/lit/ - Literature

No love for Lolita?
For shame /lit/.

Lolita is a good book, and everyone time someone mentions it. I can't help but feel the same way is the man a pervert or a victim?
I almost want to say victim because of how passionate he was at time made him a slave to his Lolita.

I think he's largely a victim. He simply cannot control his urges. I think the point he crosses into being a pervert (that should be put down) is when he starts totally manipulating Lolita. Lying to her about being sent to an orphanage, refusing to allow her to have any male friends, etc. Then it becomes coercion, not consensual.

It was a very good book. Convincing to the point where I found it hard to believe it was fiction.

Humbert is indeed someone to be pitied, but equally reviled. He may of loved Lolita dearly, but his love was warped. It was on the plane of dangerous obsession, and when it comes down to it he robbed that girl of her childhood, even if there was the bare minimum of consent involved. It was obvious by the end she didn't want that sort of life anymore, but he put his own needs above her own to an unhealthy degree. That's why it was obsession.

Also, don't forget all the people he hurt and manipulated just so he could find the opportunity to fuck a little girl.

It was a very good book. Convincing to the point where I found it hard to believe it was fiction.

Humbert is indeed someone to be pitied, but equally reviled. He may of loved Lolita deeply, but his love was warped. It was on the plane of dangerous obsession, and when it comes down to it he robbed that girl of her childhood, even if there was the bare minimum of consent involved. It was obvious by the end she didn't want that sort of life anymore, but he put his own needs above her own to an unhealthy degree. That's why it was obsession.

Also, don't forget all the people he hurt and manipulated in the beginning just so he could find the opportunity to fuck a little girl.

that's exactly what makes it a great book

you should keep in mind that we only get Humbert's story, so he may have changed facts to stimulate our compassion

Honestly, I dislike Dolores more than I dislike him. I know it's illogical, but just reading of his undying love and her unwavering indifference made my sympathize with the wrong characters

>>619087
I think that's the point. To force that dilemma upon the reader. He can be sympathized with, but he's still a pedofile and a murderer, no matter what light he sheds or how convincingly he defends himself with prose.

>>619171

>you should keep in mind that we only get Humbert's story

A million times this. Lolita is an extremely biased account of events.

>>619191
Exactly the book is meant to place the reader in a moral dilemma over how to feel for Humbert.

>>619191
he isn't a murderer but an executioneer. his victim was so bad that loli even cried. he totally deserved it. it was higher justice, just as dolores's, humbert humbert's and charlotte's death. they get their well deserved due.

yeah, karma is a bitch.

humbert humbert is not supposed to be anything named explicitly, op. he's neither a fabulous charmeur nor a psycho monster (as per quilty and the psychodoc).

what nab was getting is that our legal and moral categories hardly suffice for something as complex as real life, especially with highly educated people in it.

I'm interested to know from someone who's read Madame Bovary and Lolita, how they compare. From what I know, Nabokov had a huge boner for Flaubert and I've often heard that Madame Bovary is a condemnation of romantic novels within a romantic novel...maybe I've just heard stupid shit. But I feel like Nabokov was trying for the same thing. Framing his narrative under the author Humbert Humbert who writes his own romantic novel of his life and in the end the reader feels both attracted and repulsed by the book because of the beautiful style and disgusting content.

y/n/mebbe?

Humbert loves Lolita, sure does. He loves her a lot. However, he loves her the way I love my computer; as a tool to fulfill his own desires. To Hum, Lo is more of an object than a person if you ask me. He loves it rather than her: the nymphet which can be used to satisfy him. This can be seen from various things in the book. Ever notice how he never calls her Dolores, instead using nicknames such as Dolly or Lo? How he says he loves her, yet complains about essentially all the aspects of her personality? He repeatedly underestimates Lolita and trivialises her needs and problems, but this only makes sense when you think of his love this way as love for an object rather than love towards a person.

Hum is just way too obsessed with the object of his sexual desires to see her as human.

I think Humbert was, in a very real way, the victim of the situation. It was tremendously interesting to me to try to feel what such a man feels, and to try, and succeed, in empathizing with him.

>>619227
I think a good question would be what makes one's love for an object different than their love for a person? Surely a person can be an object and we can use others to fulfill our own pleasures, but where is the line that divides? Is there such a thing and how is it determined?

funny story: my copy of lolita was stolen by an actual pedophile

>>619244
Good question. Personally, I see the two as innately different. I think the line is crossed when people see the other person as a means of gaining benefit without a mutual agreement. For example, if you entered a relationship with a woman you were deeply in love with only to discover you were no more than a way to get sex and money for her, you would be offended, correct? In a relationship, you expect the other person to appreciate you for the value that you are rather than as a handy tool to achieve other values, unless you've agreed just to be fuckbuddies of course. I think to view the other person as a tool and nothing more and be moral, you need to have consensual agreement. It doesn't need you have to personally discuss it over, it can be implied by the nature of the relation as well, which is usually the case with working relations for instance.

Anyway, back to Lolita. In the case of HumLo, well, he did cross the line quite many times. Both as a father and a lover, he failed to fulfill his role and admitted this himself.

Also, I don't think it was consensual. She didn't gain anything from it, and while Lolita might have flirted with him, a sane adult should be able to recognise that behaviour as play rather than a serious expression of love and/or lust. I think he kind of coerced her into it after deciding she was a dirty girl for having done it with other children. That was his way to convince himself that it was okay to abuse her. As for tempting him, well... when you're totally obsessed with somebody, you probably don't interpret their messages in a completely objective way, now do you.

wtf? people talking about a book in an intelligent and civil way?

even on /lit/, this is unusual enough that I kind of want to cry for joy.

Lolita's one of my favorite books. It's so damn convincing, and the viewpoint is so different from standard morality. It really makes you imagine what all the horrible criminals whom we instantly condemn actually go through.

Should hate the dumb mother for ennabling the two of the worst l of humhum and lowli

>>619268
yes you would be quite offended. But being 'moral' as you term it is problematic in relationships as morality has no set definition and is on a sliding scale. Which again leads back to the mindset of Humbert. Is he able to tell the story objectively? No, he can't escape his humanness just as we cannot. He is a slave to animalistic pleasures and pursuits as we all are and constructs excuses to justify it. His sincerity is always in question and we constantly doubt him.

<3 this thread

>>619281
Well, morality on relationships, IMHO, is defined by what are the rules of the relationship. Needless to say, conflict often arises when these rules are not clear to both sides - like what is seen as cheating in a monogamous romantic relation. It is complicated. Nonetheless, the bare minimum to all relations would be to respect the other person's rights as a human - the rights to freedom, safety and choice, to mention a few. In the context of Lolita, you don't really need to go further than this to call Humbert immoral, because he violated Lolita's rights on a very basic level.

>>619315
Uhh, when I type on relationship instead of in, it's time to go to bed. T'was worthwhile discussing this, thanks /lit/.

Beside the fact that he pretty much coerced Lolita, I thought Humbert was a hilarious narrator at some points, and I found myself sympathizing with him at some points, but then finding him utterly despicable the next.

wow /lit/ a civil conversation that was interesting to read
you made my day :)

funny how if you write beautiful and perfect as hell, people will forget the fact that you're a pedophile.

Humbert was no murderer. The man was scum, he needed to be killed. Also, he truly loved Lolita.

Maybe my memory's fuzzy since it's been a while since I've read Lolita, but I could not sympathize with Humbert at all once he said how he'd like to take Dolores down to Mexico, have children with her, and then raise his children to be nymphets; that's crossing the goddamn line, fuck him. Dolores was kind of a whore for fucking that dude in the summer camp but Humbert's just creepy.

>>619341
That's because there's biologically nothing wrong with what he did.
It's society man, society.

>>619373
Anything Humbert says is complete bullshit, anyway.
Remember the bit at the beginning where he tells this incredibly implausible story about the humiliating fate of his ex-wife and her Turkish lover? Immediate warning that we're dealing with a mendacious narrator.

you're supposed to keep switching
nabokov skilfully toys with your sympathies all the way through and then keeps messing with your head by making you realise that oh wait yeah this guy is a monster and you were just resenting the little girl for not loving him enough

JESUS CHRIST, PEOPLE! USE FUCKING SPOILER TAGS WHEN YOU SPOIL SHIT! FUCK!

>>620616

Humbert kills Quilty
Lolita dies in childbirth and the baby is a stillborn

:3

Is this worth picking up at a book shop?

>>620622
of course it fucking is

>>620622
Nah, it's only one of the top 10 novels of all time.
Spend your money on TekWar instead.

>>620627
>"The following year the Modern Library compiled a list based on online voting. Seven of the top ten novels are works by Ayn Rand (the creator of Objectivism) and L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of Scientology)."

Bitches and whores, man. They're born that way, ese

was loli a virgin when she raped humbert?

>>620701
did you read the book?

also

FRITZL or HUMBERT
who's more sympathetic a pedophile, lit?

>>620710
i skimmed through it and was pretty much confused by that passage. the narrator tells us how much he was a bitch and how she fucked that boy, at the very same time loli evidently BLEEDY and CRIES and proclaims, on contrary, that it was her first time. Is humbert in denial again?

>>619165
>I think he's largely a victim. He simply cannot control his urges.

Dolores Haze: dolorous: causing grief, haze: something which obscures visibility - clearly nymphets are considered capable of twisting anyone's cultural values here.

>>619084
hhH
+t+
TT+
ppp
,,.
///
///
@Aà
++T
::,
kKK
Ì|ì
mMM
mmm
0òÒ
AÁá
::;
$sS
€E3
///

>>619086
Hhh
+tT
T++
ppP
::,
///
///
@@a
++T
.:,
kkK
ÍìI
mmm
MMM
0OO
aáà
.;.
s$s
EE€
///

>>619086
Hhh
Tt+
+t+
Ppp
,..
///
///
a@@
T+T
.,;
kKK
iÍI
mMm
Mmm
Òoò
ÁÁ@
:,:
$5S
EE€
///

>>620714
>i skimmed through it and was pretty much confused by that passage. the narrator tells us how much he was a bitch and how she fucked that boy, at the very same time loli evidently BLEEDY and CRIES and proclaims, on contrary, that it was her first time. Is humbert in denial again?
Bleeding doesn't equal virginity either way around: you can bleed even if you're not a virgin, and you might not bleed even if you are. It's probably just because she was not excited and he was being forceful, leading into some places tearing, though this could include her hymen.

That said, Humbert is downright crazy for thinking of her as promiscuous and ready to be raped by an adult just because she had playful sex with another child of her age. That scene hurt to read.

>>620619
The book tells you about Humbert's death as well as hers while giving birth to a stillborn right at the beginning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

>>620996
It was a small boy, his dick probably didn't penetrated her

Personally, I've always thought that Humbert was both a victim and a pervert. Although Lolita didn't necessarily say "no," it's not necessarily consensual. Although he didn't physically force her to sleep with him, he did coerce her into it by threatening to send her to her aunt's, etc. However, it's a two-way street. Lolita knew that Humbert was obsessed with her, and used that to her advantage. I think that's what Nabokov was trying to say, actually; there's two sides to every coin. Humbert both manipulated and was manipulated by Lolita, and vice-versa.

>>621016
An orphanage is what I meant to say, not her aunt's. God, I'm so tired.

>>619087
it is meant to give you these thoughts...

i don't know how to formulate opinions explicitly: i just read this book as a story about the trials and tribulations of being a fucked up human being.

How should I feel?
Treat me like some poo.
Lay your hands upon me
and tell me what to think
And still I find it so hard
to digest what you say
But I'm quite sure someone'll tell me
just how I should think today.

He's the narrator, he's TRYING to get you to pity him. It's an unreliable narrator trying to get you to see him as a victim.

He's just a disgusting pervert, and the way he manipulated Lolita and the way he viewed her was evil.

to me, the ending of the book basically kind of summarized what I thought Nabokov was trying to say.

If Humbert had just gotten it on with her once or twice, or had some short-term thing, okay, icky, but not the end of the world.

But basically what happened is that he used his position as an adult (with the authority and better judgment that comes with that) to coerce a child (with the vulnerability and lack of judgment that comes with that) into essentially sacrificing her childhood

The ending, from what I remember, is him looking out over some Hamlet and hearing the laughter of children and realizing that. It actually explicitly states it, right?

So, I guess that was the moral of the story to me, is that it was an illustration of how wrong a relationship like that is, because of the inherent coerciveness of it and the imbalance of power between those two people

I kind of sympathize with Humbert, because the way he is portrayed in the story can be sympathetic but - as others have said - it's him portraying himself. I suppose to some extent I sympathize with anyone in life, I think all humans are sympathetic in a way, but Humbert still seems like an unequivocally bad person to me

I love Humbert. Laughed my ass off when I read his reaction to the old crone's letter.

>>620630

That's the reader-voting list, as your quote says. The actual top 10 has neither Hubbard or Rand.

1. Ulysses by James Joyce
2. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
3. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
4. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
5. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
6. The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
7. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
8. Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler
9. Sons and Lovers by D. H. Lawrence
10. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck