i read Lana Del Rey’s favorite books (she’s insane)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июн 2024
- Out of Lana Del Reys favorite 12 books I read 5 and hopefully you enjoyed my breakdown of each book along with my thoughts on what each book had to say about Lana Del Rey herself. Let me know what you think about these books in the comments!
Instagram: / theomazingpaige
business email: omazingpaige@gmail.com
Lana Del Rey’s favorite books:
*ones I read
*Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
Leaves of Grass - Walt Whitman
The Road to Paradise Island - Victoria Holt
*Think and Grow Rich - Napoleon Hill
*The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
*Ariel - Sylvia Plath
*Howl and Other Poems - Allen Ginsberg
The Master Key System - Charles F. Haanel
Forbidden Gates - Thomas Horn
Your Erroneous Zones - Wayne Dyer
Hollywood Babylon - Kenneth Anger
Autobiography of a Yogi - Paramahansa Yogananda
Intro 00:00
Lana’s Fav books 00:37
Think and Grow Rich 02:01
Lolita 06:03
The Bell Jar 15:53
Ariel 24:25
Howl 26:12
Outro 29:00 
Хобби
Claiming Lolita glorifies pedophilia is like saying “Crime and Punishment” or Macbeth or Poe stories glorify murderers. The narrator is clearly a monster. The reader is made to see how he steals the girl’s very identity. It’s also a comic novel. A parody of travelogues, Henry James novels, and American pop culture - it’s the collision of European modernity with American nascent postmodernity. You seem more upset by how the novel is marketed and perceived than by the text itself. It’s a dense, allusive text that demands multiple readings - a masterwork in every sense. Claiming that anyone who loves it is a pedophile is appalling and actually trivializes genuine pedophilia.
I just want to say that Nabokov himself hated how people misinterpreted and romanticized Lolita even during his lifetime. So you were completely right to feel disgusted and seeing how Humbert is full of shit :DDD
This!! Also, It's crazy how it is still so misinterpreted so much today
The amount of misinterpretation for Lolita in those reviews is 😥🤢 it's like all the people who don't understand why you're supposed to not want to be some main characters (Bojack Horseman, Rick Sanchez, etc.) but so much worse
Lolita is badly misinterpreted. You are not supposed to connect positively to the creepy dude, you're supposed to dislike him. On Sylvia Plath's books, I also read them because Lana likes them and she's my favorite singer, but I hated both of those books. I'm more of a Pablo Neruda poem fan tbh.
Nah, nobokov did write sexually about minors a lot and this does seem to be his opinion
Hey! Lolita is actually not supposed to be romentacised at all- it was not the pure intention of Nobokov.
The book is written very beautifuly and the book was interapted wrongly by the media today and in the 20th centary.
I wish that you whould understand where the whole idea comes behind the book because you as many others might internlize it wrongly❤
Also the book is supposed to make you feel disgasted by the actions of Humbert.
yesss novikov wrote it in the perspective of humbert we're not supposed to agree with him, its to weird us out
that's true but lana herself clearly romanticizes lolita. she is one of THOSE people. the book was first recommended to her by her teacher that groomed her as a teen (she calls him one of her best friends to this day and he still works in school with children btw). if you ever listened to her discography you would know that she really likes pedophilic/age gap relationship and find them romantic.
I definitely think Lolita has been merged and misrepresented, and especially nowadays largely because of Lana. She's one of my favorite artists but the number of girls I've seen over the years talk about Lolita in a romanticized way because of her songs is too many. I do think there was a "Lolita renaissance" a few years ago and it's become more well-known among younger people what the book is actually about and like, but it has been quite the rollercoaster seeing Lolita in pop culture, particularly in the Lana-sphere and on tumblr, and more recently in the online bookish sphere. I was a senior in high school when Born To Die came out and she's continued to gain more and more fans as younger generations come of age. Post-album-release I think there were other words that were used, like as tags on tumblr, that became associated with Lolita and as an aesthetic. Coquette and nymphette were already present and Lolita as in the Japanese style was already a thing, but these combined to some degree with gained popularity of: Lolita, Lana, her other songs/lyrics pertaining to romance and love (esp with an older man), and aesthetic blogs/boards on social media. And I think those things have a higher significance because this was before Summertime Sadness blew up like a half a year later; so, many of these fans found out about her online- not the radio or friends- and these associations were being established.
Lolita is one of my favorite novels; though, it took me a couple times to read it fully. I started reading it my junior year of high school, got a couple chapters into Part 2, and had to take a break. I felt like I was reading so much, so many words, but nothing was happening. That intended short break eventually ended up lasting 6 years and I finally returned to it when I was 21 or 22, started it over, and omg the experience was such a shift! I understood the things that were happening and realized there was even more I hadn't picked up on- namely the stuff with Quilty. I think Nabokov is a masterful writer, and I really love the layers of the novel and the conflicting feelings I have as a reader. (As a lover of deep dives and analysis, this is one of those pinnacle books.) Humbert is trying to persuade you, he is pleading with you and reasoning with you as witness to this final testament of his life in understanding who he is and how he cares and how he may be a monster but there are larger monsters out there and one at play in this story. I think people need to know what Lolita is in order to better talk about it and take in others' thoughts and information. Like, people have to accept the subject matter and perspective, and then discussion can happen. And of course I get that it's not what everyone wants to read, not what everyone is interested in seeing how this kind of story is explored, written, etc. But people who are like "omg it's about a peeeedoo" in a shocked or disgusted, dismissive way bother me just as much as people romanticizing the main relationship. Like... yeah.... that's- that's literally the premise. (I spelled peeeedoo like that to try to make sure my comment isn't flagged or something, lol.) And I say that especially because people tend to see liking the book as a red flag or condoning or supporting Humbert, his actions, and the -phelia. I think anyone who thinks Lolita is a red flag book has not read Lolita or has 'inaccurately' engaged with it. I say 'inaccurately' kind of hesitantly, though, because I don't want to disregard people's experiences of reading the book, but Nabokov himself hated the misunderstanding of and misguided reactions pertaining to the novel.
The Bell Jar IS my favorite book! I'm not sure another book can replace it at this point. It's been so long, it's really important to me, and I have a tendency to make number-one favorite things feel very set in stone. I read TBJ when I was 18. It was fall/winter of the year my friends and classmates were starting college and I was not immediately going into college, despite being one of the advanced/smart kids in school, in the top... 60? 65-ish of my hs class of 600+. I was feeling very lost and that part of me really connected with Esther. Like Lolita, I love the writing of it. Poetic, lyrical, and descriptive writing is a big factor for how much I love and enjoy a book. And after I read it I learned it was based on Sylvia's real life and went down a rabbit hole learning as much as I could about her. It was two weeks of me reading everything I could find online. Now, I've read a few biographies about her, her unabridged journals, and some of her poetry.
i get how someone with no prior knowledge could misinterpret it, but the author of lolita is actually arguing from the same point you're coming from! hes exposing, not romanticizing :)
Enjoyed this new video concept! It'll be fun to occasionally have one to break up the TBR videos.
You could use celebrates favorites, authors, subscribers, etc.
Okay, so reading comprehension is a struggle for lots of people, no big deal. You’ll find a poem you love. About Lolita, that book was meant to challenge the reader’s morality. Humbert is an evil, disgusting, unreliable narrator, with beautiful prose. It’s on the reader to remember that and not fall for his flowery language. Obviously a lot of people misinterpret it, or take it as a literal endorsement of pedophilia, which a lot of people romanticize or use to justify their perversions.
I appreciate your time and effort as well as your input ! I'm glad this brought me here ! This was an awesome unexpected click ! 😊
Lolita is one of my favourite novels because I enjoy analysing Humbert Humbert. It was he first book that I have annotated. Also it's the only Nabokov's novels so far that I have found readable. I have finished The Enchanter because it was an important part of understanding Lolita but it was quite dull and then I also tried his Glory and Despair which I have found dull and unreadable. Humbert Humbert really allows Nabokov's writing to shine. His "jocular ferocity" makes the novel so lively. I also think that this novel is strongly inspired by Crime and Punishment.
The funny thing about the part where he says "it was she who seduced me" is that in reality it shows how completely he objectified her and also displays how fragmented his mind is. Like he has this weird thing where he repeatedly loses self-control and just paws over her. He's basically an out of control brute. The motive of loss of control which leads to a tragedy is shared with The Enchanter.
Then there's this bizarre thing where Dolore's mother treats her as a rival and Dolores is convinced they are lovers by the time he takes her from the camp and he prefers to pretend it's not happening.
There's this weird thing where he doesn't commit to what he does and wants to keep Dolores unaware and to possess her as a sedated object. Like he's not really putting effort into grooming her because it would force him to engage with her personhood.
And what happens almost immediately after "it was she who seduced me" is that he gets tired with dealing with her as a person and starts blackmailing her.
I really enjoyed how in the end the awareness of what what he did and what kind of brute he was started consuming him.
Some of these reviews are just wild 😂 though the corny nonfiction is what truly shifted my opinion on Lana
A lot of law of attraction teachers today teach the same principles as in Think and Grow Rich. Bob Proctor made his entire career out of it. He had read that book continuously for like 50 years?! He studied it at that point. I feel like sometimes goinf back to basics is a good thing 😊
its honestly a classic.
Lolita is a really beautifully written book. Prob one of the most beautiful in modern lit, it is a master piece. The subject matter is what is supposed to challenge the pose narration. You are not supposed to like Humbert, he is not framed to be an honest narrator you relate to, he is a monster, but as the reader you are charmed by his prose, and horrified by it all as well. Thats the talent of Nobokov, that he was able to write so beautifully about something so disgusting that it challenges the reader. Nabokov did not write this book to glorify Pedophilia, Humbert is a villian, and Nobokov was disgusted by people who misinterpreted or romanticized this book.
i luv lawna
Dude Lolita is so crazy to me. I do not get the praise just because it's absolutely controversial. I read an interview with Nabokov talking about that this book was not a satire or something like social commentary. This was an interview with Playboy. Why does this book need to be discussed in a pornography magazine, I do not know. So, whenever people try to justify this, I think about this interview.
Its a very good book, very misinterpreted, I'd urge you to read it before jumping to conclusions, it is not a glorification of pedophelia. The main character is a villian, he is not supposed to be romanticized, that was not the intention of Nobokov. And back in the day, playboy was more than pictures of nude women, they used to have short stories, art, celeb interviews, and even financial advice. You know the children's author Roald Dahl? He used to write short stories for Playboy.
Studied Sylvia Plath, Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsberg in college and got a lot out of them. Also Lo!it's which is not what most people believe it to be - Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator who is delusional. The others I haven't read.