Serious question, is Lolita worth your time if you have no interest in little girls?
I'm about 2 chapters in and the writing is fantastic but I'm not sure if I can stick with the subject matter for the whole book.
>>8215062
Stop being a little bitch and read the fucking book
>>8215062
bruv its just a book, no one thinks your a pedo for reading it, its a fanstastic book, if you cant handle a little unorthadox content you should stick to reading comic books or news paper articles, if you like it read it
>>8215062
yes
>Serious question, is Lolita worth your time if you have no interest in little girls?
what the fuck kind of question is that?
>hei guise is hamlet worth it if you have no interest in killing your uncle??
>hei guise is for whom a bell tolls worth it if you have no interest in fighting fascists in spain?
>hei guise is molloy worth it if you're not interested in being a zombie in ireland?
tl;dr yes
>>8215062
>the writing is fantastic
you just answered your own question, keep in mind not all read for the plot. Can't believe Nabokov captured the personality so vividly, but I found it a bit of a hard read because of my vocabulary, so i Only got through like 75% . I'll probably come back to it though
>>8215062
Jesus, this isn't a book for pedophiles, and it isn't even pornographic. There's only ONE scene that's remotely erotic.
>>8215062
People read for different reasons. I don't always approve of the art I consume from an ethical viewpoint but I do approve of it from other viewpoints.
For instance, I enjoyed Crime and Punishment, not because I want to kill someone, but because I wanted to explore Dostoyevsky's writing, style, and philosophy.
This is a good read if you have the time.
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL23.html
Is it nesacary to be into whaling to read Moby Dick? Am into the second chapter and the writing is good but am an enormous faggot.
>>8215062
I'm so sick of threads like these. Do you need the approval of /lit/ to justify such an action as reading a fucking book? Why? Do you want to read it? Read it. Don't want to read it? Don't. It is very simple. Quit being such a faggot OP.
OP again,
>Hamlet killing uncles
>Moby dick killing whales
Basically pedophilia just sickens me more than any of those things.
I mean raping kids? Jesus.
I don't want to read a book like that wtf.
Convince me to continue or I'm dropping it.
>>8215243
>I don't want to read a book like that wtf.
so don't read it you twat
>>8215243
>I mean raping kids? Jesus.
>>8215263
Is that what he meant by suffer little children?
>>8215243
technically it wasn't rape desu
>>8215243
can't rape the willing fampachi
little Dolores Haze wanted that cock deep inside her
>>8215062
I want to get started in Russian literature. Where do I begin?
>>8215243
There's something seriously fucking wrong with your brain if murder of humans and animals doesn't upset you but the physical act of love does.
>>8215448
become an alcoholic
>>8215449
>raping children
>the physical act of love
>>8215456
>sex
>worse than murder
batshit feminazi detected
>>8215243
He doesn't rape her, he sort of coerces her into having sex with him. That's still illegal and wrong but he doesn't have to physically overcome her resistance. It's been a while but at one point I think she's into it. She's also old enough for it not be considered pedophilia, just statutory rape, which as we all know is, ceteris peribus, a victimless crime.
>>8215464
>Tricking a child into having sex with you isn't rape
Seriously, what?
You think child rapists are all about duct tape and rope? Most children who are raped are talked into it. Just look at the priesthood.
Lolita is literally "Child Grooming: The Novel"
A predator could use it as a step by step guide.
>>8215464
>Child grooming is a victimless crime
The autism on this board is outrageous.
>>8215243
Drop it, faggot
>>8215473
Some girls are pretty "well developed" at twelve. Honestly, I had forgotten how young she was, I thought she was 14 or something. In some cultures a twelve year old girl is not considered a child, and I guess apparently they can conceive that young I think.
>A predator could use it as a step by step guide.
You know it was pure luck that Lo's momgot killedand if that hadn't happened Humbert would have had a lot more trouble. IIRC, he doesn't beat around the bush a lot, basically just hops into bed with her when her mother'sbody is still warm
Look I would never have sex with a girl that young, but in some sort of hypothetical situation, like if I had to to reproduce the species, it would be possible to do it. All the plumbing would "work" if you know what I mean.
>>8215488
Look I'm just saying that having sex with underage girls isn't necessarily wrong, just illegal. I didn't remember that Lolly was THAT young.
I don't have an eidetic memory for how old fictional characters are.
>>8215497
>Old enough to bleed is old enough to breed
Literally Islam: The Post
If you walk away from reading Lolita with a favourable opinion of Humbert (no matter how eloquent he is), you literally didn't understand the novel. It's the equivalent of walking away from the Brothers Karamazov and thinking it just affirmed your Christian faith. It's a failure to understand irony.Or you're a pedo scumbag who found in the protagonist someone who is as broken as you are.
>>8215520
i'll take the latter ;)
>>8215520
>It's the equivalent of walking away from the Brothers Karamazov and thinking it just affirmed your Christian faith.
Is this bait? I'm genuinely asking, since I've only read the first 1/4 or so of the book and some secondhand accounts of it, but the impression I always got was that it was decidedly pro-Christian. Does it just get misrepresented often?
>>8215513
If it was either knock up a twelve year old or let the whole species die out, I know which one I would pick. It wouldn't be fun, but I'd buckle down, swallow my pride, and take one for the team.
You know the Toba Catastrophe was a thing, right?
>>8215473
"child" is/was a legal term invented to facilitate the execution of contract law on a social level, it has no basis in biology or psychology and is historically tenuous at best
I've never come across a broadly applicable definition of child or childhood that didn't rely on a bunch specious "common sense" gar-bagé, even wrt contract law the definition varies wildly from one governing body to another
Started to re read recently and holy fuck is the opening comfy as fuck, the way it gets you all nostalgic for a childhood you didn't even experience. And later, as the relationship develops, the way you still feel that childlike spirit as the events become more and more depraved, is a really weird feeling but enjoyable as fuck to read.
Either way, incredible author, incredible book, would finish.
>>8215540
Child grooming is inherently bad because it causes harm to a person too young to be physically or mentally capable of sexual acts, and causing harm is to be avoided since maximising pleasure for all is the ultimate good,
>>8215524
>calling bait
>didn't read the book
>>8215554
People that age has children just a few centuries ago. You underestimate the mental capacity of teenagers. Or you overestimate the decision making of adults.
>>8215570
It is useless dwelling on what people did or did not do in the past, all that matters is a measured response to those things in the present for which we have the ability to influence for the better.
>no interest in little girls
You sound like a homosexual, to be perfectly honest.
guys i finally finished this dum book
am i a part of the squad now?
>>8215062
Serious answer: Yes.
>>8215464
>He doesn't rape her, he sort of coerces her into having sex with him.
That's the definition of rape.
>he doesn't have to physically overcome her resistance
That doesn't make it not rape idiot.
>>8215424
Humbert pls go
>It's the equivalent of walking away from the Brothers Karamazov and thinking it just affirmed your Christian faith. It's a failure to understand irony.
Literally, how?
>>8215243
Nobody fucking owes you a justification for reading good literature.
If you want to be a contemptible, lazy reader, then go ahead.
>>8215497
>You know it was pure luck that Lo's mom got killed and if that hadn't happened Humbert would have had a lot more trouble.
>This guy thinks the Forces of Fate™ blessed Humbert with that supremely lucky of a coincidence
Anon, pls
It's pretty clear that Humbert wants to show events in a manner that makes his love story seem like a tremendously Romantic fateful tragedy. I'm not saying he murdered her (it's pretty ambiguous), but if you saw through his unreliability, why would you believe him when he talks about something THAT lucky.
Same thing for the change in the phone booth, the "Who's Who" book in prison, and the list of Lo's classmates' names. It's artifice.
>>8215075
>newspapers
>orthodox content
Maybe youre reading the bland news but the real world is strange, scary and amazing. I've read some bizarre stuff in the average newspaper.
>>8215566
Yes, that is the reason I specifically said "I'm genuinely asking", you fucking mongoloid.
>>8215527
That you've even thought of the situation you laid out and contriving yourself into a situation where you don't even need to fuck a 12 year old - you could easily wait a couple years - tells me you're a closet pedophile.
>that one pompous as fuck moralfag that fucks up every otherwise civil Lolita thread
spook city
>>8215455
I love the way Humbert talks about Mrs Haze like she is just dogshit.
>>8217295
Well, he is a pedophile.
Women age like fruit
>>8217303
Agreed. The wall is real, anon.
>>8215062
>>8215062yes you dense troll
>>8215554
>Child grooming is inherently bad because it causes harm to a person too young to be physically or mentally capable of sexual acts, and causing harm is to be avoided since maximising pleasure for all is the ultimate good,
Utilitarianism isn't valid, sorry.
Pleasure is evil, not good.
>>8217560
>Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we always come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing.
>>8217639
epicurus was retarded, fuck off.
>>8217641
Not an argument.
>>8217649
neither is an axiomatic assumption of pleasure's goodness
>>8217659
If pleasure is not good, why, then, is it evil?
>>8217668
i wasn't the anon to make that argument (pleasure seems to me to have no moral character), i just clarified that epicurus was a retard.
>>8217668
Shut the fuck up and stop derailing the thread you watery cunt slit.
>>8217728
I would contend that getting this buttblasted over such trivialities is inherently evil.
>>8215108
Then why did the whole book give me a boner?
>>8215524
It's either bait or typical atheist pleb posting. Just look at who wrote it, that will tell you everything you need to know about its stance on Christianity.
>>8217668
>things can only be good or evil
>>8217639
That's not an argument, that's essentially just rhetoric.
IF PAIN IS UNWANTED...THEN IT IS CLEAR THAT PLEASURE, WHICH IS WANTED, MUST BE GOOD BECAUSE IT MAKES ME HAPPY
THEREFORE, MAKING EVERYBODY HAPPY IS GOOD
>>8217754
Then you have a fetish for motel rooms.
HUMBERT IS A HEBEPHILE
NOT A PEDOPHILE
THANK YOU
>>8217835
He literally said pleasure is evil.
>>8219242
>9 to 14
A little of both, really
>>8215243
OP sounds like a fucking idiot.
>>8215243
> not being open to uncomfortable subject matter and themes
> not wanting to be engaged by the unconventional and unsettling elements of our world because it's "too sickening"
> not wanting to mentally challenge yourself at all
That's OK, OP. Maybe there's some colouring books for mindfulness that are more your speed.
>>8215062
nabokov is shit. don't bother. read something good like Gaddis. nabokov is for pedophiles who want to insert themselves into literature to make their sick fantasies seem justified in art. don't read the horrible shit. I promise you'll be better off without it.
>>8215520
Not sure your brothers K analogy is correct. Dost was a devout Christian till his death. The novel is more a critique of the flaws of man and societies failed justice system.
But you know. Humberts will humberts.
>>8215108
>It isn't for pedophiles.
>>8219758
>7 to 14
Ftfy
>>8221480
>Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as "nymphets".
>>8215062
I can't stand this book. This is my favorite book hands down. And I'll never be able to tell people how beautiful this book it, because they will hear what it is about and give me a disgusted look.
They don't care that this Russian writes about a road trip all over America, giving respect to the scenery and states. They don't care that this is a landmark in the English language. They don't really care about that.
All they need to hear is that it's about a pedo and then they freak out.
10/10 book, no hesitation.
>>8215062
No. Its one of those doors that is best left unopened which cyberpunk authors are always talking about.
