>>24522691
Nabokov is often hailed as a genius—a butterfly expert, chess master, and language virtuoso. These traits have cast him as a Renaissance man, elevated above normal critique.

I’m not so sure. His prose is complex, yes, but true genius often feels effortless. Still, the “genius” label has shielded him from criticism about his subject matter. We tend to equate brilliance with morality: if a smart person writes something disturbing, we assume it must have deep meaning. He’s a genius—so who are we to question him?

It’s worth noting that Lolita, his most famous novel, is also the first to feature clear pedophilic content. On a surface read, it's repellent. Only with deeper analysis do some readers feel those concerns are addressed. Because of this, calling Lolita problematic often gets dismissed as shallow. “You clearly didn’t read it properly,” people say.

Lolita conditioned readers to accept disturbing content in Nabokov’s later works. They see Ada or Transparent Things and think, “Well, this is uncomfortable, but surely it’s brilliant.” His dense prose and layered references make his intentions hard to challenge—critics are often told they’re simply not smart enough to get it.

Defenders rationalize: “That scene is a metaphor,” or “This part references another novel.” But the truth is, Nabokov repeatedly chose to write about sexualized children.

Does that mean we should ban his books? No. Many great artists have made morally troubling work. If we judged every creator by today’s standards, few would remain.

The point isn’t to cancel Nabokov, but to provide context. When you read Kipling, you're told about colonialism. When you read Lovecraft, you hear about racism. But when it comes to Nabokov, no one mentions his fixation on underage girls.

That needs to change.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

moralfags are the worst