Anyone who thinks thatNabokov and Humbert Humbert are "of the same opinion"

is absolutely absurd.

90% of the comments under this video are just plain silly.

 

Most seem to come from Americans trying to find a scandal somewhere

 

here (as usual).

You see the way Lolita is written, it really feels like the author deliberately created Humbert Humbert to be absolutely as inexplicable as possible, especially in the way he pseudo-rationalizes everything he done and lies to the reader.

The way Lolita is described in the book as simply being the impression that Humbert Humbert has of her. 

Nabokov is so detached and artistic about the main character in this way, that he just couldn't be on Humbert Humbert's side. The fact that he created such an unpleasant character, again, shows that Nabokov was obviously not just avoiding ... everything you think he was trying to do if he was a pedophile himself. Work ceases to have meaning if Nabokov was really sympathetic to Humbert Humbert. He does his best to make sure that the reader is not. 

Yes, he did a lot of research on pedophiles for the creation of his main character, but in the form of academic case studies in psychological journals. Some commentators will actually try the pathetic joke: 

"Oh yeah, 'research', I bet he really enjoyed doing all this 'research' haha ​​wink wink."

And here, I just have to ask, do you really think he was sitting there with a university newspaper and hiding secretly, I don't know, Nymphet Weekly, behind like in a cartoon? 

He was about as interested in the experts who studied the minds of predators as he was in his predators themselves, but there is no evidence anywhere that he is interested in "nymphets".

Nabokov was interested, as we can see throughout his work, in the minds of others, especially when they were very different from his own. 

The subjective experiences of those most of us would consider foreign. Distorted realities through distorted eyes. For me, art is the communication of subjective experience. Most writers do this by creating a narrator who sees the world as they do it themselves. 

You can find out when this happens. Read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, David Foster Wallace, Proust, all of them wrote in such a way that their work provides insight into how they saw the world and reflects on their understanding of what art should be (I have me - even expressed my own view on what I think art should be right now).

By the way, most of the praise or criticism addressed to these authors comes from the reader, either in agreement or disagreement with their worldview, or in agreement / disagreement of the reader with the author's version of the ideal artistic. Nabokov's artistic ideal was to make the author as invisible as possible. If you look at his literary critics, you will see that he "hates" when the author projects his views on the characters, or tries to use them as mere spokespersons to force a moral or political message.

This is why he did not like most of Tolstoy, but for War and Peace, Anna Karenina and The Death of Ivan Ilyich, whom he liked because they did not try to push a Christian narrative like with the others Tolstoy's works, but were much more about the characters and their humanity.

He hated all of Dostoevsky for the same reason, because everything he wrote tried to convey a pro-Christian message

.@GuyAroch @wikipedia living emigrants US [shalom] fashion photographers, School of Visual Arts alumni, [hidden categories #Wikipedians @leylabluetoo only ]  
 topics unclear notability, containing Hebrew-language,  notably talented  offspring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Aroch