/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18912459]

>As she was in the act of getting back into the car, an expression of pain flitted across Lo's face. It flitted again, more meaningfully, as she settled down beside me. No doubt, she reproduced it that second time for my benefit. Foolishly, I asked her what was the matter. 'Nothing, you brute.' she replied. 'You what?' I asked. She was silent. Leaving Briceland Loquacious Lol was silent. Cold spiders of panic crawled down my back. This was an orphan. This was a lone child, an absolute waif, with whom a heavy-limbed, foul-smelling adult had had strenuous intercourse three times that very morning

[Anonymous No.18913562]

i like how he used the heaviness and jarring repetitiveness of had had (abbreviations notably his own) to frame the capstone part as exceptionally vile and structurally separated from the edging part of the pelican.

[Anonymous No.18913784]

Is this just Nabakov?

[Anonymous No.18913866]

Boner

[Anonymous No.18914750]

>>18913784
Someone answer me

[Anonymous No.18914832]

as a mentaly ill person its hard to read nabakoff cos i can't tell whether his writing techs are having an effect or its just madness and im mocking it up
reading this i sorta just noticed and felt the - get this, of all things - muscularity of <italic> lolita </i> [as a novel]: each sentence seems strung together by physical twists, tensions, pulling the body of the text up, slamming it down into a 'vehicle', stretching out to another sentence. not to deny the spiritual side of it, but theres this big gloopy ball of meat, a quilt of flesh, the paragraphs and chapters composed viscerally from extension and tensions and textures and tissues, dry and diseased, sprawling and hypoxic. a slabby layer of tissue contracts forming a spatialization of each sentence, which wraps around the other sentences around it.
so, second opinion doc, is this a legit thing he's doing or am i going crazy again?