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.

this is the nuanced detailed kind of thinking and discussion that i was hoping to find for this book, thank you SO much for making this video.

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've been scared of Lolita for a while so I looved and appreciated your deep dive!!!

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.

Just finished Lolita a few weeks ago and this was an immediate watch

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’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

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.

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!

i read lolita a few years ago and i'm looking forward to reread it to fully get what nabokov was trying to say. loved your review

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.

Such a classic book, still controversial today.

Great video.

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.

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

finished it a couple of months ago and I'm still disturbed. It's well written but gosh being in that man's head for so long was uncomfortable.

The Lolita movie that Kubrick created with screenplay of Nabokov, has another storyline and it doesn't have the sensual details like the book itself

Great video for the most beautiful novel ever written. And yes. It's am unreliable narrator

Lolita is a masterpiece.

You miss another strong point…it is one of the funniest books I’ve ever read.

Kubrick’s movie is very great. The newer version is not as good but does a few things better.

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?