[ 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: 30 KB, 361x606, pedoshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1941878 No.1941878 [Reply] [Original]

I picked up this book today.

I feel sick reading it (about 1/3rds through).

Is this book just written for pedos or some shit? I see absolutely no literary value to it.

Ugh.

>> No.1941887

your 'ugh' made it obvious

>> No.1941899

theres actually quite a bit of significance in this book its a pretty good book

>> No.1941904

Maybe you should actually read it.

>> No.1941905

0/10

try harder

>> No.1941902

You'll be pleased to hear, OP, that your opinion of the novel was shared by the late Adolf Eichmann.

While on trial for Nazi war crimes in Israel, Eichmann's prison guard gave him a copy of Lolita.

Eichmann's verdict: "Das ist aber ein sehr unerfreuliches Buch!"

The story is told in the first chapter of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem if you don't believe me.

>> No.1941906

>>1941878
This thing is basically the 4Chan Manifesto.

>> No.1941914

>>1941902
Godwin's Law in action, this quickly?!

>> No.1941915

>Russian author
>writes a book
>wonder if it's written for pedos

Russia is pedo capital of the world, it'd be financial suicide to write a book for anyone else there.

>> No.1941917

Lolita is just quality literature

Anybody who thinks it's pedoshit is obviously a dumb soccer mom

>> No.1941927

>>1941878 dumb soccer moms would actually like this book

>> No.1941974

>>1941914

It wasn't Godwin's Law. I just honestly couldn't think of anyone I knew who didn't like Lolita. Besides Adolf Eichmann.

Even Harold Bloom, who hates Nabokov, thinks the first half of the book is good (and thinks the second half is cliche).

>> No.1941992
File: 13 KB, 248x248, Gynaecology-1822.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1941992

>>1941915
>Lolita
>Russian

You got me to reply.

>> No.1941996

>>1941974

Why does anyone take what Bloom says seriously? He's always coming out with crap like this. If you heard any high-schooler say 'I preferred the first half' or 'I didn't like it when' you'd wince for them, but Bloom is permitted to pick and choose in a way no serious critic does. He is to the notion of greatness what Tolkien was to dwarves.

>> No.1942007

>He is to the notion of greatness what Tolkien was to dwarves.

You mean he confuses a lot of people as to what the plural form of the noun should be?

>> No.1942023

>>1941996
>>1941974
Naw, he doesn't hate it. In his book on Lolita he says that the second half succumbs to the Freudianism (whatever, it's a word) that the work is trying to evade and make fun of. Basically, Nabokov hated Freud and Lolita was a way of saying "look, Freud sucks, his ideas can't explain everything."

Bloom prefers Pale Fire, (which he considers his best) and Ada.

>> No.1942045

It's neither written for pedos nor a masterpiece. Finish it just because everybody else has, but don't worry about reserving the pedestal for something more worthy.

It just really isn't that special guys.

>> No.1942053

>>1942045
I agree. For my money it's a lesser Madame Bovary.

I'm pretty sure Nabokov himself didn't like it that much and it only got published because of his wife's insistence on it.

>> No.1942061

fuck's sake people

nothing in that book is even remotely titillating

>> No.1942066

I personally enjoyed the book. I am not a pedophile.

>> No.1942070

itt people who haven't read lolita

>> No.1942193

>>1942070
exactly. if they read it, they'd know it's pedo shit

>> No.1942198

Mostly ITT:

People who read Lolita without recognizing parody.

>> No.1942254

>>1942198
How is there parody in it?...

>> No.1942259

>>1942198
The book was written 60 years ago. The parody should be obvious. If it's not obvious and not hilarious, it's not that great. There's nothing masterful about a cheap parody anyways.

>> No.1942266

This book is fucking hilarious, and it's satire of the american dream is poignant even today.

>> No.1942267

The moral of the story though is that pedos are evil, since he regretted his ways and murdered his pedo friend.

>> No.1942268

>>1941899
2/10

>> No.1942286

>>1942259
Surely there's some merit in subtlety?

>> No.1942968

>>1942023

>Basically, Nabokov hated Freud and Lolita was a way of saying "look, Freud sucks, his ideas can't explain everything."

Weird. I was under the impression that Nabokov didn't bother with infusing his books with morals and messages.

>> No.1942969

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldpj_5JNFoA

Relevant to this thread.

>> No.1943001

>>1942968
i wouldn't consider that a moral, nor would i consider that the entirety of the book's "message"

sections of lolita are definitely a "fuck you" to freud though

>> No.1943019

>>1943001

Not to mention that Nabokov frequently named minor characters after other writers he disliked. There's an "Eelmann" in one of his novels which is supposed to be Richard Ellmann, Eugene O'Neill and Thomas Mann all in one slimy name. And there's a "Doctor Froid" in Ada, I think. Freud jokes abound.

It's not a "message" in the sense that Middlemarch has a message. Nabokov was an aesthete. He thought Freud was vulgar.

>> No.1943023

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/02/lifetimes/nab-v-freud.html

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

Q. Mr. Nabokov, would you tell us why it is that you detest Dr. Freud?

A. I think he's crude, I think he's medieval, and I don't want an elderly gentleman from Vienna with an umbrella inflicting his dreams upon me. I don't have the dreams that he discusses in his books. I don't see umbrellas in my dreams. Or balloons.

I think that the creative artist is an exile in his study, in his bedroom, in the circle of his lamplight. He's quite alone there; he's the lone wolf. As soon as he's together with somebody else he shares his secret, he shares his mystery, he shares his God with somebody else.

>> No.1943029

Just found a copy of Pnin in my family's library? Is it a good read?

>> No.1943043

>>1943029

Yes, and a short one, so you have no excuse whatsoever for not reading it.

Enjoy the squirrels.

>> No.1943047

>>1943029

Yeah! Happy reading.

>> No.1943053

>gets erections while reading
>but she's only a child...
>starts to doubt himself
>absolutely no literary value to it

i might just be projecting though...

>> No.1943057

>>1943053

re-read it with an actual 10 year old in your lap
see if you crack a fact

>> No.1943173

>>1942968
The point is that Nabokov was against "ideas" in his novels. Writing a story in which Freud's ideas don't fit is a way of not having your story reduced to ideas. Not that Nabokov necessarily succeeds but that's his intent.

He's too much of a snarky parodist for my tastes.

>> No.1943770

>He's too much of a snarky parodist for my tastes.

Oh fuck. David Denby has started posting on /lit/

>> No.1943787

No explicit sexual content except one part on a couch which is a little osé. Paedophilia wasn't "popular" in the times the book was written; nowadays everyone is talking about paedophilia. Not considering the subthems of the book other than the them of pedophilia.

Nice OP. Read the book entirely.

>> No.1945093

>>1943787
So Nobokov is the reason for the pedo-scare?

>> No.1946296

>>1943057

Oh my how horrifying.

>> No.1947064

>>1943057
Where can I go to test this?