[ 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: 91 KB, 666x1051, 12234FC6-0E8E-4E34-8351-FAEF7477DEC1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18733792 No.18733792 [Reply] [Original]

Unironically what’s so great about Lolita? Convince me it’s more then just some erotica for nonces.

>> No.18733800

>>18733792
Read the first twenty pages and if that doesnt convince you, you wont enjoy it

>> No.18733839

>>18733800
Why can't you just tell me?

>> No.18733858

>>18733839
I didn't read it all, but it seems that you got filtered by the preface.

>> No.18733862

>>18733792
you're a nonce in denial

>> No.18733864

>>18733839
have you even read the book anon? we wont just tell you because all you need to do it read it.

>> No.18733865

>>18733858
I haven't read it at all, I don't want to buy it unless I know its not pedo smut.

>> No.18733867

>>18733839
because this is a reading board

>> No.18733870

>>18733862
This
it's not even funny anymore, the people that bash on lolita because they know they'll be aroused

>> No.18733874

>>18733864
see >>18733865

>>18733862
That doesn't even make any sense.

>> No.18733881

>>18733839
Why are you such a midwit?

>> No.18733882

>>18733870
Then tell me why I should read it

>> No.18733885

>>18733882
No thanks, I don't talk to pedophiles

>> No.18733886

>>18733865
It is not, if you know how to read. Makes you think about reading in general, anon. It is a great book that shows things that we learn about reading/language in school (at least, I did), but in practice.

>> No.18733891

>>18733881
You're the midwit if you can't justify why i should read something you consider a masterpiece. I can justify why should read The Iliad, Clockwork Orange, and NGE.

>> No.18733895

>>18733886
That doesnt even make any sense.
>>18733885
You're the pedo

>> No.18733896

>>18733886
A bit useless book if you are already familiar with how this whole thing work. As in, you probably won't get much of it, if you are an 'advanced reader'. That is the main reason why I stopped reading it. Got boring, I somewhat guessed what Nabokov was going, and thought: "meh fuck it, I'm reading something else."

>> No.18733898

>>18733895
>You're the pedo
>n..No U!
never change, pedos
always the same routine with you degenerates

>> No.18733903

>>18733895
I'm >>18733896 too. And it basically shows that every text has an intentent. That a writer is basically showing one view of things. An example of it would be if there were a "Kekita". KEK

>> No.18733906

>>18733898
Thats exactly what a pedo would say. Do you perhaps get your cheesepizza from comet ping pong?

>> No.18733910

>>18733903
>An example of it would be if there were a "Kekita"
what?

>> No.18733914

>>18733910
typical

>> No.18733915

>>18733903
Maybe even a deliberately distorted view of things to provoke something in the reader. Does it make sense now? Good writers are aware of this and use it to their favor. Nabokov 'explains' this whole thing in a romance.

>> No.18733922

>>18733910
A "Lolita" but written by Dolores.

>> No.18733928

>>18733800
>the first twenty pages
The first paragraph should be enough.

>> No.18733933

>>18733922
Who's Dolores some cringe kekistani?
>>18733915
No

>> No.18733939

>>18733928
post it

>> No.18733947

OP is american
Evacuate the Premise immediately

>> No.18733961

>>18733939
>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.
And this piece of shit wasn't even a native English speaker.

>> No.18733967

>>18733933
Dolores is the girl. Ask a teacher about that. They probably don't teach those things in the US. And now that I thought about it, I don't think they taught us that in Brazil either, but I ended up figuring that out by myself. Then it is not that hard to figure the 'intent' of a book. As in getting, or trying to get, inside the mind of "sender" side on those models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication

>> No.18733970

>>18733947
oh shit, he probably already lowered my IQ by a few digits between his posts
I'm leaving

>> No.18733971

>>18733891
It's an old book that has hundreds of critiques readily available for you online. You can easily just go look for yourself. Demanding that anons explain it to you, and that that's the only thing you'll accept is peak retard.

>> No.18733974

>>18733961
KEK this is the kind of shit that hooks anons? HH is an insufferable faggot.

>> No.18733985

>>18733792
It’s an excellent filtration tool. As you can see, it has deftly and quickly filtered this poor retard who’s brain is simply unable to turn the pages about a fictional romance with a fictional child, even while it constantly tells you “this relationship is super duper wrong” Incredible.

>> No.18734041

Nabokov's passion for chess, language, and lepidoptery has inspired the most elaborately involuted patterning in his work. Like the games implemented by parody, the puns, anagrams, and spoonerisms all reveal the controlling hand of the logomachist; thematically, they are appropriate to the prison of mirrors. Humbert's references to art and literature are consistent with his mind and education, but in other novels and stories such cultural allusions point to Nabokov.

>> No.18734052
File: 180 KB, 860x838, soyjak2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18734052

>>18733971
>G-G-GO GOOGLE A CRITIQUE I CAN'T JUSTIFY WHAT I LIKE IN MY OWN WORDS

>> No.18734053
File: 475 KB, 518x800, 1604633287322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18734053

>>18733974
She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

>> No.18734067

>>18734053
Yes, I got way past that part. It just gets boring af. Once you figure out it is some apologetic faggotry (which he somewhat points out in the foreword), the whole book loses it all.

>> No.18734086
File: 44 KB, 645x773, white face wojak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18734086

>>18733961
>>18734053
He has a specific nickname for a child that he wants to fuck and he keeps pronouncing the syllables of it? What am I supposed to be impressed by here?

>> No.18734115

>>18734086
>Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth.
If you can't appreciate the sheer talent of a sentence like this then you're not going to get it. Sorry anon, you've been filtered.

>> No.18734123

>>18734086
Please just go on zlibrary, get a copy, and start reading.
>>18734115
Just stop

>> No.18734137

>>18734067
It is still somewhat interesting, but I would rather read something else.

>>18734123
Yes, just download the fucking book and quit bitching on /lit/. OP should have used the archive and warosu, there were lots of threads about this book.

>> No.18734140
File: 9 KB, 160x315, soyjak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18734140

>>18734115
>If you can't appreciate the sheer talent of a sentence like this then you're not going to get it. Sorry anon, you've been filtered.

>> No.18734146

>>18734086
Nothing. Nothing at all. Just move along.

>> No.18734166

>>18734140
>this is an adult who unironically has wojack reaction images saved on his pc
Do you have something you'd like to offer in rebuttal? Can you provide a sentence that you'd consider a superior example of great writing?

>> No.18734308
File: 68 KB, 1024x771, iraq soyjak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18734308

>>18734166
>Do you have something you'd like to offer in rebuttal? Can you provide a sentence that you'd consider a superior example of great writing?

>> No.18734313

>>18734308
kek

>> No.18734319

>>18733792
It barely has erotica. It’s more about the psychotic nature of the protagonist

>> No.18734325

>>18734319
Is it dark academia aesthetics?

>> No.18734335

>>18734308
Embarrassing. I always wonder how guys like this manage to get so lost on their way to reddit that they end up on /lit/.

>> No.18734354

>>18734319
Came here to say this. As you read you slowly figure out that Humbert is basically just a sociopath who ruined the poor girl's life and the whole erotic part of the novel just seems extremely sick and twisted by the end of the novel. It's been a while since I've read it but I have read it more than once because it's just a well written book, it's not politically profound or anything like that but more just a showcase of great literary talent while being fairly accessible to an American audience.

>> No.18734361

>>18733792
>erotica for nonces
>erotica
If you weren't a retarded cunt you would know it's absolutely not erotica at all, and if you weren't an illiterate shit you would convince yourself by reading it.

>> No.18734370

>>18734041
where did u copy this from? godam kino read

>> No.18734387
File: 137 KB, 530x706, soyjak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18734387

>>18734335
>Embarrassing. I always wonder how guys like this manage to get so lost on their way to reddit that they end up on /lit/.

>> No.18734425

>>18734354
>the whole erotic part of the novel just seems extremely sick and twisted by the end of the novel.
>confesses to finding it hot before
Lolita is literally a filter, and this creep just perfectly encapsulated the how of it: the deeper meaning of Lolita lies in how people specifically interpret it and discuss it. All the cries of "unreliable narrator" and "Humbert truly loved Dolores" are precisely what Nabokov intended, not to indulge in something so prosaic and pedestrian as titillation but to expose the hearts and souls of the audience who would overwhelmingly allow Humbert to charm them down his villainous yellow brick road, granting them the perceived safe space to relax and admit that they are sick fucks just like Humbert, all under the guise of literary discuss and critique.
That's what's so funny about women (themselves at least as vile and compromised as men when it comes to being filtered) who think a man reading Lolita at all is a sign he's a abhorrent sexual deviant, they're utterly and laughably wrong but could easily obtain that information by merely discussing the book with that man.

>> No.18734437

>>18734425
Teenager girls read that fucking book. It is a normie book and OP manages to be more retarded than HH.

>> No.18734659

The thing I hated about Humbert was what a sentimental faggot he was. Like I don't mind that he was a pedo, but the whole "muh nymphets" part at the beginning of the book made me instantly hate him.

>> No.18734772

>>18734308
Based image

>> No.18734852

>>18734425
>who would overwhelmingly allow Humbert to charm them down his villainous yellow brick road
I always thought it was stupid that he was talking to me as I were part of a jury, I was not. Yes, I have autism. That was my least favorite part of the book.

>> No.18735355

>>18734425
ah, the 110 IQ take. no lolita thread is complete without it

>> No.18735441

>>18733961
massively overrated

>> No.18736670

>>18735355
>ah, the 110 IQ take. no lolita thread is complete without it
Only 110? Ehh, I'll take it.