/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14087909]

>DUDE LITTLE GIRLS LMAO

[Anonymous No.14088175]

>dude little girls lmao

[Anonymous No.14088192]

Imagine writing an actual book for pedophiles

[Anonymous No.14088194]

>>14088192
I’m imagining it...

[Anonymous No.14088214]

>Be Nabokov
>born into noble family
>have family crest, serfs, all that shit
>finally chased out by bolsheviks during the revolution
>find your way to america
>just decide to start writing in english since you figure it's more convenient now
>win back your family's fortunes by writing best-selling child smut
what an inspiration

[Anonymous No.14088216]

>>14088214
Praise fucking kek.

[Anonymous No.14088439]

cute and funny fluffy bunny

[Anonymous No.14088482]

>>14088214
Would have been an inspiration if he an hero'd

[Anonymous No.14088598]

Lolita DESERVED it, Humpert Humpert makes it very clear she seduced him. Wily little slut

[Anonymous No.14088631]

>>14087909
IMAGINE

[Anonymous No.14088922]

>>14087909
We call them nymphets over here.

[Anonymous No.14088945]

Based

[Anonymous No.14088969]

>writes a story about a sense of loss to his own country and native language
>the book becomes literally a scripture of paedo subhuman
how piteous one can be

[Anonymous No.14089138]

>>14088922

[Anonymous No.14090042]

>>14087909
I can't be the only one who quit this book 1/3 of the way in because of how boring it is. Is literally the entire book just Humbert misinterpreting anything Dolores does as sexual.

[Anonymous No.14090078]

>>14090042
I can't believe I share a board with morons like this.

[Anonymous No.14090094]

>>14090078
Amazing argument i expect nothing less from lit. Just admit you only like this boring slob because some old fart decided it was a "classic"?

[Anonymous No.14090184]

>>14090042
>>14090094
stfu redditnigger. Humbert didn't interpret everything Dolores did as sexual. She was being sexual on purpose, but she didn't entirely understand the ramifications of her actions, being that she was a young girl. She was sexually precocious as some kids can be, but that didn't mean she wanted to exactly have sex with Humbert. This book is all about gray areas. Its a good book, and not just for the prose as some will claim.
Lurk more and read it again, if you actually ever did. Come back when you can form an intelligent thought.

[Anonymous No.14090205]

>>14090094
What is there to argue? You said you found the book boring, and I called you a moron for such a vacuous analysis of literature. You essentially explained how you viewed it, which isn't entirely wrong (a bit reductive mirroring that of the typical academic), but then dismissed it because it didn't fit your pre-conceived notions of what literature should be. Essentially, you were so quick to judge and rush to form an opinion based on taste and sentimentality that you dismissed a great work of literature, so fuck you. Alright, I just realized this is bait. A third of the way through the book Lolita is barely mentioned. He spends a lot of time fantasizing about nymphets, going to mental asylums, and has a first marriage. You clearly did not read any of the book and I'm a bigger moron for assuming someone on /lit actually read..

[Anonymous No.14090285]

>>14090184
Going barefoot isn't asking for it you fucking spaz and there is nothing grey about Humbert the spider literally all he does is creep on the girl and self pities himself on how it's an impossible relationship >>14090205 i read until he decides to marry her mom so he can creep some more. And the book IS boring exactly because nothing happens, there is no story outside of listening to his delusions. No progress, nothing. The book is just boring trash and not even it's prose can save a book when both your main character and story are nonexistent

[Anonymous No.14090335]

>>14090285
Your reply once again reveals you as both an outsider and an idiot. Lurk moar fag, and read the fucking book. Use your brain this time.
Have a happy Halloween, anon.

[Anonymous No.14090343]

>>14090335
>not liking some pedoshit book makes me a redditor
>you need a brain to understand novels
Sure thing.

[Anonymous No.14090413]

>>14088598
Are we sure he’s a reliable narrator?

[Anonymous No.14090419]

>>14090343
Go suck a dick you moralistic American fag. If you had any brain at all you wouldn't have such a superficial understanding of a book you've never read.

[Anonymous No.14090425]

>>14090413
That's a literary term that means nothing, and anyways that analysis is incorrect because at the end Humbert is upset that he ruined her childhood and he has a Holden Caufield moment, which is Nabokov paying homage to one of his favorite American authors.

[Anonymous No.14090819]

>>14088214
>serfs,
serfdom was over by 1861 in Imperial Russia
>win back your family's fortunes by writing best-selling child smut
his other works are top-notch as well desu

[Anonymous No.14090843]

>>14090184
>she didn't entirely understand the ramifications of her actions
It was quite some time ago I last reread it, but didn't she literally describe her sex life to Humbert at one point?

that hoe knew what she was doing

[Anonymous No.14090863]

>>14090042
whatever floats your boat man.
I just can't put down Lolita when I pick it up simply because of how enthralled I become with Nabokov's writing. He doesn't even have to produce any narrative. The way he finds so perfect wording ... it's like listening to music. Never read it in English though, but I heard it's the same.

[Anonymous No.14090872]

>>14090285
could you list some books you enjoy for reference?

[Anonymous No.14090879]

>>14090343
>pedoshit book
get a load of this dumbass

[Anonymous No.14090889]

>>14090872
He probably likes Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and The Hunger Games, top three.

[Anonymous No.14090938]

>>14090863
Nabokov's prose is over-rated, the product of a thesaurus-addict constantly trying to look smart by the inclusion of as many rare, antiquated, or zany words that he could find. In some sense that's not bad, but I think Nabokov definitely covered up for a lack of substance through a hyper-elaborate style. It's no wonder that the only thing people really can say about the book is that the prose is beautiful (sometimes you hear the very banal point that Nabokov's narrative is unreliable, which is so fucking boring and played-out that I want to rake my eyes out when I hear people say this, especially if they act like they're the first person to say it). Even though I disagree with the idea that his prose is good, I can see why people think that. I just think it's bothersome that there isn't much else to say about Nabokov, mostly likely because there isn't anything beyond his style and he probably liked it that way.

Personally, I'm neither infatuated with Nabokov's style and I find it grating, pretentious, overly-wrought, and gimmicky, nor do I think there is any substance behind his work beyond a mere play with the form of the novel (his one political novel is a disturbingly boring and trite dystopian clusterfuck and I find it laughable that no one ever mentions it in conversations about similar books like 1984, Brave New World, etc., probably because it's really boring and unoriginal). I think Nabokov is highly overrated and on the whole his work amounts to child-rape smut. I think he'll be forgotten in a few decades like a lot of people before him who wrote highly decadent and hyper-stylized porn with no substance.

[Anonymous No.14090943]

>>14090843
Yes, but you can’t say that to normies

[Anonymous No.14090956]

>>14090938
You literally admitted you’ve never actually read him. What are you going on about? And style can be substantial. Sorry he doesn’t write reductive trite novels like the hunger games

[Anonymous No.14090964]

>and style can be substantial

[Anonymous No.14090971]

>>14090872
I liked reading Freud's cases (especially little Hans) and i'am enjoying reading Lovecraft and Poe right now

[Anonymous No.14090974]

>>14090964
Yes, anon. You have no idea what you are talking about and mentioning 1984 or brave new world as ideals of literature vs Nabokov is laughable.

[Anonymous No.14090991]

>>14090956
>You literally admitted you’ve never actually read him.
I'm unsure about how you could draw such a conclusion from what I wrote. I've read several of his works.
>What are you going on about?
Read my post, retard.
>And style can be substantial.
Style/substance is a traditional dichotomy used in literary criticism. You would do well to read about it.
>Sorry he doesn’t write reductive trite novels like the hunger games
I don't read YA, another unfounded conclusion you've drawn from my post. Your reasoning skills seem very poor. Anyways, I'm not going to bother responding to more lazy, low IQ posters like you ITT.

[Anonymous No.14090999]

>>14090938
>'m neither infatuated with Nabokov's style and I find it grating, pretentious, overly-wrought, and gimmicky,
I should really check out the way he writes in English, but I would definitely not use those terms to describe his writing in Russian. In fact it's anything but pretentious.
>lack of substance
genuinely curious what do you mean by this? As I find it impossible to agree. Once again, can you give some point of reference?

[Anonymous No.14090998]

>>14090974
>mentioning 1984 or brave new world as ideals of literature
No one mentioned them as the ideals of literature. You're really dumb and obviously illiterate.

[Anonymous No.14091008]

>>14090971
ok.

[Anonymous No.14091016]

>>14090991
Assuming you were the original guy that said 1/3 of Lolita it was established you never read him. Your post got offended by the child rape which just means you’re a moralistic American fag and missed the point of the novels and possibilities ideas it evoked. Style can be substantial I.e. Humberts writing gives insight to his character that juxtaposes his desires, such as Hemingway’s style depicts the terseness of life and war. The last paragraph is tedious don’t throw that iq shit out me to posit your unduly sense of intellect when you can’t even get over the rape in Lolita and then proceed to indulge your ignorances for 2 paragraphs on an anime site.

[Anonymous No.14091023]

>>14090938
kek you definietly have no idea what lolita is about, but unfortunatly most people on this board is oblivious to the fact that they are being cucked hard by nabokov. Lolita is about writing fiction and about the seperation of beauty and truth, how it is futile and retarded to try to elevate ficiton into reality

[Anonymous No.14091025]

>>14090998
You said nobody talks about nabokovs political dystopia in the same vein as those other books, implying the wisdom of the crowd is correct and those books were great in that regard (which I’d say they are), but i also never read that Nabokov book

[Anonymous No.14091027]

>>14090999
Based trips. I wonder how he reads in Russian too. If I remember correctly he assisted with the translation or else did it himself, I don't know. It'd probably be fun for you to compare them. And what I mean when I say that Nabokov lacks substance is that there doesn't seem to be anything he wants to really communicate to the reader about the world. All really great novels have things you can take away from them, some didactic element, or else observations about the world that are interesting and edifying. I mentioned his one political novel as an example of a book of his that has more substance, even if the substance is rather banal. There could of course be some pomo meta-commentary about the form of the novel itself and narration, but I just don't think that he is really saying anything particularly interesting about literature (in Lolita, I haven't read all his books). Nabokov seems to explicitly avoid the didactic-moral element behind literature, and only rarely does he wax slightly philosophical, but never impressively. If someone could point to some things that they felt Nabokov was trying to communicate in Lolita, the things behind the style, I'd be happy to hear it, but I doubt anybody really took anything away from it beyond ">muh prose."

[Anonymous No.14091037]

>>14091027
It’s all in the fucking book, I’m not going to be a cackling seal and analyze things in ways they were not meant to be analyzed. What deep and substantial ideas do you want?

[Anonymous No.14091046]

>>14091016
No, you have me confused with another anon from above. My first post is here >>14090938.
>>14091025
No, what I meant is that, when people mention prototypical dystopia fiction, Nabokov is left of the conversation even though he has a novel that belongs to that same vein. This isn't to say that I like that kind of literature or think that it's good (I don't), but just that Nabokov doesn't seem to have made his mark in dystopia fiction, and with reason. His book on the subject is unoriginal and trite.

[Anonymous No.14091053]

>>14091027

the book is littered with metafictional cues and the whole narrative just completely falls apart at the end. HH is a solipsistic faggot who tries to force his pedo shit on the novels reality using literary tropes and aesthetics in general but based nabokov through his authorial consciousness always denies him this. It is about the artifice of art, he believed that the role of fiction is to enchant and deceive, to transport you into another world, not to force aesthetics onto our own boring reality

[Anonymous No.14091056]

>>14091037
>too lazy to analyze a book and communicate what he took away from it
Embarrassing. Why are you even on this board?

[Anonymous No.14091070]

>>14091053
I mean this is the common interpretation that I always hear, I just don't find it interesting or profound. Others may disagree.

[Anonymous No.14091071]

>>14091027
I don’t even understand what you look for in literature? Lolita just indirectly showed me the ambiguity of morality in the world and enjoyed Humberts character and lack of moral compass. I thought for deeper metaphors the Humbert vs. quilty dichotomy was interesting as they were both. They were several theories such as the author as god too that were prevalent, but I don’t view books in this notion that they have to say xyz and have to be substantial and unveil hidden truths. I’d also argue that someone like Dostoevsky is emotionally driven and dependent on style insofar as his characters sermons are his style. I really just don’t understand what you expect literature to do for you and I think it may be you have a shallow world view. I view reading as relatively hedonistic. Shakespeare is also mostly style sprinkled with some nuggets of wisdom, I suppose

[Anonymous No.14091095]

>>14090413
no I was joking, he's rationalising having sex with a pre-teen girl and finding absurd excuses like "hmm clearly the way she looked at me means she wants me to rape her"

[Anonymous No.14091097]

>>14091023
Explain more for me. I’m not that guy. I’m just a brainlet. Help me understand.>>14091025

[Anonymous No.14091100]

>>14091070
the common interpretation is that hh writes beautiful prose to hide his pedoism and trick the reader into forgiing him. But that is only the surface plot, the true profound message is in the 'hidden' plot of the novel, where nabokov lifts the veil on the fictionality of the whole narrative not only HHs part. Basically he cucks you into taking a stance on one side, and upon rereading you should realize through all the metafictional and authorial references that the whole thing was 'just a story' and you were simply fooled into a reaction.

[Anonymous No.14091102]

>>14091046
Ok, well my main Crux is that I view literature like this The author communicates nothing. Stories are just vessels for certain sentiments, and emotions all of which are indescribable in themselves. Stories do not have deeper meanings because humans can't comprehend a greater meaning in the world while living and good literature expresses frustration at being unable to do so and the mere ineptitude on our humanity. i.e. The Waste Land, 1984, Animal Farm, etc. Dostoevsky and others like Salinger mitigate that confusion with small moments of endearment that distract us from the fact, so in that regard Lolita succeeded in having an honest portrayal of the world in some regard, while not necessarily being realistic. To disagree is to dispute that viewpoint and I’d be happy to hear your perspective.

[Anonymous No.14091111]

>>14091071
>Lolita just indirectly showed me the ambiguity of morality in the world
How?
>I’d also argue that someone like Dostoevsky is emotionally driven and dependent on style insofar as his characters sermons are his style.
Dostoyevsky is a pretty interesting writer that I like and respect. I can't say anything about his style since I don't know Russian, but Dosto was pretty clearly wrestling with several strains of European thought that were spreading throughout the world. He's not my favorite and I don't really think he is all that special, but he is certainly much more substantive and thoughtful that Nabokov.
>Shakespeare is also mostly style sprinkled with some nuggets of wisdom, I suppose
I disagree, Shakespeare is what it looks like to max out on both substance and style. Almost every verse has something to take away from it. Shakespeare seemed to have in mind his moral-didactic duties as a writer. Sometimes he is ironic, of course, but I think anybody who reads Shakespeare seriously will walk away having learned a lot about the world, and having profited greatly from their readings. Chaucer is like this as well, but I think he is even greater than Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.14091117]

>>14091102
The problem is I’d almost need to write an essay on Lolita and why I view it as the perfect novel, so I don’t think I could fully explain why Lolita is so great, but I thought Nabokov expressed his dissatisfaction with humanity by honestly portraying us as sophisticated apes and in doing so entered a threshold that isn’t usually talked about in contemporary society.

[Anonymous No.14091123]

>>14091111
See >>14091117
>>14091102

[Anonymous No.14091125]

>>14091100
i know it sounds extremely retarded and flat, but finally realizing this on my reread was probably the most fuck you experience ive ever had while reading, it is one of the ultimate pseud filters in literature i think.

[Anonymous No.14091137]

>>14091111
Again it seems you read just to have some author explain the world to you and I think that’s inherently unsatisfying. I assume you like Kant or Hegel and are a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.14091145]

>>14091102
I think we have very different points of view and I don't think we'll come to agree with each other on anything. I think the world is riddled with meaning and that the author can function almost as a prophet, interpreting the signs of the times and literarily speaking to the role of mankind and his place in history, as well as his ontological condition. The greatest writers seemed to function almost religiously, giving hope, joy, beauty, and meaning to life through their story-telling, but more importantly communicating things about the very fabric of reality through symbols and signs. Certain writers, especially poets, seemed divinely inspired. Homer, Ovid, Dante, Shakespeare, Confucius, and others, strike me less like men and more like demi-Gods, or minor angels. It's almost impossible to recreate what they did, to communicate as effectively and thoroughly as they did, and to tell us as much about ourselves as they did.

[Anonymous No.14091152]

>>14091102
>To disagree is to dispute that viewpoint and I’d be happy to hear your perspective.
Not the person you're replying to, but I do think painting, literature, poetry ARE the ways through which humans can capture these greater truths of life. Simply through living life we constantly interpret what happens to us and within ourselves and hence develop an understanding of ourselves and the world, and these deeper meanings or greater truths are capture in art and literature. Are these absolute? No, they're ever-changing, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all and the only thing we can access is a state of confusion and complete ignorance - if that were the case, we couldn't take action and live at all. It's fundamentally what "being" is about, to interpret and create meaning of the world.

[Anonymous No.14091156]

>>14091145
Fair enough, I can’t argue with you if that’s how you feel. Best of luck, anon

[Anonymous No.14091163]

>>14091152
Well that’s not contrary to my viewpoint

[Anonymous No.14091167]

>>14091137
I think my response is already expressed here >>14091145. I read because I think certain men were divinely inspired and had a lot to express. And I haven't read Kant or Hegel, and I'm not a Marxist. Hegel interests me but I haven't got around to him yet. I'm a Christian, and I'm pretty apolitical but if you forced me to pick a form of government I'd probably pick something grand and epically-scaled like monarchy or empire.

[Anonymous No.14091171]

>>14091027
OK i had to look up some words in your post, and I'm doing some work in parallel, so thank you for the patience.
>some didactic element
here is were I can't agree with you. Firstly, it is 20th century for Nabokov, all the classical literature, in fact all the classical art, is already produced. all the didactic points are already made. This path is just meaningless. you are not producing substance if you do this, you are just repeating what people already know. In fact all this, just written by me is already know and has been presented countless times. I should not have had to make this statement.
Secondly, "didactic-moral element" is not the only type of substance for literature or art.
Once again the moral-grey of feeling sympathetic for Humbert (you have to read beyond 1/3 for that) and at the same time despising him for what he is doing to Lolita is of transformational value that you mention

[Anonymous No.14091208]

>>14090419
shut up nonce

[Anonymous No.14091212]

>>14091171
Not that anon, but to your last part do you think what Humbert did was immoral If Lolita was 16 or 17 or she lived in Dante’s time (she’s one year older than Beatrice). This is all said by Humbert too.

[Anonymous No.14091214]

>>14091171
>Firstly, it is 20th century for Nabokov, all the classical literature, in fact all the classical art, is already produced.
I'm not sure that I agree with you here. In fact, I think that Nabokov was living in incredibly interesting times and plenty of people, his contemporaries, were saying really interesting things. Even now, people might complain, but the 21st century is begging for literary prophets and people who will be able to guide us through this muck. I don't buy pomo nonsense about mankind's metanarratives having been destroyed. The semblance of destruction here is simply another part of the metanarrative.
>Secondly, "didactic-moral element" is not the only type of substance for literature or art.
I agree with you here.
>Once again the moral-grey of feeling sympathetic for Humbert (you have to read beyond 1/3 for that) and at the same time despising him for what he is doing to Lolita is of transformational value that you mention
I don't know. I didn't get much out of it and I certainly didn't sympathize with HH at all.

[Anonymous No.14091215]

>>14091163
I mean the parts are disagree with are
>The author communicates nothing
>Stories do not have deeper meanings because humans can't comprehend a greater meaning in the world
I think we can, and stories do. Perhaps the discussion is how we define "greater meaning in the world". I think that through reading literature we can gain insight on what the world means to us, and how we want to act within it - that's the deeper meaning.

[Anonymous No.14091220]

>>14091212
>>14091171
And wasn’t he arguably more cruel to his first wife. Wb quilty?

[Anonymous No.14091228]

>>14091215
I disagree with* sorry for all the typos

[Anonymous No.14091248]

>>14091215
Communicates nothing inherently. It takes on different meanings to different readers insofar as the book unveils truths about yourself that you didn’t realize and helps understand the world better by eliciting certain experiences when sensations. It also draws on your memory, like certain elements in Pale Fire reminded me of my vacations when I was younger because of the area he described, and Dostoevsky evoked very strong emotions in crime and punishment that I didn’t know what to make of. The ending of Moby Dick and Hamlet poses truths about the world to. Same with the waste land, very valuable to me. I’m just opposed to dogmatic reductive interpretations that preclude experience, like the people that view animal farm solely as a political allegory even if you can’t help but acknowledge its presence, like the notmies screeching 1984 when there’s a whole part about memory and God that is never discussed, and how winstons humanity made the novel so successful.

[Anonymous No.14091249]

>>14091220
quilty is a construct of nabokovs authorial consciousness. the role of HHs first wife is to point out his solipsism, he even says something like that she doesnt follow the role
he set her out to do.

the moral ambiguity of HH is a tool to force you into the innumeral false interpretations of the novel

[Anonymous No.14091284]

>>14091248
>It takes on different meanings to different readers

that is exactly what Nabokov tries to point out in Lolita, he wants to force you into false interpretations to show you what he believes to be good fiction by pointing out thorughout the that you are being fooled big time, not by HH but by Nabokov himself

[Anonymous No.14091288]

>>14091248
Oh I see, then I totally agree

[Anonymous No.14091295]

>>14087909
DUDE REDUCTIONISM LMAO

[Anonymous No.14091421]

>>14090094
kill yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.14091434]

>>14091212
Wait what? I thought Dante and Beatrice are the same age? And that he was just his ideal personification of beauty and all that. Beatific and stuff.

[Anonymous No.14091477]

>>14091212
lmao, when did dante rape and kidnap beatrice? HH mentions Dante to save face

[Anonymous No.14091515]

>>14091214
still working in parallel here so a bit slow to reply,
>I'm not sure that I agree with you here.
but keep in mind we are discussing "didactic-moral element". I maybe wrong here but as I understood this was meant in terms of classical literature explaining "greed is bad, mkey?" (Christmas carol) and so on.
I don't see how that resonates with Nabokov living in interesting times or his contemporaries, saying really interesting things. I just don't understand what you mean.

[Anonymous No.14091531]

>>14091212
>Not that anon, but to your last part do you think what Humbert did was immoral If Lolita was 16 or 17
Immoral is a subjective term. Personally I would find it disgusting either way.

[Anonymous No.14091840]

>>14090889
He asked what that other anon's favorite books are, not yours.

[Anonymous No.14091861]

>>14091531
Disgusting=immoral. Morality is subjective because it isn't logical.

[Anonymous No.14092205]

[Anonymous No.14092487]

can we be agree on one thing here?
if someone post text as an image file, he doesn't deserve a you

[Anonymous No.14093080]

>>14090819
>serfdom was over by 1861 in Imperial Russia
Wrong. Serfdom basically continued to 1905 when the redemption payments the Serfs had to pay were forgiven and they were no longer bound to their land

[Anonymous No.14093231]

So basically the novel only works if you simpatize or at least don't totally dismiss Humbert and his "love" in the first half?

[Anonymous No.14093261]

>>14088192
Lolita only works if you are not a pedophile. The whole point is you are being lied to.

[Anonymous No.14093270]

it insists upon itself

[Anonymous No.14093320]

>>14093231
No, the first half is there to deceive you into the constructed reality of Humbert, and the second is where with the help of Nabokov's authorial consciousness this solipsistic and highly-fictitous construct finally collapses

>>14092205
The second half of the book has some of its best scenes, Lolita playing tennis, Pavor Manor, the paper chase. He definietly didn't intend the second half to be boring, just closer to the book's 'reality' than the first half.

[Anonymous No.14094433]

yer all fools. the book is more than what it appears. no post thus far even comes near the depth extant in Nabokov's recursive capacities. I spit on you dolts. Fresh from his words I know the keys, thank god I no longer share the halls of my thoughts with the likes of you. These chambers shall no longer ring with the songs the muses sing to me in clumsy desperation for recognition. Truly, you all have missed most astounding aspects of this masterpiece, and I am startled to see the number of you so vociferously unmasking your love for it despite sticking mere toes into what you believe to be its surface.