/lit/ - Literature

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081706]

Was Humbert a good person? Absolutely not. Was he a an honest person? Nay. Was he a thoughtful and caring human being? Obviously not. But was he truly, deeply, madly in love with Lolita? Yes, yes, he was. Absolutely in love with all of his heart. I unironically do believe that this was the Rome and Juliet of the 20th Century, and the only honest story of love in it. I hypothesize that, because Romanticism died during the end of the 19th Century, Lolita was the natural regression to the roots of the innocence and naivety of those earlier times where love was still pure, even though it was still mad and insane as ever.

[Anonymous No.11081727]

Yeah your hypothesis is shit and you should refocus yourself towards women your own age.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081729]

>>11081706
Untainted by maturity and the sexual freedoms that the 20th Century entailed, it was possible for Nabokov to render a character that represented what the Romantics in the 19th Century idealized, even though he refused to admit it. A virgin, innocent, fair maiden unspoiled by sexual promiscuity, in a stage by which the male falls madly in love at first sight and wishes to do everything in his power to possess her, all the while showing all the madness and irrationality of romantic love.

[Anonymous No.11081732]

>>11081727
fpbp

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081733]

>>11081727
>ad hominen
I thought /lit/ was better than this.

[Anonymous No.11081751]

>>11081706
A good taught, but I honestely disagree with the idea of "natural regression". I see more as a natural progression, seeing that the less idealistic literature is often the influential. This dosen't mean that idealized stuff is worthless, it clearly isen't, but a more cynical and cold-hearted fiction in the sense of being closer to a more sadning reality leaves a longer impact. I honestely realy like Humbert, the character was way well developed, but this more "dark" aprouch truly leaves a greater impact than others.
The fact that Humbert loves so madly lolita and this love is more or less a taboo has something of realy hard hitting, because is so more of close reality than other works.
It reminds me of "Iris Hotel", a book of similar theme. In this one tho, you don't follow a Humbert, you follow a girl living a awfull life in a costal city in Japan and she starts falling in love with a old-dude who enjoys some... Stuff...
Both works do reflect something that is much closer to every day reality and leave a harder impact. Althought Romeo and Juliet in no where is unreal (two people liking one another and one or both familys not giving okay sign is so common that it is actualy pretty sad) but the way Shakespeare tackles, idk why, but is much less hard-hitting than the modern books like these two we are talking about.

Its a natural progression to our modern society to leave the idealized fantasys behind and go after the cynical and sometimes grimdark realism.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081752]

From an article I found.

[Anonymous No.11081758]

>>11081733
I think you'll need to be more judicious before you find a community accepting of your desire to befriend freshly teenaged daughters of your mother's friends.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081773]

>>11081751
>Its a natural progression to our modern society to leave the idealized fantasys behind and go after the cynical and sometimes grimdark realism.
Hmmm... Makes a lot of sense, it would be basically then "debunking" the stories that Romanticism had created in centuries past. That love was pure, that a man and a woman were made for each other to be in a monogamous relationship forever, all of these were broken by this taboo of love. And it really shows how reality, specially regarding love, is dark and weird.

>>11081758
Fuck off norman.

[Anonymous No.11081781]

>>11081773
she looks like a boy

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081788]

>>11081781
Maybe she's a boy, do you have a problem with that?

[Anonymous No.11081790]

neither lolita nor dolores haze were virginal

[Anonymous No.11081791]

>>11081781
>saying that like its a bad thing

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081794]

[Anonymous No.11081795]

>>11081788
she looks like a boy

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081801]

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT GIBE DOLORES HAZE GF NOOOOOOOOOOOW

[Anonymous No.11081809]

>>11081751
I think you're missing the point, Lolita is pretty much a metatextual reflection on the possibilities of fiction through a distorsion of the dolce still novo (which predates romanticism)
>>11081752
somewhat decent analysis but as I said the book is more a reflection on the totality of fiction and not necessarily a testament to a particular movement
and it's not really because of society either, this sort of "debunking" of romanticism (in the very large sense) was already done by Cecco Angiolieri in the 13th century, you just don't know about him because voices like his were shunned.

[Anonymous No.11081810]

>>11081773
>And it really shows how reality, specially regarding love, is dark and weird.
Aren't all human interactions in general dark and weird? Even when you are in love with someone, you still do have some realy stupid or dark taughts regarding that person, altought you in nowhere wants to do such things (I hope).
I think the way our society's literature is developing this more cynical eye is a better way for writers to explore the human condition. Long past are the days where we blindly taught that things such as the heroic and flawless character could be a thing for real. I think is a very empowering thing we being able to face our demons head on and slowly overcome it, be it as a individual, or as a collective.
It just shows how strong and able for greatness humanity is. Slaying one problem at the time.
Usualy people praise this more cold-hearted literature because they fall for the nihilistic meme, but even if nothing mathers, people need purpose, and this purpose can only be build, never granted, and this more realistic aprouch is very great to show exactely this: that yes, we may all be flawed, but we all are capable of great things if we have purpose, and even if we fail in trying so, we can be in peace with ourselfs, because we did our best, and didnt lay down and died in pity.
This is way more impactfull than romanticism in my opinion

[Anonymous No.11081837]

>>11081809
>I think you're missing the point, Lolita is pretty much a metatextual reflection on the possibilities of fiction through a distorsion of the dolce still novo (which predates romanticism)
When you talk like this it kinda sounds it.of honestely disregard the more meta interpretations because personaly they don't appeal to me, but I justify my claim on the basis on very layman knowledge on how our literature has been developing for some time. Clearly idk all literature, much less all the trends in every place, but from personnal experience, it be more the fact that Nabokov was writing in a "style" that was being popularized for a long time.
This probably could be something he wasent award he was doing. Of course a writer reads, re-reads and triple check his work before publication, but the "mood" in writing usualy follows a historical trend, in this case, a more cynical and realistic depiction of relasionships. It isen't absurd much more older people to fall in love and/or have a relasionship with much younger people. And I ain't talking about third world shit holes. Some people will tell how their school colleage banged the older teacher and so on.
Even if it has a meta, it is a more realistic depiction of romantic relacionships

[Anonymous No.11081841]

>>11081837
He wasent aware of...*
Fucking corrector.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081858]

>>11081809
>somewhat decent analysis but as I said the book is more a reflection on the totality of fiction and not necessarily a testament to a particular movement
Yeah, this is fucking obvious. Nabokov wasn't writing just to criticize or comment just on one movement (in this case, Romanticism), yet we can make some great comparisons by comparing the qualities that the characters have with those of this past movement. It is an analysis not of the whole work, but of a small piece of it.

> this sort of "debunking" of romanticism (in the very large sense) was already done by Cecco Angiolieri in the 13th century, you just don't know about him because voices like his were shunned.
How is that possible if Romanticism proper was a movement created much long after the 13th Century. Also, tell me more about this "Cecco Angiolieri" you speak of.

>>11081837
> but the "mood" in writing usualy follows a historical trend, in this case, a more cynical and realistic depiction of relasionships.
I agree. If he were living on the 19th Century, either his work would be full of the romanticism motifs, or he would not be published or known at all.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081869]

I actually do believe that if what happened to Humbert happened to us, we would have done just the same thing. Can you imagine being just completely, absolutely in love with someone at first sight? Have you ever fallen in love with someone, and the only reason you kept yourself distanced from that person was because you knew that it was very likely the love would be unrequited? But what if you did as Humpert did, you lived with her, you had to see her everyday, and all the time she was so innocent, so pure, so naive and so defenseless as to not be able to straight out refuse your love? Would you be able to hold yourself? Would you be able to mantain yourself distant? I really don't think you would. For a moment think about the tragedy that it is to fall madly in love with someone you had no choice to. For a moment forget about the taboo in the motifs of the book. If you were in his position, under all the madness and novelty of being in love, wouldn't you at least have done something to her, and due to the obsessive nature of love, escalated in a similar way as Humpert did? Be honest to yourself when answering this.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081874]

>tfw Humpert did nothing wrong. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

feelsbadman.jpg

[Anonymous No.11081876]

>>11081858
>yet we can make some great comparisons by comparing the qualities that the characters have with those of this past movement.
ye but it's boooring
>How is that possible if Romanticism proper was a movement created much long after the 13th Century
The romantic trope of the loved woman who gives meaning was already established way before romanticism was created. It already existed in the 12th century with the trobaudors and probably even before that in islamic poetry.
>Also, tell me more about this "Cecco Angiolieri" you speak of
Contemporary of Dante and shitposter ante litteram. His poetry is a parody of Dante and Petrarch but also.a very honest description of non idealized life. To the angelic and salvific Beatrice of Dante he opposes his Becchina, a roastie who makes him become mad, and their troubled relationship, made of cheating and swearing from both parts.

[Anonymous No.11081877]

>>11081869
she looks like a boy

[Anonymous No.11081878]

>>11081874
they look like boys

[Anonymous No.11081881]

>>11081869
>mfw this coquette was born when i was already an adult :|

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081887]

>>11081876
>The romantic trope of the loved woman who gives meaning was already established way before romanticism was created.
Yeah I know, and this was easily seen by the tales of love etc that existed in the Middle Ages, I'm aware of that, but you can't really say that that encapsulated the big chunk of Romanticism. I really don't think it did. Those were like fairy tales of medieval times and people didn't believe in love and it was not as manifested in general culture as it did in Romantic-era Europe.
>a roastie who makes him become mad, and their troubled relationship, made of cheating and swearing from both parts.
Relationships and Romantic Love summarized

>>11081878
>they look like boys
Damn, I'm gay then.

>>11081881
feelsbadman.jpg

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081890]

I'd literally love to cum on Lolita's mouth and we french kiss and share cum in each other's tongue. So fucking hot.

[Anonymous No.11081891]

>>11081706
please stop posting 7-8/10 women with personality disorders who look like they fucked up their skull morphology by eating too much of pic related and not enough solid mass as a child. I have no idea why, outside of the bestial urge to release one'self on the world, that you would ever talk about, think about or look at women (who are not already your lover). Its pointless.

[Anonymous No.11081896]

>>11081887
>say that that encapsulated the big chunk of Romanticism
yes but aren't we talking about a specific part of romanticism? "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins". It's very clearly aping (and being sincere at the same time) the lyricism of the trobadours

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081897]

>>11081891
>I have no idea why ... you would ever talk about, think about or look at women (who are not already your lover).
M8, did you get a concussion or something? You are making no sense faggot. I love looking at women, doesn't every man love to?

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081902]

>>11081896
>"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins". It's very clearly aping (and being sincere at the same time) the lyricism of the trobadours
Yeah maybe you're right anon.

[Anonymous No.11081905]

>>11081902
have a cutie

[Anonymous No.11081909]

>>11081905
looks like a boy

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081914]

>>11081905
Thanks anon. I don't think this one is too cutie (I don't find asians cute, not racist though) but fucking thanks.

[Anonymous No.11081916]

>>11081897
No.

this one much better formed though, good for her parents, feeding her properly, just not socializing her properly evidently

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081919]

>>11081909
>looks like a boy
I'm unironically into boys though.

[Anonymous No.11081921]

>>11081919
then why do you post only girls

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081924]

>tfw no lolita gf
Why even live bros?

>"I looked and looked at her, and I knew as clearly that I know that I will die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth. She could fade and wither - I didn't care. I'd still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face."
What does it feel like to be so madly in love with someone? Does it feel blissful or despairful, I still wonder...

>>11081921
>then why do you post only girls
Because girls are my favorite!

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081931]

>>11081810
>they fall for the nihilistic meme, but even if nothing mathers, people need purpose, and this purpose can only be build, never granted, and this more realistic aprouch is very great to show exactely
This is actually a pretty good point. I'm not big into the nihilist meme either.

[Anonymous No.11081939]

the fuck kinda honeypot thread is this?

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11081944]

>>11081939
It's no Honeypot. I just really really do like Lolita.

[Anonymous No.11082025]

>>11081890
why did you feel the need to post this?

[Anonymous No.11082032]

>>11081890
:)

also, the same goes for most posts ITT

[Anonymous No.11082432]

https://youtu.be/B94re6A8Mr4

[Anonymous No.11082750]

>>11081706
Humbert never even liked Lolita. He's disgusted by her vulgar crass mind and personality constantly. All he cares about is her precise body and appearance for a few years. Did you read the whole book?

[Anonymous No.11082772]

>>11082432
ma dick so hard

[Anonymous No.11082776]

>>11081706
No he didn't love her, he desired her sexually but he said many time in the book about how he resented her personally.

[Anonymous No.11082780]

>>11081931
>>11081773
>>11081733
>>11081706
Reminder that Lo was younger than this.

[Anonymous No.11082786]

>>11082780
more like this

[Anonymous No.11083355]

Loving someone means caring about their well being above your own. About their happiness. About their wants and needs. Love doesn't kill your mother so it can kidnap you. Love doesn't hold you hostage while you complain about hating it. Love doesn't ignore your unhappiness. Love doesn't lick your fucking asshole when you're sick and throwing up. He believed he loved her, but he did not love a single cell of that girl's body. He just wanted to fuck it.

[Anonymous No.11083407]

>>11081869
Dude, you can be sure that if I was Humbert, I would have done the same thing.
Maybe not leave her at the hospital alone, but chasing her and shooting the fag who robbet her from me. I probably would do that if I was Humbert.
>>11081931
The nihilism meme usualy is a phase where we all pass by when growing up.
Because it isen't a true stance on life and reality, is just teenage angst. We all had go by this, I don't even take hard on people talking about the nihilism meme.
>>11081939
We just talking about Lolita. There is no honeypot in talking about a book.
>>11082032
[Low Quality Bait]
>>11083355
Love does all of this dude. Love isen't just full of good stuff. Some people go crazy and do awfull shit in the name of loving someone or something.
The strongest emotions usualy are the most open for stupid shit to be done.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11083709]

Damn... Just dreamt about dreamhead Lolita again. Not even memeing. What a nice dream and she was so pretty...

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11083746]

>>11083709
about redhead Lolita*

[Anonymous No.11083751]

>>11083709
please kys before you actually hurt somebody

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11083777]

>>11083751
What's wrong about dreaming anon?
>be me in dream
>meet this gorgeous, redhead lolita
>since it's a dream I get to hug her and give her kisses on the cheek
>feel her arms around my neck and the
>feelsgoodman and the warmth of her breath as we kiss each other's cheeks, but nothing more sexual than that
>we get separated
>spend the rest of the dream chasing her
>wake up by alarm clock
I wanted the dream to continue...

[Anonymous No.11083826]

>>11082032
Nice bait m8. Who the hell even uses this shitty browser anymore? This looks like a screenshot from 2014

[Anonymous No.11083862]

>>11083777
can someone do >>11082032
but unironically

[Anonymous No.11083876]

>>11081729
>A virgin, innocent, fair maiden unspoiled by sexual promiscuity
I've only watched Kubrick's film adaption with the screenplay by Nabokov, never read the book. But it seemed like Lolita was a Iago-tier puppetmaster stringing Humbert along and cucking him six ways to sunday. Was Nabokov unfaithfully adapting his own novel?

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11083970]

>tfw I expected you anons to be a little more open-minded about this
Why are you like this guys?

[Anonymous No.11083988]

>>11083970
for me it was this post - >>11081890
you're a fucking weirdo.

[Anonymous No.11084044]

>>11081706
I want to lick those supple thighs

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11084065]

>>11083988
>for me it was this post - >>11081890
>you're a fucking weirdo.
That post was just a fucking shitpost m8. It's not really that serious. I just found this awesome pic of milkies and I had to do a cummies comparison.

>>11084044
>I want to lick those supple thighs
Me too anon.

[Anonymous No.11084097]

>>11084065
I stand behind my statement, I think you're a weirdo. and that's perfectly fine as long as you don't try to live your fantasies with underage girls (or boys)

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11084117]

>>11084097
Ok anon, thanks. I still dream though of having an adult gf in a DD/LG kind of relationship where I can dress her as Dolores Haze every day and make out. Do you think that's ever gonna happen though? Does any anon know anything about these kinds of girls and how these relationships actually work in real life? Would it be as great as I imagine them in my head and would I be disappointed?

[Anonymous No.11084140]

>>11084117
I have no idea, but you should always expect disappointment, that way when things turn out ok you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Anonymous No.11084148]

>>11083970
/lit/ is full of fucking normalfags

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11084155]

>>11084140
>I have no idea, but you should always expect disappointment
Yeah you're right. To be honest I'm always expecting disappointment, but since relationships are something so out of the blue for me, I really don't know what to expect at all.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11084169]

>>11084148
>/lit/ is full of fucking normalfags
You're right, normalfaggotry is fucking disgusting. Love of Lolita is the purest love. I want a Dolores haze gf this instant.

[Anonymous No.11084287]

*writes the best prose and writing style of the 20th century in one work*
Heh, nothing personal kid

[Anonymous No.11084334]

>>11084287
>anything published in English after Joyce died
Hard pass

[Anonymous No.11084457]

>>11081706
>only honest story of love
Vogue please go

[Anonymous No.11084487]

>>11081706
>Love justifies the abuse and ruination of an 11 y/o
Love does not excuse barbarism. Part of what makes the book so good is the play on romantic love juxtaposed with the repugnant corruption of our precious Lo.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11084678]

>>11084487
>Love does not excuse barbarism.
You are right, yet it was love nonetheless. It was even more of a depiction of love EXACTLY because it showed the sorts of insane and fucked up things people do when they're in love. It's not justifiable, no not at all, don't get me wrong, everything that happens is sick, but it's love at its peak either way.

Love is a serious mental illness.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11085051]

Seriously though. Is there a way for a 18+ woman to resemble a girl like this with a ton of makeup and cute girly clothes? It'd be my dream come true.

[Anonymous No.11085063]

>>11085051
Yeah, just look it up. There are Humberts that look picrelated too.

[Anonymous No.11085066]

is this trip also a mod? how is this trash thread still up

[Anonymous No.11085095]

>>11081729
>virgin
That guy fucks her in the wood at camp

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11085311]

>>11085066
>is this trip also a mod? how is this trash thread still up
Yeah I am. Kek. Guess I'm abusing my power.

[Anonymous No.11085419]

tfw I asked my mother the other day what she thought about Humpert (she's a literature major) and she unironically said that he did nothing wrong. I'm not even memeing right now. Gee, what a great fucking mother I have.

[Anonymous No.11085456]

Lola was a slut, far from a pure girl, and Humbert was a piece of shit. They were perfect for each other.

[Anonymous No.11085465]

>>11081733
>you used ad hominen I win
what is this a cnn forum?

[Anonymous No.11085470]

>>11085311
I REALLY hope this is bait.

[Anonymous No.11085508]

>>11085470
Bugs...

[Anonymous No.11085517]

>>11085419
>Gee, what a great fucking mother I have.
This but sincerely

[Anonymous No.11085534]

>>11085465
Just filter all tripfags

[Anonymous No.11085542]

I don't know what all these weird fashion shots of older models are about. This is what a 13 year-old girl who's been swimming looks like. This is Lo's age when her mother died.

[Anonymous No.11085569]

>>11081706
I love sniffing braps after ice ceram

[Anonymous No.11085581]

>>11085569
I love sticking my big nose in trap anus until i cant breath and then sucking on her balls until i cant breath and have to spit them out. Makes me horny.

[Anonymous No.11085605]

>>11085581
>trap
whoa dude

[Anonymous No.11085610]

how is this shit still up

[Anonymous No.11086601]

>>11085610
>how is this shit still up
I don't know. I suppose a lot of people really like Lolita, I guess.

[Anonymous No.11086613]

>>11085610
mods want degeneracy and psychotic discourse, just no talking about technology or incels.

[Anonymous No.11086616]

>>11085610
'ricebot' keeps posting pedophilic images

[Anonymous No.11086714]

>>11084678
>it's love at its peak either way
Humbert literally destroys that which he holds so dear. It's a tragedy, but at the end of the day I think there is a difference between romantic love and the selfish draining of an object of obsession.

My point is that what Humbert and Ricebot would call love, is in fact only self service. Love is an exchange, and demands valuing the other as more than an object of affection and lust.

[Anonymous No.11086786]

>>11085465
Straw man fallacy. Don't expect any better from any board on this site desu

[Anonymous No.11086793]

>>11086714
>more than an object of affection
you’re going to have to provide me with this thing that goes beyond affection which you find to be impoverished

[Ricebottle !05nYLrwuNY No.11086927]

>>11086714
>Love is an exchange, and demands valuing the other as more than an object of affection and lust.
Fuck anon. That's not how I see love at all. What you're desiring is either a contract whereby two parties agree to be together in order to receive pleasurable things for each other and that's fucking it. It isn't because there's something magical or crayz about love. It's just an exchange for each person to get the best out of the other. In a certain sense, that's even more of a selfish form of relation, because they're only in there because it benefits each other, like a capitalist exchange between a man exchanging money for a product, which benefits them both but they do it for their own good, not other's. It makes much more sense to call something irrational and crazy love than something calculative and mathematical such as an "exchange".
If you think that love would then be "caring for the other person's well-being", then that's not love either, that just sounds like empathy for me and that's it. Just wishing for the well-being of others is not nearly enough to be what I would call love. If it were, then Buddhist monks would be the greatest lovers of all time, because they wish the best for everyone, regardless of whether these people are deserving or not (Buddhist call for the betterment and compassion to end suffering of all living beings, even those who are wicked, although their wickedness must be stopped for the sake of others'. However, even the pain of the wicked must cease to the Bodhisattvas). So that's not love either, that's just compassion and kindness, which even the buddhist can easily conjure through repeated training.

[Ricebottle !05nYLrwuNY No.11086954]

>>11086714
>It's a tragedy, but at the end of the day I think there's a difference between romantic love and selfish draining of an object of obsession.

No there isn't. Romantic love is a mental illness, every single philosopher, from the Greeks to the moderns, the mystics to the mythologists, the western to the Eastern incessantly repeated that love is a sickness of the mind. The only exception was the 19th century with Romanticism, but that wasn't a strictly philosophical movement but just a delusion created by fantastical obsessions and false dreams of the time. A rare occurrence and an isolated movement in history, a big exception in all of history that needs to be forgotten and laid aside. Anything else other than romantic love is not really love (which is all a mental clouding of the right mind), but rather is just empathy and kindness. I guess the ONLY exception we can make would be that love of a mother toward his son, which we'll never be able to feel anyway.

[The Merovingian No.11087061]

Sorry to kill this for you, but if you can feel "love" for a representation of a girl, and you see the actions of Humpert as the only conclusion, you are missing what we ought to call for this thread "platonic love".

The thing that separates the two is the physical limit, on where you feel attracted to certain figure to the point it represents the object of focus. The borderline womenized figure of a girl on puberty, with not full traits of adult, yet some resemblance of female, is the main characterization of Lolita and the hook of "love".

Think not of the physical figure as the sole point of its representation, but also the psychological, and I bet you wish, spiritual/metaphysical age and development of Lolita's persona. Which is why I come to think the father figure must be biologically involved in people who feel "love"?

Now, there IS another cause of love which is "platonic love". I certainly hope is evident because trying to defend this another view would be fighting nihilists which many of us don't like. But this version of "love" seems more altruistic, less harmful to the other, and very importantly, less physically oriented towards an specific age.

Which one is more real? Well, that depends upon biological interpretations and the direction of the society. Granted society is not good at choosing rules sometimes, but many times the individual commits atrocities, so is a open problem.

I have my intentions at explaining this, for once, at reading this thread I've been presented with a problem: will I try to avoid harm of innocents by preventing harmful behavior against them when in young age? Because to be serious, someone here may be thinking of trying his in real life. Another is the motivation to explain this difference between two kinds of love here, which may not be evident, but are important to explain.

My other, more important reason to post is: Do you want a Lolita with everlasting youth? Genetic engineering can help you.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087126]

>The thing that separates the two is the physical limit, on where you feel attracted to certain figure to the point it represents the object of focus.
Yes, that is true. Supposing that there's such a thing as "platonic love". Even though platonic love is a term that is really misunderstood all the time. Even if Lolita was not the object of focus itself in the physical sense (meaning he was in love with the form of beauty, as Plato would have explained), then he would just read "The Age of Innocence" by David Hamilton and stare at paintings of young girls, and never properly "fall in love", so there would be no story whatsoever.
>But this version of "love" seems more altruistic, less harmful to the other, and very importantly, less physically oriented towards an specific age.
Yeah, exactly. But can you really call it "love", and not just an admiration? Think about it, if one is in love with the form of beauty. Is he really in "love" with anything or has he ever fallen in "love" at all? Does the word in greek of "phillia" written by Plato not have a different meaning of what today we call "love" and it simply means a "liking" of?

>Will I try to avoid harm of innocents by preventing harmful behavior against them when in young age?
Well, if you are a minimally decent person, you will avoid that, but that was not my point at all from the beginning of the thread. My point was that Humpert was an awful, unethical human being, but that didn't change the fact that his love was the most passionate and romantic there was, and that, even though everything he did was wrong, it was love nonetheless at its crude nature. And since love is mostly a sickness of the mind, it's only obvious that he would move on to do sick things.

[The Merovingian No.11087186]

>>11087126
>can you really call it "love", and not just an admiration?
Can you call it just admiration if people die or kill for it? Any kind of love proposed here that is.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087192]

>>11087186
>Can you call it just admiration if people die or kill for it?
Well, people would die or kill for an ideology, or even admiration for a superior officer and the wish to attain his respect and admiration, would you call that "love"?

[The Merovingian No.11087206]

>>11087192
>would you call that "love"?
Some would, and that is the point. If it feels like "love", is another issue. The "platonic" love" is more immaterial, more undetermined by age, and so more broad. But so is sexuality, proof of this is sexual deviances.

What we have here is the problem of the witness. Are we or are we not witnesses of this or that particular feeling? Because there are tricks at judging without experiencing, but by observing actions.

[Anonymous No.11087213]

>>11081869
>Can you imagine being just completely, absolutely in love with someone at first sight?
Yes I can, because I've done that. To an adult. Not a child, because I'm not a degenerate pedophile.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087214]

>>11087206
>What we have here is the problem of the witness. Are we or are we not witnesses of this or that particular feeling? Because there are tricks at judging without experiencing, but by observing actions.
Well, here you are just moving to Epistemology and also I think, the problem of the "Bettle" by Wittgenstein. How do we know that the word of "love" means the same feeling and experience across all humans? We don't. We just fucking don't. So it's fucking better to lay that aside and not overcomplicate it anymore, and just see and talk about love as the poets and the philosophers and the psychologists have said. Also, there is some sort of basis to know what love is and how it is different from other emotions, from MRI scans and the measuring of neurotransmitters and hormones in people who are/claim to be in love.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087215]

>>11087213
>Yes I can, because I've done that. To an adult. Not a child, because I'm not a degenerate pedophile.
Yeah, but some people are not like that and you can't blame Humpert for love at first sight. Because he had no choice. He didn't choose it.

[Anonymous No.11087252]

>>11081905
I am not a racist, but yuck

[Anonymous No.11087291]

>>11081733
At least post decent Lolitas

[Per_Vas No.11087307]

I read that book once and now I'm hanging out with an underage girl. I think that girls between 13years old - 17 have a summer breeze inside, they can transmit to you a blow of life mature woman cannot. Having sex with nymphs, this is the esoteric message of Lolita

[Anonymous No.11087322]

>>11081729
MODS MODS MODS

[Anonymous No.11087360]

>>11083355
More accurately love usually involves liking someone's personality. Which he fucking didn't, lmao.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087396]

>>11087291
Too thick, too slutty, not innocent enough
2/10, would not bang.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087402]

>>11087307
>13years old - 17 have a summer breeze inside, they can transmit to you a blow of life mature woman cannot.
Yeah, I also kinda resonate with that feeling. I don't know, I think men were actually biologically predisposed to like nymphets. I'm not even fucking joking. We were made to like youth, it is just imbibed in us, and there's just such a beauty and happiness in youthful girls. Too bad that girls start becoming snapchat whores by the time they're 14 now.

[Anonymous No.11087407]

>>11087402
I used to be into little girls like this but then i sort of got over and it and started jerking to horses instead.

[Anonymous No.11087416]

>>11087407
You mean real horses or my little pony?

[The Merovingian No.11087418]

>>11087402
I am curious if you watched the 1997 film adaptation. And if so, what was your reaction?

Also, notice how you lean to a "pure" Lolita, untainted with certain behaviors. I'd argue to go beyond and the attraction goes into some kind of phenomena relative to the spirit. Can that be attributed to the experience of the Lolita? Or the lack, to be more precise.

On the bright side, everybody is noticing modern society is corrupting our youth.

[Anonymous No.11087420]

>>11087416
both

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087423]

>>11087418
>I am curious if you watched the 1997 film adaptation. And if so, what was your reaction?
Yeah. Goddamn it is Dominique Swain a beauty.

>I'd argue to go beyond and the attraction goes into some kind of phenomena relative to the spirit.
I don't think I follow.

>On the bright side, everybody is noticing modern society is corrupting our youth.
Yeah, girls are becoming social media whores wearing those slut chokers at a very young age now.

[The Merovingian No.11087442]

>>11087423
Maybe I am relating behavior to the spirit, but in general men do not want a promiscuous female. Such attitude historically was considered a sin, a stain that follow after a concrete action, but that remained even after someone committed the sin itself.

Maybe we are talking about baggage. A Lolita is the image of the fresh fruit, not only innocence, but possibilities. And a dangerous thing, of unstained perfection.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087454]

>>11087442
>Maybe I am relating behavior to the spirit, but in general men do not want a promiscuous female.
Yeah, some people call this the "slut paradox". We like women to be sluts with US, in our bedrooms, but once we find out they have been sluts with other people, then we get really angry and disgusted. And not without reason, men want women to be their first, and women want men to be their last.

>>11087442
>Maybe we are talking about baggage. A Lolita is the image of the fresh fruit, not only innocence, but possibilities. And a dangerous thing, of unstained perfection.
Damn, that's the best way I could describe it. You have patrician taste anon.

[The Merovingian No.11087476]

>>11087454
If I remember, Humbert resisted the test of love, at the very end, seeing her in that condition. Still, he see her and see nothing but the ghost that forever be. And the reason is because perfection was crystallized in his mind. But does he not feel he lost that crystal sculpture and is now a mirage? What motivate men that follow a distant mirage in the desert if not hope? Or maybe hope is not the word, maybe perfection implies some promise to satiate desires we can't otherwise satiate, and we think this oasis is the only one that can. And when won't happen, is the hunger. But the hunger is with one all the time, like a eternal flame, everlasting, (un)like the promise of perfection.

Dangerous deed to love perfection, because in each test of life we risk its loss forever.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087492]

>>11087476
Nice writing m8. Reminds me of a little poem:

"Her petals will blow away
Beauties, lost in a day"

[The Merovingian No.11087530]

>>11087492
Thank you, I came to this board to be inspired and this inspired me after a long hiatus. I won't tell the whole story, but I had written poems that made women ( and men) cry, but everything started by one letter, which was even stolen by two different people two times, and I even saw them using my words, how flattering. The sad fact is, that letter had a copy, delivered to a girl, she was my personal Lolita once upon a time, and it felt eerily similar with this story.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087541]

>>11087530
>The sad fact is, that letter had a copy, delivered to a girl, she was my personal Lolita once upon a time, and it felt eerily similar with this story.
Was it teenage love anon?

[The Merovingian No.11087549]

>>11087541
A bit past that, not much.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087558]

>>11087549
What happened though? Could you please greentext? I'd love to hear your story.

[The Merovingian No.11087623]

>>11087558
>in my 20s
>I was radio host but doing punk rock so it was cool
>lots of teenage girls fan of the show
>punk rock was big in that time
>got messages from the fans all the time
>but one girl was messaging me more than normal
>one day got a visit from a fan at the station
>got visited by fans all the time
>this time was a gorgeous teen girl and his cousin
>she tell me his name but is not the same than the girl messaging me
>we chat between break
>she is beautiful girl and can't think of any defect
>she is also interesting and I am not bored
>the show ends and we say goodbye
>got a message from the girl messaging me
>I tell her about this visit
>mention this beautiful girl
>she suddendly becomes interested in what I think of her
>she tells me is her twin sister (but it was her)
>we start to chat on the phone every day with passion
And that is how I met "Lola".

[The Merovingian No.11087634]

>>11087558
>in my 20s
>I was radio host but doing punk rock so it was cool
>lots of teenage girls fan of the show
>punk rock was big in that time
>got messages from the fans all the time
>but one girl was messaging me more than normal
>she is also interesting and I am not bored
>one day got a visit from a fan at the station
>got visited by fans all the time
>this time was a gorgeous girl and his cousin
>she tell me his name but is not the same than the girl messaging me
>we chat between break
>she is a beautiful girl and can't think of any defect
>the show ends and we say goodbye
>got a message from the girl messaging me
>I tell her about this visit
>mention this beautiful girl
>she suddenly becomes interested in what I think of her
>she tells me is her twin sister (but it was her)
>after that we start to chat on the phone every day with passion
And that is how I met "Lola".

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11087651]

>>11087634
What happened afterwards? Did you get together?

[The Merovingian No.11087780]

>>11087651
>I start making small poems for her and send them by phone
>we end up dating
>as always I look cold and uniterested but she gives me a kiss anyway
>happy days pass when we were like kids, the best friends
>but every time we go out I am that kind of cold that put girls in the friendzone
>I simply don't love her but I know is wrong
>she starts to worry and asks his cousin for help with me
>if you ever see God tell him how bastard he was for not giving me feelings when it should
>she had no luck
>time goes by and I visit her less often
>make a decision that will forever haunt me
>I write a letter were I make the effort to put feelings of love for her
>one day I go by a visit
>she is dating someone
>tells me a lot of "why" and I can notice how she accentuates I do nothing
>I can see how she is still waiting for me
>didn't visit her for months
>but I write that damn letter
>every word is cursed with love
>I start believing
>the words come out with fire now and it will never be enough perfect for me
>still is a love letter and want her to know
>I tell her by phone I wanted to meet
>she invited me to a party of her school
>she is graduating
>went to the party but no sign of her
>ask his cousin and he says he doesn't know why she didn't went
>I didn't notice at the time but she deliberately avoided me
>days go by and I go to her house
>I carry the letter with me
>her parents receive me and make me wait in the couch
>the are polite
>minutes goes by and finally
I want you to imagine for a moment your dreams of perfection crushed for one single decision, either hers and minw. Fill in the blanks and think, what could be the one thing that can end everything for you and her?
>she enters the room and we greet
>she is pregnant with his, now, boyfriend
>she didn't wanted to tell me before
>you can think it was wrong but I wanted closure for us
>I read her the letter
>and then she says the simple truth of innocent reproach: "Why didn't you tell me that before"
>I tried to calm her and I tell her we can be together and we can find a way
>his boyfriend comes and I leave
>never see her again
She tried to contact me on social media. Tried to tell her we had a good time that will never be back.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11088183]

>>11087780
DAMN. That's like, literally so similar to the ending of Lolita. Holy shit. I'm at a fucking loss for words right fucking now...

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11088253]

>>11087780
Holy fuck anon. You really only live once, once these opportunities to date a young girl who is really into you pass by, you can't get it back anymore, but it always never lasts anyway. These kinds of relationships are doomed to finish soon due to cruel's fate, really. Did you really start to believe your own words of love by the time you finished your letter? Were you in love at the time you finished it, and how intense was it?

>and then she says the simple truth of innocent reproach: "Why didn't you tell me that before"
I know you must really fucking regret not having told her but what the fuck can you do? Do you still talk to her? Is there a chance for you to make things right? What is she like now? Is she married/divorced single mom? How are things with her boyfriend/husband? Is she still pretty? Does she still resemble her younger self? I'm just genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.11088264]

>>11081881
>yfw girls born after 9/11 will be in porn next year

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11088271]

>>11088264
Stop watching porn this instant.

[Anonymous No.11088272]

>>11087291
That's funny. I took that photo. She was 18, so not really a "Lolita." I've certainly known a few, though.

[Anonymous No.11088274]

>>11088264
oh fuck incoming freshmen will be born after 9/11 someone warned me this was coming but i was like nah man getting old wont happen to US

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11088278]

>>11088272
That thot is disgusting and you should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.11088302]

>>11088278
"Ashamed" of what? It's just a girl looking at some photos. If she's not to your taste, nobody cares.

[Ricebottle !05nYLrwuNY No.11088711]

>>11088302
Ashamed of posting some roastie thot in here you norman.

[Anonymous No.11089020]

>>11088711
Yes, I'm ever so embarrassed .It won't happen again.

[Anonymous No.11089060]

>>11081706
He wasn't. He never went through that stage of "butterflies" (shy apprehension) which is an essential part of falling in love. He never romanticised or idealised her as anything other than an ideal concubine, and even dreams about breeding more concubines with her so that he doesn't get bored when she's older and less attractive to him. When he sees her older and pregnant at the end, he loses all his attraction, and even seems to view her with a kind of disgust. Finally, right at the very end where he seems to realise that she was just a poor human being and not a sex-slave, and repents of his having abused her - this scene rings hollow when you realise that afterwards he went to prison and wrote these masturbatory memoirs where he tries to justify himself and cover up the monstrousness of his crimes.

[Anonymous No.11089261]

>>11089060
>even seems to view her with a kind of disgust.
Did you read the book? He still loved her then. I'm not saying there wasn't a huge beastly and monstrous side to it, he admits it himself constantly, but I think he did actually love her as well. The dreaming about breeding a "Lolita the second" were half ironic too, he probably actually thought about it seriously but as he's writing he realizes how terrible that is. He realized that his brutality and beastliness is what ruined the pure and beautiful part of his love, he's partly punishing himself by writing this.

"Somewhere beyond Bill’s shack an afterwork radio had begun singing of folly and fate, and there she was with her ruined looks and her adult, rope-veined narrow hands and her goose-flesh white arms, and her shallow ears, and her unkempt armpits, there she was (my Lolita!), hopelessly worn at seventeen, with that baby, dreaming already in her of becoming a big shot and retiring around 2020 A.D. — and I looked and looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else."

"I loved you. I was a pentapod monster, but I loved you. I was despicable and brutal, and turpid, and everything, mais je t’aimais, je t’aimais! And there were times when I knew how you felt, and it was hell to know it, my little one. Lolita girl, brave Dolly Schiller."

These excerpts gave me waves of chills when I first read the book, I just got chills finding and reading them to copypaste. It kills me

[Anonymous No.11089489]

>>11089261
It's been years so my memory may admittedly be unreliable.
I had a similar reaction to you when I first read the book, but changed my mind upon reflection. Those passages are indeed beautiful, but you have to remember that Humbert is nothing if not an aesthete. For me, these passages are just Humbert flattering himself yet again, writing what he thinks would be most beautiful from a literary, artistic perspective. The giveaway for me is the introduction to the work, where it's revealed that these are his memoirs written while in prison. Compare Humbert's confessions to the Confessions of St. Augustine. There is a lack of real repentence. There is too much aestheticism, self-indulgence, in the way that Humbert has written his memoirs. Think about it. If you spent years grooming and raping a girl - would you repent by reminiscing about it while writing sensual literature? That's why I think his protestations of a moral conversion and sincere sorrow over "Dolly Schiller" are actually insincere and contrived, just another way to flatter his view of himself as a superior, sensitive human being tragically infected with "nymphomania".

[Anonymous No.11089502]

>>11089489
I think an enlightening way to look at the work is as Humbert's attempt to seduce the reader, to get the reader to sympathise with him. Is this the mark of a man who is truly repentant?

[Anonymous No.11089707]

>>11089489
>>11089502
I think it's just an honest attempt to "immortalize" his love and do justice to the beautiful part of it, he doesn't obscure the ugliness.

The book is supposed to seduce you with its beauty and style and irony like Lolita herself seduced him. But that doesn't mean he's dishonest in making it that way, only an idiot would be unable to see it for what it is. It also doesn't mean he's not also sincerely repentant and regretful.
>Is this the mark of a man who is truly repentant?
He can be repentant without completely rejecting and denouncing everything about what happened, he can fairly show the beauty and still repent for the horror of it. He expects the reader to understand this, and I'm sure he would have realized it himself if the sensual aesthetic nature of the text somehow compromised his being repentant, and I'm not sure if that isn't stated outright somewhere. He realizes he's self-pitying and absurd and regrets that as well but can't help himself.

[Anonymous No.11089730]

>>11089707
>irony
lol you people are repulsive slime balls

disgusting book for vulgur cretins

[Anonymous No.11089736]

>>11089730
what?

[Anonymous No.11089743]

>>11089736
just the way you try to excuse the pedophilia is repulsive and nabokov looks like a pedophile, go back to arguing about your fap material faggot

subhumans all of you

[Anonymous No.11089750]

>>11089743
fuck off you retarded normalfag

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11090285]

>>11089743
Fuck off and never come back to /lit/ ever again.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11090342]

>>11089261
>"And there were times I knew how you felt, and it was hell to know, my little one. Lolita girl, my brave Dolly Schiller."
Damn that's some great prose. There's another quote I really like:

>"It was love at first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight."

Lolita is love. Lolita is life.

[Anonymous No.11090575]

Anons, I see that a lot of you have affection for Lolita. Will we ever have the opportunity though to have gfs that let us dress them up as Dolores Haze though, or is this a dream for another life (or advanced VR)?

[Anonymous No.11090580]

>>11089750
>>11090285
disgusting parasites

[Anonymous No.11090610]

>>11090580
>disgusting norman
Take your normalfaggotry somewhere else and never come back, you faggot.

[Anonymous No.11090959]

>tfw I dreamed of Lolita again
I hate the alarm clock

[Anonymous No.11090970]

>>11090959
she looks like a boy

[Anonymous No.11090981]

>>11087420
This is the kind of information I just don't need my man.

[Anonymous No.11091054]

>>11090970
>she looks like a boy
What do you mean anon? That's obviously a girl.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11091351]

>"This brief, Women's love"

>William Shakespeare

That's why I love Lolita. No woman can love truly after the age of 15

[Anonymous No.11091389]

Someone, anyone, please delete this thread.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11091430]

>>11091389
You can't shut down the voices of free speech anon.

[Anonymous No.11091588]

There's this fetish escort in the UK that does these sorts of kinks and dresses up as Dolores Haze for you (Just to let you know, she's of age and all consensual adult work. She's actually 24). This would be my dream come true. Should I unironically book a flight to the UK now?

[The Merovingian No.11092074]

>>11088253
>Did you really start to believe your own words of love by the time you finished your letter?
Yes.
>Did you really start to believe your own words of love by the time you finished your letter? Were you in love at the time you finished it
Yes.
>how intense was it?
It was love, burns like fire.
>I know you must really fucking regret not having told her but what the fuck can you do?
>Is there a chance for you to make things right?
Forgive her or forget her. Implying her mistake wasn't partly mine.
>Do you still talk to her?
No.
>What is she like now?
>Is she still pretty?
>Does she still resemble her younger self?
She is the kind of beauty that will last for decades.
>Is she married/divorced single mom?
>How are things with her boyfriend/husband?
Single mother.

Being honest here, how can I say I did the right thing by not entering in a relationship with this girl, when even the parents consent? The world is too complicate for us to judge two people in love, even when the age is a problem, when is love and expressing the love is not harmful for any, the real harm comes when love is not attended.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11092951]

>>11092074
>The real harm is when love is not attended
"It is hell with women and hell without them."
Anon. I think that you are left with two choices here. Since her beauty is long-lasting and you probably still have feelings for her, you should either try to contact her and tell her how you feel and try, at least, to get back together and see how things work out, to talk again about the good days and try reliving some of those days you were in love (unless you find that too painful and don't want that), OR you could do your utmost to forget her and move on. I don't think there are any other options. Either you try it again, or you do whatever you can to forgive AND forget her, otherwise the sorrow will just increase.
Godspeed anon.
Can you describe to me what she looked like? I'm still curious about your Lola.

[The Merovingian No.11092982]

>>11092951
>Can you describe to me what she looked like?
Jodie Foster at her prime.

Thanks for the words. See you around.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11093012]

>>11092982
You mean she looked like this?
See ya. Do you hang around /lit/ a lot or do you use other boards? Do you always use a name?

[The Merovingian No.11093021]

>>11093012
Yeah I'll be seeing you round, homie. Actually I usually browse /pol/ becase were triying to implament the kekistan nashion.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11093033]

>>11093021
I'll be seeing you too bro. Just remember this tripfag.

[The Merovingian No.11093051]

>>11093012
>You mean she looked like this?
Yes, but she was prettier to my eyes.
>Do you hang around /lit/ a lot or do you use other boards?
Ultimately I hang around /lit/ more than /sci/ or /g/.
>Do you always use a name?
No, see the other impostor, he is a reason why I don't.

>>11093033
See you around /lit/.
PS: Don't fall for the other guy again.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11093055]

>>11093051
Oh shit, some other fag was impersonating. Oh well, anyway, see ya.

[Anonymous No.11094334]

bumping for posterity

[Anonymous No.11094453]

>>11081706
>Humbert
who is this even you fucktard

[Anonymous No.11094481]

>>11094453
Main character of the book

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11095884]

>>11094453
Delet this image this instant.

[Anonymous No.11096157]

>>11091351
that's not what that line MEANS GOD DAMNIT

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11096421]

>>11096157
The line means that women's love lasts shorter than men's. Their passion last much less time, that's what it means. Everybody knows that a woman's love lasts much less time.

[Anonymous No.11096512]

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My soul, my sin."

[Anonymous No.11096546]

>>11090981
Like how you want to rape little girls?

[Anonymous No.11096560]

>those >18y/o woman trying to look desesperaly younger and innocent
How pathetic.

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11096572]

>>11096546
>Like how you want to rape little girls?
Anon, abusing little girls is wrong, immoral and illegal. Do not ever consider doing something like this ever and I do not in any way condone any sort of activity like that. Just hire a fetish escort that dresses like Dolores Haze and have your fun with her like pic related >>11096512

[Ricebot !05nYLrwuNY No.11096577]

>>11096560
>>those >18y/o woman trying to look desesperaly younger and innocent
I know, but what can we do? We cannot in any way condone having our way with beautiful 16yos, and it's not that bad, because even though I'm super into all the Lolita thing, I also enjoy developed breasts in a girl.

[Anonymous No.11097442]

The FBI won't come to your house if you reply to this thread. Just to let you anons know.

[Anonymous No.11098632]

>>11097442
Good to know.

[Anonymous No.11099324]

>>11097442
reply