Let's talk about Nabokov's controversial novel, and how/why it has been misconstrued in popular culture. *** Works mentioned: Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov *** My instagram: thornfieldbooks
I agree with you-- brilliant writing! Humbert is an egotistical jerk who becomes enamored with a child. His actions are clearly wrong and yet he continues to pursue her.
I was motivated to read Lolita after reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran. I saw the movie years ago, which was very disturbing, though well-done. The book takes us in to the mind of a sick and twisted criminal, and we are meant to have contempt for him. I'm still searching for a deeper understanding of the book, but have found few people with whom to discuss it.
11:03 Saying that searching "Lolita discussing threads" in reedit would probably produce weird results, is the biggest understatement ive ever heard😂😂😂. Great review. Lots of respect for having a good panorama.
I just went over to your channel to see if you made a video discussing it (I've been super behind on booktube) and I see that you did! I'm going to head over and watch, I'm so curious to hear others' opinions on this novel.
great video! i am currently reading lolita and its taken me longer yo get through than i was expecting. but, calling back to what you said, there is so much information in each sentence, it would be a waste to skim through all if it. its been so interesting to read because every single thing humbert says has you questioning it
I disagree about Humbert being an "unreliable" narrator. On the contrary, I would say that he is a surprisingly honest narrator, he doesn't flinch from telling us about incidents and scenes that portray him in the worst light. He also often admits his depravity and claims to suffer from guilt at his debauchery in moments of transient moral self-awareness. And, we are left in no doubt about Humbert's internal justifications for his pedaphilic actions and the thoughts, desires, obsessions and fantasies that drive his despicable crime. Humbert never tries to fool us into thinking that he has ever considered, even for one second, what is best for Dolores or that he ever treats her as a human being, let alone a highly vulnerable child. Humbert's narration never gives us the slightest glimpse of Dolores as a person, she is openly portrayed in the text solely as an object for his personal sexual gratification. Is Humbert's testimony naive or a reflection of his sociopathic personality that is unable to show empathy for others? I don't think he hides anything, aside from avoiding any exaggeratedly salacious or graphic details of his sexual assaults on Dolores - the description of Humbert's initial masturbatory experience with Dolores' legs on his lap and subsequent rapes are elegantly handled by Nabokov. Humbert's paedophiliac mind convinces him by delusion that his actions are morally acceptable, understandable and excusable, and that society's rejection of his obsessive sexual compulsions are unreasonable. His delusion is apparent to the point of suggesting that "his Lolita" instigated the seduction of him - this is not unreliable narration, it is the truth as his perverted mind, or more accurately perhaps, his memory, perceives and assimilates it. He is not persuading us to believe something that he believes to be untrue. I totally agree with your asessment of Nabokov's writing. Such mastery of language, constantly playful, challenging, insightful, erudite, inspiring, he really was a writer of immense talent, and in his second language too. As a reader, I would suggest he has no better in the construction of luxurious, ornate, engaging and satisfying writing.
I also think that H.H. might not be that "unreliable" at all as a narrator. I mean, he mentions that he punched Valeria into the knee once and would twist her injured wrist to make his point across. He concedes that he couldn't challenge "Taxovich" to a fist fight because his would have resulted in him getting beaten up into a bloody pulp. He does not hide his predeliction for "strenuous intercourse" and that Lolita looks like she's been worked over after their early morning sex session. (Only to conclude...hmm, I feel like doing it again.) He makes it quite clear that Lolita quickly lost interest in him and that, at one point, she sits on his erect penis like she would sit on a shoe or some other boring, inanimate object. When he starts paying her for sexual favors, he does not hide that it's very little, even in 1948 currency. He states that he pays her for things he cannot take forcibly, which means that he forces himself on her as well. He does not pretend to be a good shot, when the neighbors teach him how to use his gun, he shoots and wounds a squirrel. Fast forward and he admits that he missed Quilty a few times.
Thank you for this video! I started to read it because I heard about the story - a pedophile in love with twelve year old and the idea that she is the seductress was something unbelievably disgusting (apart from the fact that it is postmodern literature :) and an unreliable narrater, that sounded very interesting - and fitting for such story) So I had to read it myself. Totally agree with you. Great video!
Recently started a slow reread of the annotated version; lots to consider, far more than one would find in the popular conception of the novel. I think of it as a road novel as much as anything, though it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the travel part is far shorter than I remember, but that's what looms largest in my mind. Anyway, not the sort of book I will recommend to many. If you go in thinking it is just sleaze, there's enough there to confirm those suspicions and that can blind a reader to the rest that the book has to offer (at the same time, I'm sure many walked away disappointed that it wasn't as graphic as they'd hoped or feared.) It's no Ulysses, but it can be puzzling and takes some thought so as not to be completely distracted by the ickier passages.
I saw the annotated edition in a bookstore recently and was intrigued by it. A fairly large portion of the novel is the travel part, but I do think it's easy for the other parts to overshadow those parts, especially given the popular conception of the novel. I agree that it is a more challenging novel, and it's definitely one to take time with.
Yeah, I agree with much of what you said, tho perhaps I would have went further pointing out how the artist, Nabokov, sets out to shock the audience, and for the most part succeeds. Additionally, his creation is a genuine kick in the gut to the US of A, which one could reasonably surmise he hated. However, we often point to our freedoms - which make Lolita possible - as being so valuable to tolerate what we know instinctively is wrong. As I've written before, I think it's best to treat the novel as a monster story, and choke back a reflex to defend it.
I’m in the middle of reading it but having a hard time because it is so uncomfortable. Just trying to recalibrate my mindset before jumping back in and powering through
There have been so many adaptations of this novel over the years since it's release. Expected backlash and controversy was met upon its release, and to this day, still, it is vivid in its arguments and discourse online or in conversations. I completely agree with everything you have said and spoken about on this book. It's so silly to me that people still have the misconception of it's supposed "glorification of ped*philia", when that's not what it's doing at all. If you read it, you would know. Most people are uncomfortable with discussing or viewing such topics of violence, especially because it is so daunting and sick. However, I believe if we continue to ignore this book, and scoff at its name, or become(once more)quick to judge it's morals, it's a floodgate that will never close soon. Men opened it centuries ago, and we haven't been able to protect all of them: the children who grow into adulthood and wonder if they will ever find a real love in their new independence. They've become conditioned to resist, to restrain, and to forgive the wrong people at times. (For reference... I am 18 yrs old now. Just turned so a month ago. About around the age of 14, I was being groomed till 17, when I finally escaped the situation.) Coming across Lolita was like a breakthrough for me, personally. I remember finishing the book and having a sense of relief for myself and my situation. It was pretty hard to digest all of it, but I don't regret it. Not one bit. I plan to reread it sometime in the future, as well. If you're still a little weary about the films, I wouldn't watch the Stanley Kubrick adaptation, nor the 1990s version. I've come across, in my feminist research over the years, a French director and writer by the name of, "Catherine Breillat". She's most known for her film 'A ma seóur!(a.k.a 'Fat Girl)'. Its on the criterion collection, however I recommend watching that after seeing '36 Fillette'. It's one of the many loose adaptations of 'Lolita', but comes from the child's perspective; a 14 year old, Lili, stand-offish and quick at the tounge, but searching for desire and only her desire. The film can be a bit provocative, but never exploitive. I suggest reading a little into Catherine and her "metacinema". She's definitely a great a d established autuer pioneer in the taboo cinema wave. Enjoyed your video! You're very articulate.
Really happy I came across this video because I am currently halfway through Lolita and am feeling so conflicted because I feel icky just reading it and yet his writing is good and I want to know how it ends.
i honestly feel like both films are problematic… bc the directors followed the “this is a love story” narrative. while the 90s version follows the plot of the book more. dolores is portrayed as the main seductress… which is disturbing bc it’s so clear in the book that humbert is the instigator of the abuse. even when dolores had agency in the novel, she was clearly traumatized and creeped out by his behavior. however, this isn’t shown so much in both films :( both actresses underwent sexualization during and after filming so aaa idk. i feel like this story wasn’t meant to be adapted into a film. the subject matter is extremely complex and horrific. the only way to accurately depict this story if it’s more so shown that humbert is in fact a predator and that his narration isn’t reliable and also disgusting or if they showed things from lo’s perspective (which could honestly just be a horror film bc her story is sooo tragic) both films failed to show this
This is one of the few books that I have read that I would really call masterpiece. And I've read a lot. It's almost you have to say " except for the subject matter. Just to make an excuse for liking it
Humbert Humbert wasn't a pedophile since he was only attracted to pubescent girls, not pre-pubescent. Also, was Raskolnikov an unreliable narrator in Crime and Punishment? Aren't all novels told from a first person perspective unreliable?