[ 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, Lolita_1955[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3499304 No.3499304 [Reply] [Original]

What's the best Lolita version?
I might cop that 50th anniversary version here
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Lolita-Nabokov/9780679723165
Or should I buy the annotated one?
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Annotated-Lolita-Annotated-edition-Vladimir-Nabokov/9780141185040

>> No.3499308
File: 30 KB, 238x350, NakedLunch1stedition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3499308

Get this version.

>> No.3499321

>>3499308
It's too expensive.
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=7513561525&searchurl=an%3Dvladimir%2Bnabokov%26fe%3Don%26sortby%3D3%26tn%3Dlolita

>> No.3499326
File: 326 KB, 640x480, Hey lit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3499326

>>3499321
Hey, I have that version.

>> No.3499331

>>3499326
Who cares.

>> No.3499335

>>3499331
People are prepared to pay ridiculous amount of money for it, so a lot of people obviously do. It seems to be climbing in value every year, so I'll probably sell it when it hits $1k

>> No.3499346

>>3499335
Like I said before, nobody cares.

>> No.3499361

>>3499346
You care so much that you just made a second post.

>> No.3499368

>>3499304
American Library has great acid-free texts

>> No.3499369

>>3499361
You are partially correct.
While it is true that I made a second post, it was not in relation in your possession of said book.

>> No.3499377

>>3499346
I was mildly interested by his posts so your statement is false.

>> No.3499380

>>3499368
Don't worry, those books will be inside a dark vaccumed chamber at 4ºC.

>> No.3499388

>>3499377
But it was true at the time I posted it, so your statement is false.

>> No.3500037

Bump.

>> No.3500228

>>3499388
Faulty, you couldn't have known when he read it. Usually reading a sentence is a lot faster than writing one. In all likelyhood, he had formed an opinion before you made your statement.

>> No.3500235

>>3500228
*likelihood

>> No.3500237

>>3499326
Why the fuck would you buy a book that's nearly $1000?

>> No.3500272

>>3500237
>Why the fuck would you buy a book that's nearly $1000?
-He's a rich cunt.
-He inherited it.
-He found it very cheap and made a wise investment.
-He received as a gift.
-He stole it.
-He found it.
-He owns a bookshop
-He buys expensive books and sells them ten years later for profit
-He won it.
-He fucking loves that book.
-He is a she.
-He's frivolous with money.
-He's borrowed it from someone.
-You're butthurt because you don't own it.

>> No.3500290

Hey guys, OP here. Disregard this thread, I just realized how bad it is. Sorry!

>> No.3500890

>>3499368
>every book is made of acid-free paper

Just where is all this acid paper, that's what I'd like to know.

>> No.3501040

>>3500228
Here lies the question:
If he really was interested in >>3499326's book at the time of posting, then yes, your argument is correct, But later he would have seen my post and corrected me afterwards, which did not happen until after approximately 17 minutes after my second post (25 after my first one stating that nobody cares about his book).
If you are so certain about his interest in his book, why did he not try to rectify me but only after 17 minutes after my post (25 after my first)?

>> No.3501952

>>3499304
pedofile detected

>> No.3501957

>>3501040
Because he didn't care about your post until your level of care escalated.

>> No.3501973

>>3501957
But the time gap is just too big.
If he really was interested in his book, as you suppose, then why would he close this thread? It makes no sense at all.
If his book really captured his interest he would have left this thread tab open, and at the alert of a new post, he would have seen mine, and reply, but he did not.
He did not until after 17 minutes have passed (25 after my first post). While it can be true that he could have took 17 minutes to write his reply, it is indeed hard to believe it.

>> No.3501986

>>3501973
Maybe he didn't see your post initially. He saw the book picture and cared a very tiny amount, then saw your posts when returning to the thread after getting a beer.

>> No.3501994

>>3501986
I see your point, but then he didn't really care about the picture if he went to get a beer. And even if he did go get a beer, it would not take him 17 minutes (at least).
He could have been curious, but not interested, which are two completely different feelings.

>> No.3502004

>>3501994
>He could have been curious, but not interested, which are two completely different feelings.

You have introduced two new feels into the notion of caring. I'm positing that's it is possible to care, even if it is a small degree of caring, without having to post.

>> No.3502493

>>3502004
The dictionary defines care as "to feel interest or concern", two things of which he did not show any, NOT only until after 17 minutes after my second post (25 after the first one).
If he really was interested and/or was concerned about his book, he would have replied to him AND then he would have replied to me, rectifying my post.
While it is possible that a person might be interested and/or concerned about said item, a normal human being would have replied almost instantly, for that is what a interested and/or concerned person would have done.
I believe that he was indeed not interested, but curious or amused about the book, which are not synonyms of care.