/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20833320]

currently reading it the prose is superb and fictitious foreword seems very smart way to start this novel

[Anonymous No.20833326]

>>20833320
Glad you liked it. Part 1 is the best part. Part 2 is of lower quality.

[Anonymous No.20833928]

>eating dinner with mom and her friend
>mom mentions i read a lot
>mom's friend asks me for a book that would be good for her daughter (11)
>"uhh i know a lot of girls like lolita"
>"what's that about?"
>"a french guy who seduces this young american girl"
>"hmm i'm not sure she would like that kind of book"
did i fuck up

[Anonymous No.20833932]

>>20833320
wow that's crazy bro

[Anonymous No.20833936]

>>20833928
Yes, you did, you stupid fucking retard. Humbert is Swiss, not French.

[Anonymous No.20833940]

>>20833320
Theres more in that foreword that meets most peoples eyes

[Anonymous No.20833990]

>>20833940
elaborate

[Anonymous No.20834024]

>>20833990
Convince me. Why should I tell you?

[Anonymous No.20834028]

>>20834024
Because I really want to know. I have read the book already. We're book brothers.

[Anonymous No.20834031]

>>20833928
Just say Harry Potter or Eragon. What the hell were you thinking anon? Yes you did fuck up

[Anonymous No.20834045]

>>20834031
> Eragon
why would you recommend shit books? thats worse than recommending adult books to a kid

[Anonymous No.20834066]

>>20833320
Reminder: Delores isn't even her real name. Now read the Lolita chapter again.

Unless you are reading the narrator with extreme hostility, the narrator is going to *read you.*

Welcome to hermeneutics. What does the text really say?

[Anonymous No.20834068]

>>20834066
>Delores isn't even her real name.
Dolores*

[Anonymous No.20834075]

>>20834066
It says pedophilia is... le good?

[Anonymous No.20834090]

>>20834066
oh god just let him read the book you stuck-up retard

[Anonymous No.20834092]

>>20834068
Cheers cunt, its been a while since I've been here, and I thought introducing the hostile text and the need for aggressive hermeneutics to be more important. Also note that Humbert as the narrator pretends to be oblivious to the rampant rapes that he claims everyone else (Quilty, Quilty's cousin the dentist filling her cavities) are conducting.

>>20834075
Transcend the good bad dichotomy ffs. See "Dolores'" "final speech" to "Humbert" as told by "Humbert." "Dolores" disregards the rapes entirely as a young mother who's transcended the abuse of childhood. Also Quilty's rape camp. Camp Climax.

Humbert portrays "Dolores" as disengagedly consenting, except in one sexual act where Humbert visciously rapes her in the narrative while failing to adequately conceal the vicious rape from the reader. Re-read the hospital rape sequence with hostility.

Also, obviously, "Only a loving wife could decypher my appalling scrawl." => AS EXPECTED THE OLD HAG DECRYPTS HIS RAPE DIARY……AND THEN IS SEXUALLY JEALOUS OF HER CHILD.

[Anonymous No.20834102]

>>20834090
But he's going to fail to read the book, because he's going to be read by "Humbert"'s narrative and come out entirely entranced by Humbert's fantasy. That's not reading the book, that's reading the appearance of the book.

READ CLOSER LENNY.

[Anonymous No.20834132]

>>20834028
Reread it, then. Lolita is a puzzle. It starts with realizing good ol' Dolly died from childbirth.

[Anonymous No.20834143]

>>20834102
reading a book poorly is 10000% better than being lectured on a book by some faggot cunt internet expert

the book is also meant to be read multiple times and you're straightforwardly ruining people's experience with this UHM DID YOU KNOW THAT ACTUALLY faggotry just so you can show off how much of a know it all faggot you are

[Anonymous No.20834144]

>>20834132
I will re-read it. And yes, I knew she had died from childbirth at like 17.

[Anonymous No.20834158]

>>20834143
I can see that you failed first year.

[Anonymous No.20834251]

>>20834102
To be fair, your first time through you're supposed to let Humbert win the appeal of passion. Any intellectual man in turn has lived Humbert's life to some degree: the little details in a pedophile's life (the 9-14 time frame of budding richness, that moment where nymph goes from child to woman and neither of the two are desirable; the early, frustrated, sexual explorations; the wife with childish features by night then turned disgusting reminders of time's marching arrow once the sun shines on them through the windowpane early in the morning, and the inevitable breakup; the ego-centrism layered in poetry; the awkward literati persona, the poorly employed multilingual prose) are all well ahead of its time and painfully accurate. The book takes sexuality, an awkward topic even during our times, as a tool to make any man complicit in H.H.'s crime.
Just reading it through an aggressive lens isn't enough. Every part of the novel BUT Humbert's character is obfuscated through a personal account of hazy (lol) memories and heinous crimes. The book itself is structured to allow numerous readings.
>>20834158
Anyone can tell you're only going through your first year. Your interpretation of the hermeneutic process is reductionist at best.

[Anonymous No.20834269]

>>20834251
>Your interpretation of the hermeneutic process is reductionist at best.
Well you did want me to keep some things unspoil'd and unsoil'd didn't you: Nabokov is inviting us to rape him. Is it really rape if Nabokov consents?

>the little details in a pedophile's life
Reread part 1 in the same way you'd reread Quilty's cousin. Its an extended apologia and appeal through fallacious self-presentation. Humbert in the hospital is Humbert's true sexual construction. Nabokov is preceding Dworkins here on the male.

"The Old Hays Cow" is the best argument for Nabokov making this argument, because of Humbert's presentation of her (partly unconsciously) as a prior victim of child sexual abuse: that for Humbert as the aesthete the only presentation of female sexuality is as a blank page waiting to be ejaculated over with flimsy Franco-English "poetry." Humbert abolishes the other as subject by writing them into being (Only a loving wife could decypher…)

Compare to Quilty who films what he does and expects his cunts to enjoy it. Everything with Quilty is MGM. Roar.

In any case it isn't proper Hermeneutics unless it is conducted in the feeble attempt to rape Our Lord and Saviour And Or His Mother by Devouring the Text as the Remnants of he Holy Spirit's Seed. Any other deep reading is just sparkling anaeisegesis.

[Anonymous No.20834273]

>>20834269
For fuckssake OSX at least give me the right disturbing drag and drop image from 2013.

[Anonymous No.20834585]

>>20834092
>Quilty's cousin the dentist filling her cavities
hmmm. interesting. jhon ray has a cousin whose name sounds an awful lot like quilty.

[Anonymous No.20834613]

>>20834144
>>20833940
Thats another anon book brother. This is what i meant >>20834585

[Anonymous No.20834619]

>>20834269
posturing. relax

[Anonymous No.20834625]

>>20834613
The foreword or postscript contains data on them all being dead, in a different narrative voice, and claims that Humbert's text was found and proceeds to present Humbert's text.

The person who Humbert presents as Dolores Hays in his narrative did die in childbirth in early womanhood in the enclosing (enveloping) narrative though.

Its the reason why Kubrick does the Quilty's Mansion scene at the start of the film.

[Anonymous No.20834642]

>>20834619
If you posture your arse out there for me, expect me to run an interpretive train through it.

[Anonymous No.20834654]

>>20834625
i meant
>Clarence Choate Clark
dont trust the foreword or the movie

[Anonymous No.20834694]

>>20833320
Lolita, eh? If you want a book where the narrator is actually cool and fucks the girl, you might want For the Love of Cunny, it's a great book and it's free. This is page one, but after the diatribe, then there's plenty of action.

The only problem is that the narrator is cool as fuck, instead of an annoying loser like most protagonists, so I don't know if internet losers and book nerds will be able to relate to what it's like to be cool as fuck. Later, nerds.

[Anonymous No.20834712]

>>20834694
I honestly only came here to post this image, which was to attack philosophy, because fuck humanism. Then I saw you people all jacking off to some dude jacking off to a little girl. Don't try to bullshit me like 99% of the reason you're interested in that book is because it sexualizes children. If you're going to pull that card, just go ahead and say you're reading my book for the prose, hell, just tell people that you only appreciate child pornography for the plot and cinematography, and that you're totally not a pedophile. If you don't have the balls to admit you're a pedophile, then just go ahead and chop your balls off, because in all irony, that still won't prevent you from going to the public library to molest kids with the rest of your kind.

Even if you don't read the words, read this one, because there's a secret cool picture you can find if you read this picture. Hate me all you want, disrespect me, but understand you're attempting to pride yourself upon the fact that you're allegedly a connoisseur of logs of shit,and that's a pretty tragic point of pride. You share 98% of your DNA with pigs, you're literally farm animals.

[Anonymous No.20834788]

>>20834092
>Also note that Humbert as the narrator pretends to be oblivious to the rampant rapes that he claims everyone else (Quilty, Quilty's cousin the dentist filling her cavities) are conducting.
I don't understand: how can he be oblivious to them while accusing people of them? (Bear in mind I haven't read Lolita in a very long time.)

[Anonymous No.20834803]

>>20834712
Why not take the long route? It's hilarious to see this tragedy play out.
A novel about a man killing his Quilty conscience for raping little girls, a film magnate while he is a mere writer, being adapted by a film magnate who introduced yet another one of the lot to the slaughterhouse, written by a writer pig who then saw chance in its adaptation to move to the butcher's den and write a screenplay only to be rejected and publicly mocked by this same Quilty who then, decades later, would in turn reject its Quilty nature through self-indulgent public suicide with a film that yet again showed those other pigs wallowing in their own feces just how deep their collective shit-ditch went...
You can't make this shit up. Here you are crying about humanism, missing the joke. You're worse than most of them.

[Anonymous No.20834841]

>>20833928
Is the book better than the Kubrick movie? Does he actually fuck her?

[Anonymous No.20834848]

>>20834841
It's the only Kubrick movie that is inferior to the source novel. He admitted as much as did his wife.

[Anonymous No.20834860]

>>20834102
>>20834090
I feel you both. On the one hand, he should just read the book. On the other hand, Nabokov is such a captivating writer that even when he is writing as someone else who doesn't write as captivatingly as he does, it's easy to become entranced and miss the pretty obvious clues that Humbert is a vicious liar as a narrator. For my part, I read the annotated version, which spoils the entire narrative early on in the annotations.

So I will give the guy this advice:
>>20833320
Read the book and enjoy it. THEN read the annotated version, which is pretty good despite its faults IF you've already read Lolita once before.

[Anonymous No.20834869]

>>20834848
Its it perverted? Was Nabokov a pedophile?

[Anonymous No.20834944]

>>20834860
Never rely on annotations. The entire fucking thing is self-explanatory once you get used to the wordplay predated by lines letting you in on the joke.
If you're relying on annotations to understand Lolita then you ought to go back to reading How to Read a Book, and I'm not joking here.

[Anonymous No.20835161]

>>20834944
I got the annotated version because I was already a huge fan of ol' Vlady Naby, but kindly go fuck yourself you pompous pseud.

[Anonymous No.20835336]

>>20834869
I'm really not sure if Nabokov was a pedo but 6 of his stories deal with pre-pubescent girls' sexuality and there are sections in Lolita where I thought "how can someone other than a pedophile have written this?" (like that section where H is watching children in a kindergarten from afar). Maybe he was just a good writer who really could get into someone else's shoes, maybe he was a pedo.

[Anonymous No.20835732]

>>20834654
The movie is a separate work whose interpretation of Nabokov's work I cited.

The foreword is part of Nabokov's work, enclosing Humbert's.

[Anonymous No.20835737]

>>20834788
>how can he be oblivious to them while accusing people of them?
Humbert the narrator invents Camp Climax, Humbert the character narrated by Humbert the narrator is "seemingly unaware" of what happens to children by children at Camp Climax.

There are multiple Humberts, just as there are multiple Dolores. (And none of them are "real.")

[Anonymous No.20835738]

>>20833928
Incredible what a chad

[Anonymous No.20835741]

>>20835336
Humbert because too despicable and unsympathetic to be written by a pedophile.

[Anonymous No.20835745]

>>20834944
>>20835161
Maybe I'd enjoy reading someone else's reading of Nabokov attempting to use Humbert's Humbert to read me?

MAYBE I AM THAT FUCKING META THAT I READ READINGS OF READINGS THAT READ ME. I AM NOT EVEN JOKING. ONCE YOU HAVE MASTERED THIS START WITH UMBERTO ECO. WHO IS LIKE NABOKOV BUT NOT A PÆDOPHILE.

[Anonymous No.20835746]

>>20834869
The movie is noted for sexualizing Lolita more than the book did.

[Anonymous No.20835749]

>>20835746
The movie has Dolores on screen as a character filmed by a camera lens that lies by telling the truth.

The book has "Dolores" in a narrative wrapped in a doubled narrative, written by a lying narrator who lies by lying by telling the truth that he is lying so he can lie more effectively.

Kubrick was also only an ephebophile.

[Anonymous No.20835783]

>We had breakfast in the township of Soda, pop. 1001
Explain this line to me

[Anonymous No.20835787]

>>20835783
Nabokov is a funny man

[Anonymous No.20835789]

>>20835783
We had breakfast in the township of Soda, with a population of 1001.

[Anonymous No.20836769]

>>20835783
1001. A thousand and one nights. A number both large and irrelevant. A destiny that was never to be.

[Anonymous No.20836864]

>>20835732
Im not even sure if youre responding to me at this point anon. Im saying the foreword is unreliable too within the narrative because there are ties to quilty

[Anonymous No.20836885]

>>20834860
What are his lies?