Lolita

[Anonymous No.5278470]

Can we talk about Nabokov's "Lolita"?
About to finish it, and it's brilliant.

I also noticed that there's little to no direct speech, apart from most of what Lolita says. Why is that?
Does it have a special meaning, or is it just a stylistic device? Does it hint to the fact, that Humbert is writing from memory and is only remembering the most important stuff (what Lolita says, what Cue says, the first time he meets him in the hotel, etc), the rest needs to be paraphrased?
I might be mistaken, but that struck me as "odd" (don't know how to say this).

[Anonymous No.5278475]

nabokov was a bit of an autist. he denied that his stories had any meaning at all- very superficial

[Anonymous No.5278481]

>>5278470
>About to finish it, and it's brilliant.
If it was really that good then you would be finishing it right now instead of posting on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.5278484]

>>5278481
I'm not a native speaker and reading it in English is very taxing for me.
I'm having my breakfast right now, and will finish it after that.

[Anonymous No.5278523]

>>5278475
>he denied that his stories had any meaning at all

misrepresentation of teh nabokov quote my boy

[Anonymous No.5278534]

>>5278470
Do not be fooled by one mans opinion, do not be fooled by his bias, do not be fooled by his lies.
You should know this by now, being that you are almost finished with it.

Unreliable narrators can be unreliable even if it is nearly apparent that they are the one true factoid.

[Anonymous No.5278620]

I liked part 1 more than 2. Anyone else?

Are his short stories good? Which book should i read next?

[Anonymous No.5278642]

>>5278470
Humbert is incredibly self-centered, and sees Lolita pretty much entirely for what she can provide for him. I think you get a few glimpses of Lolita having a personality that Humbert doesn't quite see (for instance [spoilers]when she admits that she's had sex before Humbert[/spoiler]) because he's too self-involved to really consider other viewpoints than his own. She's the ideal of a nymphet to him, not a real person, and it's pretty revealing that he doesn't remember much of what she says specifically.

>>5278620
I like Pale Fire even better.

[Anonymous No.5278690]

>>5278620
It's hard to decide for me. I found part 1 "easier" to read, but I feel like part 2 is more emotional, more relatable and at the same time more brutal. It had me almost crying one moment, while feeling disgusted the next.

[Anonymous No.5278753]

>>5278470
i think it was great, but that the story wasn't that great/interesting. It was all in the language

[Anonymous No.5278768]

>>5278753
Yeah, I have to agree

[Anonymous No.5279088]

superior cover coming through

[Anonymous No.5279128]

>>5279088
That's cool. I'm really diggin' the new Penguin Cover.

[Anonymous No.5279170]

>>5279088
>>5279128
Love all the covers for Lolita except for pic related, spent an extra two bucks to get
>>5279128 instead

[Anonymous No.5279363]

>>5279170
I actually own >>5279088
It's nifty.

[Anonymous No.5279426]

>>5278620
I would read Pale Fire next. In terms of difficulty it's the next step after Lolita, and after that, Ada. Pnin has a loose connection to Pale Fire, so you may want to read it later. Bend Sinister is an excellent dystopian story, far better than anything Orwell or Huxley produced, and many of his translated Russian works are very good. Buy a collection of his stories. If you want one to start with, Spring in Fialta is one of his best.

[Anonymous No.5279442]

>>5279088
That is the first decent Lolita cover I've seen.

Pic is one of my favorite covers ever. Bought it off Amazon, although my copy isn't nearly as worn.

[Anonymous No.5279512]

>>5279128
She looks too young in this one. Like a toddler.

[Anonymous No.5279519]

>>5279426
>Bend Sinister is an excellent dystopian story, far better than anything Orwell or Huxley produced

Huxley, maybe. 1984 is genuinely an excellent book, though. And if you're going to read dystopian fiction by Russians disillusioned with communism, why not go straight to the source and read Zamyatin's We, which is the greatest piece of dystopian fiction ever.

[Anonymous No.5279706]

>>5279519
Funnily enough, I'd disagree. I think 1984 is a good book, but far from excellent. I don't know why, but I never could get into it.
Mind giving me some reasons, why you think that it's so good?

(I also think "Brave New World" is way more spot on in terms of predicting the future than "1984" is)

[Anonymous No.5280213]

>>5279426

Thanks.

I already own a book with all his short stories.

[Anonymous No.5280584]

>>5279426
I've had a nice little hardback of Ada forever but never read it.
Is it a good read?

[Anonymous No.5280688]

>>5280584
Have not read it, but for now I expect anything Nabokov wrote to be a "good" read.
Really, just give it a chance, maybe it's utter shit, but I would definitely start reading it.

[Anonymous No.5280702]

>Not posting the best cover

[Anonymous No.5281081]

>>5279088
>>5279128
>>5279170

[Anonymous No.5281114]

>>5281081
Never seen that one. Please tell me it is real and not just some mock up by a graphic designer.

[Anonymous No.5281330]

>>5281114

[Anonymous No.5281354]

>>5281114

[Jude Thaddeus !SX.Jipgvhc No.5281376]

>>5280702
lewd

[Anonymous No.5281377]

I thought this was the most popular cover, surprised it hasn't been posted already.

[Anonymous No.5281385]

>>5281330
Absolutely love this cover, would buy. Is it an actual cover?

[Anonymous No.5281398]

>>5281385
>>5281114

[Anonymous No.5281402]

>>5281354
>>5281081
>>5279170

[Anonymous No.5281422]

>>5281402
>>5281385
>>5281114

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5281432]

>>5281402

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5281442]

>>5281422
>Thumbnail
Oh geez. Worse than the flesh to flesh one

[Anonymous No.5281467]

'I also detest the so-called “powerful” novel—full of commonplace obscenities and torrents of dialog—in fact, when I receive a new novel from a hopeful publisher—“hoping that I like the book as much as he does”—I check first of all how much dialog there is, and if it looks too abundant or too sustained, I shut the book with a bang and ban it from my bed.'

http://longform.org/stories/playboy-interview-vladimir-nabokov

[Anonymous No.5281502]

>>5281422
That thumbnail is horrifying.

[Anonymous No.5281525]

>>5281467
Why are good artists always terrible people?

[Anonymous No.5281546]

>>5281442

[Anonymous No.5281599]

>>5281402
>>5281385
>>5281114

[Anonymous No.5281654]

>be me
>go to 14 year old sisters room to help her with an assignment
>glance at her bookshelf
>Every book by John Green, Eleanor and Park, Perks of Being a Wallflower, etc. Typical YA shit.
>wait, the fuck is that?
>Lolita
>"Why are you reading Lolita?"
>"omg anon stop looking at my bookshelf and help me"
I'm still not sure how to react to this.

[Anonymous No.5281658]

>>5281654
Got your back, brah. Here's another cover.

[Anonymous No.5281660]

>>5281599
I don't like it

[Anonymous No.5281664]

>>5281658
Very unsexy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5281665]

>>5281654
Didn't you masturbate at 14?

And why do these always start with
>Be me
Oh sorry
>be me
?

[Anonymous No.5281675]

>>5281665
>girl masturbating to lolita
have you even read it (oh forgot who I was talkng to)

[Anonymous No.5281690]

>>5281664
Is cool. I got more.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5281703]

>>5281675
No, never been really interested, but I've heard a lot about it through you and various other internets fascination with it. Mademoiselle has I believe.
She, the sister, may have picked it up expecting something more masturbatory.

[大阴茎温柔的心脏 No.5281736]

>>5281422
>>5281442
>>5281502
i dont get it

[Anonymous No.5281742]

>>5278642
Seconded.

>>5278470
Any thoughts on why there are twos of everything? Always pairs and doubles of people, places, letters, sounds. I don't know how much to make of it since H.H. seems to be finding symbols everywhere of dubious authenticity, yet his nemesis is allegedly even smarter than him and might actually play the part ascribed.

[Anonymous No.5281745]

>>5281703
Bruh. Don't sweat that. Check out this ill ass book cover.

[Anonymous No.5281751]

>>5278470
>>5279088
>>5279128
>>5279170
>>5279442
>>5280702
>>5281081
>>5281330
>>5281354
>>5281377
>>5281398
>>5281422
>>5281546
>>5281599
>>5281658

I'm so incredibly jealous of each of you right now that I went to the trouble of scrolling down the entire thread and quoting every post that contained a cover superior to mine to really emphasize how much I hate this shit cover I'm stuck with.

>>5281690
Except this one which sucks just as bad.

[Anonymous No.5281754]

>>5281751
lel wtf is wrong with that cover?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5281757]

>>5281736

[大阴茎温柔的心脏 No.5281763]

>>5281757
oh. obviously. i'm such a virgin

[Anonymous No.5281766]

>>5281754
Some shitty edition that came with some magazine or newspaper aeons ago, found it for 2€ at a pawn shop so I can't complain. Still, ugly book covers always get me riled up.

[Anonymous No.5281778]

I will never understand why people like Nabokov. He writes like he's a 15-year-old girl; everything and anything is this powerful emotional moment and he just can't believe it's happening, like omigawd.

I wonder if Nabokov ever just took a shit you know?
No, probably not. The stool flowed sprightly from his anus, and the backsplash sent shivers up his spine. How horrible!

[Anonymous No.5281794]

i started Ada, or Ardor next and boy was i surprised to like it even more

only book i stopped prematurely coz i didn't want it to end
then i didn't have the book anymore and I still haven't finished it to this day
but it's my favorite nabokov

[Anonymous No.5281796]

I have this one. idk, I like it

[Anonymous No.5281797]

I don't get the hype.

[Anonymous No.5281857]

>>5281757
heres my redesign. I hope you all enjoy. But especially you, butterfly

[Anonymous No.5281903]

>>5281377
>>5281377
This one is pretty unsettling

[Anonymous No.5281908]

>>5281903
Balthus knows your pain

[Anonymous No.5281918]

>>5278470
What the hell was the purpose of this being written other than to show off prose again?

[Anonymous No.5281923]

>>5281918
To be edgy obviously

[Anonymous No.5281933]

>>5281918
I don't know, but here's a bookcover.

[Anonymous No.5281951]

>>5281918


>other than to show off prose

you need a better reason?

[Anonymous No.5281958]

>>5281857
you owe me my lunch back, /lit/

[Anonymous No.5281961]

>>5281951
The subject matter he picked seemed purposely grotesque.

[Anonymous No.5281963]

>>5281918
why the crossexamination. why was pynchon ritten

[Anonymous No.5281968]

>>5281951
You tell that fuckin fagoot. Have a book cover.

[Anonymous No.5281969]

>>5281961
>why would anyone write a book from the pov of a pedo? to be grotesque, obviously

[Anonymous No.5281971]

>>5281963
So writing an arid story with a shit-ton of cool text is alright?

[Anonymous No.5281974]

>>5281918
>art
>purpose
ya dun goofd

[Anonymous No.5281978]

>>5281974
It's that mentality that gives us 'abstract' pictures of anuses.

[Anonymous No.5281989]

>>5281978
>inb4 degenerate

[Anonymous No.5281996]

>>5281971
well it's not an arid story though. it's actually a really well crafted story with great characters.

[Anonymous No.5281997]

>>5281978
>gives us
you're free not to get it

[Anonymous No.5282005]

>>5281978
actually the exact opposite is true. the mentality that art is defined by its purpose rather than by its aesthetic value is exactly what lead to those things. these pieces of concept art are defined and praised by what they're trying to say about the world, not by beauty, style, or anything like that. they're defined for being anti-corporate, pro-gay rights, etc.

[Anonymous No.5282025]

>>5282005
Also they're usually trying to subvert some established technique or trope in art.

[Anonymous No.5282047]

I found it boring towards the end and didn't finish reading.

[Anonymous No.5282074]

>>5281467
Playboy: Man’s understanding of these mysteries is embodied in his concept of a Divine Being. As a final question, do you believe in God?

Nabokov: To be quite candid—and what I am going to say now is something I never said before, and I hope it provokes a salutary little chill: I know more than I can express in words, and the little I can express would not have been expressed, had I not known more.

Whoa. I was not expecting that from Nabokov of all people.

[Anonymous No.5282123]

>>5281971
Sure it is.

[Anonymous No.5282150]

>>5281778
>being this pleb

Lolita was, as I've heard before, a love letter to the English language.

[Anonymous No.5282173]

>>5281778
>He writes like he's a 15-year-old girl
what

>everything and anything is this powerful emotional moment and he just can't believe it's happening, like omigawd
i think you're missing the humor dude. it's not all straight

[Anonymous No.5282239]

>>5282047

>didn't
>finish
>reading

[Anonymous No.5282425]

>>5282005
Primo conclusion. Have a book cover

[Anonymous No.5282946]

Thanks to everyone participating in my thread so far!

>>5281742
I haven't really thought about that to be honest, I'll prolly go back and read it again, so I'll think about it.

I have another question though, HH says that he chose this alias for obvious reasons over names like Otto Otto and the likes.
Can someone tell me why? Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.5283999]

>>5282047
it's pretty boring, pale fire & his russian bookz are wayy better

[Anonymous No.5284431]

>>5281796
I have that one too. Nice and simple.

[Anonymous No.5285428]

>>5281690
This cover is brilliant. Instead of some coy innuendo about a "sexy girl" designed to make you think Lolita is some playful porny romp, it depicts what the novel is really about -- the "panting maniac" of the foreword.

[Anonymous No.5285436]

>>5281751
fucking christ, is that a wordsworth classics or what??

[Anonymous No.5287286]

>>5282946
>HH says that he chose this alias for obvious reasons over names like Otto Otto
It's things like that that make me wonder if Nabokov is trying to show us the absurdity of attempting to find reasons or symbolism in everything. But, then again, it usually pays to assume that a skilled craftsmen does everything with intention and purpose, and it feels so lazy and intellectually weak to say "a cigar is just a cigar" whenever something isn't clear.

[Anonymous No.5287469]

>>5282946
Check the the file name of >5281690

[Anonymous No.5288002]

>>5287469
Is it really that simple? Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.5288185]

>>5278470
This board is obsessed with that book. I don't keep too often, but whenever I do people are talking about it.

[Anonymous No.5288195]

>>5288185
Come here to often*

[Anonymous No.5288734]

>>5288185
you gotta remember that /lit/ is just /mu/ with books
it's 70% spamming le maymay books and 30% (best case scenario) actually discussing (dick waddling) literature.

[Anonymous No.5288770]

>>5288734
/lit/ is bad, but not /mu/ bad

[Anonymous No.5288784]

>>5288770
lel keep telling yourself that bud

[Anonymous No.5288899]

>>5288784

Weekly lolita, dostoyevsky, hp lovecraft, borges,tolstoy, christianity general, buddhist general, should i convert to buddhism, murakami threads

Typical /lit/

[Anonymous No.5289964]

>>5278481
>not savoring a good story

[Anonymous No.5291636]

>>5278470
>>I also noticed that there's little to no direct speech, apart from most of what Lolita says.
you tend to remember and appreciate the little dialogue the main characters have. It really sticks out more. I wish Hollywood would take the hint

[Anonymous No.5292645]

>>5291636
Thanks for the answer mate, but it would be impractical for movies, wouldn't it (how is Hollywood supposed to take the hint?)?

[Anonymous No.5292718]

>>5292645
only example I can think of is the movie drive where there's not much dialogue. It can be done, be it's not appealing for all genres.

[Anonymous No.5293001]

>>5288899

What would you discuss ?

[Anonymous No.5293005]

>>5291636
>hey kid, you want a toothpick?