/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15345111]

why do people like this again? is it because it validates their lust for lolis?

[Anonymous No.15345137]

>>15345111
It's beautifully written, vivid, tragic, moving, and heartbreaking.

[Anonymous No.15345139]

>tfw no pure young gf

[Anonymous No.15345206]

>>15345111
Not really considering how the book makes fun of the pedophile throughout. It's just well written prose and works on multiple layers in a way that rewards rereading and literary critique. Basically, you must be this /lit/ to read.

The first time you read you may become caught up in the prose and truly believe that the protag is truly in love and Lolita is cruel. But on a second reread it dawns how the limited voice is manipulating you as the reader: if the protag is a pedophile, then they would never be able to comprehend that their act of kidnapping and raping a adolescent is evil. You as the reader have been duped by their prose. So you take this new reading to search for details suggesting the reality i.e. Lolita crying every night. From this vantage point, you realize the book is a commentary on literature itself: we are always bound by the prose of the author, engaged in a perversity that can ignore the crying of a child. In which case, you may now ponder the place of this perversity. Is our love of fancy prose that which makes us no better than a pedophile?

Lots of layers. Well written. Rewards rereading.

[Anonymous No.15345260]

>>15345206
I thought something similar, It's a criticism of the concept of noble or moral artist. Many great works of literature would be considered by people who were transgressive and repulsive if they lived in our time, which Humbert even says. In a way, it's a criticism of reducing literature to platitudes, because the author is human and fundamentally the same as us, they just wrote something beautiful to justify their beliefs with no greater meaning. Look at Thomas Mann for example, or Roman Polanski in cinema. They made great works of art, while effectively being the same as Humbert.

[Anonymous No.15345265]

>>15345111
I like to read about bad people doing bad things.

[Anonymous No.15345331]

>>15345206
You're actually a piece of shit because you refer to Dolly as Lolita. I hope that one day you'll realize the distinction of the two and the nonexistence of the one.

[Anonymous No.15345373]

>>15345206
Well put. Also there is just the novelty of a tween molester guiding the reader through his very convincing beautified vision of it. It's beautifully confounding encounter for the reader, I think.

[Anonymous No.15345519]

>>15345373
>It's beautifully confounding encounter for the reader
not if you've read the anatomy of motive though i suppose i shouldn't be so critical about work of fiction

[Anonymous No.15346223]

>>15345331
Well she's no longer in school by the novel's end so she's not Dolly. Though I suppose she still wears slacks so Lola may be more appropriate. But she's forever in Humbert's arms and so shall always be Lolita.

[Anonymous No.15346246]

>>15345331
CRINGE

[Anonymous No.15346255]

>>15345111
>validates
Why don't you try reading a book before making threads about it next time?

[Anonymous No.15346325]

>>15346223
>>15346246
Her name is Dolores Haze. Lolita only exists in Humbert's mind. You are as bas as Humbert if you ever refer to Dolores Haze as Lolita. Fucking pedos. Simple as. This is literally a scholarly point you twats. You're a piece of shit and bad scholar to call her Lolita.

[Anonymous No.15346328]

>>15345206
It still baffles me that anyone could be tricked by the high-flung prose into thinking there was anything genuine about Humbert. What the fuck. The prose is deliberately (I thought) annoying for that exact reason.

[Anonymous No.15346348]

>>15346325
Nigger the book is titled Lolita

[Anonymous No.15346535]

>>15346348
Nigger the book is presented as written by Humbert. You fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.15346574]

>>15346535
Artin shut your fucking mouth cunt

[Anonymous No.15346582]

>>15346325
Fuck off Artin

[Anonymous No.15346597]

>>15346535
Nigger Humbert is a fictional character, Nabokov coulda titled it whatever he wanted and the frame would've held up fine. But he went with Lolita and therefore I'll say Lolita if I want. Have a good day friend

[Anonymous No.15346617]

>>15346597
pedophile trash. You're so fucking disrespectful. Do YOU really think Dolores Haze wants to hear that fucking name again?

[Anonymous No.15346621]

>>15346617
who are you larping as?

[Anonymous No.15346632]

>>15346621
I'm not larping as anyone. If you genuinely refer to Dolly/Dolores as Lolita you wildly misunderstood the book.

[Anonymous No.15346647]

>>15346617
epic

[Anonymous No.15346654]

>>15346632
im not that guy and havent even read the book. i find it interesting to take such an aggressive stance for what seems incredibly unimportant

[Anonymous No.15346696]

>>15346654
It's not unimportant. It's fundamental to understanding the novel. Recognizing the distinction between Dolores Haze and Lolita is important. If you blur the two then you're just another Humbert.

[Anonymous No.15346708]

>>15345111
>why do people like this again?
They like the idea that it's transgressive, and that they can appear transgressive for reading it, as evidenced by the multitude of "I was reading Lolita in public the other day" posts.

[Anonymous No.15346824]

>>15346708
False. That's a projection from a pseud who has never read the book. Hardly transgressive considering you could find loads of popular YA that deals with rape and pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.15347050]

>>15346325
>Dolores Haze
Doesn't Humbert imply somewhere that he changed most, if not all of the character names while writing his account? "Humbert Humbert" is definitely supposed to be read as a pseudonym.

[Anonymous No.15347064]

Never trust or like a girl who loves this book
NEVER

[Anonymous No.15347081]

Aside from the beautiful prose, it's a great book because Humbert is such a compelling character. He is half Jesus figure, righteous intellectual and master of worldly drama. His critique of progressive American values and the vacuous souls around him is hilarious and damning. His pursuit of aesthetic perfection is admirable, as well as the depth of his self reflection. His final account of his life and actions feels convincingly weighed.

Humbert also fully exhibits the aristocratic narcissism that Nabokov is so good at portraying (Kinbote in Pale Fire), where the ends justify the means for his idealistic vision, all else be damned. The forbidden desire that he rationalizes in himself is vulgarized in his portrayal of Quilty, shown as an artless manipulator, pornographer, and abuser. But Humbert's disgust is a reaction to his insecurity; he is frightened by Quilty's sexual nonchalance and envious of his vigor and success. Humbert realizes that despite his own depravity, he is a small fish in a big pond. It is left brilliantly open just how different Humbert and Quilty actually are, but it's certain they are more similar than Humbert is willing to admit.

Humbert justifies his physical and aesthetic lust by thinking he can properly save and father Lo, but he finds himself outmatched; she is a vapid teenage cocktease infected by progressive cultural degeneracy and destined to be come an obscene cow like her mother (which is why retards like >>15345331 have completely misread the book). This dooms the relationship even more than the mere illegality or social taboo. He admits to being wretched in the end for ruining Lo's childhood (that realm he most idealizes), but the interesting question is whether or not he could have "saved" her from corruption if he had made the choice to just be her father simply.

The speed at which Humbert and Lolita's relationship devolves from picturesque forbidden love to purely physical lust and then manipulation and estrangement leaves no question as whether Nabokov thought this kind of age gap could ever work on a romantic, let alone ethical or social level. The book is not defending or idealizing pedophilia, nor is it a portrait of an evil rapist. Like Romeo and Juliet, it's a compelling story of forbidden love and it's consequences, and we are left to ponder whether it is the protagonists or the larger social forces that are at fault.

[Anonymous No.15347094]

>>15346824
I'm not speaking on the content of the book at all. I'm suggesting /lit/ likes this book because they think its transgressive. /lit/ obviously hasn't read the book, but it talks about it endlessly.

[Anonymous No.15347124]

>>15346325
This is either amazing bait or you're some kind of vindictive child rape victim with hilariously overwhelming bias.

[Anonymous No.15347223]

>>15347081
Very based but cmon his critique of America is facile dude it's mostly just 'ha ha consumerism'. Not that that's untrue, just trite.

[Anonymous No.15347295]

>>15347124
more likely a doth protest situation. This book is massively overrated because of its edginess, the language is good and the way he writes it from HH's perspective is clever, but we all know if it weren't about a 12 year old girl it would not be this famous, it would just be another Nabokov book, who himself would probably be less famous.

[Anonymous No.15347335]

>>15347223
Hmm.. on the contrary, I don't remember that much of a critique on consumerism or what would be considered economic, but more of a social critique of idiotic pop culture that was first infecting people's brains around that time with the proliferation if media and TV. All the pop culture feels a little love-and-hate too though because it also feels so nostalgic to us today.

I got a very proto-Debordian vibe with strong undertones of Neitzsche's last man critique from Zarathustra and BGaE, particularly the constant satirical attack on science, particularly psychology.

[Anonymous No.15347344]

>>15347050
>her name isn't really Dolores Haze so that invalidates your point!
Not sure why you bring this up since my point is the actual person of Dolores Haze is not the same as Humbert's solipsized fantasy called Lolita.

[Anonymous No.15347371]

>>15347081
Cringe. Just another pedo who got swindled by Humbert and can't recognize the difference between a pre-teen and a pedo's fantasy.

[Anonymous No.15347412]

>>15346328
Rhetoric is a powerful force, it's changed destinies. Some people like to read to let themselves be 'sucked in' by a novel. We trust Tolstoy , James, and Dostoevsky to craft us deep psychologies of non-existent characters. You can't blame one for falling for Nabokov's language as well.

[Anonymous No.15347418]

>>15347081
>Humbert justifies his physical and aesthetic lust by thinking he can properly save and father Lo, but he finds himself outmatched; she is a vapid teenage cocktease infected by progressive cultural degeneracy and destined to be come an obscene cow like her mother (which is why retards like >>15345331 (You) # have completely misread the book). This dooms the relationship even more than the mere illegality or social taboo. He admits to being wretched in the end for ruining Lo's childhood (that realm he most idealizes), but the interesting question is whether or not he could have "saved" her from corruption if he had made the choice to just be her father simply.
I think you forgot the part where he was going to breed a granddaughter that would replace Dolly. And maybe forgot the part about their slimy trail across America, and probably forgot the part where Humbert sucks ass at being a father. I think you also forgot the part where Humbert never tries to be a father for her.

[Anonymous No.15347420]

>>15347371
>everyone who doesn't agree with my hilariously smoothbrained servile NPC interpretation is a pedo

[Anonymous No.15347463]

I should throw in here that if /lit/ really enjoys Lolita this much they should also read Pnin. I find it better than Lolita desu.

[Anonymous No.15347465]

>>15347335
The pop-culture ties into the consumerism. Recall Dolores' addiction to advertisement-media - magazines, comics, etc., or Humbert's boundless disdain for the touristy kitsch of Americana.

>>15347412
Guess it didn't work for me because Nabokov's prose immediately put my guard up. Too Latinate. Arouses suspicion.

[Anonymous No.15347484]

>>15347418
>probably forgot the part where Humbert sucks ass at being a father. I think you also forgot the part where Humbert never tries to be a father for her.
sucks ass sure, but you were totally not paying attention or blinded by your bias if you think he never tried, there are countless examples.

[Anonymous No.15347506]

>>15347465
So what if it was written in more banal language?

[Anonymous No.15347526]

>>15347484
According to him he tried. But never trust a murderer with a fancy prose style. Most pedophiles think they do no harm also.

[Anonymous No.15347546]

>>15347465
>The pop-culture ties into the consumerism
Well how exactly is it trite?.. it's a pretty massive and slippery theme that has constantly been a source of dispair in literature since Euripides, and Nabokov seems to be one of the first addressing it in the mass media form that developed in the early 20th C.

[Anonymous No.15347560]

>>15347064
Got experience, anon?

[Anonymous No.15347587]

>>15347526
Fancy prose style is not numerous recounted events. By your bizarrely extreme and unjustifiable interpretation, it's just as likely that any crimes "Humbert" committed are also ficticious.

[Anonymous No.15347597]

>>15347560
Oh you know, just a little

[Anonymous No.15347599]

>>15347587
Well they are. The book itself is fiction.

[Anonymous No.15347612]

>>15347597
Tell us about it.

[Anonymous No.15347613]

>>15347484
>there are countless examples
Please list them.

[Anonymous No.15347628]

>>15347420
It's an unquestionable fact raised by scholar's that the character Dolores Haze and the character Lolita are two different entities. Why don't you read some criticism on the book instead of blowing smoke out your ass like a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15347687]

>>15346696
You do understand that Dolores Haze/Lolita is a fictional character right? You simps are taking it to the next level, defending literal figments of someone's imagination now

[Anonymous No.15347694]

>>15347506
Hard to say, since it isn't. Perhaps that style just wouldn't match the message, even if it were to be done. Who knows. If you're aware of something you consider similar to what you describe, let me know for sure, I'll check it out.

>>15347546
To me, simply naming (disdainfully) the ways in which America is consumeristic, without going in for a deeper dive than Humbert does anyway, just isn't really that impactful.
I also wouldn't say Nabokov was the first to address 20thC mass media and consumerism's relation to it. Wells' Tono-Bungay springs to mind, though there's plenty else out there.

[Anonymous No.15347721]

>>15347612
>Art hoe girl I like (first mistake)
>I get her into reading
>She just buys whatever she sees me reading on Goodreads
>She literally starts walking around with a copy of Phaedo like it's an accessory (she never read it)
>We decide to read a book together so we can discuss it
>She picks Lolita of course as it's to art hoes what shit is to flies
>Finish reading it and discuss it
>She defends HH at every turn, didn't see at all how he could possibly be manipulative
>Makes vague insinuations she wants something similar to happen to her, has fantasies of a HH
>Has her equally retarded art hoe friend read it
>They both deny HH raped her no matter what I said
One day the girl I liked invited me over, we slept together and then she pretty much never spoke to me again
She had huge boobs and a giant ass, but no matter what they look like, never get involved with an art hoe. Last I heard she dropped out of college and lives with some dude in the virgin islands

[Anonymous No.15347746]

>>15345206
I agree with all of this, but it also touches on why I don't entirely like the book. Everything about it feels like one big trick played on the reader.

[Anonymous No.15347751]

>>15347599
I obviously meant fictitious within the confines of the novel's implied reality, which is a shared basis that must be accepted before any critique or interpretation can be made. You're not defending any position just annihilating your own.

>>15347613
He teaches her, enrolls her in school, provides for her economically, gives affection, enriches her with activities .. pool, tennis, travel, creates a home, encourages her artistically (school play). That's off the top of my head having not read it in years. Not saying he succeeded in any of these but merely defending my point that he tried.

>>15347628
Going to ignore your pointless appeal to authority and continue laughing at how stupid you sound trying to force people to use certain words OR ELSE

>>15347694
>without going in for a deeper dive
I sort of agree but it's a work of fiction, hes painting a picture not rewriting Kapital. And I believe the deepest parts are not the pop culture references but the satirical depictions of scientists, psychologists, playwrights, scholars, etc., the modern professional class of Neitzsche's last men.

[Anonymous No.15347767]

>>15347721
Sounds like she made it. I want the island life desperately.

[Anonymous No.15347770]

>>15347064
my mom's a librarian. i wounder about the odds of her having read this book...

[Anonymous No.15347789]

Humbert's wankery is beautiful enough that he's exonerated. It's a triumph of artistry over the abhorrent reality of child molestation. It's a feat.

[Anonymous No.15347801]

>>15347751
He never wanted to be a father to her. He never tried. He only did it so far as appearance's sake. Your interpretation is woefully misguided. His was a relationship of control where he would put Dolores in check if she stepped out the nonexistent role of Lolita. Remember all those times Humbert got enraged at her for not acting like the perfect little nymphet? Remember Fat Valenchecka and how Humbert would physically hurt her when she stepped out of her role? Humbert does the same to Dolores when she steps out of the role of Lolita. He twists her arm to exert his control over her and force her back into the role of Lolita. You are woefully misguided. Humbert never wanted or tried to be her father. It was all about forcing a person into his fantasized role.

[Anonymous No.15347840]

>>15347751
>Going to ignore your pointless appeal to authority and continue laughing at how stupid you sound trying to force people to use certain words OR ELSE
Going to ignore your pointless appeal to antiauthority. If you can't recognize Lolita and Dolores are two different concepts, you're a twit. Enjoy the next hit YA novel because that's almost too much for your brain to handle.

[Anonymous No.15347844]

>>15347751
True, I'd be entitled to expect Nabokov to spend chapter after chapter lasering in on consumerism in the way that'd make it really compelling for me, though I think a (paradoxically) slightly more 'respectuful' grapple with it as a social force might make it come off stronger. As you note, there are deeper factors at play than merely the supposed, particular stupidity of Americans. Taking your picture analogy, the strokes are too broad in my opinion. It's a matter of personal taste and priorities though, naturally I don't begrudge anyone else's enjoyment of the work.

[Anonymous No.15347852]

>>15347746
That's fair. Appel's intro to the annotated edition basically sums up Nabokov treating the act of reading as a game.of chess. It's a game where the author and the reader try and one up each other. Personally, while I enjoy the book this aspect of Nabokov has always been annoying. I enjoy mental stimulation in reading but the man is far too concerned with erudition that he's too afraid to allow real pathos in his novel without some form of irony to destabilize it. I forgot the quotes but I believe in his "How to read a novel" he says pathos is to always be avoided in writing, which comes off cowardly to me. >>15347751

[Anonymous No.15347866]

>>15347751
>He teaches her, enrolls her in school, provides for her economically, gives affection, enriches her with activities .. pool, tennis, travel, creates a home, encourages her artistically (school play). That's off the top of my head having not read it in years. Not saying he succeeded in any of these but merely defending my point that he tried
Must of been a long time since you read it because the whole reason he enrolls her in school is because it would look weird if she isn't and people would come snooping around.

[Anonymous No.15347889]

>>15347751
But the novel is inviting you to doubt it's implied reality from the beginning. Actually most implied realities in the novel are up for grabs. Humbert believes Lolita is safe with him before she disappears. Lolita believes her mom is alive before Humbert reveals her dead. You can't trust the names either. Saying there is an implied reality for the novel kinda ignores the constant skepticism the novel throws at you. That's kinda the reason this thread is so contradictory. People are choosing a reality of the novel by their own hermeneutic.

[Anonymous No.15347901]

>>15345260
>Thomas Mann
We all know about the diary entries, anon, and they are *nothing* like Humbert's. Mann condemns pedophilic tendencies in Death in Venice through the moral and physical decay of Gustav von Aschenbach.

[Anonymous No.15347944]

>>15347889
Lolita and Dolores are not the same. Please stop conflating the two if you want to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.15347954]

>>15347944
>two names for the same person are not the same
Is there a term for 'linguistic autism', it also needs to be applied to people who have nervous breakdowns about the terms 'left' and 'right' in politics

[Anonymous No.15347961]

>>15347944
It's a thread circle jerking about interpreting a work of fiction to entertain us in our day. I'll save the clarity of language for term papers.

>>15347954
It's called analytic philosophy ;^)

[Anonymous No.15347969]

>>15347852
Are Nabokov's other novels the same way? I've only read descriptions of his other books, but none of them seem as outwardly provocative as Lolita.

[Anonymous No.15348016]

>>15347969
Mostly the English novels are. His Russian novels are kinda more sincere. (Though I've only read parts besides "The Gift.")

For example (spoilers for 50 year old books.)


Sebastian Knight is about a man visiting his half brother and talking about his books and agonizing about his lack of connection with him. It ends with him arriving at the wrong hospital room and his brother had died the day before he arrived. Protagonist reflects and realize, "I am Sebastian Knight."

Pnin. The entire novel is about a failed professor of Russian literature and how terrible his life his. Ex-wife forces him to take care of a loser son that is likely the result of infidelity. He's passed up for promotion. His only success is a dinner party. All throughout the narrator is a fellow professor that keeps laughing at him.

Pale Fire. Long ass poem with the narrative in the footnotes about a exiled prince becoming obsessed with the poet and using the annotations as an excuse to tell his story of a lost homeland but told in a way that just makes the dude really pathetic.

While there's some genuine pathos, it all is behind irony or relies on irony for its function.

[Anonymous No.15348027]

>>15347954
Imbecile!
Lolita only exists in Humbert's mind as an idealization of a nymphet. She is a solipsism of Humbert's mind. Lolita is not tethered in reality.
Dolores Haze is the person on whom Humbert projects his solipsism. Dolores Haze becomes subsumed by this nonexistent persona. We very rarely get a glimpse of the REAL Dolores Haze because of this.
You're an imbecile who has not read the book OR understood the novel very little.

[Anonymous No.15348037]

>>15347801
Fair points and you depict his flaws well, but every relationship in life is a relationship of control to some extent, and I would counterargue that he WAS trying to be her father albeit within the confine of his fantasized role, but not merely for appearance's sake.

We all have fantasized roles for people we care about and react badly when they don't meet our expectations.

>>15347840
>appeal to antiauthority
lmao.. that's not a thing, just you trying desperately to defend your failed IF THEN logic.

>>15347844
>I think a (paradoxically) slightly more 'respectuful' grapple with it as a social force might make it come off stronger
Yeah.. I think that can be attributed to the egomaniacal aspect of Humbert, his deep insecurity fuels blind disdain for the debauchery of America compared to his idealized old world refinement. Perhaps it's necessary that the pop critique is lacking refinement for Humbert himself to be better realized.

>>15347866
The motivation is immaterial, all people would treat others far differently if appearance were not an issue.

>>15347889
You're conflating plot twists and pseudonyms for an extreme reading where the events Humbert recounts are just fabricated. If that's the case, then literally his whole account becomes meaningless other than as a fantasy and any basis to condemn him disappears. Then there's nothing left to talk about.

[Anonymous No.15348048]

>>15347721
she sounds based

[Anonymous No.15348051]

>>15348027
Are you that guy who always talks about Nassim Taleb and hates IQ?

[Anonymous No.15348052]

>>15348037
Well in a sense, yeah. There really is nothing to talk about with fiction. It's a form of perversity in that so much energy is dedicated to imaginary accounts of reality. That's Nabokov.

[Anonymous No.15348059]

>>15348051
Just channeling my inner Arab to engage in the Talebian of this phenomena.

[Anonymous No.15348091]

>>15348052
>There really is nothing to talk about with fiction
Mate if you think this then what are you doing here?

[Anonymous No.15348094]

>>15348059
Right. Well anyway do you think Humbert is literally inventing the things Lolita says and does, or do you think he's just choosing what to talk about but they did happen?

[Anonymous No.15348110]

>>15348091
Kills time on a work day and I enjoy the perversity.

[Anonymous No.15348165]

>>15348037
>I think that can be attributed to the egomaniacal aspect of Humbert
Yes, partly. But only partly, in my opinion. I suspect it's also simply a weakness on Nabokov's part, in the sense of it being something he didn't care to explore that is. The text's view and Humbert's view dovetail a little suspiciously in that regard I think, though I'd be cautious about any definitive statements on intentionality of course. Sadly the frame narrative disincentivises the obvious solution of simply using a perspective besides Humbert's to do so, though I think it could've been done with fairly little effort or distraction if I'm honest. That, combined with the prose, just soured me on the whole endeavor a little. I remember reading James around the first time I read Lolita, and just finding him mingle irony and sincerity so well in his view of the New World, so I guess Nabokov came off the back of an unfair comparison really. I should read Lolita again.

[Anonymous No.15348194]

>>15348110
Well, frankly your belief is groundless. Schopenhauers comments on solipsism apply perfectly, you've made an impenetrable castle that can simply be bypassed by everyone wanting to discuss the text seriously.

[Anonymous No.15348225]

>>15348194
Ah but Bakhtin would note that to be serious is to limit discussion. To know an object requires its parody, its ridicule, to laugh and bring it down to the Carnivalesque. We should always keep the fictitious nature of works in mind lest we fall for the propaganda of the real.

[Anonymous No.15348229]

>>15348094
He's not inventing things. It's more he's coloring events to fit the idea of a "Lolita". Then there are the rare times where Humbert gets violent with Dolly because she isn't fitting the role of Lolita to his standards. Those are probably the only times in the novel you are getting an unfiltered version.

[Anonymous No.15348247]

>>15347721
>lives with some dude in the virgin islands
She browses 4chan?

[Anonymous No.15348313]

Because one of the most wonderful pieces of prose in the English language, it's wonderfully written and uses vocabulary in utterly prepossessing ways, and it's hard to believe that English wasn't even its authors' first language. Because it tackles a controversial topic and gives a brand new perspective on it, rather than trying to hide from the ugly truth that incidents such as that one occur in real life, maybe? My guess is as good as yours.

[Anonymous No.15348336]

>>15345111
It’s well written. Obviously it is far above your comprehension level so try Harry Potter it’s more your speed.

[Anonymous No.15348364]

>>15345111
If you walk away thinking Lolita validates pedophilia, then you have some serious comprehension issues

[Anonymous No.15348369]

>>15347081
>but the interesting question is whether or not he could have "saved" her from corruption if he had made the choice to just be her father simply
Interesting question, but is that even a question for Humbert? I haven't read the book in awhile, but isn't he immediately infatuated with Lolita? His sole aim to obtain her as his personal little nymphet and create more? His lust is greater than anything else

[Anonymous No.15348448]

>>15348225
I'm not sure how arbitrarily deciding that parts of Humbert's story are ficticious based on a flawed logical leap from "the whole book is fiction" helps us "know the object" any better. But yeahhh I'm probably just a victim of propaganda right? 420 blaze it

>>15348165
>Sadly the frame narrative disincentivises the obvious solution of simply using a perspective besides Humbert's to do so, though I think it could've been done with fairly little effort or distraction if I'm honest
I'm curious what type of character you envision for such a role and how they would fit in. I agree that there was certainly room with the immersive way Nabokov writes other perspectives such as the sociologist and Charlotte in.

What James in particular impressed you so much?

>>15348369
Sure, but say he was given the power of foresight to know what he did by the end when he first saw her, could he put his lust aside for the sake of her childhood... (I won't say innocence because she was already fucking Charlie at camp lmao)

[Anonymous No.15348514]

>>15348448
>Sure, but say he was given the power of foresight to know what he did by the end when he first saw her, could he put his lust aside for the sake of her childhood
I guess I can see that, I guess the question is is his guilt stronger than his want to bust?
>(I won't say innocence because she was already fucking Charlie at camp lmao)
I need to re-read this, but was it ever confirmed they ever actually fucked? This is probably a dumb conversation to have desu cause I just don't remember much rn

[Anonymous No.15348622]

>>15348448
>what type of character you envision for such a role and how they would fit in
No idea, if I'm honest. Just thinking out loud. I suppose the obvious route would be a salesman of some kind. Being self-critical though, that already sounds a little too 50s zeitgesity, Company Man etc. Maybe something a little less direct would be required, maybe not, can't say.

>What James in particular
Hmm, this would've been nearly a decade ago so I doubt I could discuss in detail sadly, but I remember The Wings of the Dove being so beautiful, and so subtle, in a way that just seemed diametrically opposed to Nabokov's prose, which just felt self indulgent and misanthropic by comparison. James had a total mastery of that particular, light-touch irony that conveyed a perfect sense of levity, painting a serious condemnation of social ills with a simultaneous wink, like 'let's dive headfirst into it anyway, and enjoy ourselves'. To me anyway. But I don't want to be mean-spirited about Nabokov, I know a lot of people like him, and with justification.
I think I'll read more James soon as well, I enjoyed his short works immensely as well, what few I read.

[Anonymous No.15348805]

>>15348514
>is his guilt stronger than his want to bust?
Died in prison of a "broken heart".. I would think so. Furthermore it's not just lust, he is trying to attain aesthetic perfection in the twisted way he sees it.. he's a "mad artist". There is a rationale at work behind the blind lust, though he does often admit that lust wins out when he is conflicted over her.

>>15348514
>was it ever confirmed they ever actually fucked?
Yes, unless you hypothesize, along with some in this thread, that Humbert blatantly lies about countless details in his dying confession to pointlessly make himself look better when he already looks terrible, at the expense of his existential sincerity to the one true love of his life, whom he regrets hurting so deeply that he literally commits murder in a desperate attempt to make moral amends to.

>>15348622
A salesman would have worked through satire as well then... I was thinking you had more of a sincere philosophical character in mind. I agree that would be great though; the best parts of Lolita are Humbert's aloof disdain toward the stooges that hamper his plans.. e.g. Valeria's husband, the doctor he gets the sleeping pills from, the academics from the boarding school. Nabokov wrote all these encounters so well.

I'll check out that James novel, you made a compelling case for it.

[Anonymous No.15348863]

I just know this book will push me into shagging a couple 16 yo who are really into me, so I'm avoiding it

[Anonymous No.15349011]

>>15348805
>philosophical character
No, nothing so developed in mind unfortunately. In general terms, I think someone to introduce the stuff we talked about in (only slightly) more 'alluring' terms. Seeing some of the appeal of consumer society, mass media, etc., would make for the more robust critique ultimately I think. Perhaps such a character would be well built to look backwards a little, maybe to the war, expose some of the national psyche. A wartime profiteer, like Lou Levov from Roth's American Pastoral perhaps. Maybe even a former military figure of some kind, someone who saw the cost of crusading metanarratives and sympathises to some degree with the soulless alternative. Bit like the guy from The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit or something. Hmm. Just conjecture on my part.
As to James, yeah couldn't recommend him enough. A word of caution though, if you've never read him before - The Wings of the Dove is a looong read - James' style is extremely dense. If that doesn't bother you fair enough. If it does though, you might try something shorter first though, like The Aspern Papers, or What Maisie Knew. Take care friend

[Anonymous No.15349012]

>>15345111
You can tell how stupid a person is by how they interpret this book

[Anonymous No.15349588]

>>15347463
They are, in many ways, companion pieces. Pnin depicts a befuddled, ugly, kind-hearted emigre, who is both confused by American culture and completely delighted by it; this is in spite of his constant misunderstandings, due to his inability to master the English language, etc. Pnin is constantly made fun of conceited and complacent vulgarians, who are often content with their parochialism, their second-hand ideologies, and incapable of generosity or giving strange people second chances. The joke is ultimately on them, not Pnin. The irritating French-language "scholar" at Pnin's university, who in fact is nothing of the kind (at one point we're told that he's never read Rochefoucauld), is constantly boring his colleagues with Pnin imitations, so much so that he ironically becomes a greater fool than Pnin could ever have been, even when caricatured. This is paralleled by poor Charlotte Haze, whom I liked a lot more after reading the book a second time last week. She tries to attain culture, but she's sadly not even half-educated, and her pretensions to knowing French don't go further than saying "raison d'etre" every now and then. But she's tragic; she's completely taken in by the smooth, seemingly debonair European, with his mastery of two languages, his scholarly airs, his wit and his coldness. She's also not nearly as irritating as Humbert makes her seem; she's just a lonely woman looking for love in middle age.

But this also shows another important aspect: Humbert's misrepresentation of others due to his snobbery, and Pnin's uncanny ability to appreciate the goodness in people. Humbert has to degrade Dolores's character; to see the worst in her. A most dramatic one would be the scene where she quietly makes sure that her french-speaking friend no longer comes to their apartment, so that the fate that befell Dolores cannot befall this more recent child. Pnin is always able to catch people's inner essence, and when notices that someone's insulting him behind his back, he invariably takes it stoically, knowing that he is the better person. There's also the fact that Lolita is told in the first-person, while Pnin is told from the third-person. Pnin acts as a far better father to his unfaithful ex-wife's son, and intelligent, unique child who appreciates Pnin for his uniqueness and decency. Humbert creates a quasi-incestuous pseudo-bond based on abuse and self-deception with poor Dolores. I could honestly go on.

i'll finish with the image of Pnin giving water to a squirrel, paralleled by Humbert's pointless shooting of another, and then cooking it in gin. The protector of innocence versus the defiler of it.

[Anonymous No.15349627]

>>15347901
Okay, my point was writers aren't saints, Humbert was obviously an extreme of that theory. Writers are like Child Molesters with the English language.

[Anonymous No.15349712]

>>15349588
2/2

Lolita is a deeply moral book that manages to be the slightest bit moralistic. The characters are characters first and types second. It's an incredibly sad tragedy, not a love story. First off, Humbert is scum, and Nabokov holds not illusions about this; the book is a four-hundred page takedown of this monster. Beneath the flowery prose and Humbert's self-deceptions are a long series of banal and commonplace scenes of cruelty. There's the fondling of Dolores, inspiring confused feelings within her, and ultimately the first kiss on the mouth she gives Humbert before leaving for camp. Then there's scenes on the road: Humbert buying her creepy clothing to accentuate his nymphet fantasy; his drugging of her so as to rape her while she's unconscious; then there's Dolores's crying (every night, remember) at the hotels and in the back seat; Humbert taking Dolores to schools so he can watch other women while Dolores does her work... I mean I could go on. There is no love.

For the adaptations and audiobooks they also tend to get urbane, suave types, which seems wrong to me. If you want Jeremy Irons, fine, but to get the hyper-obsessive cadence of the prose you should probably give him some amphetamines before he goes into the sound booth. Only then will you get Humbert's back-and-forth, pleading then arrogant style.

I also have a theory that a lot of people who read Lolita skip the psychiatrist's introduction, which is both the true beginning and end of the novel. "Dolores Schiller" is shown to have died in childbirth, after all her illusions have been raped, at seventeen. That's the true Lolita ending.

[Anonymous No.15349716]

>>15349712
I meant that it's not the slightest bit moralistic.

[Anonymous No.15349748]

>>15347335
Humbert himself uses cod Freudian analysis to justify his seduction of Lolita. It's one of his many tactics for deceiving himself

[Anonymous No.15349884]

I cannot for the life of me, perceive Ebephillia as immoral. I’m surprised people itt do. I mean...seriously?
>inb4 bourgeois capitalist slave morality
I am not convinced

[Anonymous No.15349909]

I cannot for the life of me, perceive Hebephilla as immoral. I’m surprised people itt do. I mean...seriously?
>inb4 bourgeois capitalist slave morality
I am not convinced

[Anonymous No.15349910]

>>15345137
This

It is ridiculously well written, the main character is basically on a downward spiral 'drug' bender, and he's a classic unreliable narrator

what's not to love?

[Anonymous No.15349921]

>>15348016
>While there's some genuine pathos, it all is behind irony or relies on irony for its function.
nothing wrong with this. grow up

[Anonymous No.15349963]

>>15349909
People confound all attraction of others under legal age as 'pedophilia', a word which of course carries a ton of connotations.

[Anonymous No.15350142]

You guys realize that Lolita is nubile and thus legal in all the societies that have ever existed and exist today except the West?

[Anonymous No.15351055]

>>15345111
Ahh Lolita! Some say it's Nabokov's best...
Having read it about a dozen times I can't help but see it as a somewhat cheap and vulgar imitation of Dostoyevski, with some post-modern influences sprinkled over it. He does succeed in creating that kafkaesque atmosphere, yet the novels overreliance on prose and pretentious language left me a bit conflicted whether it indeed deserves to be called a masterpiece..

[Anonymous No.15351067]

>>15348364
>it's alright if some well-spoken snob does it
in that sense we haven't grown much as a society

[Anonymous No.15351181]

>>15345111
people who call children “lolis” and “shotas” are pedophiles

[Anonymous No.15351200]

>>15350142
dolores is fucking 12

[JN !!vXXhA/qzhjm No.15351410]

>>15345137
This is all true, but it's only popular because of edgelords and contrarians

[Anonymous No.15351439]

Lolita ruined a whole generation of good boys.

[Anonymous No.15352008]

What's the go with Humbert being glad she still has her appendix?

[Anonymous No.15352023]

>>15345111
>it validates their lust for lolis
it does not do that tho, its actually quit critical of that

[Anonymous No.15352071]

>>15352023
>dude fucks a loli
>"i'm such a monster lmao"
being self aware does not make him right. that said loli was a huge slut too.

[Anonymous No.15352207]

>>15345111
What's the best translation? I'm trying to find one that's good but also doesn't have a terrible cover

[Anonymous No.15352244]

>>15352207

[Anonymous No.15352255]

>>15352207
I hope you're joking

[Anonymous No.15352261]

>>15345139
that little nymphet is anything but pure

[Anonymous No.15352272]

>>15352207

[Anonymous No.15352283]

>>15352207
>I'm trying to find one that's good
How much time have you spent looking for a good translation?

[Anonymous No.15352359]

>>15345111
Because the girl was underage. That made it edgy and cool. If Lolita were legal it'd come off as very cheap romance.

>Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock.
>Also she was 21.

[Anonymous No.15352406]

>>15352244
>>15352255
>>15352272
>>15352283
Tbf, I used to think Lolita was a Russian novel when I had only ever heard of it.

[Anonymous No.15352444]

>>15352207
Lol wut?

[Anonymous No.15352625]

>>15352207
bro. It was written in English

[Anonymous No.15352651]

>>15352207

[Anonymous No.15352659]

>>15352359
The Lolita visual novel just isn't the same

[Anonymous No.15352925]

>>15352207

[Anonymous No.15352930]

>>15352207
Someone needs to go back to school

[Anonymous No.15352999]

She was just too old and precocious. Girls are already ruined by 12 in our society, you have to get them as young as possible if you want a proper loli wife.

[Anonymous No.15353004]

>>15345111
>is it because it validates their lust for lolis?
Have you read it, fuckhead?

[Anonymous No.15353218]

>>15352207

[Anonymous No.15354018]

>>15347746
It is, that is the entire point of his novels, but not in the bad sense. He wrote about how chess shall not be regarded as a fight between black and white figures, but rather between the one composing and the one solving the problem. His books say 'check mate' at the end.
He was always mesmerised by the idea of mimicry in nature, stating that mimicry often goes beyond the need to survive and becomes an art, which leads him to justify the existence of God, because he implies that mimicry to a certain extent exists in vain, without a practical reason.
That goes further to say out loud that the act of creation by a human is a miserable parody of the act of creation by the supreme architect. His books often have irrational actions in them, emphasising the idea that a book is a whole world where the author is a God, who can do whatever he is up to.
Hope this is somewhat coherent

[Anonymous No.15354031]

>>15345111
No one smart does

>>15349910
>ridiculously well written

Case and point

[Anonymous No.15354066]

>>15354031
>Case and point
You fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15354081]

>>15354066

[Anonymous No.15354094]

>>15352406
I thought it was some french shit

[Anonymous No.15354097]

>>15354081
Why are you posting shitty memes from thirty years ago?

[Anonymous No.15354107]

>>15354097
Lurk more

[Anonymous No.15354109]

>>15345111
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVODVxJ8n0Y

[Anonymous No.15354110]

>>15345111
>validates their lust for lolis?

It doesn't. Humbert Humbert is mentally unstable man who more than likely lies to reader to makes himself look like a victim.

[Anonymous No.15354120]

>>15354107
No. If you faggots are misspelling "case in point" on purpose then you need to stop.

[Anonymous No.15354123]

>>15354120
Rent free

[Anonymous No.15354261]

>>15347721
You missed a golden opportunity for a pedo-tier gf. I wonder what it feels like to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.15354380]

>>15354094
To be fair, the original publication was through a French publisher commonly known for erotic novels: the classic green cover was an old way of hiding that one was reading smut.

[Anonymous No.15354414]

ngl nabokov taking the proceeds from lolita and fucking off to live at some swiss hotel for the rest of his life is some king shit