>>23969616
>It was never a pro pedo book.
It was never an anti pedo book either.

Let me posit that there are two major camps in modern literature. Camp A thinks that the purpose of literature is to teach: every book should have a moral, a lesson, a message of some sort. Anything else would be sterile, or at least juvenile, on the level of nursery rhymes for children. Camp B, on the other hand, believes in Art for Art's sake, to communicate the intangibles, to make meaning of our emotions and lay bare the soul in hopes that other souls will resonate.

Nabokov was firmly in Camp B, as he explicitly states in his own words in various interviews and essays. To him, Camp A is a bunch of philistines and sanctimonious retards, a gaggle of dumb children trying to play at being adults. Incidentally, he is 100% correct, but the point is that Lolita is neither condemnation against nor apologia for pedophilia or hebephilia. If he wanted to make some statement on the matter to let his stance be known he would do so explicitly in some essay or something, not through some scenic cometragic novel narrated by a bumbling, pompous blowhard who is very distinctly not him. If he ever wanted anyone to know what his feelings on the subject of love, lust, or romance between "nymphets" and adults were, I'm sure he just fucking told him; he wasn't one to hold back his judgments on anything. And he didn't write fiction to condemn or excuse social mores.

>>23974224
>Similar to how her mother treats her like adult competition for Humbert instead of a kid.
The jealousy of the average woman knows no bounds.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

>I touched her hot, opening lips with the utmost piety, tiny sips, nothing salacious; but she, with an impatient wriggle, pressed her mouth to mine…