[ 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.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
823984 No.823984 [Reply] [Original]

I will buy this book in a few days.
What's your opinion on it?

>> No.823991

Best criticism of cliches of all time. ALL TIME.

>> No.823992

Best book evah!

>> No.824005

Greatest love story ever.

>> No.824003 [DELETED] 

>>823982
rｅｍOeｖ_Yｕｏr ＩLｌＧEａｌ_ｃｌＯEｎ fo_ＨｔTp://WＷｗ.ANＴOｎＹＴaＬｋ.ＳＥ/_(anｔony =_AｎＯｎ)_imＭＥIDＡTeｌY. ve f iwc tz ffu eoqlyodiiqpm zr

>> No.824007

Prepare to be underwhelmed.

>> No.824009

Worst book Nabokov ever wrote, that's probably the reason Lolita is very known and his other works totally unknown.
It's the same with Orwell, he wrote awesome books but is known for the mediocre 1984.

>> No.824011

>>824005
Are you trolling?

>> No.824015

>>824011
oh you're one of those guys who'll say it's about perversive obsession etc. right?

>> No.824033

>>824009
Not really. Lolita combines excellent style and story, which can't be said of a lot of Nabokov's books which tend to lean towards style.

>> No.824036

Lolita is an awesome book, just the opening paragraph has enough delicious prose that you'll be orgasming in your literary pants.

>> No.824041

>>824036
And in your actual pants.

>> No.824039

>>824015
No, I'm one of those guys who says Nabokov was criticizing the audience, cliches and Aestheticism.

>> No.824047

>>824033
Agreed, his other works are narrative and rhetoric but lack in a plot. IMHO, he's one of the few authors who've pulled this off well. I enjoyed Pale Fire more, but Lolita is fantastic.

>> No.824049

I found it quite delightful. The way he dances with the language and uses the perfect word to fit the sentence. He teases you with the relationship of Humbert Humbert and Lo. Oh god I'm reading this book again now!

>> No.824130

It really makes me feel like I'm the pedophile.

>> No.824134

You should look up interviews with Nabokov on youtube. BIGGEST TROLL EVER. The guy was awesome.

>> No.824147

english language fetishism

>> No.824148

>>824047
found pale fire, kind of dragging.
ada, though, is also pretty good.

>> No.824149

>>824134
Link to a particularly good one?

>> No.824163

>>824039
I don't think he was criticizing the audience and aestheticism, the man was a huge aesthetete and loved aesthetic works (his love of Flaubert and hatred of lit of ideas is proof of that).

If there was anything he was criticizing it would be Freud. I think Nabokov tried to do something similar to Madame Bovary, that is write a tract against romantic novels within a romantic novel. Very Quixotic, if you ask me.

>> No.824244

Has anyone read Vane Sisters? Jesus, what self-absorbed hobnobbery.

>> No.824284

One of my favorite book.
I loved Pale Fire as well, and I'm about to get through Ada.

>> No.824287

I tried reading it, but it was stupid and boring. I know it was intentional, but it read like a porn story and it was outright intimidatingly stupid.

>> No.824290
File: 10 KB, 429x410, 1276522882197.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
824290

>>824287

>> No.824293

It is a fantastic book. Particularly the first half to my mind.

You will have to make of it what you will, as most people have strong opinions of it for many different reasons.

>> No.824294

most tedious book i have ever read.

>> No.824299

>>824290
It HAS to be a troll.

>> No.824310

>>824287
>reads like a porn story
>book has no sex scenes

Yeah, troll for sure.

>> No.824312

>>824287
THIS

>> No.824315

READS LIKE A DRUGSTORE ROMANCE NOVEL...WITHOUT THE PELVIC THRUSTING AND SHIT

FUCKING GAY

>> No.824319

>>824310
What? I haven't read the whole novel and even I am more knowledgeable about Lolita than you. It's stylized as a pornographic novel, idiot. I didn't know that beforehand, but I sure as fuck noticed it; but everyone knew it already, including, like, Nabokov.

>> No.824321

I'm working through Labyrinths right now, then plan to read 1984 and Brave New World back to back, while Lolita sits to my left. From the tedium described by some of the regulars I'm not looking forward to the read, just the prose.

>> No.824327

i really dont understand why this book is so huge...if its because it was supposedly shocking at the time i dont understand that either...people like de sade and sacher-masoch were wayyy before Nabokov when it came to intellectualized sleaziness and MUCH MORE SHOCKING

>> No.824343

Lolita is a book for crusty old men who like to jerk off to the English language.

>> No.824379

>he wrote awesome books but is known for the mediocre 1984.

How was 1984 mediocre? Maybe it wasn't the best thing he did, but 1984 was certainly not mediocre. Hell it's one of the scariest dystopias I have ever read.

>> No.824439

>>824327
yes, but they weren't within the literary scene, they were ignored by the public. lolita was just subtle enough to enter the public view, and within that circumscribed realm, it was new.

>> No.824459 [DELETED] 

>>824134
yeah haha. nabokov was a troll. the man criticized a few of my fave authors. dostoevsky for one. wtf was his problem? he was just jealous that his own works weren't as good. (i've only read nabokov's short stories.)

>> No.824574

>>824163
That's exactly support of my point. I didn't mean criticizing in a bad way, I meant in the way that he was reflecting upon it. I should have used that word or commenting I suppose.