/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20403015]

Does Lolita have an unreliable or reliable narrator?

[Anonymous No.20403016]

It has a based narrator.

[Anonymous No.20403034]

>>20403016
This

[Anonymous No.20403118]

>>20403015
>Charlotte discovers Humbert is a pedo through his diaries
>is immediately and very conveniently ran over by a car

Very realiable.

[Anonymous No.20403135]

>>20403118
Wait you’re saying authors deliberately lie to me? can you Name other examples

[Anonymous No.20403152]

>>20403015
why is this book about a pedophile seen as a classic?

[Anonymous No.20403156]

>>20403152
because its good

[Anonymous No.20403160]

>>20403152
Because even fairy-tales told to kids before sleep can have non-protagonist-centric-morality.

[Anonymous No.20403214]

There are two types of males

>those who think a young girl being madly in love with a man quadruple her age is proof the narrator is unreliable.

>those who know a pubescent female lusting after an older, attractive and wealthy father figure is proof the narrator is reliable.

[Anonymous No.20403248]

>>20403015
Reliably horny.

[Anonymous No.20403250]

>>20403156
>>20403160
what do you think nabokov's intention with writing the book was, is the pedo a sympathetic character?

[Anonymous No.20403251]

>>20403214
AKA
>NPCs
>not NPCs

[Anonymous No.20403924]

>>20403015
do your own homework
this is advice, btw, /lit/ won't give you a satisfactory answer

[Anonymous No.20404164]

>>20403118
that part was definitely the least believable, but i think it was just bad writing. she needed to die for the plot to happen

[Anonymous No.20404216]

>>20404164
Humbert killed her.

[Anonymous No.20404219]

>>20403118
Also he describes himself as resembling a movie actor early on but the only women really interested in him are a middle aged divorcee and a 12 he old he groomed so reliability? Not so much.

[Anonymous No.20404242]

>>20404219
The 12 year old also cucked him with some old bald fat fuck.

[Anonymous No.20404305]

>>20403250
HH is a very funny and likeable character, but you can't really justify his actions. I think Humanizing a pedo makes for a great read, same with a murder in c&p

[Anonymous No.20404363]

>>20403016
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20404458]

>>20403250
>mrmrmrmrmrrrrr a pedo wrote a book I haven't read, IS IT MORALLY BAD
Fuck off you pondscum

[Anonymous No.20404473]

>unreliable or reliable narrator
The book is fiction. Whether or not the narrator is "reliable" or not is a wholly meaningless distinction. It's all made-up. That is what fiction means.

[Anonymous No.20404720]

>>20404473
Sometimes the reliability of the narrator has a specific meaning or connotation with the main message the story is attempting to get across.

[Anonymous No.20404736]

>>20403015
So what is the whole twist, or what makes this book a puzzle or more to the surface than what it is? Some make it seem like there is something deeper underneath

[Anonymous No.20405706]

>>20404736

I'm convinced there is nothing deeper about this book. It's just some 300 odd pages of pedophilic prose under the guise of "art".

[Anonymous No.20405709]

>>20403016
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20405711]

>>20405706
What is the best pedophilic prose?

[Anonymous No.20405716]

it's in first person so unreliable

[Anonymous No.20405720]

>>20405711

Idk nigga, read the book

[Anonymous No.20405729]

>>20403214
>those who think a young girl being madly in love with a man quadruple her age is proof the narrator is unreliable.
Young people cope
>those who know a pubescent female lusting after an older, attractive and wealthy father figure is proof the narrator is reliable.
Old people cope

The perfect book

[Anonymous No.20405743]

>>20405729
>madly in love
>lusting
She doesn't seem terribly enthusiastic about him after the elope for the first time

[Anonymous No.20405799]

>>20405706
Yeah and I see anons mentioning specific details, but nothing adds up. If you have a theory, say it

[Anonymous No.20406030]

>>20404219
He mentions there are other women. Although he also talks about his horrible teeth, soo.

[Anonymous No.20406043]

>>20403118
>>20403135
>>20404164
>>20404219
And when he describes the time with her as happy for both but hears her crying at night

[Anonymous No.20406064]

>>20405799

From the beginning humbert acknowledges he can not possess Delores, this theme continues throughout the book and is essentially the story ark. Hence 300 pages of rambling prose about existing on the periphery if a 12 year old girl he has strong sexual desire to. I'd like to think Nabokov is more capable then the story of being cucked by a 12 year old.

It's why I asked if I'm missing something because it sure fucking feels that way. I'm not trying to sound smart I'm just curious what other anons extrapolated from the book.

[Anonymous No.20406125]

>>20403015

Unreliable slimeball narrator. Lolita is an example of high literary art, its protagonist is an example of a thoroughly deluded, arrogant, and deceitful person. The book has been out more than half a century and any reasonable analysis will show that, even erotomania aside, Humbert is plagued by a sense of smug self-importance and violent tendencies. He's not a good person, and even if you're an amoralist, he's not an admirable person. I don't know why there's so much debate about the, "moral ambiguity" of Humbert. Are readers so dazzled by his book smarts that they ignore his overall slime?

[Anonymous No.20406137]

>>20403250
every person that cares about things like "normalization" and worries about who in fiction should be "sympathized" with is subhuman and needs to die

[Anonymous No.20406147]

>>20406064
You’re right. The implications of the unreliable narrator thing just mean that Humbert embellished or lied, and was more monster than he lets on. That still isn’t anything that turns the book on it’s head. The only thing I’m suspicious of is the woman getting hit by the car. It was awfully convenient. Any Lolita anons have proof that he killed Lo’s mother?

[Anonymous No.20406159]

>>20404473
It's a literary device. The narrator has to tell the events

[Anonymous No.20406175]

>>20405706
that's not a "guise," sustaining good prose for 300 pages is precisely what "art" is in the realm of literature. having a "deep" twist that you need a youtube video to explain is a nerd pop culture thing that only philistines expect from art. nothing magical is "supposed to happen" when you read literature, it's just a lot of well-composed words.

[Anonymous No.20406176]

>>20406147
To add on to my post, I see 3 possibilities for Lolita

1. Humbert is sincere and Lo’s is a typical 12 year old who easily manipulated by an attractive older man. He is a scumbag, but not quite a monster

2. Humbert is unreliable. He is an ugly pervert who abducts a 12 year old girl. He embellishes and lies to the reader. He is a straight up monster

3. Something I don’t see, but everyone hints at. Any concrete suggestions?

[Anonymous No.20406212]

>>20406176
there is probably only one character in the book who can challenge HH's story and offer another view. and even that account would be fragmentary, secondary and partial

[Anonymous No.20406228]

>>20406212
But what could their account be that changes the whole complexion of the book? To me, it seems like the whole unreliable narrator thing just changes the degree that Humbert is evil. I’ve seen anons nitpicking tiny minute details, like that has a major impact on anything. Are they just autistic or are they on to something? I’ve never seen anyone put forth a third theory

[Anonymous No.20406235]

>>20406175

I'm not asking for a deep twist, it's not a fucking comic book. I'm asking for general themes and tones, meaning essentially. While it's not required for "art" to be made it's pretty consistent in literature. Without it it all seems rather empty, which is how I felt after finishing the book.

[Anonymous No.20406244]

>>20406235
That’s Nabakov, the aesthete. Some like that kind of stuff, I personally don’t.I would prefer something passionate, inspiring or emotional, rather than pretty words that tell a story. I’ve seen some say it’s a critique of the American dream, or culture, but I also don’t see that. If it’s there, many writers have done the same thing better

[Anonymous No.20406258]

>>20406244
room temp iq post ^

[Anonymous No.20406260]

>>20406176
did you read this book? i feel like you can't even get the plot points straight. humbert talks pretty much openly about abducting lolita ("she had nowhere else to go" and so on) and admits things like how she complained about her torn-up pussy after they had sex for the first time etc. he doesn't really LIE about any of it, he just uses dismissive or euphemistic language to downplay what he's doing.

i feel like most of this books reputation for "unreliability" is just people trying to read above their level and getting all confused because they can't even parse what humbert is saying when he uses some flowery metaphor to descibe, like, jizzing on a child.

he's not actually hiding the facts from you. it's a book about a guy who admits to his crimes but is also very articulate in describing how they looked from his perspective, to make himself look better. the idea that you're supposed to be looking for a secret, "true" version of the fictional events, like, maybe he's actually a hunchback that shot charlotte haze with a bazooka is just some dumb misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.20406266]

>>20406228
There's nothing subtle about Humbert being a pathetic creep. One of the saddest parts in the book was when he makes Dolores jerk him off while he pervs over other little girls. At the end of the book he admits that his disgusting fetish ruined her life.

[Anonymous No.20406268]

>>20406235
>I'm asking for general themes and tones, meaning essentially.
gee i cracked open this book but i can't find the "general tones." where are all the tones? it's so empty - who stole the tones? you sound retarded is what i'm saying

[Anonymous No.20406283]

>>20406260
It’s been years since I’ve read it so my apologies if I don’t remember the finer details. So is the book just famous for its prose? And some younger readers are just captivated by the “unreliable narrator”, who isn’t even that unreliable? I always like to reread books with a fresh set of eyes, but it seems like there is nothing really there. I like some of Nabakov’s short stories; Signs and Symbols is a middle finger to the type of reader Pale Fire and Lolita attracts. Is there any reason to reread Nabakov?
This is me >>20406244. I prefer writers to say something or make me feel something. Does Nabokov have anything to say besides pretty prose? If no, then he’s not for me

[Anonymous No.20406285]

>>20406244
>I would prefer something passionate, inspiring or emotional
and HH's narration wasn't that? it's the most passionate novel of all time, it's is practically coming off the page and onto your lap. i'll never ever understand people who call this book (or nabokov in general) "cold" or "distant" or whatever, it's bursting with everything you just mentioned and more

[Anonymous No.20406295]

>>20406268
it's well-known that nabokov eschewed themes and tones in favor of musical proses

[Anonymous No.20406312]

>>20406285
Can you show some examples of this passion? When I think of passion, I think of fiery; something like Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Something explosive and in your face. I don’t see that with Nabokov. How would you describe passion?

[Anonymous No.20406315]

There are gentle souls who would pronounce Lolita meaningless because it does not teach them anything. I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and, despite John Ray's assertion, Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. There are not many such books. All the rest is either topical trash or what some call the Literature of Ideas, which very often is topical trash coming in huge blocks of plaster that are carefully transmitted from age to age until somebody comes along with a hammer and takes a good crack at Balzac, at Gorki, at Mann.

[Anonymous No.20406320]

>>20406283

I'm in the same boat. Read it few years back when I was 20. Re-reading it currently at 26 and I'm struggling to get through it. The prose are undeniably good but the story just seems dull.

[Anonymous No.20406334]

>>20406315

So essentially what you are saying is the Prose are nice.

[Anonymous No.20406335]

>>20406315
So do you like Lolita or not?

[Anonymous No.20406336]

>>20406315
>The prose are undeniably good
Ladies and gentleman, etc, etc, what a desolate sight

[Anonymous No.20406339]

>>20406312
There's more passion in the introducing page of Lolita than the entirety of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is an edgelord just copypasting Biblical text with reversed messages.

“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. 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.”

A few sentences and I'm already impressively demonstrated this man is consumed with a fiery desire for his Lolita. He is waxing poetics and savoring every single syllable of his love's nickname (and already we can surmise a dichotomy between reality and the image in his head!).

[Anonymous No.20406343]

>>20406336
meant for this goofy man >>20406320

[Anonymous No.20406361]

>>20406343
kek

[Anonymous No.20406371]

>>20406339
How would you describe passion? I think of not being able to wait, and fucking in the elevator, as being more passionate than hand holding. Lolita reminds me of the latter. Maybe we just have different tastes and there’s nothing further to argue about. Nabokov is polarizing for a reason. It seems like you either love him or you don’t, and neither side will ever understand the other

[Anonymous No.20406387]

>>20406283
can you name a few novels where "something" is "there"
i highly suspect this means two or more characters gathering and delivering "philosophical" monologues at each other, with frequent use of repetition and the exclamation mark

[Anonymous No.20406401]

>>20406387
I honestly can’t, but I hope to find one. Maybe Hemingway with his iceberg style. Like on the surface Big Two Hearted River about a man campin and fishing, but it’s really about a soldier returning home with PTSD even though there is no mention of war

[Anonymous No.20406421]

>>20406260
>i feel like most of this books reputation for "unreliability" is just people trying to read above their level and getting all confused because they can't even parse what humbert is saying when he uses some flowery metaphor to descibe, like, jizzing on a child.
I bet you 90% of people just audiobook it.
And my dear anon, that is the problem with audiobooks.
When you read a sentence, sometimes you go back to it and consider it's weight for a momment "Did he just say X?"
With an audiobook, you're taken for a pretty ride without giving much though to the things being said, besides face value.

[Anonymous No.20406424]

>>20406401
And to add, thinking more, Faulkner does this two with multiple perspectives layered together which gives a glimmer of the “truth” which isn’t apparent by any individual perspective. Also Kafka blends symbolism and surrealism to create something allegorical, such as The Trial. Salinger does this in Nine Stories, in a very similar way to Hemingway. They are definitely out there

[Anonymous No.20406434]

>>20406421
People read for different reasons. The flowery prose doesn’t do it for everyone. Taste is subjective and will change over time.

[Anonymous No.20406457]

>>20406315
>There are gentle souls who would pronounce Lolita meaningless because it does not teach them anything.
Some people think lolita is meaningless.
>Lolita has no moral in tow.
Lolita has no moral lesson for the reader.
>For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss
I like the prose

That's all you're saying, the rest of the post is written like shit so i'm not wasting time translating your pseudo intelectual garbage.

[Anonymous No.20406476]

>>20406334
>>20406335
>>20406457

[Anonymous No.20406491]

>>20406457
>>20406334
Holy board tourism, Batman

[Anonymous No.20406527]

>>20406457
It’s a spoof

[Anonymous No.20408029]

>>20405706
True, but you can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.

[Anonymous No.20408065]

>>20406283
>Signs and Symbols is a middle finger to the type of reader Pale Fire and Lolita attracts. Is there any reason to reread Nabakov?
it isnt. if you know anything a8out na8okov's own analysis of other 8ooks and have actually dug into the things he has hidden, you wouldnt think a story 8eing a middle finger is his idea of good writing or good reading. the ending of signs and sym8ols is a solva8le trick. theres a 8illion connections to 8e made when rereading him.
>>20406235
if you dont enjoy composition in and of itself, you wont get much out of most art

[Anonymous No.20408077]

>>20403214
Even being charitable to HH, she was never madly in love or even madly in lust with him. At best she just fucked him sometimes for fun or to get something else she wanted. There's really no indication that Lo ever did more than tolerate him.

[Anonymous No.20408098]

>>20404736
>>20406175
>>20406228
a big plot twist is actually hinted at in his books, and its what people who have noticed those details mean when they say there is something deeper going on. its a big picture thats supposed to reveal some sort of symmetry, but i dont think anyone has figured lolita out yet. an increasingly popular detail is the inconsistencies in the timeline of the last few chapters. theres also the reference to john rays cousin in the introduction, whose name sounds like quilty, which casts doubt on the entire book. in his other books like pnin, the narrator turns out to have been lying about the entire plot, making the narrative a dream within a dream.

[Anonymous No.20408125]

>>20408065
What has he hidden?

[Anonymous No.20408243]

>>20408125
you'll have to go through stupid 20 page long papers to find out a8out some of them sadly. i forgot where i read a8out the one in signs and sym8ols, 8ut this seems to have it. i couldnt read it to the end 8ecause its terri8le horizontal format.

https://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dolinin2.htm

[Anonymous No.20408295]

>>20408125
you'll have to go through stupid 20 page long papers to find out a8out some of them sadly. i forgot where i read a8out the one in signs and sym8ols, 8ut this seems to have it. i couldnt read it to the end 8ecause its terri8le horizontal format.

https://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dolinin2.htm

as annoying as na8okov can 8e with his hijinks, discussions surrounding him annoy me more. i dont know how anyone can claim that details in an artistic work arent significant, especially in a na8okov story

[Anonymous No.20408326]

>>20403015
Little girls are unfit for erotic attraction. Not because they're immature but that their bodies are disproportianate and unruly moved about, and they're inexperienced of proper hygiene.

[Anonymous No.20409033]

>>20408295
No one is saying that he didn’t create well crafted work, or wasn’t skilled. Those two short stories are very meta, but they are also very sterile. That doesn’t appeal to everyone

[Anonymous No.20409181]

>>20409033
>but they are also very sterile

[Anonymous No.20409197]

>>20403250
Much of the book (in the second half, at least, when HH and Delores travel in America, as well as the descriptions of American culture in the first half) is a critique of America. Keep in mind the book was written during the height of the Cold War

[Anonymous No.20409223]

>>20409181
It was like it was created in a lab, and not from the heart. If you like it, don’t let anyone sway you otherwise. Taste is subjective

[Anonymous No.20409228]

>>20403015
I just find the narrator's voice boring. It's that tone of pompous arrogance and posture of superiority that I guess is supposed to be comical, but it's also Nabokov's voice and quickly gets annoying.

[Anonymous No.20409248]

>>20409223
>and not from the heart
filtered anon can only speak in tired cliches. what a surprise

[Anonymous No.20409282]

>>20409248
I understand what he was going for with something like Signs and Symbols. It is a double sided coin. There is a story to be found through all the references that the locked up characters believes, but he is also making fun of the reader for looking for that story and self referential readers. I get it, so I’m not filtered. I just don’t like it

[Anonymous No.20409307]

>>20409033
>No one is saying that he didn’t create well crafted work, or wasn’t skilled.
i was only responding to what i assumed this meant
>Signs and Symbols is a middle finger to the type of reader Pale Fire and Lolita attracts. Is there any reason to reread Nabakov?

i actually find those two stories sterile too. although its in favor of signs and sym8ols since its almost a horror story. 8ut im not much of a fan of vane sisters. if you want a na8 short story outside of the la8, read first love (colette)

>>20409282
>but he is also making fun of the reader for looking for that story and self referential readers.
no

[Anonymous No.20409312]

>>20409307
>no
Then what does it mean? No links. If you can’t summarize in a paragraph, you got nothing

[Anonymous No.20409318]

>>20409197
-.- kys

>>20409228
nabokov is a mild man. humbert is almost never not explosive. i dont know how you were bored

[Anonymous No.20409332]

>>20409318
>Nabokov is a mild man
He is equally renowned for his pompous opinions where he dismisses many great writers with a line or two

[Anonymous No.20409348]

>>20409312
i dont have to have gotten it to say that he isnt making fun of the reader. the link provides satisfying solutions to seemingly open ended elements that people claim is evidence that he is making fun of the reader. i dont agree with the conclusions drawn from those solutions in the link. 8ut na8okovs own reading and creating process is 8ased on the underlying stories he hints at or discovers through small details, so its always 8affling when someone claims he is leaving red herrings with no answer or making fun of "overanalysis" when he would likely find 8oth to 8e lazy.

[Anonymous No.20409354]

>>20403016
1stpbstp
>>20403250
to show off how smart Nabokov was
>is the pedo a sympathetic character?
You shouldn't read Nabokov if you're just going to shoehorn the work into these dichotomies of 'sympathetic vs. bad-guy'.

[Anonymous No.20409359]

>>20409332
with a line or two is key here. his own voice rarely seems to pour out energy the way humberts does

[Anonymous No.20409380]

>>20403016
A cunning cunny hunter and a punning pussy wanter.

[Anonymous No.20409392]

>>20409348
But that’s my whole point, the story is meta. The reader is similar to the crazy person, looking for references to build a story or conspiracy. There is also somewhat of a “true story” in there that isn’t meta. That’s why I made the analogy to the double sided coin. But what is this “big story” in there? Those that look for the “big story” or conspiracy are no better than the locked up son. That’s why I call it a middle finger. Maybe it isn’t a malicious middle finger, but he is certainly poking fun at those types of readers. I know he drops a lot of references. That’s the point of the story. But what does it all amount to? What is the narrative that isn’t there? If you can’t clearly express the conspiracy, you are the crazy son locked up because he’s looking for a big conspiracy through signs and references

[Anonymous No.20409649]

i dont know what the point of writing stories like these that encourage conspiratorial reading only to go haha at the reader when they inevita8ly theorize would 8e. there is nothing clever or 8eautiful a8out that and im sure he would find it lazy. especially when his own approach to analysis is more conspiratorial than anyone else, disregarding even the authors intent at times, (read any of his lectures for an example) and when his approach to writing is so detail oriented, im8uing every tiny thing with significance.
>This capacity to wonder at trifles—no matter the imminent peril—these asides of the spirit, these footnotes in the volume of life are the highest forms of consciousness, and it is in this childishly speculative state of mind, so different from common sense and its logic, that we know the world to be good.
if he was making fun of the reader with all these riddles without answers, why at all would he do the same thing with every other work of his. surely the joke would get old even for him.
>But what does it all amount to?
the hidden story in the vane sisters is a8out the ghosts intervening in the world of the story (the text), which is revealed 8y the acrostic at the end. im not sure what the story of signs and sym8ols is (i dunno if the other anon that called you filtered does) 8ut there are concrete solutions like the caller mistaking an o for a 0 (a sign for a sym8ol) thus writing out a 666 when three calls are made (os are under 6s in dials) plus this calls our attention to the 6th fruit jelly. there is also the fact that the 8oys referantial mania works only through nature, and the only detail a8out nature is a8out the half dead 8ird.

meta is where the story 8egins with these stories. they arent just meta for the sake of 8eing meta 8ut the story transcends outside its 8oundaries to make a more interesting narrative. this is why na8okov usually appears as a character in the 8ackground of his works, pulling the strings. he is part of the story as the god of the story.

[Anonymous No.20409658]

>>20409392
i dont know what the point of writing stories like these that encourage conspiratorial reading only to go haha at the reader when they inevita8ly theorize would 8e. there is nothing clever or 8eautiful a8out that and im sure he would find it lazy. especially when his own approach to analysis is more conspiratorial than anyone else, disregarding even the authors intent at times, (read any of his lectures for an example) and when his approach to writing is so detail oriented, im8uing every tiny thing with significance.
>This capacity to wonder at trifles—no matter the imminent peril—these asides of the spirit, these footnotes in the volume of life are the highest forms of consciousness, and it is in this childishly speculative state of mind, so different from common sense and its logic, that we know the world to be good.
if he was making fun of the reader with all these riddles without answers, why at all would he do the same thing with every other work of his. surely the joke would get old even for him.
>But what does it all amount to?
the hidden story in the vane sisters is a8out the ghosts intervening in the world of the story (the text), which is revealed 8y the acrostic at the end. im not sure what the story of signs and sym8ols is (i dunno if the other anon that called you filtered does) 8ut there are concrete solutions like the caller mistaking an o for a 0 (a sign for a sym8ol) thus writing out a 666 when three calls are made (os are under 6s in dials) plus this calls our attention to the 6th fruit jelly. there is also the fact that the 8oys referantial mania works only through nature, and the only detail a8out nature is a8out the half dead 8ird.

meta is where the story 8egins with these stories. they arent just meta for the sake of 8eing meta 8ut the story transcends outside its 8oundaries to make a more interesting narrative. this is why na8okov usually appears as a character in the 8ackground of his works, pulling the strings. he is part of the story as the god of the story.

[Anonymous No.20409861]

>>20409658
All the details amount to nothing though. If they do, what do they mean?
I wasn’t talking about the Vane Sisters, first of all, and I don’t find the acrostic impressive at all. Meta is simply when the story bleeds into real life. You saying he transcends is literally the same thing. References don’t impress me. Anyone can do them. If Nabokov hasn’t been “solved” by now, then there is no conspiracy. The burden of proof that there is a bigger story, or a conspiracy, is on the one claiming it is. Nabokov was an aesthete, so of course he was detailed oriented.

[Anonymous No.20409871]

Who cares?

[Anonymous No.20410501]

>>20403015
It has a literally me narrator.

[Anonymous No.20410562]

>>20403152
It condemns being a pedo. The whole book is narrated by madman trying justify himself. You need to read between the lines.

[Anonymous No.20410577]

>>20410501

[Anonymous No.20410581]

>>20410577
You'll never catch me, I'm a senator's son.

[Anonymous No.20410589]

>>20410581
Fucking bloody bitch bastard. you with the rape party orgies of the bobs and veganas

[Anonymous No.20410602]

>>20410562
Nabokov is a pedo. He even said in his praise of Edgar Allan Poe that he wished he could've seen the wedding of 27-year-old Poe and his 13-year-old cousin Clemm.

[Anonymous No.20410855]

gaffer's gotta be somewhat reliable to stick at it and write a book. unreliable is JRR Martine, putting off finishing Game of Bones

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20410890]

>>20405706
>>20406235
The actual big twist is that Nabokov’s lit IS self insert lit, BUT Humbert and other such aren’t his self insert. Rather if you study his autobiographical materials, letters and history, it turns out these pedophilic, often homosexual dandy men are modeled off of his uncle Ruka (pic related is ruka and young nabokov.) and the implication is, Ruka was molesting him, this is why Nabokov has statements saying people will remember him as a great moralist, there is also the whole meta narrative of chess and interaction with Lewis caroll through his works where he at once respects caroll as a stylist but loathes that he’s so obviously a pedophile and a lot of his work is designed to expose such men precisely as caroll, who are monsters but through intellect hide it.

So yes, there is a twist, Lolita and the others are Nabokov, this is also why you get stray passages comparing Lolita to a boy. Now obviously there’s a cold aesthetic aspect to his work and it’s Will versed, and I would not be surprised if the old “those who are molested become molesters” idea actually imprinted on him.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20410897]

>>20410890

[Anonymous No.20410912]

>>20410890
Thanks. This was actually a concrete “twist”

[Anonymous No.20410936]

>>20404216
I'm going to out myself as a complete pseud, but I've read the book three times and never suspected that. And I just re-read some passages the other night and passed over Lo's line "my murdered mummy." Damn.
But is it referenced by any other character?

[Anonymous No.20410939]

>>20410890
Explain Nabokov wanting to see Poe's marriage >>20410602

[Anonymous No.20410945]

>>20410897
>that mustache
you just know

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20410949]

>>20410939
Playful banter of him calling him a pedophile, same to the statements of about caroll, Poe is also in the cold aesthetic tradition so Poe like Carroll is a cold intellectual stylist who also happens to be a pedophile which history tries to ignore. He’s a very good archetypal artist dandy that so much of his literature revolves around.

[Anonymous No.20410950]

>>20403016
>It has a *reliably based narrator

Fix’d

[Anonymous No.20411014]

YOU JUST KNOW

[Anonymous No.20412000]

>>20410936

It was literally the first thing I suspected the moment she died.

Why on Earth would you consider trusting Humbert Humbert by default on shit like that?

[Anonymous No.20412013]

>>20412000
honor between thieves

[Anonymous No.20412025]

>>20412000
Yeah it was too convenient. That was when I questioned his testimony the most. Mother finds out her boyfriend is molesting her preteen daughter. Gets distraught and runs outside and gets hit by a car… no way. The stars align in your life once or twice but never in that sort of way.

[Anonymous No.20412112]

>>20403118
I thought it was because of his old entries calling her a hag

[Anonymous No.20412431]

>>20412000
>>20412025
how did she die then?

[Anonymous No.20412466]

>>20412431
He killed her

[Anonymous No.20412533]

>>20412466
charlotte dying in the accident is more believable than HH somehow getting away with her murder (how? and what happened?) and relocating to beardsley without a hitch (and even briefly returning to ramsdale at the end). i see her wacky death and its timing as the thing that pushes him over the edge completely -- to dolores and everyone else it's a tragedy, to him it's an act of divine intervention

[Anonymous No.20412597]

He always pretty open about all the horrible things he does to Dolores, like making her coffee but not giving it to her until she fucks him, or how she cries every single night when she thinks he's fallen asleep, or how he broke her life, I never understood when people would say that he tricks the reader into sympathizing with him. I think the unreliable narrator element more comes in when he's obsessing over all of Quilty's alleged appearances throughout the novel and the clues he leaves behind at the motels, where you don't know if it's just Humbert being insane and reading into coincidences where there actually isn't anything.

[Anonymous No.20412959]

>>20410890
if you think this is in any way an artistically valuable insight, and that a self proclaimed aesthete would build his book around this (not FROM this mind you), you completely lack any sense of beauty. this isnt it

[Anonymous No.20412986]

>>20403015
An actual book discussion that isn’t about politics, incels or religion, and doesn’t have screeching. I almost forgot what it looks like.

[Anonymous No.20413623]

>>20403015
You might automatically assume that most all of the relationship between HH and Lo is mostly one-sided affection, but the conclusion of their relationship, in a situation where HH does not have any more power over Lo, indicates that she was indeed a cunny hot for HH's dick.

[Anonymous No.20414098]

>>20410562
the author literally said Dolorez wad the predator

[Anonymous No.20414148]

>>20412533
This. There's really very little evidence to believe it wasn't just an accident. HH is fairly open about the events of the book. It's his perception of them which is distorted. He wants to mislead the reader rather than lie to him. I don't think he actually lies at all over the course of the book with respect to objective events and their real, material causality. But he is constantly and insistently misleading and misrepresentative. His relationship with objective reality is warped, not severed entirely.

[Anonymous No.20414188]

>>20406125
>I don't know why there's so much debate about the, "moral ambiguity" of Humbert.
I think it's because Nabokov is so good at putting you in Humbert's frame of mind that it makes people sympathise with him. But after a few hundred pages of wallowing in Humbert's perspective I struggle to see how you can think of him as anything other than a scumbag.

[Anonymous No.20414220]

>>20414188
it's probably no coincidence that that's where nabokov chose to properly introduce a second villain looming in the background and trailing them across america. after revealing how he has treated lo in beardsley and how much she hates him, "gustave trapp" works as a sympathy injection for HH, and you're back on his side again as he's dodging his shadow (who even later, when revealed to be Q after lo has told him everything [including her feelings about all that happened], again is built up as the greater evil that must be destroyed). because however wicked HH is, i can't imagine a reader going "oh they're on his tail, i hope they catch him at the next gas station!"

[Anonymous No.20414407]

The book is written by quilty.

[Anonymous No.20414420]

>>20414407
Its written by botkin.

[Anonymous No.20414449]

>>20410890
Kek. You watched that youtube documentary too.

[Anonymous No.20414706]

Is it bad that you get an erection when you read it?

[Anonymous No.20414715]

>>20414706
I think that was the entire point of it being written.

[Anonymous No.20415571]

>>20414420
It was edited by Aunt Maud

[Anonymous No.20416854]

bump