I just finished Lolita, please may we have a discussion about this book, /lit/?
How did you feel towards Humbert in the end?
What was your initial impression of Lolita?
What do you think of Nabokov's prose?
I initially thought Lolita was quite a malicious girl, but I warmed to her whenHumbert finds where she has settled down with her husband - she seemed genuinely motherly and sweet then. I also felt pretty sorry for Humbert and his loss in the end - he clearly still had a genuine love for Lolita as she grew up, and when he acknowledges, towards the endthat his actions didn't allow Lolita a true childhoodhe seems to regret everything.
This is a pretty powerful book. I initially thought Nabokov was a show-off with his prose, but I grew to love it and found that even the most mundane of scenarios became interesting with his use of language.
I only remember the Kubrick film years ago, how does the book compare to it?
>>7566953
Nabokov wrote the screenplay but he altered details from the book (like instead of Lolita being 12, she's 14) and it has its variations, but the final film seems to almost ignore the screenplay and is pretty different from the actual novel. Clare Quilty has a lot more focus in the film than he does the book.
>>7566945
What's with that cover?
>>7566996
It's lewd
>>7566996
If you can't see what it's intended for from the thumbnail at a quick glance then I don't know what to tell youIt's an optical illusion that, from a distance, looks like a girl in that sort of place
>>7566945
the only character in the book is Humbert, Lolita is a plot device since she is only 12, meaning she has no real motives to her actions
The book is in two halves: I half - a "monster" is battling against his "evil"
II half - the monster gives in to his evil
the first part was very interesting, the second part wasn't. after giving in to his urges, Humbert became a monster and the book lost any point that could be made
why? because Lolita was a 12 year old who was fucked by a 40 year old on the regular, her psyche was fucked so her decisions after it made no real difference.
Like I said, Lolita wasn't a character
Nabokov has said it himself, the book has no point, it's just a well written example of his ability
>>7567043
She had fucked on the camp before tho. H wasn't her first lover.
>>7567137
how does that make any difference considering what I said? this just proves my point even more
why did you write this?
>>7567323
Your point doesn't make any sense then.
>>7566945
I was disgusted by Humbert in the end, but I still loved his character dearly and thought he was extremely well written.
My first impression of Lolita was simple—that of a playful little girl. I never thought she was a seductress or anything along those lines.
I loved Nabokov's prose here! Lolita was one of the books that made me fall in love with reading. Definitely a dazzling style.
>>7567383
Lolita is a plot device, her actions of history don't matter, only Humbert's actions matter, this is my point. she could have been raped at the age of 3 and onwards, that doesn't change anything. Humbert was a 40 year old man who decided to fuck a 12 year old, whether she had been fucked before or not makes no difference
