"Some of my characters are, no doubt, pretty beastly, but I really don't care, they are outside my inner self like the mournful monsters of a cathedral facade-demons placed there merely to show that they have been booted out."-Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions
"which means they (monsters) were once inside and required booting" And how would *you* know exactly which demons they were, in any case? By reading the conveniently-provided labels on the Nabokov Consciousness-X-Ray? Do you understand the distorting/ transformative lens of the literary imagination at all? Do you think Bram Stoker had a literal taste for human blood ? Do you think Dr. Seuss had a thing for rotten eggs? Perhaps Nabokov was obsessed with power relations... the ambiguity of "weak" and "strong" in a relationship in which the "weak" can control the "strong". Was he resentful about or obsessed with the Artist/ Critic dynamic? Was "Humbert" the middlebrow critic, Quilty the Artist and Lolita Art itself? Who knows? What compelling evidence is there, in the man's life, on which you base your apparent conclusions? Do you really think an intelligence as complicated as Nabokov's could be analyzed (or prosecuted) in so facile a way? Because that's what I find exasperating... if not repulsive... about the "debate". So few really careful or interesting remarks, so many dumb one-liners and easy judgments... as though it's all coming from the mouth-breathing, nose-picking audience of the Oprah Show. Very very few people have read the book, Lolita, all the way through, fewer still with any understanding; even fewer have read both volumes of the Brian Boyd biography and Speak, Memory... and so forth... so... ...where are all these strong opinions coming from...? If you told me they were randomly generated I would believe you.
I've always described how I felt after reading Lolita as similar to being "drunk" too. This is the first time I've ever heard people discussing the powerful experience of reading this book in a way I could relate to. Great documentary, thanks so much for posting it.
I think that that is where in the answers lies. Nabokov created a piece of real art and it takes multiple readings to understand his meaning and intentions. As one can see here the subject matter is so repellant that they can't bring themselves to find the true meaning because they can't read it multiple times. For varying reasons they are left with a story line about, in their minds, pedophilia, when that was not what Nabokov was alluding too.
Nabokov was a BRILLIANT writer (capitol letters required) who walked a razor's edge between poetic lyricism and the basest human impulses - along the way he draws the reader in and makes him complicit. Whatever one thinks of his subject, writing doesn't get any better than "Lolita".
True! It's like if we all think Stephen King is a psyco or an unaliver because of his books. Absurd that ppl can't tell the difference between the story of the book and the author. Smh
This entrance scene with Czajkowski and Nabokov hunting the butterflies will stay with me forever. Wonderful editing, wonderful sense of who Nabokov actually is. I can't get it out of my head and I'm glad I can't.
“There is no such thing is moral or immoral books. Books are well written, or badly written” -Oscar Wilde Nobokov’s Lolita is the most beautifully written book I have ever read.
@@cometcourse381 sorry but i share his opinion, i teach literature obviously i have to read a lot of books and lolita is the best written book i have read too
Not just a great portrait of Nabokov but also a rare glimpse of a younger Amis and Byatt, who are both still alive incredibly enough. Byatt in particular is very well spoken
I wholeheartedly agree. This documentary does justice to an immensely complex piece of fiction which as my father said to me and others can be read on so many different levels: part travelogue, psychological treatment of taboo sexuality, the careful and meticulous catalogue of the loss of innocence and more. I am truly grateful for such an intelligent, delicate examination of Nabokov's "mot difficult book."
Julian Wyllie I completely agree - I can‘t think of a better documentary. I would only improve it my having AS Byatt, Martin Amis and Edmund White explain the terrifying joy of every passage in the book.
Hey Christopher, Thank you for uploading this. As a Nabokov and Amis addict, I had exhausted all the existing footage on RUclips. I had never seen this rarity before and really enjoyed it. Great contributions and portions of Nabokov interviews I had never seen before. I'm still searching for a version of the Apostrophes interview he did in the 1970s with English subtitles. I've only ever found one with Spanish so far. Anyway, thanks again. Brilliant doco.
Nabokov was a gifted writer who was painstakingly focused on the art of writing. He had been beloved as a child and he always wondered about butterflies being compared to human adolescence in both genders. The fragility of human desires was his main theme.
Beautiful film about an outstanding person and one of his best creations- "Lolita". Thank you for such a great research and respectful manner of narrating a story of Vladimir Nabokov's life. He's one of my favorite authors and I'm glad to be Russian because of him as well. 🌿🙌🏻♥️
Nabokov was a chess player and Humbert manipulates everyone in the book so that he can predict and influence their movements. ''Lo" has nowhere to turn except towards him. And he sacrifices her mother to keep having the sick relationship with her daughter.
Lolita and Pale Fire are two of the funniest books I've ever read. The overblown self-importance of the narrators, their distaste for ordinary people, the understated portrayal of their psychological instability, it's all brilliant. Not to mention as profound as it is ironic. I wish I had read Pale Fire before I did my undergrad, could have saved myself the pain of figuring out the limits of literary criticism.
Nabokov was a great writer. But raping a child is not funny. It’s also based on The true story of a girl named Sally. I have no criticisms of Nabokov. You, on the other hand, I’m worried about
Lolita is the story of a man who, in her own words in the book "broke (her) life" It is no way a love story, Dolores is the character but she doesn't exist, only her nymphet quality, Lolita, matters, for Humbert and for his peers.
Agree, even tho Humbert tries to plead his case and convince us that "he loved her" ....he 1) never really knew lolita...or cared to know her 2) She says stuff like "I think you hurt me" and all he's thinking about is f*cking her again lol. P.s You gotta figure we're hearing the story from Humbert who is most likely an "unreliable narrator" (I'm sure Lolita's version of events would paint Humbert as the scumbag he was lol)
@@cappy2282 the actual line is "you broke something inside me you dirty dirty man." i read this as humbert bragging about the size of his penis in a sneaky way as dolores has been having sex every day at camp with charley and is used to having sex so would not ordinarily find it traumatic. this book is a challanging work of art, overwhelming for many it seems. try to rise to its level instead of dragging it down to yours. besides, nabokov will win.
'An intellectual challenge'. Maybe we had to be confronted by a historical reality in this novel. This work is a masterpiece that is beyond language itself.
Thank you very much - never seen it. The film has so many priceless fragments of Nabokov's and Vera's voices. Boyd so young))) and Dmitry reading Pushkin.
Lolita has no voice, solipsized inside Humbert's disturbing world. Her suffering is never mentioned by the autor. She lives inside Humbert, and what happens to her doesn't matter. Nabokov is a formal, latu sensu, master. His english is perfect. More than that. It's art. But the girl's pain is not there, in the book. I'm reading it right now. And sometimes I feel that I have to put the book away. And I do it. And I go back to this hard reading text, writing my own notes inside its pages.The book is a strange exercise on the human capacity in decieving and domination through narcissistic behavior. Lolita was never there. Her tragedy doesn't matter. In this sense, the book fails. She never had a voice, in this brilhant double solipsism exercise.
That’s the point, as it is written from Humbert’s perspective. Only in the very end where Humbert himself starts to realize all the pain he has caused her, her suffering is mentioned. The reader has to remind themselves of how horribly Lolita is treated in order to not get manipulated by Humbert like Humbert manipulated Lolita. It forces the reader to wake up and make up their own mind and opinion about the situation and not just listen to the writer.
@@annabv55 I agree. It's a difficult book for that reason. I think that a female reader would have a very different experience than a male one, and age would be a factor as well. I read the book when I was 13, too young really but I would read anything I could get my hands on. I was able to completely empathize with the girl and found Humbert a pathetic creep right away. I wasn't sucked into some fantasy of him loving her and actually caring about anything besides his own desires and pleasures. I just put myself in her shoes and was horrified. I re-read it again at 17 and for the last time in my 20s. Each time, I had a new insight and in my 20s, I was actually able to understand Humbert's POV despite his mental sickness and obsession. The story became something else for me. It's a really beautiful book for me now. It's clearly a book that requires maturity to understand that I didn't have before.
@@HadassaMoon144 Very true. I read it for the first time at 13 as well, and kept coming back to it about once a year. Each time I got a different and more elevated view on the story.
It's incredibly difficult to lose an accent when speaking a second (or third) language. You won't ever shed it completely no matter how well and how long you speak it; the trick, however, is to assume the target accent. In other words he would have had to actively pursue one of the English speaking accents - and there's no special reason why he should have wanted to. You'll notice his grammar and syntax is first rate in speech and his cadences too. The only thing lacking is pronunciation and that would have taken work. My guess is he would have considered himself a writer and not a speaker and so just left it.
Thank you for your documentary which assisted me in understanding how the lost aristocracy of another century of absolutism has fought for a place in radical literature. Before the Buchmesse, I was taken by an old Baron who inspired me to visit Vladimir's musical brother's grave near Strasbourg. It is always that sense of honour and pride that enables noble writers to step into subjects that are taboo with a sense of great achievement and subtle morality. I suppose like Joyce, Wilde and maybe even Douglas he will always be misunderstood as he was undoubtedly brave to tackle this taboo giving writers like me the courage in adversity to go beyond sexual or lude subjects to change perceptions of age discrimination, disability and racism. Writing is about pushing boundaries in prose that sings from the page whatever darker undertones lie under words well spoken by this strangest of most disturbing voices. A Book that discusses such matters that cannot be discussed without this book. I think it came across his complete almost Freudian detachment like one of his rare butterflies caught to catch a glimpse of a debauched mind in a disturbing reversal of metamorphosis. Scary but necessary for literature. Like Hitchcock is to films: detached yet revelling in the terrifying prospect of such immorality existing out there somewhere not just in a Motel in black and white. Thank you for the perceptive interviews.
People should be aware- "Lolita" is not by any means autobiography, and there are no traces of autobiographical connections between Humbert Humbert and Vladimir Nabokov. There are however some similarities- both H.H and V.N grew up in Europe, moved to the US, engaged in scholarly activity, are writers, are similar of age. Yes. But still, "Lolita" is fiction.
If you read about how he was molested by his wealthy uncle as a child. You'll notice that there are more similarities between himself and Dolores than with HH.
At one time Russian aristocracy, from which Nabokov descended, spoke exclusively French. It wasn’t until Pushkin elevated the language that they were forced to learn Russian by command of the tzar, if I’m not mistaken. Nabokov describes an uncle who was a diplomat that only used Russian when he wished to confuse a point
@@jarethwoodson2616 they werent forced to learn by the comand of tzar, but thats true that they used to talk french most of the time, like most most of the time.
Confucius When I read Lolita for the first time I always thought it was originally published in Russian. when I found out its original was in English my mind was blown. Nabokov was a genius.
N. had tutors in English and French from an early age and was fluent early on. Quite a different story with Conrad. He is a great master of the English language which includes cultural understanding (that is--of "cultures"). Read his wonderful Pnin, Pale Fire, and then Speak, Memory.
@@martinvaldes7533 Wow, I never knew these existed, thanks for those links! Very awesome. Although for Lolita it does break the immersion somewhat since the novel is written in first person and Nabokov's English and French pronunciation isn't exactly what I would expect from Humbert as a character. Not wrong enough to ruin it by any means but enough to be distracting every so often. Regardless, it's always nice to hear the author read their own work. It's so much more intimate and carries its own unique power. Lolita was quite interesting coming personally from him but his poetry readings are where his voice really pulls you in for an exhilarating dance. They were an absolutely captivating joy to listen to.
Nabokov’s published lectures on literature - for his survey course at Cornell - were a belated discovery for me, and helped me understand not only why Ada Clare (of Dickens’ “Bleak House”) inspired the title of Ada, or Ardor, but how Dickens worked on Nabokov and inspired his most challenging novel.
Thank you for the wonderful documentary on Master Nabokov. After Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare and then after El amor en los tiempos del cólera by Marquez there is the most passionate and in-depth psychologically advanced and sophisticated love story of all times... I can tell you that as a writer myself and a passionate dancer on my own right... at the same given time... Wooow !!! Life is incredible. I kid you not. Too bad... it's limited... at least our imagination has no borders, lords and proves to be eternal and limitless...
Only Nabokov can get away with a book like this. It's a challenge to the reader to deny that while the story is of a depraved and immoral man, the prose is absolutely brilliant. How do you reconcile that?
almost every film is littered with immoral people committing huge murders. This character does not stand out to me as particularly immoral. We just get a more clarion window into the man. The apple does not fall too far from the tree. This book is more a commentary on the hazards of love. Everyone gets a little insane when they are in love ... Obsession, loyalty, passion, self sacrifice ... much mroe explored here.
@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 if it's not all about love. how would you explain... The sacrifices that he made to provide and care for her. The willingness to give her everything she was due even if she wasn't going to be with him. These are loving acts. not to mention the attraction, the lust, infatuation... these are all aspects of love. five major love languages affirmation quality time physical touch acts of service and gifts. many of these are covered.
@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 It is about love. If not... How would you explain. taking the time to provide for her needs? Offering her estate even after she said no to him? The attraction and the physical play. Giving praise to, at times too insult. The languages of love are represented. 5 Love Languages words of affirmation, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, and physical touch And lets not forget she pursued the relationship physically initially. Maybe you are not approving of the individuals involved?
"I felt proud of myself. I have stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done. The conjurer had poured milk, molasses, foaming champagne into a young lady's purse, and, lo, the purse was intact. Thus have I delicately constructed my ignoble, hardened, sinful dream."
@@hannahchamblee8132 That was not a rape scene. It a scene of an adult playing typically with a child, that happened to bring HH to orgasm. I don't believe HH never once raped L, as there was consent involved, even if reluctant.
Lolita isn't sick. Sick are those who can't appreciate the aesthetics in the book and would shrug it off by calling it perverted. Expand your mind and understanding of literature, rather than rotting in your ignorant hell hole.
its sick in terms of its context and storyline obviously, however i agree it’s an amazing piece of literature and would recommend ppl read it but it’s unfortunate that many don’t understand what nabokov was trying to do with the Huberts character and actually ended up just as manipulated as Dolores it seems lol
@@charleskristiansson1296 it's about a dirty old pervert and nabokov makes sure to portrait him as such and doesn't give him any empathy, read the fucking book.
_"Lolita"_ is a masterpiece because of the prose alone, but there's actually a subjacent level of reading as Nabokov admitted himself in interviews in the 60s. He said: "_(Lolita) was like the composition of a beautiful puzzle - its composition and its solution at the same time, since one is a mirror view of the other, depending on the way you look_". And indeed, there are phenomenons of reflexions in the novel (e.g. Trapp / Pratt; widow Haze / widow Hays; Blanche Schwarzman / Melanie Weiss), etc... . If you're interested in all this, you can check this out: . lolitasriddle.blogspot.com/2014/10/lolitas-riddle-solved.html . As for Humbert Humbert: Humbert etymologically means “famous warrior”. It is at least three times in the novel made reference to his kind of Celtic looks. Nabokov associates him to Tristram, a Celtic Knight of the (Celtic) Arthurian Legend who is a symbol of eternal and fatal love (remember "Tristram and Iseult"?). Notice how Tristram is referenced several times in this novel, directly (e.g. Ilse Tristramson) and indirectly. . If you want more infos about this specific point about Humbert (and other charachters of the novel), you can go in this subpart of this website: wittevlinders.wordpress.com/#perso .
I hate how people describe this book as "exciting", "inciting" and similar somesuch fashion. It's unsettling, perhaps even more so than the book itself.
Do you think if a person finds the exciting and incantatory prose of Lolita exciting and incantatory, they have no moral sensibility? Do they have to find it overridingly unsettling or upsetting? And do you think those excited persons can’t simultaneously find Lolita upsetting? I mostly do not find it upsetting, although, along with the gushing jealousy I have for Nabokov’s prose and the wonder for the intricate artifice of the novel, I carry a diffuse but poignant sadness for both sad, gladmasked Humbert Humbert and tragic Dolores Haze (also, Charlotte). Do you hate this, that I don’t shudder and clutch pearls? Because I think the part of your morality which twinges is only a cancer on your aesthetic sensibilities, and actually makes it harder for you to empathize with others (see: your comment).
@@TheNSJaws Wow, you caught me. ? I'd prefer it if you didn't throw around the word disingenuous so much--I assumed when "people" (at least, those not trying to out themselves as perverts) call Lolita exciting, they mean its duplicitous prose or its artifice. I thought that's who you meant, reasonably and ingenuously.
I can't agree more about the edge Lord part. It's like, every "DEEP" literature damned to have fans whose understand the the lit and the fan whose think understand the lit 😂
Why is Lolita his only book that gets talked about? His other books are amazing too. I am in a survey class of his novels this semester. So far we've read "The Defense," "The Eye," "Laughter in the Dark," and "Invitation to a Beheading." I think "The Eye" is my favorite so far, but the other ones have been great reads as well.
In the same way that Madame Bovary was criticized as being pornographic, and the same goes for James Joyce's Ulysses, Lolita is one of those "dirty lit" scandalous books, and that's why it gets all the attention.
He was extremely amazing writer! I had some trouble reading him at first...but reading lolita (or pale fire) second time around really made me appreciate him. P.s I actually like Humbert but he was such a scumbag and this is *NOT* a love story (I'd like to hear Lolita's version of events lol)
I wouldn't say you liked Humbert but there are somethings you like about him that you can liken to yourself. Nabokov was really good at this kind of character writing.
@@marshallbarrows5626 lol Ya, very well said. I definitely wouldn't mention Humbert when listing my favorite characters in literature but Nabokov makes him less repulsive than he probably should be. (Same thing with Kinbote in pale fire)
am i the only one who finds it hard to understand? i don’t know half of the words but i really want to read it so i’ve been looking some things up but it’s hard to picture in my head
I wouldn't worry about it. Just search up enough words where you can still enjoy the flow of reading. Not everyone gets everything on the first read through.
Yeah that’s okay, some days when I read it I go in with the attitude of “okay, I’m going to learn a lot of new words!” And others I just keep going with the story (unless it really hits a roadblock where you don’t know what’s happening). I think, ultimately, you can visualize the setting and descriptions however it works in your mind, Nabokov has a way of making the air and “vibe” and emotions of the characters and situations clear and that’s the most important part :)
No, she was his first love interest, there were no nymphets. Nymphets were born when his pure and true love died with that girl. His leading piece of mind was now operating an adult, with all his adultery, he was haunted by memories, which were distorted, all he remember and felt was what his eyes registered - an underage girl. Everything else was pieced together by his adult organism - what he wanted, how he achieved it, what he gave in return.
Встречный в плаще и тёмных очках Алёшка Емельянов Седой он, как камень и иней, шагающий старец, что сух. Влюбился когда-то в богиню, отринув мир прачек и шлюх. К ней чувства чистейше-святые по жизни нелёгкой пронёс, жил дни бессемейно-простые в мечте о Господице роз! Тогда была в смоли, багрянце, с загибами кончиков влас. Лишь только единственно (в танце) он мельком узрел её фас. Он чем-то неясным согрелся (беспечностью, глупостью грёз) иль скромным пожаром зарделся в давниший февральский мороз; и так вот побрёл с малолетства, неся безраздельность в груди, до дряхлости и декадентства, поэзии множа труды... Он пел и писал слёзно, мило, скучал в окружениях лиц. Лишь только она не любила. Пажи не для сутей цариц.
But if anything , Lolita the book and movie (90's one ) shows that no matter how you tell or word something to people they will stay ignorant and quite on the matter and subject of the book. so its pointless to talk to fools about this only the very wise understand the man of very fine royal taste and manner.
Can somebody tell me the meaning behind the statement in Lolita " you can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style "......what does it mean? ?
That quote means - liars thieves rapists murderers - bad people always tell fancy stories to make excuses for bad things they did. In that quote Nabokov the author is making fun of how Humbert Humbert is telling you this long fancy story just to make excuses for why he killed a man and molested a little girl. 🙄
@@Firespawnable When I read the book, I didn't read it in that way. I interpreted that line as a joke about sort of "film noir" romance stories, how "dark handsome stranger"-type characters (in this case a murderer) always know how to sweet-talk the ladies, or tend to recite Shakespeare, or wax philosophical. I do recognize that this might not have been Nabokov's intended meaning when he wrote the line, I must admit I have not studied the book in much detail. I would say that you should Google Nabokov's piece "Good Readers and Good Writers," in that he explains how to properly read novels: leave your preconceived notions at the door, and notice and fondle the details.
@@knitmaster3969 What I wrote isn't an interpretation it's the truth. Throughout the book the author literally makes fun of Humbert Humbert for trying to make excuses for being a pedophile and a murderer. For example, in chapter one Humbert claims that his first childhood girlfriend was named "Annabel Leigh" who he met in a "princedom by the sea" and she died. The joke is that Humbert is copying a famous poem called Annabel Lee. www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44885/annabel-lee So it gives us funny hints that Humbert is making this story up as he goes along hoping that people will believe his lies.
Nabokov held the belief that it is necessary to study his own commentary to understand any piece that he writes. Then, after exploring another work, he repeats the same claim to that work. Based upon this idea, it is no surprise that he provides insights into his conception of Lolita. However, as he's providing his thoughts on Lolita and argues that its difficulty is produced by the care he needs to avoid people from attaching him to H.H due to creating him. Due to this difficulty, couldn't it be argued that Nabokov had to be aware of this issue, and thus must have considered the idea? Can you think that you won't be thought of as (a), without imagining yourself as (a)? Albeit you can, I suspect that it is a herculean task, and arguably a foolish one to do so (as if you refuse to consider an idea based off of the moral perspective of society, the possibility of you finding the prospect ideal, (for example, Raskolnikov's murder of Alyona Ivanovich, or perhaps an assassination effort on Hitler during his writing of Mein Kampf--a sacrifice no one would be willing to make at the time, thus it's unfair to consider that truly an argument for why it's worthwhile to consider immoral aspects (murdering Hitler would still be, at its base, murdering a human being and thus be immoral, albeit that the execution sentence exists regardless of its popularity dwindling is proof that the idea that someone can deserve to be killed does exist in people's minds, which is considered immoral, the same idea could apply to people who Lolita))). That being said, assault produced by contempt to one who thought of an immoral act isn't just, as such acts could become moral in the future, perhaps even necessary (and if they become necessary, they will eventually cease to become immoral).
Its impressive that he spoke without a russian accent. For example Ayn Rand had pure russian accent despite the fact that she moved to the US earlier than he.
People are complicated. Nabokov had a distinct accent, more accesable than most. That said, I speak French, Spanish and to a lesser degree Portuguese. I have found people who are more interested in other people tend to speak more towards other people, rather than about theselves. Kissenger is one who comes to mind. It is your responsibility to understand Henry, not his to be understood by you. However, there is a musical component to language, and some people simply have no ear. I am too lazy to clarify.
Sterling Weston this is interesting. I hear more people talk about Ada as a secret favorite over Pale Fire & Lolita - I haven‘t read it yet, would you mind explaining briefly what exactly makes you rank Ada as his best novel? I‘m curious.
It's part of the hobby/passion. I think no collector really enjoys the act, it's an "cannot make an omelette without cracking an egg" attitude. I've always been fascinated by butterflies and considered collecting several times in my life, but I never found it in my heart to get a killing jar. Back then, you could actually buy jars with cyanide in the plaster of paris bottom -- eerily similar to what the Nazis used in the Ausschwitz gas chambers. No, I cannot do that, I realized, each time. Not even if you have a butterfly garden greenhouse where you can multiply your butterflies before you kill a specimen. I just couldn't find it in my heart. I realized that I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I've casually swatted plenty of house flies and other "annoying" insects, and, to be honest, I don't feel much guilt about it, sometimes even a feeling of satisfaction when I was able to get the mosquito that just bit me. But butterflies are able to appeal to my compassion, and that of other people, too, because they are so pretty, and because of their graceful flight as well, I think.
Because some humans feel they have divine right to "enjoy or use" other living beings. Some of us humans fall very short of being nature's best expression. 🌟💛💥🌻 Peace and light to all.🌷
Попытка спастись .. Загрудная мышца стучит об меня. Дымы и испуги мой рот осушили, летящие пули, осколки, земля улыбку, надежды и дух потушили. Прижался дрожаще, плашмя и ничком, и чтоб не погибнуть до будущей ночи, как костно-мясной и растянутый ком, хочу стать песчинками родненькой почвы. Коль будет паденье снаряда, разрыв, я только рассыплюсь слегка обожжённым, и не расщиплюсь на куски, буду жив, под ливнем омоюсь, вмиг став возрождённым. Но это мечты и заведомо бред. Вокруг реки крови, убийства, пожары... Пока что не трогает пламенный свет, и сыплются мимо все вражьи удары...
It is THE masterpiece, bar none. Pat yourself on the back for detecting this. Perhaps there is a gifted flame in your subtle spine. I think it's scary how subtle N. is, the subtlest for sure. It's all about infinite melancholy and no other author has ever come close in scaling the same peaks. He stands alone up there, waiting.
@@chopin65 Can you explain art's danger to me? Sure art is a falsification of reality, but I don't regard reality as so beautiful or respectable to see the danger of its distortion.
Books are not dangerous. People are. Some people read the book and think it's a directive to hurt children. Others read the book and understand how systematically and incisively it derides pedophiles.
@@sasha6454 This book is about how one can be charmed or seduced into excusing something that would otherwise be seen as horribe and it is done beautifully. While it is a very important book, it displays something in all of us. Not pedophilia, but our excuses for what we do.
The programme was broadcast on BBC1, Friday 1 December 1989. So it is indeed a mystery as you are correct about Possession being published in 1990! Maybe we filmed a pre-publication copy?
Books get published in different countries at different times. You recommend it? I'm reading Frederick Raphael's Eyes Wide Open on his time with Kubrick, and the similarity between the research and preparation techniques of Nabokov and Kubrick is remarkable. (feel free to use a better adjective)
@@DarkAngelEU Of course, it was difficult to write, but it's even more awkward for most people to talk about. I think it's hilarious to watch or listen to people attempt to talk about it....lol. It's a similar awkwardness that we see today in people talking about the ''Lolita'' section of Instagram and RUclips, in which thousands of internet ''Lolitas'' tempt and tease millions of internet ''Humbert Humbert's''.
@@francisdashwood1760 Well, it's like Nabokov and Trevell concluded during an interview, this book makes people awkward because they have very cliched ideas on love, sex and intimacy. It's part of the reason why we live in such a soulless, disconnected world. Try talking about porn to your friends, most of them don't see the entertainment value of such media while to me it is almost spiritual, it's an essential part of the human experience.
He had radical orthidontal reconstructive surgery. It’s in his memoir, experience. He felt that it brought him closer to Nabokov, who also had teeth problems.
Poor Nabokov. He wanted his book Lolita to be as plain as possible and Kubrick and Lyne sexed it up to make his story look seedy and exploitive to women.
Yes. Kubrick was a real shit when it came to how he disregarded source materials. Look what he did to King's novel, "The Shining", and to Thackeray's "Barry Lyndon: The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon, Esq.", both substantially altered to not merely work as a movie, but to serve Kubrick's view of the world. Lolita is a rather sentimental view of love. While I can't personally justify this kind of love, I completely agree that Kubrick made it into a salacious farce. Part of the problem is that the poetry of Vladimir Nabokov's elegant prose is not present in the script, or Kubrick was simply too much of a philistine to understand Nabokov. I actually have a love/hate for Kubrick's movies. This sort of confession can cause one no end of awkward pauses in the presence of his fan boys, I can tell you, but there it is.
@@lyndsieannette957 Unfortunately it's not. Lyne decided to depict Lolita in David Hamilton meets MTV aesthetics like cinematography, all shots of D. Swain are ridiculously over the top. Kubrick lamented that if his Lolita version was not as commercially successfully as his production company had hoped it was exactely because he wasn't allowed to put in the kind of eroticism described in Nabokov's masterpiece but Lyne had not to worry about the censors too much and could shoot these much more controversial scenes. Personally I'd say both adaptations fail to do justice to Nabokov's novel. First of all, the actresses casted to play Lolita are too old or mature so to speak. S. Lyons was 14/15 when Kubrick shot his film while D. Swain was around 17 during Lyne's production. The problem Lyne faced was mostly the following: Esp. for an American audience (even in the late Nineties) the character of Humbert H. was a despicable pedophile, so Lyne faced the problem how he could show Humbert in a positive light and make the audience feel some empathy for Humbert, even root for him and he succeeded in the way he made Irons portray Humbert and make it more of a love story where Lolita could never be substituted by another nymphet. In the book Humbert is portrayed as a man haunted by his obsession of underage girls, a special kind of underage girls resp. nymphets as he likes to call them and while he falls hard for Dolores Haze there are plenty of scenes where Humbert reminiscences about some underage child prostitutes he had intercourse with and ponders his obsession with nymphets. This side of Humbert is totally lacking in Lyne's version, it would have been impossible to depict Humbert as portrayed in the novel and expected the audience (certainly an US audience) to have any kind of sympathy for Humberts sexual deviancy. Don't get me wrong though: I really liked the casting in Lyne's film - except for M. Griffith that is. F. Langella played a marvellous and very memorable sinister Claire Quilty while Irons played the unfortunate man who lost his first love at a young age and ev. developped this obsession with Lolita in an effort to relive all the moments he felt a cruel destiny had cheated him out of. When he blurs out at Quilty "You cheated me out of my redemption!" that's exactely what he means. Anyway, it's hard and kinda un fair to compare the two adaptations, had I to chose I'd definitely give my vote to Kubrick's Lolita. James Mason is too restrained and gentleman-like to portray Humbert believable but I happen to like his performance, S. Lyons is very convincing yet comes over too mature for a 12 year old and S. Winters steals every scene she's in imo. Peter Sellers overdoes it in some scenes but he can showcase his comedic talent and Kubrick let him get away with all his improvisations. But the ultimate adaptation of Nabokov's masterpiece has yet to bemade imo, I wish someone would dare to shoot a real faithful version and depict Humbert haunted and driven by all his desires yet showing him in all his humanity at the same time!
@@TheMundusvultdecipiDominique Swain was not 18 while shooting Lolita. She was actually 15. If you research the movie you'll find out that they had to actually use a body double for the sex scenes because it would have been illegal to shoot a sex scene with an underage girl. m.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/trivia Here is actual footage of Jeremy Irons rehearsing a scene in Lolita with 15 year old Dominique Swain m.ruclips.net/video/J_8MyKbPkjE/видео.html I think Dominique Swain did the best job playing Lolita. Sue Lyon was too mature acting and wasn't believable as a child. Where as Dominique was a child, she looked like a child, and she acted like a child. This helped the movie alot in showing how Humbert is a pedophile. I think the version is not perfect but it's alot closer to the books then the Stanley Kubrick version. I think Nabokov would've loved it.
Are Nabokov films the same style as Invitation to a Beheading. I just read that book and I am interested in more books. If they all are in that plot twisting, eccentric weird, etc direction I wanna buy more books
He foumd in Lolita a moneymaking butterfly: she flew around the world, and sent him back to stay in a princely hotel in the mountains, where other butterflies abound.
"Some of my characters are, no doubt, pretty beastly, but I really don't care, they are outside my inner self like the mournful monsters of a cathedral facade-demons placed there merely to show that they have been booted out."-Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions
"and I don't fancy little girls at all"
Beautiful
... which means they (monsters) were once inside and required booting ...
"which means they (monsters) were once inside and required booting"
And how would *you* know exactly which demons they were, in any case? By reading the conveniently-provided labels on the Nabokov Consciousness-X-Ray? Do you understand the distorting/ transformative lens of the literary imagination at all? Do you think Bram Stoker had a literal taste for human blood ? Do you think Dr. Seuss had a thing for rotten eggs?
Perhaps Nabokov was obsessed with power relations... the ambiguity of "weak" and "strong" in a relationship in which the "weak" can control the "strong". Was he resentful about or obsessed with the Artist/ Critic dynamic? Was "Humbert" the middlebrow critic, Quilty the Artist and Lolita Art itself? Who knows? What compelling evidence is there, in the man's life, on which you base your apparent conclusions?
Do you really think an intelligence as complicated as Nabokov's could be analyzed (or prosecuted) in so facile a way? Because that's what I find exasperating... if not repulsive... about the "debate". So few really careful or interesting remarks, so many dumb one-liners and easy judgments... as though it's all coming from the mouth-breathing, nose-picking audience of the Oprah Show. Very very few people have read the book, Lolita, all the way through, fewer still with any understanding; even fewer have read both volumes of the Brian Boyd biography and Speak, Memory... and so forth... so...
...where are all these strong opinions coming from...? If you told me they were randomly generated I would believe you.
@@Velvet0Starship2013 wow. great comment. like you i find these smug little moralists so dreary. lolita will outlast them all.
I think reading Nabokov was one of the best things I ever did for myself
Me too!
My Lord and my God!
I've never read a more "deliberate" author...a true artist of his medium
Why?
I've always described how I felt after reading Lolita as similar to being "drunk" too. This is the first time I've ever heard people discussing the powerful experience of reading this book in a way I could relate to. Great documentary, thanks so much for posting it.
One of the greatest novels I've ever read. Definitely deserves to be read multiple times through a lifetime.
I think that that is where in the answers lies. Nabokov created a piece of real art and it takes multiple readings to understand his meaning and intentions. As one can see here the subject matter is so repellant that they can't bring themselves to find the true meaning because they can't read it multiple times. For varying reasons they are left with a story line about, in their minds, pedophilia, when that was not what Nabokov was alluding too.
Nabokov was a BRILLIANT writer (capitol letters required) who walked a razor's edge between poetic lyricism and the basest human impulses - along the way he draws the reader in and makes him complicit. Whatever one thinks of his subject, writing doesn't get any better than "Lolita".
Well put.
You might like The Bushwacked Piano.
Nabokov was truly a master of words. Thank you for this beautiful upload.
for people who question the virtue of nabokov because of lolita, let me tell you nabokov himself hated Humbert. Watch nabokov interviews.
True! It's like if we all think Stephen King is a psyco or an unaliver because of his books. Absurd that ppl can't tell the difference between the story of the book and the author. Smh
This entrance scene with Czajkowski and Nabokov hunting the butterflies will stay with me forever. Wonderful editing, wonderful sense of who Nabokov actually is. I can't get it out of my head and I'm glad I can't.
“There is no such thing is moral or immoral books. Books are well written, or badly written”
-Oscar Wilde
Nobokov’s Lolita is the most beautifully written book I have ever read.
in that case, you should probably read more
lolita, like the great gatsby, is too good for us poor humans.
@@cometcourse381 sorry but i share his opinion, i teach literature obviously i have to read a lot of books and lolita is the best written book i have read too
Is it truly that easy to look past the actions of their authors though?
@@-GodIsMyJudge- who are these authors that have terrible actions that make it hard to read their books? Certainly, Nabokov was not one of them.
Lolita isn’t a romance.
It’s a horror story.
It’s like American Psycho in that it’s told from the perspective of the monster.
Not just a great portrait of Nabokov but also a rare glimpse of a younger Amis and Byatt, who are both still alive incredibly enough. Byatt in particular is very well spoken
Yeah did not realize that was amis to be honest.I realize then after hearing his accent for the second time lol
I'm reading Lolita right now. I feel disgusted and amazed at the same time, the book gives me chills.
I've watched this five times already. I think this may be one of the best pieces on a writer's psyche ever.
I wholeheartedly agree. This documentary does justice to an immensely complex piece of fiction which as my father said to me and others can be read on so many different levels: part travelogue, psychological treatment of taboo sexuality, the careful and meticulous catalogue of the loss of innocence and more. I am truly grateful for such an intelligent, delicate examination of Nabokov's "mot difficult book."
Julian Wyllie I completely agree - I can‘t think of a better documentary. I would only improve it my having AS Byatt, Martin Amis and Edmund White explain the terrifying joy of every passage in the book.
He showed a lot 'of of one's self!!!
Hey Christopher, Thank you for uploading this. As a Nabokov and Amis addict, I had exhausted all the existing footage on RUclips. I had never seen this rarity before and really enjoyed it. Great contributions and portions of Nabokov interviews I had never seen before. I'm still searching for a version of the Apostrophes interview he did in the 1970s with English subtitles. I've only ever found one with Spanish so far. Anyway, thanks again. Brilliant doco.
Simon Perry Could you perhaps share the Apostrophes interview in Spanish?
@@simonperry8569
Thank you for the reminder of the Apostrophe interview🌻
If you loved, or if you hated, this story,
you really must read the book.
I’m torn on how I feel, I think I’m going to read it.
Thank you so much for posting this! I've watched every english language Nabokov video available and just out of habit searched again. Loved it.
Nabokov was a gifted writer who was painstakingly focused on the art of writing. He had been beloved as a child and he always wondered about butterflies being compared to human adolescence in both genders. The fragility of human desires was his main theme.
Beautiful film about an outstanding person and one of his best creations- "Lolita". Thank you for such a great research and respectful manner of narrating a story of Vladimir Nabokov's life. He's one of my favorite authors and I'm glad to be Russian because of him as well. 🌿🙌🏻♥️
Nabokov was a chess player and Humbert manipulates everyone in the book so that he can predict and influence their movements. ''Lo" has nowhere to turn except towards him. And he sacrifices her mother to keep having the sick relationship with her daughter.
Beautiful beautiful documentory...
Lolita and Pale Fire are two of the funniest books I've ever read. The overblown self-importance of the narrators, their distaste for ordinary people, the understated portrayal of their psychological instability, it's all brilliant. Not to mention as profound as it is ironic. I wish I had read Pale Fire before I did my undergrad, could have saved myself the pain of figuring out the limits of literary criticism.
Finally, among all the pearl-clutchers here, someone who gets the point of Nabokov.
Nabokov was a great writer. But raping a child is not funny. It’s also based on The true story of a girl named Sally.
I have no criticisms of Nabokov. You, on the other hand, I’m worried about
@@MFLimitedNo one said that it was. Lolita does contain lots of humour though.
Larger than life figure, Vladimir Nabokov. Pale Fire changed my life.
Incredibly educational, thank you so much for uploading the program
Lolita is the story of a man who, in her own words in the book "broke (her) life" It is no way a love story, Dolores is the character but she doesn't exist, only her nymphet quality, Lolita, matters, for Humbert and for his peers.
Have you listened to Jamie Loftus' Lolita podcast?
@@Loukbots can you leave a link, please?
@@rubenlaurentiu90 Do you have spotify? It's basically available in every podcast app. If you search for 'Lolita podcast' you will find it
Agree, even tho Humbert tries to plead his case and convince us that "he loved her" ....he
1) never really knew lolita...or cared to know her
2) She says stuff like "I think you hurt me" and all he's thinking about is f*cking her again lol.
P.s You gotta figure we're hearing the story from Humbert who is most likely an "unreliable narrator"
(I'm sure Lolita's version of events would paint Humbert as the scumbag he was lol)
@@cappy2282 the actual line is "you broke something inside me you dirty dirty man."
i read this as humbert bragging about the size of his penis in a sneaky way as dolores has been having sex every day at camp with charley and is used to having sex so would not ordinarily find it traumatic. this book is a challanging work of art, overwhelming for many it seems. try to rise to its level instead of dragging it down to yours. besides, nabokov will win.
'An intellectual challenge'. Maybe we had to be confronted by a historical reality in this novel. This work is a masterpiece that is beyond language itself.
Thank you very much - never seen it. The film has so many priceless fragments of Nabokov's and Vera's voices. Boyd so young))) and Dmitry reading Pushkin.
A wonderful documentary.
Lolita has no voice, solipsized inside Humbert's disturbing world. Her suffering is never mentioned by the autor. She lives inside Humbert, and what happens to her doesn't matter. Nabokov is a formal, latu sensu, master. His english is perfect. More than that. It's art. But the girl's pain is not there, in the book. I'm reading it right now. And sometimes I feel that I have to put the book away. And I do it. And I go back to this hard reading text, writing my own notes inside its pages.The book is a strange exercise on the human capacity in decieving and domination through narcissistic behavior. Lolita was never there. Her tragedy doesn't matter. In this sense, the book fails. She never had a voice, in this brilhant double solipsism exercise.
So very true 'is all I can say.
That’s the point, as it is written from Humbert’s perspective.
Only in the very end where Humbert himself starts to realize all the pain he has caused her, her suffering is mentioned.
The reader has to remind themselves of how horribly Lolita is treated in order to not get manipulated by Humbert like Humbert manipulated Lolita.
It forces the reader to wake up and make up their own mind and opinion about the situation and not just listen to the writer.
@@annabv55 I agree. It's a difficult book for that reason. I think that a female reader would have a very different experience than a male one, and age would be a factor as well. I read the book when I was 13, too young really but I would read anything I could get my hands on. I was able to completely empathize with the girl and found Humbert a pathetic creep right away. I wasn't sucked into some fantasy of him loving her and actually caring about anything besides his own desires and pleasures. I just put myself in her shoes and was horrified. I re-read it again at 17 and for the last time in my 20s. Each time, I had a new insight and in my 20s, I was actually able to understand Humbert's POV despite his mental sickness and obsession. The story became something else for me. It's a really beautiful book for me now. It's clearly a book that requires maturity to understand that I didn't have before.
@@HadassaMoon144
Very true. I read it for the first time at 13 as well, and kept coming back to it about once a year. Each time I got a different and more elevated view on the story.
One of the core points of the book is that Lolita has no voice, and that you can never see things from her perspective.
Thank you for this; it's an incredibly well made documentary, a wonderful work of art itself.
Amazing Nabokov could write better than a native, but spoke English with a foreign accent.
It's incredibly difficult to lose an accent when speaking a second (or third) language. You won't ever shed it completely no matter how well and how long you speak it; the trick, however, is to assume the target accent. In other words he would have had to actively pursue one of the English speaking accents - and there's no special reason why he should have wanted to. You'll notice his grammar and syntax is first rate in speech and his cadences too. The only thing lacking is pronunciation and that would have taken work. My guess is he would have considered himself a writer and not a speaker and so just left it.
As Isaac Asimov said, "Written English and Spoken English are two different languages."
I love his accent.
Владимир Набоков - талантливый писатель русского зарубежья. Язык книги изумителен. Спасибо.
💚☀️👍🏽🇷🇺
yes
Thank you for your documentary which assisted me in understanding how the lost aristocracy of another century of absolutism has fought for a place in radical literature. Before the Buchmesse, I was taken by an old Baron who inspired me to visit Vladimir's musical brother's grave near Strasbourg. It is always that sense of honour and pride that enables noble writers to step into subjects that are taboo with a sense of great achievement and subtle morality. I suppose like Joyce, Wilde and maybe even Douglas he will always be misunderstood as he was undoubtedly brave to tackle this taboo giving writers like me the courage in adversity to go beyond sexual or lude subjects to change perceptions of age discrimination, disability and racism. Writing is about pushing boundaries in prose that sings from the page whatever darker undertones lie under words well spoken by this strangest of most disturbing voices. A Book that discusses such matters that cannot be discussed without this book. I think it came across his complete almost Freudian detachment like one of his rare butterflies caught to catch a glimpse of a debauched mind in a disturbing reversal of metamorphosis. Scary but necessary for literature. Like Hitchcock is to films: detached yet revelling in the terrifying prospect of such immorality existing out there somewhere not just in a Motel in black and white. Thank you for the perceptive interviews.
🦋 Nabokov is a genius 🦋
People should be aware- "Lolita" is not by any means autobiography, and there are no traces of autobiographical connections between Humbert Humbert and Vladimir Nabokov.
There are however some similarities- both H.H and V.N grew up in Europe, moved to the US, engaged in scholarly activity, are writers, are similar of age. Yes. But still, "Lolita" is fiction.
If you read about how he was molested by his wealthy uncle as a child. You'll notice that there are more similarities between himself and Dolores than with HH.
That’s interesting, if true.
valerahr
He mentioned it in his memoir “Speak, Memory”.
Not to assume that his experiences were in anyway reflected in his writing of Lolita.
@@localshithead7430 a made up lie. what else have you got?
@valerahr Try 'Speak.Memory' for starters.
For me Nabokov is the best writer of all times!
Nabokov, according to him, set the task with an elegant solution. And we, the readers, should never forget about it.
Wow. This video is a crazy magnet.
Nabokov's accent sounds more French than Russian to me lol
It sounded like a mix of both to me
it makes sence, when he spoke all three langauges since he was little kid.
At one time Russian aristocracy, from which Nabokov descended, spoke exclusively French. It wasn’t until Pushkin elevated the language that they were forced to learn Russian by command of the tzar, if I’m not mistaken. Nabokov describes an uncle who was a diplomat that only used Russian when he wished to confuse a point
@@jarethwoodson2616 they werent forced to learn by the comand of tzar, but thats true that they used to talk french most of the time, like most most of the time.
i just finished reading it so this is a sweet coda. thx for the upload.
I really appreciate the perspective and honesty of AS Byatt in this.
i also really do
She agreed to the perversity of the book. Really flowery language does not exonerate such awful thinking.
@@charleskristiansson1296 thought police alert.
Pale Fire is the masterpiece.
What I'd do to get this guy's "second rate english" skills...
Nabokov's books are something to be devoured...
Confucius When I saw him describe his english that way I nearly threw Lolita out the window in exasperation
Confucius When I read Lolita for the first time I always thought it was originally published in Russian. when I found out its original was in English my mind was blown. Nabokov was a genius.
He meant that English is a second-rate language compared to the Russian language.
N. had tutors in English and French from an early age and was fluent early on. Quite a different story with Conrad. He is a great master of the English language which includes cultural understanding (that is--of "cultures"). Read his wonderful Pnin, Pale Fire, and then Speak, Memory.
It would be lovely if there was an audiobook narrated by Nabokov himself
There is a chapter of Lolita narrated by him. m.ruclips.net/video/wQk-xn8O0Qs/видео.html
And some poems. m.ruclips.net/video/QzOt0bMmXjY/видео.html
@@martinvaldes7533 Wow, I never knew these existed, thanks for those links! Very awesome. Although for Lolita it does break the immersion somewhat since the novel is written in first person and Nabokov's English and French pronunciation isn't exactly what I would expect from Humbert as a character. Not wrong enough to ruin it by any means but enough to be distracting every so often.
Regardless, it's always nice to hear the author read their own work. It's so much more intimate and carries its own unique power. Lolita was quite interesting coming personally from him but his poetry readings are where his voice really pulls you in for an exhilarating dance. They were an absolutely captivating joy to listen to.
Speak Memory narrated by Stefan Rudnicki is so good. He sounds more like Nabokov than Nabokov. Do miss this
Jeremy Iron’s reading is fantastic
What is that piece of marvelous music at the very beginning? When Nabokov ascends the hill with his butterfly net in-hand?
The music is Tchaikovsky's 'The Sick Doll', Track 6 on 'Album for the Young', pianist Luba Edlina (Chandos ABTD 1129)
Thank you sir. Much obliged.
@@ChristopherSykesDocumentariesFitting given the context.
Nabokov’s published lectures on literature - for his survey course at Cornell - were a belated discovery for me, and helped me understand not only why Ada Clare (of Dickens’ “Bleak House”) inspired the title of Ada, or Ardor, but how Dickens worked on Nabokov and inspired his most challenging novel.
"If explanation is needed, someone, either the reader or the writer, has failed." - Nabokov
Then I wish Nabokov had left" Bleak House" alone. "Ada" is his worst novel .- tedious and somewhat pretentious.
Look at this tangle of thorns 🥀
Lo. Lee. Ta.
Lo. Lee. *Tha*. That's what happens when the tongue taps, at three, on the teeth.
my sin. my soul. the fire of my loins.
the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
@@graypaint 696969696969pp
Thank you for the wonderful documentary on Master Nabokov. After Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare and then after El amor en los tiempos del cólera by Marquez there is the most passionate and in-depth psychologically advanced and sophisticated love story of all times... I can tell you that as a writer myself and a passionate dancer on my own right... at the same given time... Wooow !!! Life is incredible. I kid you not. Too bad... it's limited... at least our imagination has no borders, lords and proves to be eternal and limitless...
Love story? You have issues
@@larisarojaza the issues are clearly yours.
thank you, this is a wonderful piece of work
Only Nabokov can get away with a book like this. It's a challenge to the reader to deny that while the story is of a depraved and immoral man, the prose is absolutely brilliant. How do you reconcile that?
almost every film is littered with immoral people committing huge murders. This character does not stand out to me as particularly immoral. We just get a more clarion window into the man. The apple does not fall too far from the tree. This book is more a commentary on the hazards of love. Everyone gets a little insane when they are in love ... Obsession, loyalty, passion, self sacrifice ... much mroe explored here.
@@Transform108It really isn't about love. It's about a crazy groomer.
@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 if it's not all about love. how would you explain... The sacrifices that he made to provide and care for her. The willingness to give her everything she was due even if she wasn't going to be with him. These are loving acts.
not to mention the attraction, the lust, infatuation... these are all aspects of love.
five major love languages affirmation quality time physical touch acts of service and gifts. many of these are covered.
@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 It is about love. If not...
How would you explain. taking the time to provide for her needs? Offering her estate even after she said no to him? The attraction and the physical play. Giving praise to, at times too insult. The languages of love are represented.
5 Love Languages
words of affirmation, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, and physical touch
And lets not forget she pursued the relationship physically initially.
Maybe you are not approving of the individuals involved?
I just finished reading Lolita. What a masterpiece.
"I felt proud of myself. I have stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done.
The conjurer had poured milk, molasses, foaming champagne into a young lady's purse, and, lo, the purse was intact. Thus have I delicately constructed my ignoble, hardened, sinful dream."
SelfReflective that's the thing about this book, so articulate and well-written that you have to re-read and think "wait- i just read a rape scene."
@@hannahchamblee8132
That was not a rape scene. It a scene of an adult playing typically with a child, that happened to bring HH to orgasm. I don't believe HH never once raped L, as there was consent involved, even if reluctant.
@@llamawizard "happened to bring him into orgasms" it didn't. He strategically planned it out, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Lolita isn't sick. Sick are those who can't appreciate the aesthetics in the book and would shrug it off by calling it perverted. Expand your mind and understanding of literature, rather than rotting in your ignorant hell hole.
its sick in terms of its context and storyline obviously, however i agree it’s an amazing piece of literature and would recommend ppl read it but it’s unfortunate that many don’t understand what nabokov was trying to do with the Huberts character and actually ended up just as manipulated as Dolores it seems lol
it's about a dirty old pervert....
Don't speak if you haven't even read the book at all.
@@JohnSmith-ww2mg It's probably like that with these folks here
@@charleskristiansson1296 it's about a dirty old pervert and nabokov makes sure to portrait him as such and doesn't give him any empathy, read the fucking book.
_"Lolita"_ is a masterpiece because of the prose alone, but there's actually a subjacent level of reading as Nabokov admitted himself in interviews in the 60s. He said: "_(Lolita) was like the composition of a beautiful puzzle - its composition and its solution at the same time, since one is a mirror view of the other, depending on the way you look_".
And indeed, there are phenomenons of reflexions in the novel (e.g. Trapp / Pratt; widow Haze / widow Hays; Blanche Schwarzman / Melanie Weiss), etc...
.
If you're interested in all this, you can check this out:
.
lolitasriddle.blogspot.com/2014/10/lolitas-riddle-solved.html
.
As for Humbert Humbert: Humbert etymologically means “famous warrior”. It is at least three times in the novel made reference to his kind of Celtic looks. Nabokov associates him to Tristram, a Celtic Knight of the (Celtic) Arthurian Legend who is a symbol of eternal and fatal love (remember "Tristram and Iseult"?). Notice how Tristram is referenced several times in this novel, directly (e.g. Ilse Tristramson) and indirectly.
.
If you want more infos about this specific point about Humbert (and other charachters of the novel), you can go in this subpart of this website: wittevlinders.wordpress.com/#perso
.
I used to be quite "involved" with this
novel. Maybe I should read it again.
phillistines in the comments.
I wish i could write like him
this is great
I hate how people describe this book as "exciting", "inciting" and similar somesuch fashion. It's unsettling, perhaps even more so than the book itself.
Do you think if a person finds the exciting and incantatory prose of Lolita exciting and incantatory, they have no moral sensibility? Do they have to find it overridingly unsettling or upsetting? And do you think those excited persons can’t simultaneously find Lolita upsetting? I mostly do not find it upsetting, although, along with the gushing jealousy I have for Nabokov’s prose and the wonder for the intricate artifice of the novel, I carry a diffuse but poignant sadness for both sad, gladmasked Humbert Humbert and tragic Dolores Haze (also, Charlotte). Do you hate this, that I don’t shudder and clutch pearls? Because I think the part of your morality which twinges is only a cancer on your aesthetic sensibilities, and actually makes it harder for you to empathize with others (see: your comment).
@@DorkOfTheFifth
Prose? No. But they weren't limiting to just the prose. I'd prefer if you weren't so dosingenous with your very leading question.
@@TheNSJaws Wow, you caught me. ? I'd prefer it if you didn't throw around the word disingenuous so much--I assumed when "people" (at least, those not trying to out themselves as perverts) call Lolita exciting, they mean its duplicitous prose or its artifice. I thought that's who you meant, reasonably and ingenuously.
I do find it exciting.
@@JosephStaIin. bravo, brave comrade
A lot of edgelords commenting on this doc… good book doe.
I can't agree more about the edge Lord part. It's like, every "DEEP" literature damned to have fans whose understand the the lit and the fan whose think understand the lit 😂
THANKS----So much soul food for the thoughtful writer!
Why is Lolita his only book that gets talked about? His other books are amazing too. I am in a survey class of his novels this semester. So far we've read "The Defense," "The Eye," "Laughter in the Dark," and "Invitation to a Beheading." I think "The Eye" is my favorite so far, but the other ones have been great reads as well.
Scruffy City News Vols Good to know thanks I haven’t read any Nabokov yet!
In the same way that Madame Bovary was criticized as being pornographic, and the same goes for James Joyce's Ulysses, Lolita is one of those "dirty lit" scandalous books, and that's why it gets all the attention.
Ada or Ardor is my favorite
Pale Fire is beautiful
Because Lollita freaks people out.
Like most books that freak people out, most of them haven’t read it.
He was extremely amazing writer!
I had some trouble reading him at first...but reading lolita (or pale fire) second time around really made me appreciate him.
P.s I actually like Humbert but he was such a scumbag and this is *NOT* a love story (I'd like to hear Lolita's version of events lol)
I wouldn't say you liked Humbert but there are somethings you like about him that you can liken to yourself. Nabokov was really good at this kind of character writing.
@@marshallbarrows5626 lol Ya, very well said. I definitely wouldn't mention Humbert when listing my favorite characters in literature but Nabokov makes him less repulsive than he probably should be. (Same thing with Kinbote in pale fire)
@@cappy2282 that’s what happens when you’re a genius of psychology
am i the only one who finds it hard to understand? i don’t know half of the words but i really want to read it so i’ve been looking some things up but it’s hard to picture in my head
I wouldn't worry about it. Just search up enough words where you can still enjoy the flow of reading. Not everyone gets everything on the first read through.
Yeah that’s okay, some days when I read it I go in with the attitude of “okay, I’m going to learn a lot of new words!” And others I just keep going with the story (unless it really hits a roadblock where you don’t know what’s happening). I think, ultimately, you can visualize the setting and descriptions however it works in your mind, Nabokov has a way of making the air and “vibe” and emotions of the characters and situations clear and that’s the most important part :)
Just keep at it, even if it's slow. Look up words you don't understand. Reading difficult books can make you a better reader in general. Good luck!
Like reading Cormac McCarthy's Suttree, running to a dictionary constantly but ultimately it proves worth the effort.
I surprised that the replies are very supportive.
I haven’t heard this brought up much but I always thought nymphets referred to girls that reminded Humbert of Annabelle
She was the original nymphet.
No, she was his first love interest, there were no nymphets. Nymphets were born when his pure and true love died with that girl. His leading piece of mind was now operating an adult, with all his adultery, he was haunted by memories, which were distorted, all he remember and felt was what his eyes registered - an underage girl. Everything else was pieced together by his adult organism - what he wanted, how he achieved it, what he gave in return.
Nymphet just means small Nympho.
They are both pretty messed up terms
Don't forget Poe's Annabell Lee--where you meet the avatar of Lolita!
@andrewanderson6121: And a poem frequently cited during the novel.
OMG, how did I not see that?
Встречный в плаще и тёмных очках
Алёшка Емельянов
Седой он, как камень и иней,
шагающий старец, что сух.
Влюбился когда-то в богиню,
отринув мир прачек и шлюх.
К ней чувства чистейше-святые
по жизни нелёгкой пронёс,
жил дни бессемейно-простые
в мечте о Господице роз!
Тогда была в смоли, багрянце,
с загибами кончиков влас.
Лишь только единственно (в танце)
он мельком узрел её фас.
Он чем-то неясным согрелся
(беспечностью, глупостью грёз)
иль скромным пожаром зарделся
в давниший февральский мороз;
и так вот побрёл с малолетства,
неся безраздельность в груди,
до дряхлости и декадентства,
поэзии множа труды...
Он пел и писал слёзно, мило,
скучал в окружениях лиц.
Лишь только она не любила.
Пажи не для сутей цариц.
Very good
But if anything , Lolita the book and movie (90's one ) shows that no matter how you tell or word something to people they will stay ignorant and quite on the matter and subject of the book. so its pointless to talk to fools about this only the very wise understand the man of very fine royal taste and manner.
Can somebody tell me the meaning behind the statement in Lolita " you can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style "......what does it mean? ?
That quote means - liars thieves rapists murderers - bad people always tell fancy stories to make excuses for bad things they did.
In that quote Nabokov the author is making fun of how Humbert Humbert is telling you this long fancy story just to make excuses for why he killed a man and molested a little girl. 🙄
@@Firespawnable ,thanks a ton! !😊
@@Firespawnable When I read the book, I didn't read it in that way. I interpreted that line as a joke about sort of "film noir" romance stories, how "dark handsome stranger"-type characters (in this case a murderer) always know how to sweet-talk the ladies, or tend to recite Shakespeare, or wax philosophical. I do recognize that this might not have been Nabokov's intended meaning when he wrote the line, I must admit I have not studied the book in much detail. I would say that you should Google Nabokov's piece "Good Readers and Good Writers," in that he explains how to properly read novels: leave your preconceived notions at the door, and notice and fondle the details.
@@knitmaster3969 What I wrote isn't an interpretation it's the truth.
Throughout the book the author literally makes fun of Humbert Humbert for trying to make excuses for being a pedophile and a murderer.
For example, in chapter one Humbert claims that his first childhood girlfriend was named "Annabel Leigh" who he met in a "princedom by the sea" and she died.
The joke is that Humbert is copying a famous poem called Annabel Lee.
www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44885/annabel-lee
So it gives us funny hints that Humbert is making this story up as he goes along hoping that people will believe his lies.
@@Firespawnable What is truth?
Nabokov held the belief that it is necessary to study his own commentary to understand any piece that he writes. Then, after exploring another work, he repeats the same claim to that work. Based upon this idea, it is no surprise that he provides insights into his conception of Lolita. However, as he's providing his thoughts on Lolita and argues that its difficulty is produced by the care he needs to avoid people from attaching him to H.H due to creating him. Due to this difficulty, couldn't it be argued that Nabokov had to be aware of this issue, and thus must have considered the idea? Can you think that you won't be thought of as (a), without imagining yourself as (a)? Albeit you can, I suspect that it is a herculean task, and arguably a foolish one to do so (as if you refuse to consider an idea based off of the moral perspective of society, the possibility of you finding the prospect ideal, (for example, Raskolnikov's murder of Alyona Ivanovich, or perhaps an assassination effort on Hitler during his writing of Mein Kampf--a sacrifice no one would be willing to make at the time, thus it's unfair to consider that truly an argument for why it's worthwhile to consider immoral aspects (murdering Hitler would still be, at its base, murdering a human being and thus be immoral, albeit that the execution sentence exists regardless of its popularity dwindling is proof that the idea that someone can deserve to be killed does exist in people's minds, which is considered immoral, the same idea could apply to people who Lolita))). That being said, assault produced by contempt to one who thought of an immoral act isn't just, as such acts could become moral in the future, perhaps even necessary (and if they become necessary, they will eventually cease to become immoral).
He was also a solid entomologist.
Its impressive that he spoke without a russian accent. For example Ayn Rand had pure russian accent despite the fact that she moved to the US earlier than he.
People are complicated. Nabokov had a distinct accent, more accesable than most. That said, I speak French, Spanish and to a lesser degree Portuguese. I have found people who are more interested in other people tend to speak more towards other people, rather than about theselves. Kissenger is one who comes to mind. It is your responsibility to understand Henry, not his to be understood by you. However, there is a musical component to language, and some people simply have no ear. I am too lazy to clarify.
He was educated trilingually: Russian, English and French.
Ayn Rand just pretended to have a Russian accent. She was actually from Hell.
I guess folks sound vaguely Russian in hell?
Pale Fire is his magnum opus
Yeah and it’s very interesting to read not just enjoy the beauty of the language
Ada in my opinion
Ada Wong?
@@newwavex8665 Ada Veen?
Sterling Weston this is interesting. I hear more people talk about Ada as a secret favorite over Pale Fire & Lolita - I haven‘t read it yet, would you mind explaining briefly what exactly makes you rank Ada as his best novel? I‘m curious.
Why HURT the butterflies?
It's part of the hobby/passion. I think no collector really enjoys the act, it's an "cannot make an omelette without cracking an egg" attitude. I've always been fascinated by butterflies and considered collecting several times in my life, but I never found it in my heart to get a killing jar. Back then, you could actually buy jars with cyanide in the plaster of paris bottom -- eerily similar to what the Nazis used in the Ausschwitz gas chambers. No, I cannot do that, I realized, each time. Not even if you have a butterfly garden greenhouse where you can multiply your butterflies before you kill a specimen. I just couldn't find it in my heart. I realized that I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I've casually swatted plenty of house flies and other "annoying" insects, and, to be honest, I don't feel much guilt about it, sometimes even a feeling of satisfaction when I was able to get the mosquito that just bit me. But butterflies are able to appeal to my compassion, and that of other people, too, because they are so pretty, and because of their graceful flight as well, I think.
@@DellaStreet123Someone gets the analogy.
Probably not the most unique take, but I always thought Lolita was a metaphor for Nabokov's lepidopterology.
This is why I always wondered if there was a connection with Fowles' "The Collector"
Because some humans feel they have divine right to "enjoy or use" other living beings. Some of us humans fall very short of being nature's best expression. 🌟💛💥🌻 Peace and light to all.🌷
Попытка спастись
..
Загрудная мышца стучит об меня.
Дымы и испуги мой рот осушили,
летящие пули, осколки, земля
улыбку, надежды и дух потушили.
Прижался дрожаще, плашмя и ничком,
и чтоб не погибнуть до будущей ночи,
как костно-мясной и растянутый ком,
хочу стать песчинками родненькой почвы.
Коль будет паденье снаряда, разрыв,
я только рассыплюсь слегка обожжённым,
и не расщиплюсь на куски, буду жив,
под ливнем омоюсь, вмиг став возрождённым.
Но это мечты и заведомо бред.
Вокруг реки крови, убийства, пожары...
Пока что не трогает пламенный свет,
и сыплются мимо все вражьи удары...
It’s the only book i have ever read that I’d consider a masterpiece.
Not to knock down the book, but it sounds like you should probably read more books
read Wuthering Heights and get back to us
Chattingesque Not reading that soap opera again, thanks.
It is THE masterpiece, bar none. Pat yourself on the back for detecting this. Perhaps there is a gifted flame in your subtle spine. I think it's scary how subtle N. is, the subtlest for sure. It's all about infinite melancholy and no other author has ever come close in scaling the same peaks. He stands alone up there, waiting.
@@be6511you have to practice, and endure more patience than your madness in order to be that subtle...that haunting face at the end illuminates it all
47:00 "Why did you write Lolita ?"
Gore Vidal would've responded, "Because I'm a novelist".
awesome
much thx!
ironically in light of Lolita, he was one of the most beautiful children who ever lived...but only for a moment.
A dangerous book. Even today it is as dangerous as when it first appeared.
It's not dangerous. It's brilliant.
@@devinbell4816 I disagree. All art is dangerous and beautiful.
You misunderstood me. I meant this as a compliment.
@@chopin65 Can you explain art's danger to me? Sure art is a falsification of reality, but I don't regard reality as so beautiful or respectable to see the danger of its distortion.
Books are not dangerous. People are. Some people read the book and think it's a directive to hurt children. Others read the book and understand how systematically and incisively it derides pedophiles.
@@sasha6454 This book is about how one can be charmed or seduced into excusing something that would otherwise be seen as horribe and it is done beautifully. While it is a very important book, it displays something in all of us. Not pedophilia, but our excuses for what we do.
VN wrote many books, but everyone seems to focus on this one.
I think is because it his most scandalous
Thats just human nature i guess
Lolita is N's darkest book.
Try Bend Sinister. What happens to the hero's little boy David is truly awful.
@@douglasmilton2805 -- good suggestion -- but you have to do L a few times before you can see what happened to N.
The closest précis I've ever stumbled upon of Nabokov's oeuvre is that his prose is the only to induce sheer sensual pleasure.
amazing
Not trying to be pedantic, but the Video shows Possession by Byatt which came out in 1990, so it couldn't be from '89.
The programme was broadcast on BBC1, Friday 1 December 1989. So it is indeed a mystery as you are correct about Possession being published in 1990! Maybe we filmed a pre-publication copy?
Books get published in different countries at different times. You recommend it? I'm reading Frederick Raphael's Eyes Wide Open on his time with Kubrick, and the similarity between the research and preparation techniques of Nabokov and Kubrick is remarkable. (feel free to use a better adjective)
There is supposed to be a Jay Dyer video analysis on the film "Lolita", but I can't seem to find it anywhere? Can anyone direct me please? Thanks.
Written by a person whose dad was killed by Sergey Taboritsky
Anyone know the piano song at the beginning?
THE SICK DOLL, Tchaikovsky (Album for the Young, Track 6, Luba Edlina/piano. Chandos ABTD 1129)
Lolita is his most difficult book, It will require a very difficult commentary to write!
Difficult...or awkward?
@@francisdashwood1760 It's very exciting despite the subject, but it's easy to imagine how difficult it must've been to write.
@@DarkAngelEU Of course, it was difficult to write, but it's even more awkward for most people to talk about. I think it's hilarious to watch or listen to people attempt to talk about it....lol. It's a similar awkwardness that we see today in people talking about the ''Lolita'' section of Instagram and RUclips, in which thousands of internet ''Lolitas'' tempt and tease millions of internet ''Humbert Humbert's''.
@@francisdashwood1760 Well, it's like Nabokov and Trevell concluded during an interview, this book makes people awkward because they have very cliched ideas on love, sex and intimacy. It's part of the reason why we live in such a soulless, disconnected world. Try talking about porn to your friends, most of them don't see the entertainment value of such media while to me it is almost spiritual, it's an essential part of the human experience.
It didn’t. And why would you need a commentary before a book is written?
Martin Amis is brilliant too but how does he lose the lispe in later life?
He had radical orthidontal reconstructive surgery. It’s in his memoir, experience. He felt that it brought him closer to Nabokov, who also had teeth problems.
anyone know the outro song??
Laxness wrote, at least, three books with this kind of subject matter. And he won the Nobel Prize 🤷♂️
25:08
I knew I recognized that first sweet Onegin poem :)
Poor Nabokov. He wanted his book Lolita to be as plain as possible and Kubrick and Lyne sexed it up to make his story look seedy and exploitive to women.
Yes. Kubrick was a real shit when it came to how he disregarded source materials. Look what he did to King's novel, "The Shining", and to Thackeray's "Barry Lyndon: The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon, Esq.", both substantially altered to not merely work as a movie, but to serve Kubrick's view of the world. Lolita is a rather sentimental view of love. While I can't personally justify this kind of love, I completely agree that Kubrick made it into a salacious farce. Part of the problem is that the poetry of Vladimir Nabokov's elegant prose is not present in the script, or Kubrick was simply too much of a philistine to understand Nabokov. I actually have a love/hate for Kubrick's movies. This sort of confession can cause one no end of awkward pauses in the presence of his fan boys, I can tell you, but there it is.
I think Lyne's film was very true to the novel.
@@lyndsieannette957 Unfortunately it's not. Lyne decided to depict Lolita in David Hamilton meets MTV aesthetics like cinematography, all shots of D. Swain are ridiculously over the top. Kubrick lamented that if his Lolita version was not as commercially successfully as his production company had hoped it was exactely because he wasn't allowed to put in the kind of eroticism described in Nabokov's masterpiece but Lyne had not to worry about the censors too much and could shoot these much more controversial scenes. Personally I'd say both adaptations fail to do justice to Nabokov's novel. First of all, the actresses casted to play Lolita are too old or mature so to speak. S. Lyons was 14/15 when Kubrick shot his film while D. Swain was around 17 during Lyne's production. The problem Lyne faced was mostly the following: Esp. for an American audience (even in the late Nineties) the character of Humbert H. was a despicable pedophile, so Lyne faced the problem how he could show Humbert in a positive light and make the audience feel some empathy for Humbert, even root for him and he succeeded in the way he made Irons portray Humbert and make it more of a love story where Lolita could never be substituted by another nymphet. In the book Humbert is portrayed as a man haunted by his obsession of underage girls, a special kind of underage girls resp. nymphets as he likes to call them and while he falls hard for Dolores Haze there are plenty of scenes where Humbert reminiscences about some underage child prostitutes he had intercourse with and ponders his obsession with nymphets. This side of Humbert is totally lacking in Lyne's version, it would have been impossible to depict Humbert as portrayed in the novel and expected the audience (certainly an US audience) to have any kind of sympathy for Humberts sexual deviancy. Don't get me wrong though: I really liked the casting in Lyne's film - except for M. Griffith that is. F. Langella played a marvellous and very memorable sinister Claire Quilty while Irons played the unfortunate man who lost his first love at a young age and ev. developped this obsession with Lolita in an effort to relive all the moments he felt a cruel destiny had cheated him out of. When he blurs out at Quilty "You cheated me out of my redemption!" that's exactely what he means. Anyway, it's hard and kinda un fair to compare the two adaptations, had I to chose I'd definitely give my vote to Kubrick's Lolita. James Mason is too restrained and gentleman-like to portray Humbert believable but I happen to like his performance, S. Lyons is very convincing yet comes over too mature for a 12 year old and S. Winters steals every scene she's in imo. Peter Sellers overdoes it in some scenes but he can showcase his comedic talent and Kubrick let him get away with all his improvisations.
But the ultimate adaptation of Nabokov's masterpiece has yet to bemade imo, I wish someone would dare to shoot a real faithful version and depict Humbert haunted and driven by all his desires yet showing him in all his humanity at the same time!
@@TheMundusvultdecipiDominique Swain was not 18 while shooting Lolita.
She was actually 15.
If you research the movie you'll find out that they had to actually use a body double for the sex scenes because it would have been illegal to shoot a sex scene with an underage girl.
m.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/trivia
Here is actual footage of Jeremy Irons rehearsing a scene in Lolita with 15 year old Dominique Swain
m.ruclips.net/video/J_8MyKbPkjE/видео.html
I think Dominique Swain did the best job playing Lolita.
Sue Lyon was too mature acting and wasn't believable as a child.
Where as Dominique was a child, she looked like a child, and she acted like a child.
This helped the movie alot in showing how Humbert is a pedophile.
I think the version is not perfect but it's alot closer to the books then the Stanley Kubrick version.
I think Nabokov would've loved it.
Are Nabokov films the same style as Invitation to a Beheading. I just read that book and I am interested in more books. If they all are in that plot twisting, eccentric weird, etc direction I wanna buy more books
He didn't make films. He wrote novels. Yes, they're like members of the same family.
Funk face Try Pale Fire.
46:38 C’est tout
49:49 sencillamente es un genio
shout out to Ashland
The narrator sounds sorta like the voice actors for Albert Wesker
He foumd in Lolita a moneymaking butterfly: she flew around the world, and sent him back to stay in a princely hotel in the mountains, where other butterflies abound.
Familiarise yourself with the history of the text first; post second.