moralfags are the worst

>>24522691 (OP)
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.

>>24522716
thanks, just ordered nabokov's entire ouevre

>>24522691 (OP)
>ragebait premise
>says nothing
how profound

>>24522716
Chatgpt.

another filtered midwit

>>24522691 (OP)
This clown outed himself to me as a massive faggot in his review of the book '72 Virgins' by Boris Johnson. The book isn't good, really, so I'm not upset that he spent like 2 hours crying about it. However, to prove how out of touch with the working class Johnson is, he said that no one would ever use the word 'yomp'. The irony is that I, along with everyone I know from the working class, use the word all the time. What this retard has done is (ironically) prove how out of touch with the working class he is, by trying to highlight it in Bojo. Made my whole view of this guy fall apart, to be fair. Turns out youtube critics are shit across all mediums not just film.

>>24522716
maybe I'm just super retarded and missing the point, but I'll get it if it's just like 'hey this Nabokov guy isn't the grooviest dude.' I think I just personally don't like the fact that morality seems to come into play, not to assess Nabokov as a person, but his work as well. Maybe Nabokov is a pedo and he's a disgusting person for it but that won't retroactively make me change my opinion on lolita. Now if, let's say, it turned out he ripped this off from something or it was ghost written then that would affect it. Because that actually got something to do with the merit of the piece itself and not about if the writer is a chill guy or not. I would probably like it more if it's just a character assassination and not a veiled critique of lolita where the 'critique' is about the moral of the author.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't McCarthy outed as a pedo a couple months back? That doesn't make me change my opinion about his work. I still hate them all the same.

>>24523176
>If I'm not mistaken, wasn't McCarthy outed as a pedo a couple months back?
You know, now that I think about it, there probably is a correlation between people who ignore the rules of grammar and people who ignore the rules of society

>>24523305
faulknerbros...

>>24522716
Today's standards? Stop using incognito mode you depraved little bitch and we'll look at today's standards.

>>24522716
>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.
Wish I could strangle all of you.

>>24522691 (OP)
Every lolita thread is the same, it's so played out that you don't even need the setup. The punchline is just "oh raping kids is bad? well it isn't haha i'm smart". I can't wait for you people to see the chambers.

>>24522716
>we tend to equate brilliance with morality
yeahhh, no. absolute midwit take.
also anyone who says 'we', 'us', etc when discussing their own dogmatic critiques immediately loses my attention. stop supplanting your opinions on the group.

>>24523938
>I can't wait for you people to see the chambers.
In case you can’t tell we’re wining

>>24523176
>wasn't McCarthy outed as a pedo a couple months back
17 years old is not pedo regardless of hag feminist indoctrination.

>>24523938
sybau, bitch

>>24523989
not a good use of the word supplanting

>>24523732
Bro is basically asking for trigger warnings to be plastered all over "problematic" works. This type of person should be violently opposed at every opportunity.

>>24523938
Somehow, the entire genre of murder mysteries skates by without people constantly clutching their pearls and proclaiming "B-BUT YOU KNOW MURDER IS WRONG, RIGHT?" We know, we are adults, we can engage with the story without constant concern trolling by shallow virtue signalers.

>>24524101
Can you suggest a word he could have supplanted there?

>>24523176
>wasn't McCarthy outed as a pedo a couple months back
You mean a random woman wrote smut fanfiction about turning up at his house with his debut book and a gun at 16, only to end up becoming his lover with no evidence of its truth?

>>24522993
As a Brit, I've never heard the word "yomp" in my life, what does it mean?

>>24526216
Military slang for a cross-country march.
One of the more famous yomps in recent history was that of the Royal Marines across East Falkland to besiege Port Stanley.