So... I implore you to bear with me here /lit/. Of the books on my reading list I thought I'd give Lolita a go, however I was very tired, and thought I'd watch the 1887 movie first, having been directed by Kubrik and being a fan of Mr. Irons. I've just finished watching the movie and I am left... Bewildered and bereft. What concerns me is that I don't exactly know why. The ending was bizzare to say the least but it wasn't the most shocking film I'd ever seen by any means. Why am I left hurt? I don't understand. What I mean is why this movie, of any to do this to me?
I am interested in the portrayal of these characters, is the book any different from the story presented to us in the movie?
Also Humbert repeatedly tells us how much he loved the girl, but did he really? Or was he in love (obsessed) with the idea of her? Not the she was a child obviously, though I understand that is a major theme but what she ultimately represented?
Why was he so obsessed with her?
Hold me, /lit/,
Read the book or go fuck yourself, asshole.
>>7799418
>Why was he so obsessed with her?
the younger they are, the better the pussy is
let me tell you how this is gonna work from here on out kid:
either say something intellignt or shut the fuck up
you got trolled by a Russian dead for 40 years enjoy your complex faggot
>>7799418
>1887 movie
>>7799418
Go to /tv/ until you've read the book
>>7799424
>>7799516
OP here, I was planning on starting the book in the morning. I apologize for coming here instead of /tv/, I just wanted the opinion of people who have read the book. As well as to know if I should expect worse heartache from the book, which in retrospect is probably a very stupid question. I apologize everyone.
>>7799506
1997*
>>7799466
Not any more inclined to go kiddy fiddlin that I was before.
>>7799460
I was simply trying to start a discussion, my apologies if my stupidity offends you, really. I'm very conscientious about it actually.
>>7799543
Stanley Kubrick didn't direct the 1997 adaptation.
>>7799418
>Watching the movie to complete a reading list
>>7799418
The portrayal of the characters is different mostly just in detail. Humbert is much more developed in the movie, plus you get to appreciate nabokov's impeccable prose style (which is enough on its own to read the book).
But it's a beautiful book, full of ambiguous feelings, with a sort of nostalgic flavor, sweet and sad. The last few paragraphs always fucking get me. Anyways, yeah read it its fucking great. Don't even reply to this or check the thread ever again. Just go read it, thank me later.
>>7799726
(I just had to reply, that's exactly what I was looking for, thank you!) The reason it was on my list was because of the prose actually, next up is a few of Joyce's works and Faulkner. Thanks again my dear.
>>7799418
>Also Humbert repeatedly tells us how much he loved the girl, but did he really? Or was he in love (obsessed) with the idea of her?
bruh...
>>7799543
>1997
Man are you fucking stupid? That wasn't directed by Kubrick
>>7799789
Good luck with Faulkner and Joyce. Two of the most difficult authors in the English language, but also two of the most rewarding.
>>7800615
what would you say of Infinite Jest. not that anon but I'm planning on reading it and I'm afraid I would be in over my head. Is it more or less difficult then for example Ulysses?
>>7800675
I haven't read Infinite Jest, so I can't really tell you. If you read Ulysses and got through it, I doubt you would have trouble. Just go for it and check it out. Worst case scenario: you struggle and use supplementary and material to help you, emerging quite knowledgeable about IJ and Wallace.
>>7799418
The movie cannot be compared to the book because the plot of the book and the movie is irrelevant, it is merely a platform for Nabokov to display his remarkable prose. This prose is obviously not conveyed in a film unless the film was narrated precisely in accordance to the book (which i highly doubt though i have never watched the film). Anyways, just read the book. Watching that film was pointless if you did it to gauge the quality of the book.
>>7799418
Never judge a book based on its movie version. No matter how 'faithful' it is, it can never replicate the prose that is the core of any novel (except for genre exercises written in plain prose). All you get is a single representation of the plot and characters, nothing else.
I haven't watched the movie.
Do they show young Humbert with Annabel?
Also, does he have some internal monologue going on in the movie? I can't imagine them getting his thoughts across without having him literally speaking to the audience. Is there any important shit that gets skipped over?
>>7800675
It's a lot easier than Ulysses. It's just really long, mostly.
>>7801978
I've only seen the Jeremy Irons one, but yes - he has an inner monologue in the film and they do show a flashback towards the start of the film of young Herbert.
In my opinion (people probably will disagree) Lolita is more aware of what is happening in the film and is more manipulative than in the book.
I have not seen the other film so couldn't comment.
The soundtrack to the 97 film is stunning - one of my favourites.
>>7802308
The audiobook read by Jeremy Irons is fantastic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzJ1sMTW038
>>7800675
Infinite Jest is good, not out of this world amazing, not very complicated, pretty straightforward.
Humbert is the true victim.
>taking Lolita serious
>>7799639
I've done this sometimes to be honest. Fuck The Bostonians.
Humbert's confession and supposed "moral apotheosis" at the end was a complete sham. If Humbert was truly repentant he wouldn't have spent the last days of his life flattering himself for his literary talent and reliving his crimes with sensual indulgence. Humbert was a thorough narcissist.
>>He was obsessed with her because while he was young he had a fixation on a 12 year old girl. it never went away.
