What does /lit/ think of "Lolita"? I personally love it. Nabokov is excellent.
Newfriend :DKILL YRSELF
/lit/ thinks that since it's a meme book it's bad. it's not. 10/10.
nabokov is easily top 20 writers of the 20th century. they just never bothered to read anything else.
his short stories are quite amazing and no one reads them.
>>7401398
Nah I think most liked it but it's a really popular book so most have read it even the ones that don't read a lot and just like to shitpost
It's also a easy book to mock becaus of the subjects matter
Also some people will always be contrarians
>>7401367
Great book
The man also parallels Don Quixote in many ways
>>7401383
Who on /lit/ thinks it's bad...?
Guys, will I look weird if I'm reading this book in public?
>>7401439
hello friend, may I recommend this excellent discreet volume that also contains some other goodies
amazon dot com
/Nabokov-Novels-1955-1962-Library-America/dp/1883011191
>>7401383
More like top 1
>>7401383
what the fuck are you talking about?
it's never outside top 10 of /lit/'s top 100 books, and it's consistently in the top 5
>>7401367
I don't like it. I found it to be really shallow, as Nabokov intended it to be. It's one of those books that I can't dive into because at its core there is nothing, it's just vapid. Sure, the prose is fantastic, but prose alone cannot carry a book.
stunning prose!
>It was love at first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight
>And the rest is rust and stardust
>You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns
I read it for the prose, the plot seemed secondary to the beautiful turns of word that Nabokov used.
>>7402319
It's plebby. I can write better than this.
>>7402319
Now I'm glad I read a translation.
I thought the original was in russian so I bought a translated version
>>7401367
This image is so gay
I like it so much I create up to five new Lolita threads on /lit/ per day! :D
>>7403052
There she was with her ruined looks and her adult, rope-veined narrow hands and her gooseflesh white arms, and her shallow ears, and her unkempt armpits, there she was, hopelessly worn at seventeen, with that baby, dreaming already in her of becoming a big shot and retiring around 2020 A.D. --and I looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else. She was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet I had rolled myself upon with such cries in the past; an echo on the brink of a russet ravine, with a far wood under a white sky, and brown leaves choking the brook, and one last cricket in the crisp weeds...
>>7403111
Even with your trips this post is shitty.
>>7401367
Nabokov is like the novelist version of Robert Browning except not good
>>7403061
took me a while
>>7403111
Don't quit your day job
>>7403111
Wait, the girl in this book is 17? I thought it was a pedo book
>People who've only read translations talk about how beautiful the prose is
That's like praising steak when you've only ever eaten ground beef
Without question, Lolita is the greatest novel of the 20th Century. Well, some question this but not many. It is absolutely beautiful. I've read it many times and the writing still just floors me. If you like, I'd recommend "The Annotated Lolita" and also the full book on audible narrated by Jeremy Irons. (btw I'm a femanon)
There she was with her ruined looks and her adult, rope-veined narrow hands and her gooseflesh white arms, and her shallow ears, and her unkempt armpits, there she was, hopelessly worn at seventeen, with that baby, dreaming already in her of becoming a big shot and retiring around 2020 A.D. --and I looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else. She was only the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet I had rolled myself upon with such cries in the past; an echo on the brink of a russet ravine, with a far wood under a white sky, and brown leaves choking the brook, and one last cricket in the crisp weeds…
Yeah. THAT is the paragraph that KILLS. "the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo…" Nabokov fell in love with the English language and it shows his mastery of it. A genius. Unfortunately, he only had one truly great book in him. Ada is a mess.
>>7403262
That was like four or five years after the beginning of the book.
The book fails because Humbert never arrives at true repentance. The opening of the book talks about a "moral apotheosis" (very strange choice of words) but Humbert never truly repents. His murdering of Quilty is just pure pride. He had no right whatsoever to murder Quilty, given that he treated her no worse than Humbert himself did. Then right at the end he's supposed to look out on a school playground and realise that he's robbed Dolores of her childhood, but we KNOW that she spends his time in jail after that writing his masturbatory memoirs, which is NOT how you write if you are sincerely repentant. The very last words of the book are him saying that he will come back as a phantom and haunt Dolores' husband if he mistreats her. Wtf. He has no right whatsoever to 1. act paternally towards Dolores, 2. claim some kind of moral authority to punish her husband for mistreating her, when he should be entirely focused on how badly he himself has mistreated her - killed her mother, raped her, kidnapped her, took her away from her home and everything she knew, turned her into a sex slave, stole her childhood, etc.
>>7403365
Also, the most disgusting moment in the book is when Humbert looks at the pregnant Lolita, looks at pregnancy as something disgusting in itself, and has proud thoughts about the hick, provincial American lad. Complete arrogance and disdain for simple Americans (I say this as a European).
The most demonic thought is when he muses that he will impregnate Lolita herself just so he can have a "litter" of Lolitas when she becomes unattractive to him due to age.
You know this book would have worked better if it was about homosexuality/sodomy. Humbert's narcissism and aesthete sensibilities more accurately pertains to sodomites. Thinks that his "intellectual thoughts" or "beautiful words" can redeem him morally unjustifiable way of life.
>>7403317
great tiab <--
>>7403322
I thought Ada was very fun. Certainly not as focused, but there are some great moments.
A problem I had with the book was the huge number of references to other works. I can understand that it's trying to show the MC is pretentious and likening his attraction to Lolita to some grand romance, but the book really falls flat if you don't know what he's referencing.
>>7401383
This anon has it write.
Lolita is a masterpiece, easily one of the best books I've ever read, and one of the best modern books ever written.
Literally anyone that thinks it's bad is an idiot that didn't understand it or didn't appreciate it properly. Its truly inarguable.
>>7403762
i disagree, nabokov's prose is fucking delicious.
>>7403365
why are you assuming that Humbert "should" arrive at true repentance. that doesn't make any sense
>>7403805
I think the problem is that a big way to know that Humbert isn't sincere is that any reference he uses to love is borrowed from someone else. Without that, all he's talking about is a basic desire to have sex. If you don't know that all the love talk is references, with nothing coming directly from him, you can't make that connection.
>>7403835
but you can make the connection that he's a middle aged man preying on a pubescent child which should be enough to draw out the irony in Humbert's language.
>>7403847
I didn't think it's ironic because thought that children could understand love at an earlier age than what may be socially acceptable. You could argue that he's just a guy trying to have sex, but if you take the things about love he's saying at face value, it's hard to prove that. Again, a simply way to refute that he's genuine is to point out that all his love talk is taken from other sources, not himself, which makes you doubt that he actually feels that way. But unless you know the references you can't figure that out.
When I did read it I thought the book was more about a guy who genuinely loved a young girl, but struggled with that due to him being an adult man with sexual needs and her being a young child. It was only later when I found out about the ways the references were used did I understand, but again that's relying on outside sources to understand the content and story of the book, which I don't think is acceptable.
>>7403870
>When I did read it I thought the book was more about a guy who genuinely loved a young girl, but struggled with that due to him being an adult man with sexual needs and her being a young child.
This just means you were successfully manipulated by the sociopath and child predator Humbert Humbert.
>>7403894
Yes, but I'm saying that the only way to not be manipulated by the author is to know the materials he's referencing. And there is no way to know that unless you've read them before, or are told to do so by an outside source. Which means the construction is a failure. It doesn't stand on its own.
>>7401383
I've read the translation of despair it had a somewhat interesting twist.
Currently reading Pale Fire.
>>7403906
jfc, if you really need to be told to be on the lookout for manipulation when the protagonist and narrator of the book is a child rapist and murderer then i don't know what to say to you.
i don't personally know every work or idea alluded to in lolita, that didn't stop me from 'getting' that humbert humbert is a monster that isn't to be trusted.
and nabokov tells you on the first page of the fucking book to be on the look out:
"you can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style."
>>7404111
I would only consider HH a rapist by legal definition. It seems like he actually convinced Lolita to have sex with him. I wasn't looking at the book morally, only trying to understand what was being said. You can understand that someone is being deceptive without considering what they've done wrong. And just because a person is describing previous deceptions, that doesn't mean he's currently deceiving you as well.
>>7404172
>I wasn't looking at the book morally
no one said you should have
>>7404172
>I would only consider HH a rapist by legal definition
lost it
>>7404194
>humbert humbert is a monster that isn't to be trusted.
That is a moral judgment. The book says that he had sex with a young girl and killed someone. That doesn't mean you shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt. To do otherwise would be a moral judgment.
>>7404207
>The book says that he had sex with a young girl and killed someone. That doesn't mean you shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt.
the hits keep coming
>>7404207
>A simple child, Lo would scream no! and frantically clutch at my driving hand whenever I put a stop to her tornadoes of temper by turning in the middle of a highway with the implication that I was about to take her straight to that dark and dismal abode.
Did you even read the book?
>>7403936
Just finished that, pretty great.
>you will never be one of Kinbote's table tennis boys
>>7403762
how did such a stupid bait get so many replies?
>>7404496
Its in the first chapter in part two where they're first traveling and he's talking about how he finds ways to bribe and scare her, right before he goes into the monologue about how if she told the police he'd go to prison for 10 years but her life would be ruined after social services dealt with her. Here is another excerpt from when he finishes that speech:
>By rubbing all this in, I succeeded in terrorizing Lo, who despite a certain brash alertness of manner and spurts of wit was not as intelligent of a child as her I.Q. might suggest.
>Terrorizing
>>7403273
well meme'd brother
>>7403273
It was written in English you donut
>>7402309
>prose alone cannot carry a book
I disagree entirely, reading anything by Nabokov is blissful from sheer aesthetic beauty. Every sentence is intriguing.
>>7404988
>you donut
Why did i laugh so much