/lit/ - Literature

Sensualites cannot help themselves. Everything is about a fix.

>>23063899
>philosophical or spiritual knowledge
lmao. Just read about chakra quantum healing then troon

>>23063899
Isn't the point of Lolita precisely this? That fancy prose stylings can trick you into sympathizing with a monster and should be regarded with caution.

>>23063899
>Nabokov is all style no substance
This must be why he hated Faulkner, who had a lot of substance to back up his style.

>>23063914
>the point of the book is what makes the author look good to me!

>>23064010
Yes, that is how interpretation works

>>23064017
I personally always interpret books with the intention of making the author look like a pedophile

>>23063914
>the point of the book is.... the author is a charlatan

>>23063899
Never understood this take on Nabokov. He's full of profound philosophical insights that are all the more piquant thanks to how they're presented. On top of that he can tell a captivating story with vivid characters. Even his weaker novels are excellent.

>>23063914
Not at all. Nabokov writes the exact same way in every book. Theres no hidden message in Lolita’s prose being good while its substance is lacking

>>23063899
You miserable cunts hate everything. It's a wonder anyone who ever visits this place ever gets anything written.

>>23063899
another philfag obliterated by nabokino

>>23064091
It's just contrarianism. On he other hand, he's a classic writer's writer and filters a lot of mouth-breathers. I mean, you'd have to be completely devoid of aesthetic sensibility to say that he has "no substance"; Nabby is one of those few writer's who can make you see the world in a different light for a while.

>>23063899
>goes on /lit/
>admits to not caring about literature, which is indeed about wordcraft, and use that to elicit an esthetic experience
>uses literature as a crutch because he can't properly engage with abstract objects but needs fiction stories to indirectly perceive them (and of course uses fiction to frame them in his desired direction)
Many such cases.
Even Jesus Christ said he was occasionally talking in parabolas because the jews were spiritual plebs, and He had the decency of keeping the stories to a few clear sentences immediately making their effect.
Of course philosophical and spiritual works should and arguably must be written with all the resources of the art (and they have been, for instance the greatest of all "prosefags", Bossuet, talks mostly about God) but that's an entirely different question.

>>23064108
he didn't say anything was "hidden," retard. what, in your own words, is the "substance" of lolita?

>>23063899
Bullshit but even if it were true, what's wrong with making art for art's sake? What's wrong with creating something beautiful for beauty itself? Do you also seethe when you see a landscape painting at a museum because there's no philosophical knowledge to be gained from it? Retard

>>23064164
He said the prose was a trick you retard. The substance of Lolita is that being a pedo is not good, something which is blatantly obvious throughout the book. There is nothing hidden by fancy prose. Retards just can’t handle a sympathetic pedo so they cope with nonsense like the prose tricking the reader, even as the protagonist calls himself a rapist and a monster.

>>23064159
the problem is that this type of bugman can only engage with art second-hand, through some interpretive authority. direct experience doesn't work, doesn't feel like it "counts" until an authority figure (however laughable, like a social media personality) authenticates it. fiction that's straightforwardly didactic can have that didactic content explained by a youtuber, but fiction as an aesthetic experience is simply unavailable to the bugman, as its appeal does not survive in summary.

>>23063902
cope

>>23064191
>The substance of Lolita is that being a pedo is not good, something which is blatantly obvious throughout the book.
lmao no it isn't and that's such a dumb thing to say i don't think you even read it. moral judgement is at best a minor afterthought. the substance of lolita is in things like this:
>She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.
right on the first page, but you're not paying attention. you think this guy wrote a whole book of this to tell you where you should or shouldn't put your penis? like that mattered, like there was any danger in the first place of you acting upon desires? give me a break.

>>23064231
Yeah it was a book about pretty words. So it was lacking in substance as I said.

>>23064231
Lolita is a first person narrative. First person means that there is a frequent use of "I" and "me" creating the illusion that the author is talking to you. Sometimes, as in the case of an autobiographical text like The Bell Jar, the first person perspective reflects how the author actually feels. Other time it does not, considering that authors often engage with something called inmagination. I would talk more on immagination, but that is beyond the scope of this course. Right now we are just trying to get the basics of reading comprehension.

>>23064274
I'm sorry, what is "substance"? Name three books you consider to have substance, and what it consists of in each case

>>23064274
>Yeah it was a book about pretty words.
what pretty words, sock? school? what does the excerpt SAY you absolute monkey? how are you going to talk about "substance" when your brain shuts off on page one?

>>23064283
>we are just trying to get the basics of reading comprehension
good luck with that to both of you

>>23064231
>>23064274
>>23064283
>>23064191
>>23064164
OP is so retarded he started having a full on argument with someone who agreed with every single one of his posts
This is the level of reading comprehension anti-nabokovfags are on

>>23064208
Yes, you are clearly coping.

>>23064321
Pretty sequences of words. My goodness, what is it with aestheticsfags and picking fights over every little thing. The inferiority complex always shines through.

>>23064327
Anon he is literally agreeing with you what are you even arguing about at this point

>>23064334
Dunno. Thats kinda my point.

>>23064091
If Nabokov is full of profundity where is the fruit? No one has ever discussed at length a shred of wisdom attributed to his legacy. Where are the other artists he has inspired in his wake? There are none. Any great writer conjures up a meaningful insight into part of the human condition as soon as they are mentioned. Why does discussion of Nabokov never mention an insight?

>>23064327
what are the words saying? do you have an actual learning disability? don't tell me those are words, i can see that. tell me what you think he's saying, with those words, on page one of a novel whose "substance" you think you know? what do the words mean?

>>23064324
OP here I havn't made a single post untill now. My point was that good prose is great IF it has substance. Good prose with no substance is just hollow. It is mere seduction with nothing real.

>>23064334
what am i agreeing with him on, lol? you might be more confused than he is.

>>23064341
>If Nabokov is full of profundity where is the fruit? No one has ever discussed at length a shred of wisdom attributed to his legacy.
Let's get deeper. Post a book that's actually affected your life in a meningful way (more so than just giving you the feeling of 'enlightenment' for a few days) and explain how.

>>23064344
>aestheticsfag demands that everything be broken down into terms his toddler brain can understand
And you guys pretend to be intellectuals

>>23064341
>Any great writer conjures up a meaningful insight into part of the human condition as soon as they are mentioned. Why does discussion of Nabokov never mention an insight?
right, what you're describing here is the bugman instinct of reducing art to a platitudinous summary that can be easily taught in a classroom and then, as you say, "conjured up," exactly like a magician produces an illusion, whenever you need to pretend you're cultured and well-read to other people that are also pretending. that nabokov resists this kind of summary, and that attempts to produce one are laughable ("it's a warning against charismatic sexual predators") is to his great credit

>>23064309
>list three of your favorite books so that I can attack them to change the topic from a book I like
Come on what kind of retard is going to fall for that

>>23064389
funny how you will type absolutely anything to avoid talking about a brief excerpt from page one of a book you say you understand. i'm not going to stop asking: what do the words mean? when you read them, what did you think? what do the words mean, anon?

>>23064390
All you can do with books is vaguely gesticulate to some unknowable quality. You refuse to engage with any literature with a message or meaning because you’re afraid of embarrassing yourself by not understanding it. Its the same way you purposely refuse to use capitalization to signal a lack of interest. Its so transparent its honestly sad.

>>23064413
You type absolutely nothing to get the last word in. Explain explain explain, thats all I hear from you. Insisting on semantics on top of semantics to keep an argument going to momentarily relieve your inferiority complex.

>>23064386
The book of laughter and forgetting

Gives a no frills essay describing the two types of laughter humans engage in. Defines the context the two types of laughter emerge from. Shows examples of people who engage in either laughter for extended periods of time and where they slot into the social fabric. It's a precision warning against the roots of authoritarianism and the mindset and practices that manifest it. The laughter of agreement serves as a warning and becoming aware of its presence and practitioners helps you avoid getting involved with inhuman zealots.

>>23064432
you could simply tell me what you think the excerpt means and then i would fuck off lol. it's not a tactic for "winning," i'm trying to get you to engage with the book we're discussing to an absolutely basic degree, like fucking middle school level, but you just won't. what's wrong with you that you want to have sweeping opinions on whole books but talking about something specific in one makes you this panicked? do you really look at it and see "just some words?" can you extract any idea from the words? anything at all?

>>23064405
fair enough, then you/he can give an abstract definition of the "substance" of a literary work, because when I read Nabokov I see a lot of substance, so we must mean a different thing.

Onr could say, for instance, 1984 has substance because it shows you the workings of totalitarian propaganda and is applicable to the real world, or one could say Remarque/Hemingway have substance because they make you emphatize with men in wartime. Totally different takes on what is substantial.

It's an impossibly broad word and it's a non-statement to play it off against "style", usually that's just a cliché people use when they can't come up with any real criticism.

>>23064425
i cannot be embarrassed by a book because books are experienced alone. for embarrassment to take place there needs to be an authority with the power to declare, eg, "lolita is about the evils of patriarchy" and make dunces out of all who claim otherwise, not because it's "true," but because they have the power to put a dunce cap on your head. where did they get that power? from you. you gave it up, voluntarily, because it meant you wouldn't have to do your own homework. now you can just say, whenever it comes up, that lolita is about the evils of patriarchy, and there will be no dunce cap for you. you're safe.

>>23064467
You’ve been shifting the argument this entire time. First it was what is the substance of Lolita, now you demand that I explain the first paragraph to you. Theres no result where you “fuck off” because you’ll just keep shifting the argument to keep it going because an endless debate is what your peculiar personality demands.

>>23064000
lmao

>>23064521
If you have a different interpretation of a book than that of your authoritative boogieman then you can plea your case. If you make a compelling enough argument you might actually be respected for your novel interpretation. But you of course will never do that, you won't even try because you're so scared of being wrong. You're scared of being declared a dunce because you weren't smart enough to make a good argument.

>>23064523
determining the substance of lolita would necessary begin with determining the substance of the first page of lolita, which contains that excerpt. that's not "shifting" anything, that's just a logical necessity. what, were you going to absorb the substance of lolita by swallowing it? normal people just read page one.

we're also not "debating" anything, there's nothing for me to "win." i'm trying to get you to actually read a book instead of just pretending, because this is your only chance to escape bugmanhood. if you do it you win, if you don't do it you lose. why not just look at the words and try to figure out, you know, if they're saying anything? it's easier than making up more excuses.

>>23064547
thanks for the advice but i think i'd rather NOT give up all power over western culture to a council of menopausal woman in the first place, rather than give it up and then hope that they will, in their kindness, let me sometimes put a suggestion in a suggestion box.
>"if you weren't so SCARED you'd be... more deferential to schoolteachers"
lol

>>23064635
Whose talking about being deferential? You expose your own neuroses with each post. Scared to conform, scared to stand out. Running back to a facade of superiority with your tail between your legs. What a miserable existence

>>23063914
>That fancy prose stylings can trick you into sympathizing with a monster
The more you read the less you sympathize with him. He's portrayed in a positive light in the beginning but slowly is revealed to be a violent, delusional, kidnapping, murdering, jealous, rapist. Sometimes I wonder if people who think he was portrayed in a positive light even bothered to finish the book.

makes sense because I don't doubt Nabokov have realized there is no such thing as truth after reading every book in existence.

>>23064650
>Whose talking about being deferential?
you.
>If you have a different interpretation of a book... then you can plea your case
in order to "plead your case" you have to first defer to the authority of whatever institution you're pleading to as able to judge the validity of your plea, that's definitional. i think you might be a little too dumb for this conversation

>>23064735
Go back to ranting about councils of menopausal women. You're clearly better at that than you are at reading comprehension.

>>23064751
my dim friend, you don't understand YOUR OWN posts, you might not know the word "defer," you have no platform to stand on here. maybe you could tell a teacher i'm bullying you if you can find one

>>23064806
nta but if you're crazy if you think you're the bully here. Honestly, the fact that you keep bringing up shit like teachers and authority figures and bullying really does make it seem like you have some deep seated issues.

>>23063899
>art for arts sake is for pretentious fags playing word games
why are brainlets always so triggered by linguistic skill? Just read Dan Brown, it's very unpretentious, he won't make you feel like a retard (although you should)

>>23064825
thanks for the analysis dr samefaggot, maybe if you type "whoa like who hurt you?" seventeen more times one of them will stick

>>23063899
I like Nabokov, but I have to agree. Hes a fun read, but pure prose is really not the best the medium can be. He definitely has a lot massive amount of skill when it comes to wordplay, but thats only one aspect of literature. Its important sure, maybe the most important, but its not enough to rest an entire book on.

>>23063899
I like Nabokov, but I have to agree. Hes a fun read, but pure prose is really not the best the medium can be. He definitely has a massive amount of skill when it comes to wordplay, but thats only one aspect of literature. Its important sure, maybe the most important, but its not enough to rest an entire book on.

>>23064920
Whose samefagging? That was the first post I made in this thread.

>>23064543
What are you laughing at, troon?

What's "philosophical insights"? As far as I'm concerned "You die if you're killed" could be a "philosophical insight" for a christian.

>>23064959
lmao
>Whose samefagging? That was the first post I made in this thread.
>Whose talking about being deferential?
could you be any more pathetic? you write the same shit with the same grammar mistakes, everybody can see it. how much of a bitch do you have to be to act like this?

>>23063914
I don't really understand the point of the ending where he gets cucked by another pedo.

>>23064701
Those are two different things, though. HH is never portrayed in a positive light, he's always a liar, a cheat and a rake who, at best, only has utter contempt and disregard for other people. Still, it's possible for a reader to share his despair over Lolita's disappearance and assist him in sorting out the clues during his frantic search, to have one's heart first skip when he receives her letter and then crushed when she rejects his final plea, and even root for him when he sets out to destroy an even bigger bastard.

>>23063899
Art doesn't have to be anything

>>23063899
>Nabokov is all style no substance, art for arts sake is for pretentious fags playing word games and jerking themselves off
In other words: based.

>>23065042
I don’t want to feed into your paranoia, but I’m not that anon and I’d like to say that whose is a pretty common word.

>>23064000
Nabokov's literary critique alone has more substance than Faulkner's whole life.

>>23065213
At the beginning he does seem to portray himself in a positive light

>>23065497
Apart from the childhood scenes I don't really see it. He's a smug twat from the very first page. His adult chronicles begin with a botched attempt to procure a "nymphet" from a sketchy lady in Paris.

>>23065451
sure, but nobody else in the thread confuses it with "who's." don't tell me you came back with a third samefag persona to defend the previous two you actual lolcow

I finished Lolita yesterday and thought it was excellent. Parsing Dolores' budding resentment and childhood PTSD through Humbert's self-assuaging framing of the events is both disturbing and fascinating. I also loved how despite actively rooting for Humbert to be caught during the "chase" portion of the story, I still felt his anxiety and had to actively remind myself not to sympathize with him. Excellent book.

>>23065541
>>23065541
I don't remember him seeming as narcissistic at first and I don't remember him admitting to physically abusing his wife until later but maybe I'm misremembering. Just because he's trying to procure a nymphet doesn't mean he's a bad dude. But yeah he was pretty smug, true.

>>23065609
>Just because he's trying to procure a nymphet doesn't mean he's a bad dude.

>>23063899
>Nabokov is all style no substance
I don't mind that. Art should be able to exist for the sake of art.
My problem with Nabakov is that I find his style boring.

>>23064116
>You miserable cunts hate everything
He says that while defending Nabokov. That's rich

>>23065844
nabokov was a cultural omnivore that was enthusiastic about everything and could talk animatedly about a million subjects. he was not any kind of miserable hater, you got memed

>>23064341
Well this is just your ignorance showing. Countless philosophers have discussed Nabokov. Haven't you read any Richard Rorty, for example? And he's influenced even more novelists, such as Updike, Martin Amis, Pynchon, Calvino, Sebald, Grass, Rushdie, the list goes on...
That's quite a legacy if you ask me.

>>23063899
his prose isn't even that good. he just has the occasional truly exceptional passage. joyce and melville absolutely mog him

He gained both fame and notoriety with Lolita (1955). This and his other novels, particularly Pale Fire (1962), won him a place among the greatest novelists of the 20th century. His longest novel, is Ada (1969). He devoted more time to the composition of it than to any other.

>>23065905
>millions of subjects
>writes a novel about a pedo
You... you do realize that just makes it worse?

>>23066402
>influenced
How?

>>23064000
>faulkner
>style
Dumbass take.

>>23068117
you think and express yourself like a troon, masking resentment with false moral reproach. "uhm like excuse me... why is he allowed to write about bad things???" he produced enduring beauty and you poison everything you touch. rope yourself soon to limit the damage

>>23068139
Elaborate

>>23063899
"Vivian Darkbloom" is an anagram of "Vladimar Nabokov".

>>23066402
>Vladimir Nabokov and George Orwell had quite different gifts, and their self-images were quite different. But, I shall argue, their accomplishment was pretty much the same. Both of them warn the liberal ironist intellectual against temptations to be cruel. Both of them dramatise the tension between private irony and liberal hope.

>>23068143
Trannies are groomers and pedos, you dolt. Get your meds.
Imagine being a cultural omnivore, an inexhaustible well of topics, and out of all things that you can put your lyrical style to use and out of limited time you have as a human, you write a story about a pedo. Nabokov is an epitome of wasted talent and opportunity.

>>23068939
He chose the most reprehensible archetype he could think of, a child predator, and then used his skill and technique to make an engaging novel with that as the main character. He showed that you can use fiction to humanize even the most depraved among us, simultaneously forcing us to stand in awe of his abilities as much as of the power of fiction and rhetoric.

that's it folks, time to read guenon now

>>23068966
>>23064701

>>23064000
I don't really see how you can love Faulkner but hate Nabokov. Both of them are super florid writers who are great at exploring conflicted characters, mental illness, and self-deception.

>>23068985
>>23065213

>>23065132
Yes, because the pedo should get a wholesome ending, right?

>>23068991
Faulkner's prose is really mediocre. Lovecraft was also florid; it doesn't mean that those who enjoy Nabokov must by necessity enjoy Lovecraft also.

>>23068966
>I sympathize with a pedophile
You do you.

>>23069003
>Faulkner's prose is really mediocre.
Agree to disagree
>Lovecraft was also florid; it doesn't mean that those who enjoy Nabokov must by necessity enjoy Lovecraft also.
You should read the other half of my post.

>>23069151
I did. Lovecraft does the same. Mentally ill, maniacal, self-deceiving characters populate his stories.

>>23063899
op clearly hasn't read Pnin, probably only read Lolita or Pale fire. That's fine, but those two books are not super indicative of his whole ouvre, I would really recommend Pnin. It has a lot of heart and soul, what you would call substance

>>23069164
true, it's the best immigrant novel I ever read.

>>23068939
imagine out of the limited time you have as a human you devote it to an idiotic quest to "cancel" a long-dead novelist over the imaginary crime of "writing about a bad person," a fake problem you invented purely to have something to accuse him of. this is what all the troons are doing on twitter, tiktok etc and you are absolutely a troon of the spirit, ie a creature of envy. if nabokov never wrote about a pedophile you would just invent another made-up crime, just like you're doing in other threads, about other novelists. the way the troon ultimately doesn't want normal men and women to exist and devotes itself to undermining their society, you can't bear great writers existing, they fill your shitty little soul with rage

>>23063899
He is a total liar. There is no work of art that doesn't have a "point." He claimed to be devoid of meaning and was merely a technician but that's obviously bullshit. Christopher Nolan is another hack who pretends like his movies don't have any messages

>>23068991
>I don't really see how you can love Faulkner but hate Nabokov.
I pointed out that Nabokov hated Faulkner. I enjoy both Nabokov and Faulkner, but find Faulkner the far superior writer.

>>23063899
> “Imagine,” Uncle Pasha had said, “the baby girl blossomed into a
genuine rose. I’m an expert in roses. But it really gives me a
kick to think that there was a time when I used to give that lassie a
good spanking on her bare little buttocks." then he added something outrageous about
cheeks and peaches.

>>23063899
he only found happiness in the jew

>>23063914
I didn't realize he is the author who wrote this. I heard his name and it sounded interesting as I like Russian authors but have no interest in weird pedo books.

>>23069852
>I didn't realize he is the author who wrote this.
The absolute state of /lit/.

>>23063914
No that's just the selling model, the working model is to normalize pedophilia because Nabokov is a pedophile.

>>23069837
>>23069852
>>23069896
>qanon stragglers
like clockwork

>>23063899
>art for arts sake is for pretentious fags playing word games and jerking themselves off
leftists out there trying to destroy art while coopting it

>>23070204
pottery

>>23064164
Lolita was him working through his trauma of getting molested by his uncle. Everything else was either a cope to not have to admit it or window dressing on top of it.

Every one ITT seems like a pretentious pseud desu

>>23071063
Except for me, right?

>>23069277
>t. troon

>>23068966
people love patrick bateman and tony soprano its really not that fucking hard to make a likeable antihero

>>23071296
>likeable antihero
You're genuinely retarded if you think Patrick Bateman is a anti-hero. His only redeeming qualities are his looks, and he knows being a yuppie is fucking awful. You need to quit reading and typing until you at least understand what an anti-hero means

>>23063899
>>23063902
>If you aren't offering any philosophical or spiritual knowledge, introspection it becomes base entertainment.

>>23063899
>Nabokov is all style no substance
posts no specific examples, lol you have no foot on to stand faggot

Based. Pretentious faggots btfo.