/lit/ - Literature

>robbed of their accolades
What does that even mean? Like literary critics initially considered Lolita an important work of literature and then this cover came out and they decided "never mind lol it sucks"?

>>22589455
>What does that even mean?
I means the cover gave an impression to the minds of the public, instilling the assertion that it was kitchsy smut. Now that I think about it, the film did that as well.

>>22589466
Lolita is not a novel for the general public anyway, especially not the puritanical nuclear families of the 50s and 60s. How does the cover "rob" the novel of its accolades?

>>22589482
Maybe some people who come across it knowing nothing about it will have their ability to properly judge it skewed because of what the cover depicts.

>>22589492
Well I suppose that's the public's fault for being superficial. Asimov and Dick have published some very important work but some of their covers are awful.

>>22589432
you're literally retarded. anyone with a serious interest in literature thinks Lolita is a masterwork and a landmark
>>22589466
literally no one except you was given this impression

>>22589432
The original and most famous cover is just the text Lolita on a green background. That's the cover made after the movie based on the movie, it literally says so.

>>22589432
That's the movie cover.

The first edition of Lolita was just a green book with 'LOLITA' written on the cover. People went bananas (in a bad way) because of the subject matter, not the covers. That said, most Lolita covers are bad and ugly. There's even a video where Nabokov laughs at some particularly bad international editions. quillette.com/2019/01/26/reading-lolita-in-the-west/

>>22589432
If nobody has ever read "Lolita: Story of a Cover Girl" I recommend it, it's all about the varying attempts at making a suitable cover for the book, especially interesting as a graphic designer.

>>22591849
It's wild to me that there's still no edition of the book with the cover Nabokov wanted.

>>22592461
Idk why nobody has done it yet. Regardless, I think this cover is fine.

>>22592461
What was the one that he wanted?

>>22592586
There's a couple quotes by him on it in letters he sent to his publisher (I'm pulling these from a New Yorker article btw)
>I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls.
and
>Who would be capable of creating a romantic, delicately drawn, non-Freudian and non-juvenile, picture for LOLITA (a dissolving remoteness, a soft American landscape, a nostalgic highway—that sort of thing)? There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.

>>22592774
he cucked out

>>22591849
How did I not know about this book? How do I not own this book?

>>22592794
WOW, bellyyyy
idk man, big head small neck cause growth hasnt catched up yet, meet a blond girl like that in cristan school when younger brother were there, big head small neck, mom said shes so pretty, she follows me around asking me question and stuff,
went home looked at my own picture back when i was like 13 14, oh yeah big head small neck.

>>22589466
You should know that historically covers weren't showing much you dumbass. Even 60 years covers were pretty minimal.

>>22589526
Sci-fi is genre-fiction trash for entertainment.

Is this book actually pro pedophilia or are coomers just cooming?

>>22594125
No. It’s clearly anti-pedo and the furthest thing from erotica. There is like 1-2 “hot” but implied passages.

>>22594125
Its about life. Read it. How are there people on /lit/ that don't get modernist literature and what it is trying to say. damn it.

>>22594128
It's not really anti-pedo in the conventional sense.

>>22594133
It is when you take a step back and realize that Humbert is the one writing and has motives. I guess if you read totally surface level and don’t think, one can see it as pro-pedo

>>22594138
I didn't claim it was pro-pedo either, brainlet.

Because you were prepared to do such a great evil at the start you got clapped and again and again on the way down. Even if the sky was not broken, which is down to your moaning, you would be in a worse position.

Your stupid excuses have no real baring on the reality of things.

You are worth nothing. Without your little overused glitches. You are nothing.

It's all fair a square.

You've been fined. You're in debt. And you're going to hell.

No further effort will be put in to support your barren minds. You'll likely be banished or worse from life. So much effort from higher ups must be used to support your little runner. It's not just me you're causing grief to. For you too. To save you from a lot of pain.

The sun's gonna pain you soon, and rightly so.

Many others would have paid to be in your position with the future it almost effortlessly brings. You egotistical fools.

Anyhow, I'm out.

>>22594125
Stop getting your info about Lolita from /lit/ shitposts. People who claim it's erotic haven't even read it.

>>22594145
It was erotic for me. Cope.

>>22594146
OK, pedo.

>>22594142
If you were switched on, you'd think, 'how can it not be fair and square?'

>>22594163
Don't get me wrong. You're looking at multiple life sentences and debt up to here if that would even matter to one such as yourself. You are in a lot of trouble. If I were you I'd find out what I could do to heal my problem. Rather than losing yourself in the clouds that giving someone innocent impossible amounts of pain is good.

>>22592794
looks like little boy. now i begin to understand the ancients

>>22592774
Interesting. I can see why publishers wanted to get something more attention-grabbing, though.

>>22592868
If you want more motivation, they include a German cover that is just some random nude preteen model photo with one of the movie girls' faces pasted on top.