I hate Nabokov’s philosophy. To put it into layman’s…
0 reactions
I hate Nabokov’s philosophy.
To put it into layman’s terms: Nabokov believed that the only thing that books should prioritize is to be “aesthetic bliss.” And I really hate that thinking.
If books or art in general were used for only aesthetic bliss and not have any political messaging, then in my opinion, most of the effective way of teaching people will go away. Take the jungle upon Sinclair. Funnily enough, he originally wrote the book to have people feel empathetic towards the immigrant workers and how bad the work conditions were, but it was used for a different purpose. It was simply disgusting. People were horrified about how the food they were eating was made in horrible conditions. The book literally was the main driving force for the creation of the FDA, due to the public outrage it caused.
Many books and art in general helped drive social change for the better, books like:
Uncle Tom’s cabin, the grapes of wrath, Cathy come home, and so many more.
The he wrote book himself—Lolita—was also used for massive cultural and political purposes. The term lolicon was literally coined off of his work, I’m not saying that it is his fault, but to say that authors should have no political messaging in their books is stupid considering that he put political messaging in his book, even if he didn’t mean to this take comes from a place of privilege and completely ignores empathy. I respect his work. I just don’t respect that philosophy.
#entertainment
source
To put it into layman’s terms: Nabokov believed that the only thing that books should prioritize is to be “aesthetic bliss.” And I really hate that thinking.
If books or art in general were used for only aesthetic bliss and not have any political messaging, then in my opinion, most of the effective way of teaching people will go away. Take the jungle upon Sinclair. Funnily enough, he originally wrote the book to have people feel empathetic towards the immigrant workers and how bad the work conditions were, but it was used for a different purpose. It was simply disgusting. People were horrified about how the food they were eating was made in horrible conditions. The book literally was the main driving force for the creation of the FDA, due to the public outrage it caused.
Many books and art in general helped drive social change for the better, books like:
Uncle Tom’s cabin, the grapes of wrath, Cathy come home, and so many more.
The he wrote book himself—Lolita—was also used for massive cultural and political purposes. The term lolicon was literally coined off of his work, I’m not saying that it is his fault, but to say that authors should have no political messaging in their books is stupid considering that he put political messaging in his book, even if he didn’t mean to this take comes from a place of privilege and completely ignores empathy. I respect his work. I just don’t respect that philosophy.
#entertainment
source
| 3,000 mlx | |
| 9 | |
| 0 |