It was fucking horrifying and yet I can honestly say it's one of my favorite books of all time. No work I've come across since has ever been as effective as Lolita, at least for me. The clarity of vision, mastery of tone and language, and realism of the circumstances depicted are going to live with me forever. I will never understand how anyone can read it and not be filled with utter disgust and rage. I think this essay excellently captured the feelings I had while reading and communicates the reality of how nuanced the work is.
I think people who read it without feeling disgusted by it, manage to do so because they try to be objective and leave their opinions and morals out.
Something we as readers should always do, I too sometimes try to, sometimes I fail, that's why I read books more than once to get everything the author wanted to deliver
Perhaps some would not experience rage out of knowledge that this is fiction, and that no one is really being harmed.
But if you cannot understand this, so be it.
You do you! 😀
All I can tell you is the original movie is despicable.
Humbert: little girls are so hot
The pres: I know right!!
Nobokov: what is wrong with you
Wow, I can never explain Lolita that quickly. You are brilliant!
Heads up, it’s Vladimir Nabokov, not Nobokov.
That's what people often forget about the book. Nabokov intended for the readers to recognize how messed up Humbert was and call out his justifications as little more than weak excuses.
The movies haven't helped, framing Lolita as a love story 🤮
Lolita is not a moralistic book
Thanks..
Love from India
Your videos are thought Provoking and deeply moving
I haven't read the book or watched the movie
But I do realise how people can be manipulated when the story is narrated in the first person perspective
I think the general response to Lolita is very telling of our society's view of more "muddied" victim stories. A personal example for me is when I was 16 years old there was a teacher I had developed a bond with, I had a very paternal view of him and I thought it was mutual until one night when he texted me late, around 11pm and we started to chat. Suddenly, he starts making innuendos and claiming how much I 'meant' to him and how 'soothing' my presence was. I was deeply disturbed and I immediately told my family and friends in the morning and we went to contact the principal who seemed supportive of me at first but then on a follow up meeting with just my mom remarked how "casual" I'd been in the chat and how I didn't seem to be put off. As if there is a "right" way to be a victim. As if only the good girls who cry or overtly display distress are the only ones who should be saved and the stoic ones are simply nyphos who secretly enjoy the romantic or sexual attentions from people we think of as mentors or caregivers. There is no style of victimhood, people all respond differently to being put in abusive or exploitative situations.
My sin means a lot to me, and when I am agitated his counsil soothes me
I'm so infuriated for you. This concept that victims should display certain behaviours (crying, wailing, screaming, etc) or else the abuse was not "really that bad," is a common misconception that police, judges, school principals, or any and all authority figures prescribe to because it means they don't need to sit with the discomfort of your abuse. The idea that abuse victims can freeze in fear or confusion, fawn to protect themselves from a threatening person, or, as in your case, remain calm, stoic, and rational does not align with the "Hollywood" version of expected victim behaviour. And, even if you ranted and screamed about the situation - which is the expected behaviour - it is not the acceptable behaviour, and you would be dismissed for being an overly dramatic teenager. Victims cannot win ever. You're either too strong or too weak, too stoic or too emotional, too brave or a coward. Victim blaming and shaming is pervasive because many, many men are perpetrators hiding in plain sight and they don't want to be too harsh on other men in case their dirty, secret behaviour comes to the surface. Men protect men, because perpetrators protect perpetrators.
@@audreyquinn73 What does it mean to be 'infuriated for' another?
You summed it up perfectly. People want to have a specific image of victims, someone who is broken and only crying and such. It is a matter of projection: They want to create the image that a victim has to be a weak person, because if that wasn't the case, then anyone could be a victim and then they could become one too.
People always imagine a monster and a traumatized child. They think a traumatized child has to behave a certain way to "earn" being called traumatized. The idea that anyone can be a victim, that even the strongest of personalities can be abused in such ways, is horrifying to them. Because it is the horrifying reality.
People victim blame so they don't have to face reality: Anyone can be a victim, no matter what they say, think, or do.
I was groomed multiple times and it took me many years after the incidents to realize what actually happened. Part of that was because I didn't view myself as a victim and also wasn't treated as such. I was a loud, direct, confident girl, one fully brainwashed by overseggsualisation and the idea to grow up fast. And so, people viewed me the same way they view Dolores: A temptress, a seductress or in more modern terms, a sIut. I was the school sIut at 15 for being in a relationship with a 23 year or man.
That is the reality. That is how people treat children of seggsual abuse.
@@zapazap It's a form of empathy, one in which you hear of the suffering someone went through and can't help but feel righteous anger toward the perpetrator(s) of the abuse. It's a concept that isn't foreign to any decent person.
There's a dark irony in the fact that Dolly thinks getting married and pregnant at 17 is her chance to finally have a "normal life" only to later die in a childbirth. The death was her only real escape. I think the book perfectly sums up the pure horror of being a child and a woman in the times it was written.
I think the horror still applies a lot to today; look in these very comments, or in pop culture and media which still sexualizes young girls or enacts very mild consequences upon those who perpetrate rape and/or paedophilia.
I do think that as a society, we’re getting closer to grasping the point Nabokov was trying to make (see MeToo movement for ex) but we’re still not quite there.
Thanks for your comment, it gave me some food for thought.
In truth, it seems that most accounts of pedophilia throughout history have largely referred to men and little boys. This is because female children weren’t seen as individuals who go through a transition of anything except body and that their mind remained largely the same - basically, women were often seen as inherently naive and ignorant throughout their life unless otherwise taught by a male figure.
Now, we have guys who are so put-off by women wanting equal social capital, that they turn to young-as-possible children. Why? Because history has built a story that femininity is childish and strength of mind and character is masculine.
It also makes me think about just HOW important reproductive rights actually are for women and girls. That’s a point where we are moving into the past in many regions in the world. It’s frightening.
What do you mean “in the time that it was written”? There never has been and never will be a time when it was/will be safe to be born a female in this world. Never.
@@stephanieuzzell8436 My god imagine being this much of a dilettante that you reduce the message of the masterpiece that is Lolita to being the same as the fucking Metoo movement. Art is not for you bro, go play checkers
Your videos are beautiful even when it is entrenched in the darkest of themes. It's a testament to your storytelling, your visual editing, and your insightful analysis. None of it is lost on me. Thank you for sharing
The critic comments about dolly were actually so terrifying
That’s perhaps the worst part, and can’t be dismissed as simply being “fooled by the unreliable narrator” - it’s that any flash of her as being a human being or less than a perfect victim is seen by these men as reason she deserves abuse. An adolescent girl dares to be anything but the perfect doll for adults and she’s thrown under the bus. A double layer of being unseen, really, either “Dolly” the stainless child or “Lolita” the fetish object but never Dolores.
@@alice_atarithis shit pisses me off. Definitely some kind of Pedophilia forgivers in Popular Media companies
Specially coming from women
@@alice_atari I love the last sentence. It was really never Dolores. The little girl who was cheeky and bratty and tan and tomboyish and liked to read comics and practiced kissing with girls in summer camp and played tennis and loved riding her bike. Dolores was a young orphaned girl placed in horrifying circumstances... excuse her for not being little miss perfect🤦♀️
Another reason as to why critics are terribly useless for assessing entertainment for us.
This, your work, is a stunning masterpiece. "They can't possibly get better than this" is what I am thinking when I leave one of these "thank you's"....and every time it seems that I'm incorrect. Keep spreading the word! I ❤ what you broadcast to the world Michael.
100 like that
thank you once again
As a (terrible) python dev, I saw your username and thought I should tell you I appreciate your work, whatever the capacity may be. Maintained as well as any pypa package and fills a void in python GUI development that isn't already filled a dozen times over the way many public packages are (I'm looking at you, wrapper for a wrapper based on an old abandoned wrapper).
Horses is without doubt the most interesting and original creative project currently ongoing on UA-cam. A big thank you
"Lolita is manipulation, as told by the manipulator himself."
Brilliant summary, and I felt Nabokov made that crystal clear within the first few pages of this phenomenal book, then he never wavered. And yes, as for those who wildly misinterpret Lolita as a romance or a love story, I believe that says much more about them than they'd probably like us to know, or they are too entitled and narcissistic to care what others think.
hearing this book, I can't help but alighn Humbert with political issues we are facing today. it is a disturbing reality we live in and the argument over women's rights to their bodies and when, infact, they are mature enought to have children after their period. just recently there was a hearing in which a man stands in front of a courtroom and declares once puberty hits for a young girl, she is ready to have children and is mature enough to do so. it's disgusting how men with power can just say such things. girls as young as 9 have had their periods. when he heard that, he blatantly said it was untrue. My mother, her mother, and her mother's mother all began puberty before they were even in double digits. I hate how similar Humbert and the US government seem to think so much alike
what in gods name are you even talking about???
Pretty sure I see way more alignment with ACTUAL p*dos that read this book, call it romantic, and seek solidarity and justification. *Cough MAPS* BUT OKAY.
I cannot begin to express how much i enjoy this channel. Theres no overlying arcs or agendas to what you make, and you make whatever you want, as best as you can. Keep going dude, keep doing you!❤
agreed. it"s a well maintained journey. a blend of topics i know well, a bit or not at all. the mellow delivery of very measured views on humanity's unique talent, to go from "inspired & hopeful" to "fear & darkness (because... 'reasons' )" , creates a compelling ride (for me, at least). An effort towards nuance, which makes essays like his, a created video ( especially compared to most "manufactured-content").
i already went to far into redundant "adjectives, commas & co" overkill^^
so: visuals also good
i'm glad this channel keeps thriving
Exactly what I think and admire about Horses. I am in awe each and every time. Many of his themes and dissertations are things I was passionate about in the past - but I gave up.
I really look up to this creator. He never ceases to amaze me.
Lolita is basically if Blood Meridian were written from the POV of The Judge…
youre right bro
Sholita ☠️
I mean Humbert is a sack of shit but he ain't a mass murderer
The judge wasn't naive to his own self like H.H., as the Judge was sort of a baseline representation of pure, unflinching evil. H.H. is meant to show the frail and ugly justifications of a man weak to his desires, and displays a typical sociopath/ASPD, and the Judge is meant to show someone so uncaring and eager to harm that it's beyond human, and beyond sociopathy/ASPD
Underrated comment
thank you so much for pronouncing Nabokov's name with the right stress! it's so nice to hear names from your native language pronounced as close to the original pronunciation as possible
What consistently blows my mind is that when Lolita was written, the view on teenage girls world wide was still very warped. Many men absolutely justified their attraction to children and teenage girls, society also closed their eyes to it and allowed predators to do what they pleased, making excuses, blaming the children. It's only quite recently that we as a collective society have truly called it out and called it what it is. Back then, many people, men and women, put blame entirely onto the child and refused to say it was wrong.
Yet Nabokov wrote Lolita and managed to investigate and portray every element of perversion, outright exposing men like Humbert for what they are (pedophiles). It's not just that Nabokov was ahead of his time, he had an insight into issues that people didn't even dare speak about yet. He understood the evil contained in men like Humbert and the direct pain and trauma it causes to children like Dolores who are victims of abuse. He understood the patterns of predators, the objectifying that occurs on their part of the children they terrorize and he understood how then a child may feel and be impacted by this. Long before these things were publically known.
I know I felt seen in the writing as a girl, and I am always just shocked that a Man wrote this piece that still to this day is a misunderstood masterpiece.
We still don't know truly what drives these pedophilic predators, but Nabokov, back then, got goddamn close. My heart breaks for the character or Dolores, I cry when I read it.
My controversial take is that Lolita shouldn't have been adapted to film. I think the books meaning is lost. The 1997 adaptation tries very hard to do justice but it misses the mark too. I don't think there is any way to adapt this novel to film without harming young actresses or pandering to predators. The book works because it is written from the pov of a monster and thats not something that we can convey through film. Not in a way that does the book justice anyway.
Talking about this book is often hard because of the audience surrounding it. Child sexual abuse is already hard enough to talk about, but when the book is misinterpreted as a romance and as a book of fetish, it is so much harder
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
When Dolores finally finds happiness , she dies. What a brutal and realistic portray of how unfair life is.
Did she? , I think the only happiness she knew was before meeting Humbert
@@dynomyte9357 marriage would imply that its consensual, so she was probably happy with whoever she was before she died
@@OsnoloVrachi think what they meant is that the lasting traumas will still affect her whereas before humbert was in her life, she didnt have to cope with what would happen to her. forgive me if that was not explained well hahah
@@OsnoloVrach Based on the timeline, she must have started dating that guy around 15-16 depending on how fast their relationship advanced.
@@muddman34 Yeah, still sucks, even if its a fictional story i still wish she felt true happiness and love before she passed away
Bro, you deserve every little single piece of praise anyone ever gives you. Your content is not only absurdly on point, but the fact that you’re cranking it out at this pace gives us viewers a pleasure that I don’t think you’ll ever understand. Thank you Michael 🙏🙏🙏
The speed and quality you produce this stuff at is incredible! I just wish they would be on Spotify faster, because I usually like to listen to them on the go.
When I was school my English teacher said we shouldn't read lolita because it's pro pedophilia, crazy how people think you can't write from the perspective of someone without agreeing with his actions.
Public school?
"Oh, a nice long horses video to listen to while I play fortnite."
*30 seconds later*
*"This is a story about a twelve year old girl getting kidnapped and raped"*
“Light of my life, fire of my loins” is such a pretty expression and most people don’t know who said it or why
Also something that would be very nice to be told...provided you aren't a 12 year old girl
nah i like the light of my life part. but fire of my loins is not it, i dont think id ever associate the word loins with pretty and this context makes it disgusting
I learned today that the word person originally meant face mask. Oh, how true it has become
"Persona" is a film written and directed by Ingmar Bergman. Check it out.
I read that "persona" is an Etruscan word that survived into modern English. Yes, it meant mask. The actors in ancient plays wore them on stage.
@@watermelonlalala The original word is rendered "Phersu"
@@ajasilikonreffkmimmon OK. From google/wikipedia: from Middle English persone, from Old French persone, from Latin persona, "mask", probably from Etruscan phersu, "mask". Another sources, however, links the Etruscan word as a derivative of Greek πρὀσωπον prosōpon, "mask".
@@watermelonlalala We have no way of confirming; shit so old we don't know how and why.
Nabokov did a masterful job of writing the most disturbed of minds and how crafty such a person can be to hide their true malevolence. and i think the key to understanding that is seeing how you can never really know Delores cause he doesn't actually care to know her.
The most beautifully written novel...one I wish I could read for the first time again. The craft, poetry, wit, language-- Nabokov astounds. My favorite aesthetic expressions are those which seem lovely, beautiful, floral, sweet, but like a pretty lace drapery over something which is dark, wrong, horrofying. Is there a word for this play between beauty and horror?
"She was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet I had rolled myself upon with such cries in the past; an echo on the brink of a russet ravine, with a far wood under a white sky, and brown leaves choking the brook, and one last cricket in the crisp weeds."
Crazy that I just finished this book a few days ago and was wishing I had someone to discuss it with. Thank you for doing a deep dive into a book that’s difficult to talk about publicly.
Thank you for making this video. I’ve tried to read the book a couple times, even reading more Nobokov, but it makes me sick to my stomach. I’m glad I can have a better understanding of it now.
You'll never understand the novel if you don't read it, the videssay it's great but in half an hour it's hard to grasp the message of the novel to it's core the way Nabokov intended, I've read the book at least 4 times and I always found more messages and meanings
@@dynomyte9357 ok
As usual you covered your topic so beautifully and with respect to the character. I appreciate your work ! Please keep it up you are amazing 💖
Great choice of visuals on this one, definitely breaking away from the sugarcoated hazy/romantic imagery that is so strongly associated with this book.
It has a realistic vibe that grounds it very well. That footage of the shower through the partially open door was particularly chilling (not to mention that Humbert portrait as well).
The tragedy of Dolly dying in childbirth, her child is put in the same disgusting world as Dolly was.
In the novel, Dolly’s child was stillborn. Dolly gave birth to a corpse at the same time that she became a corpse. So not only did she never reach adulthood..her child never reached childhood either.
@@melissawickersham9912 Damn. 😔
thinking about how this book is handled and romanticized makes me want to rip my skin off
If i see one more "# nymphet # coquette" on a selfie of an adult woman wearing heart shades im gonna croak
Lolita is not a moralistic book, it does not have this distorted intention, you are lying
@@BrenoSobral71 …what on earth are you talking about?
@@lupine.spiritI think he’s saying that the people who love the book because “it portrays an evil person being evil” are stupid. The writer could have whatever intentions he wanted, but regardless the book is still a detailed depiction of pedophilia and molestation. It’s kinda like Marquis De Sade’s writings. Yeah, you could say “BUT HES SUPPOSED TO BE EVIL” all you want, doesn’t change the fact that it takes a truly deranged person to even write about shit like this, whether he agrees or disagrees with the protagonist is meaningless. Why would he even have this character in his head? It’s fucking strange. I wouldn’t be surprised if the author of Lolita was a pedophile himself.
@@lupine.spirit He's most likely the kind of trash that does not agree with what the book tries to communicate to the audience.
Also there’s a scene in the book where someone asks humbert if a cat had scratched him and it’s implied by him to the reader that it was Dolores further solidifying her trying to defend herself. My favourites excerpt is after assaulting her for the first time humbert says he feels like he’s sitting next to the ghost of someone he’d just murdered. Any survivor will tell you, you feel a part of you was killed and your childhood ends right there. It’s the worst feeling ever. In that same scene Dolores is the first to speak by saying (they’re in a car) “oh a squashed squirrel what a shame”. She is that innocent small animal that’s been crushed. God it’s heartbreaking yet brilliant
I dont get how you dont have more subscribers, you post the best video essays on this app and your insights are amazing.
Lolita may have been grossly misinterpret but it’s not an inherently bad thing as it has unironically become a tool for pedo-detection.
As if you’re twisted enough to sympathize with Humbert and undermine whet Dolores went through chances are you are like Humbert and you’re looking for justifications to hurt real-world Doloreses.
More charitable and probable is that it's a shame avoidance strategy rather than a justification out of a desire to replicate Humbert's crimes, but yeah otherwise I agree
@@beansworth5694 Getting defensive in the case of real life scenarios is a big part of how people get away with atrocities like that.
@@kathleenwoods8416 I don't understand what you mean, what real life scenarios are you talking about?
Except that the vast majority of people who view it as a romance are women and girls who have suffered trauma. They are trying to romantasize the abuse they received to cope, just like dolores did in the book.
probably my favorite channel. I'd love an in-depth video on surrealism or a prominent surrealist artist.
anyone who thinks this book is a romance needs their computers checked
It is this flippant artitude towards privacy that leads be to securely encrypt alldata in my possession on Fri es with nested hidden partitions
And it is your response to this that mark Yiu as an asshole or not.
My default assumption is that you are not
Congratulations, this is a really masterful and easy to comprehend essay on nuanced matter. And thank you for acknowledging VN's love for butterflies.
I never really got it until i read the annotated version by Nabokov and his son Demetri.
They tell you her fate early in the book. Delores Schiller , her married name, dies in child birth giving birth to a stillborn girl on Christmas eve. The saddest book i ever read.
Publishing a book about the disgusting hypocrisy of pedophilia and having it turned into some weird fetishized love story is insane
This may very well be one of the most important videos ever uploaded to the dumpster fire we call youtube .. excellent work , well done . ❤
I live the clarity and sensitivity with which you tackle all your videos, @Horses I feel I genuinely learn something from each of them and this is no exception. Thank you
Cranking out gold, so glad I found this channel, thx for another excellent video
Appreciate the tie in at the end for how we can apply the same criticism of this book's narrator to the current state of news and world events. We fail to realize how coloured our perspectives can become just by being enchanted by the one telling the story. Enjoy your channel so much.
the ppl who say rhe book is a love story about a “young seductress” and a “forbidden love” aren’t able to tell the book is against that shit, just like American Psycho
I say this as a "survivor" of childhood sexual abuse which very much changed the whole trajectory of my life and severely destroyed my personhood. -- Thank you for, in such a beautiful and articulate way, bringing justice to the malevolence of how twisted and misinterpreted this original work was and still is.
I have read the book myself, a long time ago, (borrowing a copy from my sister who had the misfortune of acquiring only a used copy with a photo of a young girl's legs as the cover -- ick) but I think I was much too stunned at the time to truly embrace how horrific of a story Lolita is. It dawned on me much later, like nuclear fallout.
Your video is also amazing in explaining the widespread cultural impact of Lolita's misinterpretation.
Every time Lolita's true intent has another light shined on it, I heal and understand my own experiences of violence just a little bit more.
I think Kubrick‘s „Lolita“ completely misses the point of this book. 🤦🏼♀️
I think it also had to do with how the movie needed to be censored as that type of movie would have been unheard of especially for 1960s Hollywood. The movie took more of the dark comedy route from the book and made the heinous things more underlying
@@Sauceman10_ Kubrick himself stated that if he knew the censors would remove so much from Nabokov's script, he'd never have made it.
Kubrick never even considered the film part of his "canon," putting it in the same pit as Spartacus, where he didn't have creative control of his project.
This idea that Kubrick missed the point of the book is just crazy. He didn't, the constraints of film release in the early 60s made making the movie impossible.
Kubrick learned his lesson and adapted a far more explicit novel not even a decade later.
So does his Tbe Shining".
He does his own thing with them.
I loved both the book and the movie for different reasons. Each stands on its own as a work of art
Ngl this horse makes some pretty banger vids
The butterfly b-roll is a very nice touch.
Hmm very true, i agree with every point presented (havent even seen the video)
I am disgusted how lust over children is acceptable in media. Take anime for example, so many little girls dressed in skimpy clothing being excused because they are "1000 years old". There is no justification why one is attracted to children, even when Humbert 2x says he loves Dolly, it's not a good validation because all he sees in her is a toy, not a human. I really feel bad for the Author, who wants to warn people about the dangers of lust, only for said people to define lust as love, and then misunderstanding this whole tale as a "love" story.
A thing that disturbs me the most about Lolita was that it was "allegedly" inspired by the kidnapping case of Sally Horner, which happened around two years before the initial publication of Lolita. I write alleged because Nabokov never confirmed it himself but the parallels between Sally's story and Dolly's is uncanny, as well as newspaper clippings of the Sally Horner case being found in Nabokov's office after he died. There's a great book on the topic called "The Real Lolita: The Kidnapping of Sally Horner" it goes into great depth about Sally's case and draws parallels between chapters/story elements in Lolita and Sally's case.
You nailed it. Also check out the Sally Horner case (or Warner can’t remember) it’s basically this and is referenced in the book. It’s worth noting that Nabokov wrote himself into the script for the movie in a cameo to basically say “look me and humbert are not the same person”
Jeez I've never cringed for 30 minutes straight before, my composure is not easily broken...
Seriously, thanks for breaking down this story. I've heard it's great for understanding the mind of both the victim and those who victimize.
Though there's no way I could have gotten through this whole novel.
This shortened version of events is already harrowing. I can only imagine the horror for someone who's had to live through such events. Even hearing about such things is terrifying and makes me recoil.
Reassured that I'm not the only one 😭 I don't even think I can watch the rest of this and I'm already 5 minutes in
Nabokov makes Humbert sound so real and genuine, yet the reader knows what he has done and what he is thinking...
Also. This video is simply beautifully made. The graphics to the phrasing of certain words are so carefully chosen and executed, I am beyond impressed.
I think it takes a dedicated writer to create such a piece humanizing a character that they deeply despise. and it's a valuable piece. Paedophiles and child molesters are human beings, after all, and the perception of them as pure monsters has allowed countless crimes to go unpunished. Nabokov is a true artist.
This is a damn good review, man. Does a great job of stripping away the bullshit of Humbert's narrator position and just lays out his terrible actions and true motivations. Really it just makes me appreciate what a tremendous writer Nabokov was, man was writing in layers.
Well done for resisting any clickbait images for the thumbnail!
As an older viewer, it is a bit weird to see Graham Greene pop up as a 'critic for the Times' (paraphrasing) - the reason his review made such an impact was because Greene was just about the most well-respected novelist in the UK at the time. He was a 'public intellectual' and people listened to what he said.
Graham Green probably was connected to some intel agency. This is my opinion after spending my early life reading newspapers and magazines.
@@watermelonlalala
I'm just saying that he wasn't best known as a 'critic for the Times'! I don't know enough about Greene to say if he worked for the state - he was too immersed in Catholicism for my tastes.
But we do know for sure Eric Blair had secret service connections! Which has surprised a lot of people.
@@ZachariahJ Yes, GG was known as a novelist. One of his novels was made into the movie, "Ministry of Fear", about a Nazi spy ring working in England through rich old ladies raffling off cakes (with spy stuff hidden inside) at charity festivals. I did not know he was a Catholic. I see he converted as an adult, and that only adds to my suspicions of him. Almost every famous Catholic "intellectual" last century seemed to have converted as an adult. As a Catholic kid, I noticed a patten.
It is a masterfully written book… but may I say how blown away I was by the footage in this video of driving in Sedona az in the 80s! I grew up there, and it added to the wistful beauty of this visual parade
You are my favourite yt channel. Every video is a work of art. Simply amazing.
Very well made video. I love the section dedicated to explaining how Lolita’s meaning has changed from its original meaning over the years. Well said!!
People are too quick to assume that writing about something = endorsing it
People are idiots
Sir, I appreciate your work very much. Thankyou for the effort. Your channel is a quiet gem of the internet.
@Horses a total shot in the dark but I would love to watch a video of yours talking about the history of Spain and its separatist regions such as Catalonia, the Basque Country, etc
Always finding amazing essays in this channel. Thank you
Thank you for calling it what it is: rape.
This is making me reflect on a lot of things that happened to me when I was younger. I had this boyfriend who was 5 years older than me when I was 17, he once put the Lolita movie (Kubrick's version) for me, he was very excited about it, would call me Lolita... I didn't have a lot of background context on what the book was really about so overall I was just confused at the time