I also read Lolita because it’s iconic and I wanted to see what it was all about. Other than the disturbing subject, I liked the book because of the writing and the psychology. I always say a book should make you think or feel something and as you mentioned he made me feel uncomfortable yet fascinated by the beautiful writing. Loved your review - it makes me want to reread it.
@je6sie It's meant to show how disgusting and manipulative Hubert really is. The book, it shows how twisted he is. It's MEANT to make the reader uncomfortable because he's absolutely disgusting.
Art and literature are not supposed to be always appropriate, woke, inclusive, diverse, etc. Especially the works of art created decades or centuries ago. Why would you expect that? Following this logic, we should scrap all paintings by Paul Gaugain, to name just one artist. Art is art, it's supposed to create a world and show it to us, we can interpret it, feel it, love it or dislike it. It doesn't have to depict good things only.
Haha oh I don’t expect it - I want my lot to be gritty. However not all readers share that opinion, so I like to ask the question. Thanks for watching and thanks for your insight!
I especially love the foreward by the grandstanding academic who only takes the morals that you can grasp and not the other criticisms such as materialism, mental illness, grief, cruelty, power, suffering, and, the penultimate, psychology. Lolita is a super novel that is not about one thing and is basically a mirror of life itself.
i don't think that's what he was saying. it's that many people judge things from long ago by today's standards and possibly eschewing amazing works of art in the process. The genius of this book is that Humbert is grooming the reader as he’s grooming her.
I like this book for creating a powerful sense of both illusion and disillusionment derived from lust, but at the same time, Nabokov's mind-boggling wordplays make me feel so dumb😂
I think you explained it perfectly. It is a famous novel because it is written beautifully (I remember underliling many phrases while I was reading it) and it makes you deal with the fact that terrible people are still, well people. They find a way to justify their actions and while you condemn them you can still comprehend them. I remember while reading it the hope that Humbert would stop being a piece of shit and become a better person and almost rooting for him despite the fact that he was a fucking monster. It is not easy to write about such a fucking terrible person and still make people kinda root for them to become better. Parts of me think I am sick because I sometimes related to Humbert and his struggles while I hated him, but I think that’s just because Nabokov is a phenomenal writer.
i wasn't roting for him to become a better person (bcs of spoilers), infact i was celebrating whenever things don't go his way😂. whenever his time with Dolores was interupted i saw that as win, despite knowing how everything played out 🥲.
One of the things I like about Humbert's characterization is that his sociopathy feels realistic. I feel like I've met this guy before wearing a different skin and working different angles, but basically the same eyes.
8:30 ironic, "would we have wanted to read this from Lolita's perspective" mirrors how society doesn't want to face the victims. I understand the writing it good. I understand the intent. I've read it. I hate it. Makes me uncomfortable. "It's supposed to" yeah that's great. But what's makes me more uncomfortable than reading it myself is the possibility of people using the "relatable villain" as an excuse for being p*dophelic. It makes me uncomfortable in that way. Like I'm worried about this kind of work circulating in groups where it doesn't get appreciated by the "right group." Just me though.
there's a technique in interrogation by which you as a investigator set a trap for your suspect by eluding to an analogous situation. Say you are interrogating a murderer. You place casually a newspaper with an article about some other criminal facing justice for a crime. You don't acknowledge the article, your trap, at first, rather you asses the target and see how they react to it. Ultimately, you bring the trial up with your current suspect and ask them, this criminal, this person that did this wrong thing, what do you think they should do with him? This empathy test has many outcomes, but what you're looking for is to see if your mark will side with the accused, or with the victims. The guilty party will acknowledge the wrong done by the accuse but will suggest that mitigating circumstances should be considered and clemency granted while sentencing. The innocent party would identify with the victims and demand the maximum penalty for the accused. Nabokov delivers a phycological horror through the twisted mind of a narcissist sociopath. But what I think is scarier still, the ending of the book where HH fully admits his crimes and even states he'd give himself 36 years in prison (presuming he's in his 40's at the time of writing) effectively a life sentence. He laments that he's not going to jail for what he did to Dolly, but rather that he's going to jail for murdering her other abuser. The last chapters of this book get darker and bleaker as you realize more and more that every character was an accomplice, that everyone knew and yet they all chose to do nothing. and in the end Dolly gets no closure, her feelings disregarded by a society so indifferent to her suffering that they are accomplices to her abuse, and in the end the only 'justice' is one pedo rapist going to jail for killing another pedo rapist. this is a novel taken from so many real world headlines that no one could sue Nabokov for defamation as no one could claim that right exclusively. which adds to the horror.
Even worse is that Humbert dies of heart failure before his sentencing and that Dolores and her stillborn died on Christmas Day, December 25th. Dolores never gets justice because there is no justice to be had from her pain and suffering. It is moot, and bleak as anything ever.
I have this book on my bucket list, but it's so far down the list that I'm actually avoiding the book because of the subject matter without admitting it to myself. After hearing your review I've decided to give it a chance and if it turns out to be to offensive to my sensibilities, I'll just DNF it. Thank you for your review, it helped me deal with this legendary book by Nabokov.
Have you read My Dark Vanessa? It was heartbreaking and beautifully written. The grooming is so blatant, her teacher gives her a copy of Lolita to read because she's "so mature." Seeing her adult self in therapy, seeing her processing and coping with what happened to her, seeing her crying that she NEEDS it to be a love story... it shattered me. 1,000% trigger warnings! Also, incredibly powerful.
I'm similar to you. If I hear people say "why are you reading that," but they have no words to really criticize the quality of the story or the writing, I'm more likely to read it.
I read Lolita about 40+ years ago. I remember it as a compelling look behind the curtain. Well written. Knowing that it was fiction allowed me to keep it (the topic) at arms length I will reread it but want to read Dark Vanessa after
God I love a book that stirs all kinds of feelings and emotions. I love unlikable characters that are well written. I love the writing in this book, I’m fascinated how Navokov takes you into the mind of a monster, how you find yourself conflicted because you know what is happening is wrong, is disgusting but you’re hooked on the story nonetheless because the writing is just on another level. Found myself on an almost similar situation with The dumb house by John Burnside. Highly recommend that book if you have the stomach for it.
Ah, I do like Lolita. 🙂 People balk at it because they think it's like child porn, but really the focus is on the psychology, not the physicality. And plus the ending reveals that, despite the abuse, it was truly a love story, (of a sort 🥴). And it's also funny as hell too. And of course the writing is god tier stuff. Probably the greatest work, from a purely literary standpoint, of "transgressive fiction". Nabokov boldly went where no one, or very few, had gone before, but the deftness of Lolita's execution is nigh untouchable.
Falcon, I agree with most of this. Specifically with the love story part. We, as outsiders, may be grossed out, but I think that Humbert is truly in love with _Lolita_ . I even think he knows it is wrong, but tries to justify himself. It is not that he is a type of pedophile seeking out just any girl of that age, but seemingly only one specific girl. If it were otherwise, after Lolita ditches him, he would have moved on to the next girl. The efforts that he goes through (show, not tell) illustrates that it is just Lolita he desires.
I am almost through this read. I can honestly say that if you found this to be a tale of love, ( or romance), you need serious help. Not ‘lol I’m quirky’ or the art major pretentious type or even the broken girl or boy who subconsciously loves toxicity. I mean actual psychiatric help. Humpbert on multiple occasions sat and watched “nymphets” and I don’t think I need to tell you why. He also stated that when Lolita the girl he loved ssoooooo much was too old (15-16) he fancied getting her pregnant so he could another young nymphet to you know what. This was a man OVERWHELMED by lust who found opportunity in a CHILD driven momentarily by curiosity. That curiousity faded almost half way thru the book. The rest of the novel was a legitimate hostage situation. Aahhhh yes romance oh romance. I too remember the days where had BRIBE MY GIRLFRIEND FOR S3XU41 FAVORS. or all the time I wiped away her tears after our times bed. Because, and I’m quoting humpert here. She cried after EVERYTIME. Oh how romantic, I know all too well the moments where you have to convince a lover through intimidation that if they speak (which she wanted to) they would be put away in horrible place. Easily as romantic as Emma and Mr. Knightly or Jane eyre and Mr. Rochester. Disgusting. 🤢
I haven’t read Lolita or Little Life yet, but I thought My Dark Vanessa was a compelling and deeply disturbing narrative from the victim’s point of view. I appreciated all your thoughts and highly recommend My Dark Vanessa! 💜
The look on your face in the still says it all 😸😁 I don't have to go further than I just don't care for Nabokov's "style(s)" not in this nor any other book! What people think is so great about his writing is beyond me
Lolita for me is not only one of my favorite novels, but one of the greatest novels of the English language. Even more impressive considering Nabokov wasn't even a native English speaker. I didn't know what you were going to say about this book, but it seems that it left a deep impression on you, which is good. It means that the book did what it was meant to. What I think makes Lolita so powerful is how Nabokov toys with your expectations and beliefs about the world around you. He plays with our desire to understand why people do things like what Humbert does and he doesn't hold back. He goes as far as to try and gaslight you into sympathizing with someone who most people would want to see go under the jail and see suffer the most scathing punishments imaginable. It's as you say, he goes 'oh, you want to see why? I'll show you.' Not only does he do that, he tricks you into liking him, and even feeling sorry for him, even as the cracks of his facade become more apparent. Lolita is one of those sublime experiences that I don't think I could justify with mere words. It's an experience, to be savored and felt. There were passages of Lolita where I had to sit the book down, in complete awe and wonder over what I just read, before going back to it again. Nabokov's voice is as unique as Blake, Eliot, McCarthy, or Conrad. When you read it, you realize that you'll never read anything quite like it again, at least not in the way Nabokov did it. I'll stop before I just start rambling about why it's a masterpiece. This was a great review, I'm giving your channel a sub!
I have re-read Lolita a lot and i come to like it, and regard it as one of the best novel that he wrote. I don't blame people who read this novel one time and may 1) hate it, or 2) side with Humbert and admire the Nymphet concept (these two patterns are the typical). But everybody knows that child abuse is not good and it is not anything close to LOVE at all, including the writer himself. It is said that this novel has layers, and if you re-read it gradually you get to see the real Doroles, who their parents died, who only had Humbert to rely, who didn't know anything about sex, and had nowhere to go with the age of twelve or something. What is great is that Nabokov knew what Dolores may feel, but tried to express that throught the unreliable narrator HH. But you can see through it, eventually. Now I love to re-read the novel and I kind of feel what this child Dolores feels or how she numbs her feeling (which is typical for the abused child to do), at the same time what gives hope about this novel is that Dolores (not so much a clever girl) has always stood on her feet and eventually escaped (with the help of Q, a good person in her life) to have her life (sad that she died on her child birth, though). There is a love for this girl from the authour, although given a miserable life in the story. Some that claims this is a love story I would categorise them in the case 2), who are takin into the first layer of the story inside the HH narrative, to praise the nymphet concept. HH caling this girl LOLITA, which is not her real name, says it all, that what he loved is not herself, but the imaginary something that he created. I don't blame these readers. You may have to just keep reading again.
One thing I don't understand especially about the American readers is that, Stepfarthers, or even actual farthers sexsually abusing their children are quite common in the world and in USA, so why you people are so opposed to this story Lolita. The reality is much uglier than this story.
It’s a densely allusive text. Filled with references to Poe (who also wrote stories from the POV of monsters) . Also it’s Humbert trying to obviate his crime with scholarship…putting a wall of strained allusions, metaphors and misdirection between himself and the reader. One of the elements people overlook is that it's a comic novel. A parody of American pop culture, travelogues, various European literary traditions etc. It's actually hilarious. A pitch black comedy. PS I highly recommend Pale Fire
Yes it’s definitely a piece of literature with so many elements that’s it’s impossible to get them all on the first read. I definitely plan to read Pale Fire at some point!
I gave up on the book after section one because I just felt that I could be reading something else that didn’t make me so uncomfortable. I agree that the prose was really good, there is a part where the main character sees himself as a spider in a house that is his web, feeling Lolita move around it and I just thought that was such a striking and fascinating metaphor, but the prose couldn’t save it from me feeling annoyed and disgusted. I do think is unfair because a lot of other books talk about the same topic just not as lyrical.
I recommend _Pale Fire_ by Nabokov. I am blown away that English is not his native language. IMO, he is a better writer than most English writers. I also recommend Yale Literature Course on YT has 2 videos (2 classes) on Lolita. Fwiw, Nabokov invented the word "nymphet."
Nabokov was raised trilingual. So english is basically his mother-tongue, he could even read/write it before he could russian. Agree on Plae Fire, it's excellent👌
I definitely plan to read more Nabokov and he’s such a gangsta for his approach on making sure his stuff was written as he intended, depending on the language. I remember reading about that a while ago.
Would love to read this book to see what’s made it so popular but I’m afraid that my English is not good enough to follow along. I don’t know what a lot of words mean that aren’t used in everyday. Is there a lot of old and complicated vocabulary that isn’t used often anymore? I’d need like a dumbified version but it sounds like that would take away the charm
Its the most irredeemable subject novel ever. About a pederast who grooms a girl, who dies as a young woman her life ruined. and yet the literary style makes it a perplexingly brilliant novel. I find myself in awe of it. And maybe Nabokov was speaking of the horrors underneath beauty and brilliance and aesthetic rapture. What a novel, it really does just force me to ponder on our attraction to it as a novel, despite the evil of Humbert Humbert, we are immersed in his voice.
Thanks for the review Alana. I do want to read Lolita and moreso after watching your video because I would like to explore the connection you mention between Lolita and A Little Life
Haven't read it myself, but this was a solid review. I'll probably read it someday. I think I'd have to actually read it to be able to really reflect on the questions you pose at the end (and also I like that you posed these!) It's one of those books where its reputation precedes it so much that it would be easy to discuss the book as it's perceived in society in a way that begins to lose its grounding in the book itself.
I've never read it and I also don't know much about Nabokov, so it's difficult for me to comment on his motivations for writing Lolita. Reprehensible characters and behaviours are often very stimulating for an author to work with; it allows them to cross or push at boundaries that would be impossible to do so with more mainstream topics. It doesn't have to necessarily be explicit or graphic. Just the idea of devising a character who is an outcast, dangerous, pathetic and outside the parameters of normal society can really harness an author's work.
As serious a crime as is child abuse IMHO murder is even more serious. Humbert certainly is guilty of Quilty's murder and possibly Humbert is guilty of Haze's murder too. He planned to do it and set his plan in motion, however her death is accidental only to the naive and uninformed. So, you may allow his lyricism to seduce you into believing what he did to Delores is to be judged with extenuating circumstance but that argument falls short in his felonious assault on Delores and his pre-meditated murder of Claire. The novel works very well as a monster story, and after reading it one gives second-thought to sympathizing with Frankenstein's monster, who was brought into this world without his consent and without a soul.
I think Humbert and Frankenstein's monster are vastly different. Frankenstein's monster is essentially a baby without the years of nurture in a family and society that Humbert would have had. While both may be motivated by loneliness and have targeted victims, Humbert's narrative is unreliable and maybe his crafted narrative is hiding his intentions of lust (is he truly lonely?) - he is trying to sway justice after all. Frankenstein's monster's crime seem to truly be a revenge for denial of love and loneliness against his maker (loosely a victim here). Frankenstein's monster's crime elicits sympathy; Humbert's do not despite Nabokov's lyricism trying to make you uncomfortably conflicted (and it is Nabokov, with a wink in the eye, that is calculatedly /intentionally / overtly causing this conflict, not Humbert; you know it and he knows you know, which is what makes it so genius). Any book is intended to make you FEEL... whether it is romance, patriotism, outrage, grief, or even disgust. It is not like dimes-store giallos that cannot be unilaterally dismissed as trashy writing. Given that there is such strong reaction to this book, I'd say Nabokov succeeded in making you feel.
@@kurtfox4944they are about as alike as Jaws and Moby Dick. When we say monster we imply not human. You may craft arguments favoring either or both but both terrorize people to please themselves.
@@alisonmercer5946 Well, probably many people saw him as a monster, Victor, that is, for taking the role of G-d into human hands, putting together soul-less dead flesh into something electrically charged without a soul. Still others might call it monstrous of Victor to abandon this thing he created, or in other ways what he did,like agreeing to build another. So, yes, one could call Victor a monster, particularly if they're sympathetic to the creation, but possibly you suspected I was talking about Victor's creation when I said 'monster' originally. If not, sorry: I meant to say that Victor created a monster.
Nabokov certainly never made it easy on himself. I read once that he was trying to emulate a certain romantic style of the 19th century, but to do so required using a sort of pathology to have the effect he wanted. Literature is full of murderers, thieves, etc. , but that doesn't make our hair stand on end in disgust like this does. And the suspicions and his own childhood color it in a different light. He never makes it easy, but always interesting.
This was a wonderful review, and almost gives me second thoughts about _Lolita._ I’ll tell you why I am unlikely to read it. I don’t much like Nabokov’s writing. When I was young, I read his “Lectures on Literature” volumes. I believe the first covered the English canon, the second the Russians. I didn’t much enjoy either, and revisited one much later and disliked it. But the real reason, is that I read his translation of Lermontov - parallel read it with another translation - and word-for-word, line-by-line reacted viscerally with abhorrence. Well, that’s a bit of exaggeration, but it was the kind of dislike that brings a physical reaction, and that was just for his prose, not the content. My impression of him is as of a pompous [expletive] - but you have just shoved a wedge into my closed mind to the extent that I could see reconsidering him and giving him a chance. But then the baggage of _Lolita_ inhibits me.
Oh he was a wonderfully pompous snob. That's part of his charm. Here is his philosophy of translation... “This is the first English translation of Lermontov's novel. The book has been paraphrased into English several times,' but never translated before. The experienced hack may find it quite easy to turn Lermontov's Russian into slick English clichés by means of judicious, omission, amplification, and levigation; and he will tone down everything that might seem unfamiliar to the meek and imbecile reader visualized by his publisher. But the honest translator is faced with a different task. In the first place, we must dismiss, once and for all the conventional notion that a translation should read smoothly', and 'should not sound like a translation' (to quote the would-be compliments, addressed to vague versions, by genteel reviewers who never have and never will read the original texts). In point of fact, any translation that does not sound like a translation is bound to be inexact upon inspection; while, on the other hand, the only virtue of a good translation is faithfulness and completeness. Whether it reads smoothly or not depends on the model, not on the mimic.”
I starting reading this novel this summer and my first mistake was doing so in public, the contents made me feel extremely uncomfortable at first (granted) to the point where I kept putting the book down for a breather since I genuinely couldn’t believe Humperts perverted audacious nature. It’s definitely not for the faint hearted, but one can’t deny Nobokov’s addictive writing style. It’s so great yet so sad. Truly the definition of bittersweet.
People should absolutely write about this topic. Being the avid digger into human psyche this is not so disturbing to me. Lolita is a classic Anima figure. Often times this appears as a young girl to men's dreams. Particularly of the era of the authors upbringing. This image is one of the mechanisms in attraction. We hang the anima, the mystical other onto the other person. This definitely can be locked into the image of a young girl. Most of human history this is when in love romances would start. This is the commonplace.
❤️❤️❤️ thank you for watching!! This whole concept of “books people must read” is baffling to me. Life is short - don’t spend it reading what you don’t want to read!
I'm more scared of A Little Life than Lolita! I read Lolita years ago and yeah it's art. Still feels weird to say "I loved it!" I had A Little Life of my shelf for years and never even opened it!
I am currently reading Lolita in Russian language, after having seen the movie from 1998. The book is very dense and it is apparently written to be read several times to fully understand every aspects of it. Quite remarkably, the book was originally written in English, although Nabakov was born in St. Petersburg, and then translated back to Russian by the same author. Many things are remarkable about the book and its author.
Wow, thank you for this great review. Lolita is my favorite book of all time. Yes, I consider it art and I agree that Nabokov trolled the readers in a way that was haunting and magnetic. I have a sorrowful relationship with the book because I read it at a young age and it profoundly traumatised me, yet I forgive Nabokov despite this fact and the fact that he ruined a great chunk of literature for me by showing me how few are the books that hold this kind of literary value.
I just want to say that I actually am a descendant from the Nabokov family, and Vladmir is the cousin of my grandpa, and I think that Lolita might be about pedophilia though literature is not always appropriate and it is a type of book intneded to give an uncomfortable feeling, hiwever literature is all about different feelings and emotions so please don't judge.
Nabokov says in an interview by himself, that he wants his good reader to have all his empathy with Lolita and not with Humbert Humbert. He's fully aware of the fact, that Lolita ist the main victim in his story and that she has to suffer a lot. No way he is glorifying pedophilia, like some of his critics are stating. Sorry for my bad English, I am not a native speaker.
I think one interpretation of "why" relies upon the introduction, specifically the unreliable narrator, and why he is writing his side of the story. In this, I am reminded of this quote “Fact is, I never knowed a person from that day to this but who couldn't lie to themselves about their own evil while pointing out the other man's wrong, and I weren't no exception.” ― James McBride, _The Good Lord Bird_ . People lie to themselves, and may even know that they are lying to themselves, in order to justify their actions. As you say, I think Nabokov was toying with the reader's emotions, knowing that he can write a despicable character and yet write so beautiful and lyrical that it is hard to dismiss it out of hand (I liken people who don't read it to the same who wouldn't read that un-Christian book glorifying witches and wizards called _Harry Potter_ and denounce it without having read it, solely based upon what they heard. Sure, you shouldn't have to read it if you don't want, but you shouldn't ban without firsthand knowledge). Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. What we call morally wrong is social and a sign of the times. Some are more everlasting than others. For this I point of the idea that cannibalism and slavery were widespread in the past (and slavery continues to this day in East Africa). Ancient Greek did not have the word for incest (fide _Cleopatra: A Life_ by Stacy Schiff - of the 10 or so marriages in post-Alexander royalty, 5 or more were brother/sister marriages). Even in _Lolita_ , Humbert lists underage 'romances' in the past.
Useless trivia. Five states have *no official minimum age for marriage* , but still require either parental consent, court approval or both: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington. So theoretically, if married, this would not even be against the law here in the US in 2024. Odd, but true!
Women have been blamed for male lust for centuries. This book actually never found a publisher in the great USA. It was published in France. There is a Spanish director who also travelled to France to make a movie based on Justine by Sarte. I think these books are important for one reason: it makes me really wonder and question what freedom is. Is someone smoking in my face b/c they have the right to smoke freedom, or prison? Is a man abusing a child b/c "he can't help himself" freedom or abuse? Is publishing a book about it shedding light on the matter, or spreading porn? All these questions are in my head when I think of Lolita. But, no, I did not enjoy reading it.
@@alanaestelle2076 Nabokov wasn’t out to explore pedophilia anymore than he was exploring incest in Ada. It’s simply used as a metaphor for innocent Americana encountering corrupt Old Europe.
I think this work is the greatest piece of literature anyone dealing with sexual abuse can read as you find catharsis in Dolores' unmentioned suffering and the grotesque farce of Humbert's psychology. To all other victims out there, read this book and know you are not alone and you are seen, no matter how much your Humberts try to conceal your pain and torment.
Have you read My Dark Vanessa? It’s from the victim’s perspective and it’s based on the author’s own experience :( there’s a lot to discuss about that book I think you’ll like it
It's just one of those novels I know I'm going to read throughout my life because it's so jammed packed with so much. My next read of this will be an annotated version as well.
I also read Lolita because it’s iconic and I wanted to see what it was all about. Other than the disturbing subject, I liked the book because of the writing and the psychology. I always say a book should make you think or feel something and as you mentioned he made me feel uncomfortable yet fascinated by the beautiful writing. Loved your review - it makes me want to reread it.
Yes! I also like books that make me feel a bit uncomfortable haha. Thank you!
wasn't it meant to be disturbing, as told by the pedophile's perspective?
@je6sie It's meant to show how disgusting and manipulative Hubert really is. The book, it shows how twisted he is. It's MEANT to make the reader uncomfortable because he's absolutely disgusting.
Art and literature are not supposed to be always appropriate, woke, inclusive, diverse, etc. Especially the works of art created decades or centuries ago. Why would you expect that? Following this logic, we should scrap all paintings by Paul Gaugain, to name just one artist. Art is art, it's supposed to create a world and show it to us, we can interpret it, feel it, love it or dislike it. It doesn't have to depict good things only.
Haha oh I don’t expect it - I want my lot to be gritty. However not all readers share that opinion, so I like to ask the question. Thanks for watching and thanks for your insight!
I especially love the foreward by the grandstanding academic who only takes the morals that you can grasp and not the other criticisms such as materialism, mental illness, grief, cruelty, power, suffering, and, the penultimate, psychology. Lolita is a super novel that is not about one thing and is basically a mirror of life itself.
Since when was being anti pedophilia woke?
i don't think that's what he was saying. it's that many people judge things from long ago by today's standards and possibly eschewing amazing works of art in the process.
The genius of this book is that Humbert is grooming the reader as he’s grooming her.
I like this book for creating a powerful sense of both illusion and disillusionment derived from lust, but at the same time, Nabokov's mind-boggling wordplays make me feel so dumb😂
LOL!l Nabokov definitely word plays and it can make the brain hurt.
Art is meant to comfort the disturbed and disturbed the comfort.
I think you explained it perfectly. It is a famous novel because it is written beautifully (I remember underliling many phrases while I was reading it) and it makes you deal with the fact that terrible people are still, well people. They find a way to justify their actions and while you condemn them you can still comprehend them. I remember while reading it the hope that Humbert would stop being a piece of shit and become a better person and almost rooting for him despite the fact that he was a fucking monster. It is not easy to write about such a fucking terrible person and still make people kinda root for them to become better. Parts of me think I am sick because I sometimes related to Humbert and his struggles while I hated him, but I think that’s just because Nabokov is a phenomenal writer.
Yes that’s why this book is so compelling at times because Nabokov is forcing the reader to recognize the unsavory elements in us all.
i wasn't roting for him to become a better person (bcs of spoilers), infact i was celebrating whenever things don't go his way😂. whenever his time with Dolores was interupted i saw that as win, despite knowing how everything played out 🥲.
I recently read Lolita late 2023. I felt no sympathy for him but I saw what he was trying to do. I did enjoy the writing.
It’s such a … conflicting feeling lol
@ms.genevievehennacyThe main character, Hubert.
One of the things I like about Humbert's characterization is that his sociopathy feels realistic. I feel like I've met this guy before wearing a different skin and working different angles, but basically the same eyes.
yes, it does feel realistic!
@@alanaestelle2076I heard rumors that the author was assaulted by his uncle 😢 that might be why it feels so disturbingly real.
@iHeartAMP that's sad :(
8:30 ironic, "would we have wanted to read this from Lolita's perspective" mirrors how society doesn't want to face the victims.
I understand the writing it good. I understand the intent. I've read it. I hate it. Makes me uncomfortable. "It's supposed to" yeah that's great. But what's makes me more uncomfortable than reading it myself is the possibility of people using the "relatable villain" as an excuse for being p*dophelic. It makes me uncomfortable in that way. Like I'm worried about this kind of work circulating in groups where it doesn't get appreciated by the "right group." Just me though.
there's a technique in interrogation by which you as a investigator set a trap for your suspect by eluding to an analogous situation. Say you are interrogating a murderer. You place casually a newspaper with an article about some other criminal facing justice for a crime. You don't acknowledge the article, your trap, at first, rather you asses the target and see how they react to it. Ultimately, you bring the trial up with your current suspect and ask them, this criminal, this person that did this wrong thing, what do you think they should do with him? This empathy test has many outcomes, but what you're looking for is to see if your mark will side with the accused, or with the victims. The guilty party will acknowledge the wrong done by the accuse but will suggest that mitigating circumstances should be considered and clemency granted while sentencing. The innocent party would identify with the victims and demand the maximum penalty for the accused.
Nabokov delivers a phycological horror through the twisted mind of a narcissist sociopath. But what I think is scarier still, the ending of the book where HH fully admits his crimes and even states he'd give himself 36 years in prison (presuming he's in his 40's at the time of writing) effectively a life sentence. He laments that he's not going to jail for what he did to Dolly, but rather that he's going to jail for murdering her other abuser. The last chapters of this book get darker and bleaker as you realize more and more that every character was an accomplice, that everyone knew and yet they all chose to do nothing. and in the end Dolly gets no closure, her feelings disregarded by a society so indifferent to her suffering that they are accomplices to her abuse, and in the end the only 'justice' is one pedo rapist going to jail for killing another pedo rapist. this is a novel taken from so many real world headlines that no one could sue Nabokov for defamation as no one could claim that right exclusively. which adds to the horror.
This is great commentary! I'm definitely going to reread this at some point and get an annotated version.
Even worse is that Humbert dies of heart failure before his sentencing and that Dolores and her stillborn died on Christmas Day, December 25th. Dolores never gets justice because there is no justice to be had from her pain and suffering. It is moot, and bleak as anything ever.
I have this book on my bucket list, but it's so far down the list that I'm actually avoiding the book because of the subject matter without admitting it to myself. After hearing your review I've decided to give it a chance and if it turns out to be to offensive to my sensibilities, I'll just DNF it. Thank you for your review, it helped me deal with this legendary book by Nabokov.
Thank you for watching!! So true - we can always DNF 🙌🏼
Superb review. Thank you. I haven't read Lolita, but I just finished Nabokov’s Bend Sinister, and it's filled with stream of consciousness prose.
Have you read My Dark Vanessa? It was heartbreaking and beautifully written. The grooming is so blatant, her teacher gives her a copy of Lolita to read because she's "so mature." Seeing her adult self in therapy, seeing her processing and coping with what happened to her, seeing her crying that she NEEDS it to be a love story... it shattered me. 1,000% trigger warnings! Also, incredibly powerful.
I haven't read it but i've thought about reading it, at some point!
I'm similar to you. If I hear people say "why are you reading that," but they have no words to really criticize the quality of the story or the writing, I'm more likely to read it.
@@JulianWyllie like a true rebel 🤌🏼
I read Lolita about 40+ years ago. I remember it as a compelling look behind the curtain. Well written. Knowing that it was fiction allowed me to keep it (the topic) at arms length I will reread it but want to read Dark Vanessa after
I need to read Dark Vanessa. People keep mentioning it 👀
@@alanaestelle2076 Read my dark vanessa!! Dark but good!
God I love a book that stirs all kinds of feelings and emotions. I love unlikable characters that are well written. I love the writing in this book, I’m fascinated how Navokov takes you into the mind of a monster, how you find yourself conflicted because you know what is happening is wrong, is disgusting but you’re hooked on the story nonetheless because the writing is just on another level.
Found myself on an almost similar situation with The dumb house by John Burnside. Highly recommend that book if you have the stomach for it.
Oh same! I love a conflicting book🤣
Oooh haven’t hear of that one!
I've been reading 'my dark vanessa' and noticed a mention of 'Lolita' in it, got me curious! Thanks for the spoiler free review ✨
I feel like I need to read My Dark Vanessa now - it's beed mentioned so much to me since this review. And thank you for watching!
Sameeee
Ah, I do like Lolita. 🙂 People balk at it because they think it's like child porn, but really the focus is on the psychology, not the physicality. And plus the ending reveals that, despite the abuse, it was truly a love story, (of a sort 🥴). And it's also funny as hell too. And of course the writing is god tier stuff. Probably the greatest work, from a purely literary standpoint, of "transgressive fiction". Nabokov boldly went where no one, or very few, had gone before, but the deftness of Lolita's execution is nigh untouchable.
Falcon, I agree with most of this. Specifically with the love story part. We, as outsiders, may be grossed out, but I think that Humbert is truly in love with _Lolita_ . I even think he knows it is wrong, but tries to justify himself. It is not that he is a type of pedophile seeking out just any girl of that age, but seemingly only one specific girl. If it were otherwise, after Lolita ditches him, he would have moved on to the next girl. The efforts that he goes through (show, not tell) illustrates that it is just Lolita he desires.
Nabokov definitely was … bold 😅
I am almost through this read. I can honestly say that if you found this to be a tale of love, ( or romance), you need serious help. Not ‘lol I’m quirky’ or the art major pretentious type or even the broken girl or boy who subconsciously loves toxicity. I mean actual psychiatric help. Humpbert on multiple occasions sat and watched “nymphets” and I don’t think I need to tell you why. He also stated that when Lolita the girl he loved ssoooooo much was too old (15-16) he fancied getting her pregnant so he could another young nymphet to you know what. This was a man OVERWHELMED by lust who found opportunity in a CHILD driven momentarily by curiosity. That curiousity faded almost half way thru the book. The rest of the novel was a legitimate hostage situation. Aahhhh yes romance oh romance. I too remember the days where had BRIBE MY GIRLFRIEND FOR S3XU41 FAVORS. or all the time I wiped away her tears after our times bed. Because, and I’m quoting humpert here. She cried after EVERYTIME. Oh how romantic, I know all too well the moments where you have to convince a lover through intimidation that if they speak (which she wanted to) they would be put away in horrible place. Easily as romantic as Emma and Mr. Knightly or Jane eyre and Mr. Rochester. Disgusting. 🤢
I, from an adult perspective, would call this a one sided love story much that serial rapists love the objects they abuse.
I haven’t read Lolita or Little Life yet, but I thought My Dark Vanessa was a compelling and deeply disturbing narrative from the victim’s point of view. I appreciated all your thoughts and highly recommend My Dark Vanessa! 💜
Oooooh I’ve heard of My Dark Vanessa but hadn’t read it! Thanks for the rec!
The look on your face in the still says it all 😸😁 I don't have to go further than I just don't care for Nabokov's "style(s)" not in this nor any other book! What people think is so great about his writing is beyond me
Haha yeah I get it!
Lolita for me is not only one of my favorite novels, but one of the greatest novels of the English language. Even more impressive considering Nabokov wasn't even a native English speaker. I didn't know what you were going to say about this book, but it seems that it left a deep impression on you, which is good. It means that the book did what it was meant to.
What I think makes Lolita so powerful is how Nabokov toys with your expectations and beliefs about the world around you. He plays with our desire to understand why people do things like what Humbert does and he doesn't hold back. He goes as far as to try and gaslight you into sympathizing with someone who most people would want to see go under the jail and see suffer the most scathing punishments imaginable. It's as you say, he goes 'oh, you want to see why? I'll show you.' Not only does he do that, he tricks you into liking him, and even feeling sorry for him, even as the cracks of his facade become more apparent.
Lolita is one of those sublime experiences that I don't think I could justify with mere words. It's an experience, to be savored and felt. There were passages of Lolita where I had to sit the book down, in complete awe and wonder over what I just read, before going back to it again. Nabokov's voice is as unique as Blake, Eliot, McCarthy, or Conrad. When you read it, you realize that you'll never read anything quite like it again, at least not in the way Nabokov did it. I'll stop before I just start rambling about why it's a masterpiece.
This was a great review, I'm giving your channel a sub!
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and for subscribing! Nabokov is definitely toying with the reader and I can’t say I’m mad at it 😂
I have re-read Lolita a lot and i come to like it, and regard it as one of the best novel that he wrote. I don't blame people who read this novel one time and may 1) hate it, or 2) side with Humbert and admire the Nymphet concept (these two patterns are the typical). But everybody knows that child abuse is not good and it is not anything close to LOVE at all, including the writer himself. It is said that this novel has layers, and if you re-read it gradually you get to see the real Doroles, who their parents died, who only had Humbert to rely, who didn't know anything about sex, and had nowhere to go with the age of twelve or something. What is great is that Nabokov knew what Dolores may feel, but tried to express that throught the unreliable narrator HH. But you can see through it, eventually. Now I love to re-read the novel and I kind of feel what this child Dolores feels or how she numbs her feeling (which is typical for the abused child to do), at the same time what gives hope about this novel is that Dolores (not so much a clever girl) has always stood on her feet and eventually escaped (with the help of Q, a good person in her life) to have her life (sad that she died on her child birth, though). There is a love for this girl from the authour, although given a miserable life in the story.
Some that claims this is a love story I would categorise them in the case 2), who are takin into the first layer of the story inside the HH narrative, to praise the nymphet concept. HH caling this girl LOLITA, which is not her real name, says it all, that what he loved is not herself, but the imaginary something that he created. I don't blame these readers. You may have to just keep reading again.
One thing I don't understand especially about the American readers is that, Stepfarthers, or even actual farthers sexsually abusing their children are quite common in the world and in USA, so why you people are so opposed to this story Lolita. The reality is much uglier than this story.
Totally agree about Lolita. Such beautiful writing about such an ugly relationship
It’s a densely allusive text. Filled with references to Poe (who also wrote stories from the POV of monsters) . Also it’s Humbert trying to obviate his crime with scholarship…putting a wall of strained allusions, metaphors and misdirection between himself and the reader. One of the elements people overlook is that it's a comic novel. A parody of American pop culture, travelogues, various European literary traditions etc. It's actually hilarious. A pitch black comedy.
PS I highly recommend Pale Fire
Yes it’s definitely a piece of literature with so many elements that’s it’s impossible to get them all on the first read. I definitely plan to read Pale Fire at some point!
I gave up on the book after section one because I just felt that I could be reading something else that didn’t make me so uncomfortable. I agree that the prose was really good, there is a part where the main character sees himself as a spider in a house that is his web, feeling Lolita move around it and I just thought that was such a striking and fascinating metaphor, but the prose couldn’t save it from me feeling annoyed and disgusted. I do think is unfair because a lot of other books talk about the same topic just not as lyrical.
Whew I forgot about that spider web analogy. Makes my skin crawl 💀💀💀
'Lolita' is probably the most unflinchingly honest portrayal of a paedophile in literature. Mann's 'Death in Venice' pales in comparison.
Well, I don't have Instagram so I am happy you post on UA-cam. I just can't do without your book reviews and sense of humor.
No pressure 😉😅
Aw thank you!!! 🥹❤️
"Oddly fascinated, and disturbed at the same time" ... read McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_ .
Hahah will do! Thanks to you I have a copy 🤣
I recommend _Pale Fire_ by Nabokov. I am blown away that English is not his native language. IMO, he is a better writer than most English writers. I also recommend Yale Literature Course on YT has 2 videos (2 classes) on Lolita. Fwiw, Nabokov invented the word "nymphet."
Nabokov was raised trilingual. So english is basically his mother-tongue, he could even read/write it before he could russian.
Agree on Plae Fire, it's excellent👌
I definitely plan to read more Nabokov and he’s such a gangsta for his approach on making sure his stuff was written as he intended, depending on the language. I remember reading about that a while ago.
The Kubrick film is great, as all Kubrick films are. Peter Sellers gives a brilliant performance as always.
Hey Pandora. "Don't Open That Box!" Opens it immediately... "Don't read that book." Reads it.
Hi, it’s me. I’m the problem, it’s me 🤣
Would love to read this book to see what’s made it so popular but I’m afraid that my English is not good enough to follow along. I don’t know what a lot of words mean that aren’t used in everyday. Is there a lot of old and complicated vocabulary that isn’t used often anymore? I’d need like a dumbified version but it sounds like that would take away the charm
Not gonna lie, this is tricky book to read, even in English - I had to reread some passages multiple times because Nabokov's writing is so lyrical.
Thank you! 🙏
First video I have watched from you, tysm for your reviews! ❤
Thank you for watching!
Its the most irredeemable subject novel ever. About a pederast who grooms a girl, who dies as a young woman her life ruined. and yet the literary style makes it a perplexingly brilliant novel. I find myself in awe of it. And maybe Nabokov was speaking of the horrors underneath beauty and brilliance and aesthetic rapture. What a novel, it really does just force me to ponder on our attraction to it as a novel, despite the evil of Humbert Humbert, we are immersed in his voice.
Yes, this novel is so brilliant and causes conflicting emotions haha.
A remarkable book in every way. Thank you for your review Alana.
Thank you!!
Thanks for the review Alana. I do want to read Lolita and moreso after watching your video because I would like to explore the connection you mention between Lolita and A Little Life
Thank you for watching! A Little Life review coming Feb 25th 👀
Haven't read it myself, but this was a solid review. I'll probably read it someday. I think I'd have to actually read it to be able to really reflect on the questions you pose at the end (and also I like that you posed these!) It's one of those books where its reputation precedes it so much that it would be easy to discuss the book as it's perceived in society in a way that begins to lose its grounding in the book itself.
That’s a good point! I always feel that way about A Little Life - it’s talked about for the content but many people are missing the bigger points
I've never read it and I also don't know much about Nabokov, so it's difficult for me to comment on his motivations for writing Lolita.
Reprehensible characters and behaviours are often very stimulating for an author to work with; it allows them to cross or push at boundaries that would be impossible to do so with more mainstream topics.
It doesn't have to necessarily be explicit or graphic. Just the idea of devising a character who is an outcast, dangerous, pathetic and outside the parameters of normal society can really harness an author's work.
Yes! Excellent point! Artist need the exercise of pushing the boundaries to hone their craft.
As serious a crime as is child abuse IMHO murder is even more serious. Humbert certainly is guilty of Quilty's murder and possibly Humbert is guilty of Haze's murder too. He planned to do it and set his plan in motion, however her death is accidental only to the naive and uninformed. So, you may allow his lyricism to seduce you into believing what he did to Delores is to be judged with extenuating circumstance but that argument falls short in his felonious assault on Delores and his pre-meditated murder of Claire. The novel works very well as a monster story, and after reading it one gives second-thought to sympathizing with Frankenstein's monster, who was brought into this world without his consent and without a soul.
Oooooh I like this comparison with Frankenstein!
I think Humbert and Frankenstein's monster are vastly different. Frankenstein's monster is essentially a baby without the years of nurture in a family and society that Humbert would have had. While both may be motivated by loneliness and have targeted victims, Humbert's narrative is unreliable and maybe his crafted narrative is hiding his intentions of lust (is he truly lonely?) - he is trying to sway justice after all. Frankenstein's monster's crime seem to truly be a revenge for denial of love and loneliness against his maker (loosely a victim here). Frankenstein's monster's crime elicits sympathy; Humbert's do not despite Nabokov's lyricism trying to make you uncomfortably conflicted (and it is Nabokov, with a wink in the eye, that is calculatedly /intentionally / overtly causing this conflict, not Humbert; you know it and he knows you know, which is what makes it so genius).
Any book is intended to make you FEEL... whether it is romance, patriotism, outrage, grief, or even disgust. It is not like dimes-store giallos that cannot be unilaterally dismissed as trashy writing. Given that there is such strong reaction to this book, I'd say Nabokov succeeded in making you feel.
@@kurtfox4944they are about as alike as Jaws and Moby Dick. When we say monster we imply not human. You may craft arguments favoring either or both but both terrorize people to please themselves.
Wait Frankenstein wasn't really a monster I don't see how u can compare Humbert is evil
@@alisonmercer5946 Well, probably many people saw him as a monster, Victor, that is, for taking the role of G-d into human hands, putting together soul-less dead flesh into something electrically charged without a soul. Still others might call it monstrous of Victor to abandon this thing he created, or in other ways what he did,like agreeing to build another. So, yes, one could call Victor a monster, particularly if they're sympathetic to the creation, but possibly you suspected I was talking about Victor's creation when I said 'monster' originally. If not, sorry: I meant to say that Victor created a monster.
Nabokov certainly never made it easy on himself. I read once that he was trying to emulate a certain romantic style of the 19th century, but to do so required using a sort of pathology to have the effect he wanted. Literature is full of murderers, thieves, etc. , but that doesn't make our hair stand on end in disgust like this does. And the suspicions and his own childhood color it in a different light.
He never makes it easy, but always interesting.
His childhood?! 👀👀👀
@@alanaestelle2076 there are a lot of rumors about an uncle 🫤
This was a wonderful review, and almost gives me second thoughts about _Lolita._ I’ll tell you why I am unlikely to read it. I don’t much like Nabokov’s writing. When I was young, I read his “Lectures on Literature” volumes. I believe the first covered the English canon, the second the Russians. I didn’t much enjoy either, and revisited one much later and disliked it.
But the real reason, is that I read his translation of Lermontov - parallel read it with another translation - and word-for-word, line-by-line reacted viscerally with abhorrence. Well, that’s a bit of exaggeration, but it was the kind of dislike that brings a physical reaction, and that was just for his prose, not the content.
My impression of him is as of a pompous [expletive] - but you have just shoved a wedge into my closed mind to the extent that I could see reconsidering him and giving him a chance. But then the baggage of _Lolita_ inhibits me.
Oh he was a wonderfully pompous snob. That's part of his charm. Here is his philosophy of translation...
“This is the first English translation of Lermontov's novel.
The book has been paraphrased into English several times,' but never translated before. The experienced hack may find it quite easy to turn Lermontov's Russian into slick English clichés by means of judicious, omission, amplification, and levigation; and he will tone down everything that might seem unfamiliar to the meek and imbecile reader visualized by his publisher. But the honest translator is faced with a different task.
In the first place, we must dismiss, once and for all the conventional notion that a translation should read smoothly', and 'should not sound like a translation' (to quote the would-be compliments, addressed to vague versions, by genteel reviewers who never have and never will read the original texts). In point of fact, any translation that does not sound like a translation is bound to be inexact upon inspection; while, on the other hand, the only virtue of a good translation is faithfulness and completeness. Whether it reads smoothly or not depends on the model, not on the mimic.”
@@Tolstoy111 I’ve never considered pompous snobs to be charming - but I will try to be more open to Nabokov now.
@@davidnovakreadspoetry The fact that he embraced it to the degree he did. He saw snobbery as a form of intellectual chastity.
I get that!! If you decide to read it, I’d be curious to know your thoughts!
Lectures on literature is one of my favorites but Lolita has been on my rant list for several years
I had such a hard time with this book… I hate the content and I was horrified and yet I was fascinated and wanted to see how it ended. Great review!
This book is such a dichotomy lol
I starting reading this novel this summer and my first mistake was doing so in public, the contents made me feel extremely uncomfortable at first (granted) to the point where I kept putting the book down for a breather since I genuinely couldn’t believe Humperts perverted audacious nature. It’s definitely not for the faint hearted, but one can’t deny Nobokov’s addictive writing style. It’s so great yet so sad. Truly the definition of bittersweet.
Woah reading this in public 😳
Yea this book is conflicting.
People should absolutely write about this topic. Being the avid digger into human psyche this is not so disturbing to me. Lolita is a classic Anima figure. Often times this appears as a young girl to men's dreams. Particularly of the era of the authors upbringing. This image is one of the mechanisms in attraction. We hang the anima, the mystical other onto the other person. This definitely can be locked into the image of a young girl. Most of human history this is when in love romances would start. This is the commonplace.
Lolita is art. It is one of greatest novels of the 20th century.
It's one of those 'challenging' titles in terms of subject matter! James Mason channelled Humbert in skin-crawling fashion in the sixties film.
I haven’t seen the film 💀
Thanks for your honesty, and also, thanks for saying that I don't have to read it. ❤
❤️❤️❤️ thank you for watching!! This whole concept of “books people must read” is baffling to me. Life is short - don’t spend it reading what you don’t want to read!
@alanaestelle2076 I was actually scared to read this book by the things I'd heard of it. Thanks to you now I don't have to go through it. 🩷🩷
@@alanaestelle2076 also thanks for mentioning that it could be triggering for victims of sa/pa.
@@alanaestelle2076 also thanks for mentioning that it could be triggering for victims of sa/pa.
I'm more scared of A Little Life than Lolita! I read Lolita years ago and yeah it's art. Still feels weird to say "I loved it!" I had A Little Life of my shelf for years and never even opened it!
Ooooh 👀 well my A Little Life Review will be live Feb 25th 😁
I am currently reading Lolita in Russian language, after having seen the movie from 1998. The book is very dense and it is apparently written to be read several times to fully understand every aspects of it. Quite remarkably, the book was originally written in English, although Nabakov was born in St. Petersburg, and then translated back to Russian by the same author. Many things are remarkable about the book and its author.
Nabokov left Russia as a teenager never to return.
Yes, this is a book the definitely demands to be reread. Nabokov so masterful at his craft and I also need to read more of his work.
I had to read it in uni. I understand his writing is incredibly crafted, but it will forever be a nightmare instead of a novel.
It’s a comic novel at that.
It’s definitely not the easiest read 💀
Wow, thank you for this great review. Lolita is my favorite book of all time. Yes, I consider it art and I agree that Nabokov trolled the readers in a way that was haunting and magnetic. I have a sorrowful relationship with the book because I read it at a young age and it profoundly traumatised me, yet I forgive Nabokov despite this fact and the fact that he ruined a great chunk of literature for me by showing me how few are the books that hold this kind of literary value.
Thank you for watching!! Ooooomph can't imagine trying to read this at a young age. But, it's the greats that make us realize how lacking most lit is.
I just want to say that I actually am a descendant from the Nabokov family, and Vladmir is the cousin of my grandpa, and I think that Lolita might be about pedophilia though literature is not always appropriate and it is a type of book intneded to give an uncomfortable feeling, hiwever literature is all about different feelings and emotions so please don't judge.
Nabokov says in an interview by himself, that he wants his good reader to have all his empathy with Lolita and not with Humbert Humbert. He's fully aware of the fact, that Lolita ist the main victim in his story and that she has to suffer a lot. No way he is glorifying pedophilia, like some of his critics are stating. Sorry for my bad English, I am not a native speaker.
Ooooh, this is good to know. Thank you! :)
I think one interpretation of "why" relies upon the introduction, specifically the unreliable narrator, and why he is writing his side of the story. In this, I am reminded of this quote “Fact is, I never knowed a person from that day to this but who couldn't lie to themselves about their own evil while pointing out the other man's wrong, and I weren't no exception.” ― James McBride, _The Good Lord Bird_ . People lie to themselves, and may even know that they are lying to themselves, in order to justify their actions. As you say, I think Nabokov was toying with the reader's emotions, knowing that he can write a despicable character and yet write so beautiful and lyrical that it is hard to dismiss it out of hand (I liken people who don't read it to the same who wouldn't read that un-Christian book glorifying witches and wizards called _Harry Potter_ and denounce it without having read it, solely based upon what they heard. Sure, you shouldn't have to read it if you don't want, but you shouldn't ban without firsthand knowledge).
Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. What we call morally wrong is social and a sign of the times. Some are more everlasting than others. For this I point of the idea that cannibalism and slavery were widespread in the past (and slavery continues to this day in East Africa). Ancient Greek did not have the word for incest (fide _Cleopatra: A Life_ by Stacy Schiff - of the 10 or so marriages in post-Alexander royalty, 5 or more were brother/sister marriages). Even in _Lolita_ , Humbert lists underage 'romances' in the past.
Useless trivia. Five states have *no official minimum age for marriage* , but still require either parental consent, court approval or both: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington. So theoretically, if married, this would not even be against the law here in the US in 2024. Odd, but true!
This I knew and I can’t unknow it 💀
Yeah, it's not for me....i am interested in how you are seeing it connect to A Little Life.
I understand that - it can be a rough read. A Little Life is coming very soon 👀
I totally understand you about reviews.
🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
@@alanaestelle2076 Keep up the excellent work! A good review is hard to find.☺️
This book got me tweaking, mainly because its such a hard pill to swallow. and not being able to judge it with a black and white view 😂
NOT TWEAKING! LOL
Women have been blamed for male lust for centuries. This book actually never found a publisher in the great USA. It was published in France. There is a Spanish director who also travelled to France to make a movie based on Justine by Sarte. I think these books are important for one reason: it makes me really wonder and question what freedom is. Is someone smoking in my face b/c they have the right to smoke freedom, or prison? Is a man abusing a child b/c "he can't help himself" freedom or abuse? Is publishing a book about it shedding light on the matter, or spreading porn? All these questions are in my head when I think of Lolita. But, no, I did not enjoy reading it.
Lolita has no sexual content. So it’s certainly not porn.
Oh yes Lolita makes us ask more questions than it answers haha
@@alanaestelle2076 Nabokov wasn’t out to explore pedophilia anymore than he was exploring incest in Ada. It’s simply used as a metaphor for innocent Americana encountering corrupt Old Europe.
For another story from the victim’s perspective, my first thought was The Color Purple.
Lolita is the funniest book I’ve ever read. This is Nabakov’s great gift.
I think this work is the greatest piece of literature anyone dealing with sexual abuse can read as you find catharsis in Dolores' unmentioned suffering and the grotesque farce of Humbert's psychology. To all other victims out there, read this book and know you are not alone and you are seen, no matter how much your Humberts try to conceal your pain and torment.
brilliant review
Thank you!
I have not read it and I shan't be reading it. 🤓 Great review, though!
Why? It's an amazing work.
I understand that! No book is one size fits all!
Have you read My Dark Vanessa? It’s from the victim’s perspective and it’s based on the author’s own experience :( there’s a lot to discuss about that book I think you’ll like it
I haven’t but … I may need to 👀
Your review show that you are perhaps way too young to grasp the magnitude of Nabokov' s innumeral questions he raises. Masterpiece but....Im over 60
It's just one of those novels I know I'm going to read throughout my life because it's so jammed packed with so much. My next read of this will be an annotated version as well.
⚛😀
The book is a masterpiece of literature..I am glad Woke people cry about it. They ain't too subversive with their thought process. Lol
The narrator is difficult to pin down. Marry me
Uuuuhhh…