/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10997433]

I'm of the honest opinion that Humbert did literally NOTHING wrong

change my opinion.

[Anonymous No.10997439]

>>10997433
he had poor taste in nymphets, lolita was annoying af

[Anonymous No.10997447]

>>10997439
>he had poor taste in nymphets, lolita was annoying af

Look at this pretty teen girl and tell me he wasn't in love with her.

[Anonymous No.10997452]

>>10997439
>lolita was annoying af
So fucking what? She was the one he loved.

[Anonymous No.10997454]

>>10997447
>a screenshot for a movie
>confusing an actress with a fictional character

why are you on this board, get yourself over to /tv/ or wherever people actually discuss films

[Anonymous No.10997458]

>>10997454
>why are you on this board, get yourself over to /tv/ or wherever people actually discuss films
Fuck off m8, I have read the novel and seen the two movies and in order to have a better mental visualization of the girl it is great to have a nice pretty young actress to attach to the character.

[Anonymous No.10997462]

>>10997439
That's how young girls generally are

[Anonymous No.10997463]

>>10997447
smug evil grin, pronounced chin
0/10 would not bang

[Anonymous No.10997464]

>>10997458
no actress (or woman) on earth compares to what you could create with your imagination.

[Anonymous No.10997471]

>>10997464
>no actress (or woman) on earth compares to what you could create with your imagination.

Ahem, anon. I...

[Anonymous No.10997482]

>>10997471
she's not very pretty to be honest. i would not even offer her a cigarette outside a bar.

[Anonymous No.10997486]

>>10997482
>she's not very pretty to be honest. i would not even offer her a cigarette outside a bar.
Anon, sorry to say, you sound gay.

[Anonymous No.10997493]

Raped her and took away her innocence and childhood

[Anonymous No.10997494]

>>10997482
Lolita taste is best taste!

[Anonymous No.10997495]

>>10997486
not sure why you'd be sorry for that.
that second girl is prettier; or if it's the same girl, she's discovered a better angle/lighting/photo editing process

[Anonymous No.10997498]

>>10997486
too pretty
0/10 wouldn't fuck

[Anonymous No.10997499]

>>10997493
>Raped her and took away her innocence and childhood
>faggot who didn't even read the novel.

[Anonymous No.10997503]

>>10997494
weird face
ayy lmao eyes
no tits
probably no ass as well
probably intact hymen
probably doesn't even know how to give a blowjob
0/10 wouldn't fuck

[Anonymous No.10997507]

>>10997503
>no tits
>probably no ass as well
>probably intact hymen
>probably doesn't even know how to give a blowjob

I don't know anon, all these sound like pretty good qualities to me, instead of bad qualities. You know, I have always liked fruit before they are ripe, I guess it's the same with women.

[Anonymous No.10997515]

Patrician taste.

[Anonymous No.10997517]

>>10997507
of course there are actual paedophiles in the lolita thread, why did i expect otherwise

[Anonymous No.10997520]

>>10997517
>of course there are actual paedophiles in the lolita thread, why did i expect otherwise
Like that is a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.10997542]

>>10997471
what is the name of this beauty?

[Anonymous No.10997550]

what's up with all the lolitaposting lately

[Anonymous No.10997561]

>>10997550
It's the most patrician taste m8!

[Anonymous No.10997562]

>>10997447
>>10997458
Who was better, red-headed Lolita in the 90s movie or blonde Lolita in the Kubrick one?

[Anonymous No.10997616]

>>10997499
ok

[Anonymous No.10997629]

>>10997433
I don't want to change your mind you're a scumbag

[Anonymous No.10997643]

>>10997507
>I don't know anon, all these sound like pretty good qualities to me, instead of bad qualities
I'm not really into children anon

[Anonymous No.10997651]

HH was unironically based and redpilled af! I wonder what his take on the JQ was?

[Anonymous No.10997652]

>>10997433
Haven't read the book but I understand that for one Humbert is an unreliable narrator. Two, sexual activity with a child is still immoral even when the child initiates it.

[Anonymous No.10997715]

>>10997562
Redhead Lolita is way cuter but blonde Lolita acted better. I still find it incredibly cute that redhead with the braces.
>>10997629
Using an ad hominem fallacy attack on /lit/ of all places. I thought we were better than this.
>>10997643
>I'm not really into children anon
That's your loss anon.
>>10997652
>Two, sexual activity with a child is still immoral even when the child initiates it.
Why?

[Anonymous No.10997732]

>>10997433
Everyone can enjoy a Monobeno or Maitetsu once in a while, but attraction to real kids is off limits.

[Anonymous No.10997739]

>>10997715
>ad hominem
I don't want to have an argument. I think all pedophiles should be given a bullet. And I don't support the death penalty otherwise. You are truly human waste.

[Anonymous No.10997742]

>>10997652
A child can't initiate sexual activity you fucking yokel, they don't understand what they're doing.

[Anonymous No.10997744]

>>10997732
Fuck off Norman.
>>10997739
>Being this mad
Keep raging faggot. We have the patrician taste.

[Anonymous No.10997745]

>>10997744
Grotesque.

[Anonymous No.10997748]

>>10997742
>A child can't initiate sexual activity you fucking yokel, they don't understand what they're doing
Did you even read the fucking book, you illiterate faggot?

[Anonymous No.10997751]

>>10997715
>That's your loss anon.
I'm pretty sure not being attracted to children is win all things considered anon

[Anonymous No.10997752]

>>10997748
Only a fucking slack-jawed mongrel such as yourself would believe a child seduced a grown man.

[Anonymous No.10997753]

>>10997433
Well except Humbert is big fat liar.

[Anonymous No.10997758]

>>10997751
Lolita wasn't a child though. She was just a very young teenage girl.

[Anonymous No.10997764]

>>10997752
>Only a fucking slack-jawed mongrel such as yourself would believe a child seduced a grown man.
She didn't. But she started sexual contact with him on purpose because she knew it would excited him. Don't go thinking teenagers are so innocent anon.

[Anonymous No.10997765]

>>10997758
ok

[Anonymous No.10997802]

Must protect

[Anonymous No.10997811]

>didn't homeschool her
>left her join drama club
he shouldn't be surprised she ran off to be a whore

[Anonymous No.10997821]

>>10997748
Even brainlet like me could tell that Humbert was mentally ill monster making shit up to make himself look sympathetic.

[Anonymous No.10997869]

>>10997433
Good job OP, you've just been played by Humbert. The whole point of Humbert's narration is to, whether he actually believed in it or not, convince you that his actions were justified. Perhaps step back with this in mind, take a more objective view of things, and realise that raping children is bad.

[Anonymous No.10997873]

>>10997869
stick to reddit retard

[Anonymous No.10997884]

>>10997764
I don't mean this in the kind of 4chan back and forth insult culture way, but rather in the truest, most genuine sense - you are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.10997887]

>>10997873
If you're not actually going to refute me then get out.

[Anonymous No.10997951]

>>10997887
it's not worth refuting. you a) didn't read the book and b) got that fifth-rate nonsense from a wiki article or a reddit-tier analysis. even your diction is dull.
sympathy is not the "whole point" of Humbert's narration; sympathy is an exclusive sensation lionel trilling had after reading the novel, a sensation that's trickled down to a subhuman theme statement. i do not like my favorite novel toyed with for philistine posturing.
"the point" of lolita, as with all of nabokov's works, is subtle art and serpent deception.
for any unfortunate taken in by this generalization: read brian boyd, burn your cliffnotes.

[Anonymous No.10997960]

I'll never have a cute 15 year old girl who wears cute little dresses and hair pins.

Why even live, bros?

[Anonymous No.10998510]

>>10997433
reading it now, tfw i have to type french into the translator every five seconds
kind of ruins the experience

[Anonymous No.10998560]

>>10997464
Some come close.

[Anonymous No.10998563]

>>10998510
You're welcome
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lolita

[Anonymous No.10998574]

>>10998563
woah cool, thanks anon!

[Anonymous No.10998612]

>>10997715
You are trash and should be put down. Also,
>ad hominem
You're a pseud

[Anonymous No.10998695]

How much of the clever prose style is meant ironically? I don't know if I should laugh or be annoyed with it

[Anonymous No.10998805]

some real good discussion goin on in this thread lol

>>10997433
You see how Lolita ended up after the whole ordeal, an empty, used up shell. The fact that she had to scheme and escape from him is proof enough that he did wrong. She needed a father and a protector.
Anyway he stunts the shit out of her growth, she learned to seek external validation through sex and he not only allowed but encouraged it. She's lonely, upset, naive, she knows about sex but doesn't really understand the ramifications of it, notices him noticing her, likes the attention, and confuses it for love and acceptance. He takes advantage of a vulnerable situation when she has no one else at all, he tries to possess her like an object, tries to train her like a dog, and strip her of autonomy. and all when she's lost her mother and has nowhere else to go. He constantly intimidates her. He's manipulative. He has to keep going to further extremes to get sex from her, she wants his love and approval but she's also a stupid little girl that's struggling to become her own person. She's obviously naive and spends a lot of time confused and upset. Her camp experiences didn't make her a woman either, they were just a way for Humbert to excuse himself a bit in the moment desu.

[Anonymous No.10998850]

>>10998805
Nabokov doesn't exactly ask you to sympathize with Lolita. That's why so many people get it wrong. Nabokov was just as good at getting the reader to dehumanize Lolita as he was at getting us to sympathize with Hum.

First time I read Lolita I came out of it so confused and upset with myself for so many different reasons. Lolita should tell you a lot about yourself IMO.

[Anonymous No.10998958]

>>10998510
Do you very mind cutting out the french? It annoys everybody."
-Lolita, the book itself

[Anonymous No.10998965]

>>10998805

Nabokov does hide her suffering, but it is hidden in plain sight. For fucks sake, right in the second page you know her ultimate fate was dying with a stillborn child in some derelict house, and that Humbert is lying even about the Dolores Haze name, since Nabokov briefly comments on her grave. The people who don't see it, don't want to see it (unfortunately it seems, a lot of people here).

[Anonymous No.10999184]

>>10997951
>being this pseud

[Anonymous No.10999466]

>>10999184

[Anonymous No.10999542]

>>10997433
She ended up escaping him because he was keeping her a prisoner. He realized he was wrong when he met her later in life.

[Anonymous No.10999778]

are the chicks posted in this read 'nymphets'? they don't really look like they're in the age range

[Anonymous No.11000081]

Why didn't Nabby follow up and write the obvious sequel "Shota-kun"? Talk about not being able to roll with the punches

[Anonymous No.11001382]

>>10997951
>ready Boyd
NO READ DOLININ :^)