[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 164 KB, 518x800, lolita.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11603231 No.11603231 [Reply] [Original]

Does Lolita have a point? It was an excellent tale, and the prose was very interesting, but was there a point to it all?

>> No.11603242

The single best thread of literary criticism and discussion this board has ever seen

>> No.11603247

Are you trying to trick us into doing your homework for you?

>> No.11603255

>>11603231
>books must have a single, crystallized point
Or what?

>> No.11603273

It was so Nabokov could masturbate in more ways than one

>> No.11603308

>>11603255
Are there smaller points to it?

>> No.11603311

>>11603308
Yes, exactly two.

>> No.11603317

>>11603308
Very small

>> No.11603318

pretty sure nabok famously disliked having to have a "point" to his books, so if you're asking whether the author intended for there to be one: unlikely

>> No.11603337

>>11603231
Lolita is the narrative exercise that Borges first proposed in his short story Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. Also the fact that some reader can empathize with such unreliable narrator is a triumph in itself.

>> No.11603340

>>11603337
What narrative exercise is that?

>> No.11603355

>>11603337
>unreliable narrator
how can we know if he's unreliable given that the only person we hear from in the book is him?

>> No.11603358

>>11603355
He claims Dolly loved him when judging by her later reactions, she never did.

>> No.11603360

>>11603340
"Bioy Casares had had dinner with me that evening and we became lengthily engaged in a vast polemic concerning the composition of a novel in the first person, whose narrator would omit or disfigure the facts and indulge in various contradictions which would permit a few readers - very few readers - to perceive an atrocious or banal reality." From Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius (1944).

>> No.11603366

>>11603231
I dunno if there's a point. It sure as hell is pretty, though. Like you said, the prose is fantastic, and you wind up noticing little things he's playing with painting with letters.

>> No.11603367

>>11603360
>would permit a few readers - very few readers - to perceive an atrocious or banal reality
Isn't it obvious to everyone that what's happening to Lolita is abhorrent and disgusting and any "love" is completely on Humbert's side?

>> No.11603370

>>11603355
Mate at least read the book before posting

>> No.11603377

>>11603355
When he's reading Charlotte's letter he claims he has changed and embelished some things in it.

>> No.11603379

>>11603358
she probably loved him in the way a 13 is capable of, in a weird mix of romantic and father feelings. She seemed slightly sociopathic to me so i imagine it was not a avery deep feeling and left when she started to resent him more as she got older, wanted freedom, realized she maybe didnt need him, etc.

however this all very vague, when i said unreliable narrator I meant is he supposed to be actually making up events? or describing them very differently than they really occurred?

because i never got the impression from the book that that was what was going on.

>> No.11603380
File: 61 KB, 284x433, nabokov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11603380

I DUDN'T PUT NO DERN MEANIN IN MY BOOK IMA SIMPLE FOLK

>> No.11603385

>>11603379
I think it's more that the way he describes events offers a quite different meaning than anyone else would offer. What he sees as beautiful, anyone else would see as one of the most depraved, disgusting acts anyone could take part in and the tone the narrator puts forward colours the whole way the book is written.

>> No.11603391

>>11603385
yeah but he's a pedophile or whatever, of course things that normal people find gross are beautiful to him. It isn't hard to just transpose those poetic and romantic feelings onto someone you would feel attracted to.

but to be clear, you are not saying that he makes stuff up? for example the scene where he and Lolita first have sex and he describes it as being her initiating it?

>> No.11603399

>>11603231
beside the obvious pedos are bad and mentally ill sick fucks.

>> No.11603400

>>11603391
>he describes it as being her initiating it
It's uncertain. I mean, the narrator doesn't intend to publish the writing until after Dolly dies, which will be long after he dies. I don't know if that would curb any motivation to outright lie. Perhaps in his intoxication with what was happening, he misread or misremembers events in a way that makes him feel less guilt.

>> No.11603411

>>11603400
>Perhaps in his intoxication with what was happening, he misread or misremembers events in a way that makes him feel less guilt.
I understand the idea, it's just that this is something I see mentioned about this book every single time people talk about it, but I have never seen really any evidence for it. Like that is true of every narrator ever that they might not be being completely accurate, why is it associated so strongly with Lolita?

>> No.11603414

>>11603411
> why is it associated so strongly with Lolita?
Well, it's a book where the narrator is a sexual predator trying to justify his behaviour

>> No.11603415

>>11603411
It's the HH is the prime unreliable narrator.

>> No.11603424

>>11603414
>trying to justify his behaviour
see i also didn't really get that impression. He knows what he's doing is wrong, he is aware of it. He constantly talks about how he's ruining Lolita, and before he gives in to his impulses he is very strict about extracting his sexual pleasure in a way that doesn't allow her to realize what's going on. The scene where she is bouncing on his leg for example.

He just gives in to his evil because it is so intensely beautiful to him. When does he really try to argue that it is ok what he's doing?

>> No.11603427

>>11603231
Don't diddle kids, even if they seem into it.

>> No.11603438

>>11603424
You do make a good point. He is a very self-aware, articulate man with a good understanding of the consequences of his actions. It's entirely possible Lolita was "into it", whatever that means for a child. I do think children who are abused do sometimes feel sexual pleasure from it, the same as a decent number of adult women who are raped experience orgasm, that doesn't mean it's not destructive for their psyche. I don't know if I have a point anymore. Part of the beauty of the novel is the depth of the disgust it made me feel at times.

>> No.11603439
File: 94 KB, 471x388, 1532668907021.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11603439

>“Where the devil did you get her?”
>“I beg your pardon?”
>“I said: the weather is getting better.”
>“Seems so.”
>“Who’s the lassie?”
>“My daughter.”
>“You lie—she’s not.”
>“I beg your pardon?”
>“I said: July was hot. Where’s her mother?”

>> No.11603445

>>11603438
im a near immoral person so the novel didn't make me feel disgust. I am not attracted to 13 year olds so I was able to see the massive dissonance of his feelings for someone who isn't supposed to elicit them, but it didn't offend me.

Also 13 year olds are very often sexual and romantic, but it is in a childish, undeveloped manner best suited to their having little pseudo relationships with each other at most. An adult having a relation with a kid that young brings all sorts of problems into the dynamic, and is basically by definition abuse. The kid might enjoy parts of it but there is a wealth of evidence that it scars them psychologically.

>> No.11603459

>>11603231
There are tons of themes and motifs in Lolita ranging from abuse, prostitution and independence.

>> No.11603487

>>11603438
I don't think she was into it

"We had been everywhere. We had really seen nothing. And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country, that, by then, in retrospect, was no more than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires and her sobs in the night—every night, every night—the moment I feigned sleep."

>> No.11603499

>In 1959, novelist Robertson Davies excused the narrator entirely, writing that the theme of Lolita is "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child. This is no pretty theme, but it is one with which social workers, magistrates and psychiatrists are familiar."[30]

Humbert did nothing wrong.

>> No.11603504

>>11603499
Lolita is obviously playing Humbert in a sense, but Humbert is also using her for his sexual gratification in a way that is actively harming her, which he is aware of.

the two are not mutually exclusive, basically

>> No.11603512

>>11603504
>Humbert is also using her for his sexual gratification in a way that is actively harming her

He wasn't even her first lover.

>> No.11603518

>>11603512
we have already touched on this, the way that 13 year olds fuck each other and have little relationships is not the same as an adult preying on a child. Even a 20 year old with a 13 year old displays these patterns, but when it's an actual adult man, it is much more dramatic.

>> No.11603519

>>11603512
So?

>> No.11603527

>>11603519
she was a slut who enjoyed it

>> No.11603538

>>11603527
that can be true, and Humbert can still be abusing her and causing her real damage

>> No.11603543

>>11603527
see>>11603487

>> No.11603548

>>11603543
>DUDE HUMBERT IS AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR YOU CAN'T TAKE ANYTHING HE SAYS AT FACE VALUE BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALL OF LOLITA'S ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 100% FACE VALUE LMAO

>> No.11603574

>>11603548
>DUDE I'M GONNA MAKE IT LOOK LIKE SHE FUCKING HATED HER LIFE AND CRIED HERSELF TO SLEEP EVERY NIGHT FOR NO REASON WHEN ACTUALLY SHE RODE MY DICK AND CALLED ME DADDY

>> No.11603583

>>11603574
No you fucking idiot I mean she's clearly emotionally manipulating him and her actions are not what they seem in the same way that Humbert's narration is not what it seems you fucking imbecile.

>> No.11603605

>>11603583
but how do you know because Humberts an unreliable narrator

But actually tfw you get btfo in an argument and keep trying to argue even though it's just to try and maintain some small slice of dignity

>> No.11603626

Nabokov would be ashamed by the rampant autism in this conversation

>> No.11603635

>>11603626
I don't think Nabokov felt the emotion of shame

>> No.11603683

>>11603518
Can you elaborate on this. I'm not at all familar with the aubject but I'm intrigued.

>> No.11603692

>>11603635
I think the closest, although not entirely shame, is his feelings about claiming his brother was gay (unsure if he was or not)

>> No.11603707

>>11603683
if you can remember being 13 most of us had a lot of sexual and romantic impulses, even much earlier than that. But they were for people our own age, because we were kind of figuring things out and exploring territory.

now it's possible that it's bad we did even that, i don't know. But there was a reciprocity in the actions in that we both were basically fumbling in the dark and unsure of what we were doing. Our little moments with each other were glowing and simple, and we moved past them because we started to undrestand oursevles and what the other person was.

Now compare this to a child of that age having a relationship with a fully developed adult. Who knows everything we do about life and cruelty and reality; who has not yet been vanquished of their innocent feelings about the world. An adult will introduce elements of seriouness into the world of a child just through speaking to them, if they don't carefully curate what they say. But sex is not possible to curate, it is fundamentally honest, and it breaks into the child as a rapid current of something they shouldn't have to deal with for a long time. This is just leaving alone the ways adults will abuse children sexually because they have every advantage over them in power terms.

>> No.11604242

>>11603231
>>11603318

My copy, some paperback from 50 years or so ago, has a little thing at the end of it where he complains about everyone thinking everything needs to have some sort of overarching meaning.

The only point to Lolita is the one you find in it, and whoever gave you the assignment, OP, needs to be told to fuck off if they say otherwise.

>> No.11604574

>>11603411
Because his he contradicts himself constantly, like when he prattles on and on about loving her yet makes it clear that he actually kind of dislikes everything about her except for the sex appeal.

A lot of people think he's lying about the first time they had sex being initiated by her but it seemed believable to me, i guess you have to consider how hysterical people are about pedophilia. It actually seems quite sick at times.

>> No.11604581

>>11603487
Doesn't mean she never enjoyed it.

>> No.11604584

>>11603707
>But they were for people our own age
Lmao what?

>> No.11604686

>>11603707
You got anything to back that up? Sounds esoteric.

>> No.11604953

>>11603231
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TqSyvdqn9c