/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12414391]

I'm new to literature and currently reading Lolita. While the prose is really pretty, an overwhelming amount of the text is completely fucking unnecessary. The amount of times I've been reading through a passage, thinking "will you get to the point already" before finishing it and realizing that there was no point to get to is staggering. The book is drowning in superfluous metaphors and descriptions while actual events seem to barely happen at all.

There's paragraph after paragraph of things that Lolita's outfit could be likened to in some way, but plot lines like her being transferred to a new school and learning to act or them being followed as they travel cross country are barely even there. I have almost no idea what their relationship is actually like, any event or action on their part that could give me insight into it is obfuscated by piles of bullshit. He's a child molester and she's a tsundere, and both of them seem to simultaneously control one another. She'll lie about where she's been so she won't get in trouble with him, but then she'll beat him over the head with emotional leverage and blackmail him into submitting to her demands. He'll man-handle and literally sexually assault her, but then he'll literally crawl around on all fours begging to lick her feet. Is there any explanation as to why they act this way? No, because he had to make room for describing every car he can remember seeing from one arbitrary point in time to another or to explain why the paintings on the wall of the hotel lobby are for plebs and how nude children would be a far better choice. At least, I think that's what he said, because he seems to have challenged himself to be as nebulous and verbose as humanly fucking possible.

What the fuck am I missing? Is this what literature is supposed to be? A mediocre story told in a mediocre way to justify having a series of words that sound pretty when put in a particular order? I'm currently on chapter 22 of part two and everything I've read up until this point could have been told in less than half of the space and time it's taken so far, and it's murdering my motivation. Why the fuck should I read another 14 chapters when I know there's going to be barely enough actual story for even a few?

[Anonymous No.12414404]

>>12414391
Maybe try something a little more your speed like harry potter or twilight before jumping into Lolita.

[Anonymous No.12414407]

>>12414404
This, stop seething redditpleb

[Anonymous No.12414408]

>>12414404
Wow epic, I'm upvoting your post right now friend.

[Anonymous No.12414412]

>>12414407
>This book is shit because X, Y, and Z
>ur just from reddit

Have you even read Lolita or is this one of those 'going against the 4chan hivemind is against my programming' moments?

[Anonymous No.12414419]

>>12414391
>reading fiction for "the point"
Maybe read Aesop's fables. Those might be more adequate for ya. I mean, what do you want us to do? Rewrite Lolita?

[Anonymous No.12414420]

>>12414391
>I'm new to literature
>Boo hoo where's my plot
>Is this what literature is supposed to be?
Yes.
Abandon this hobby and go back to >>>/a/
If you want to read straight forward stories with plot and characters read the fucking newspaper.

[Anonymous No.12414430]

>>12414412
>hivemind
That's a Plebbit term. Plebbitor spotted.

[Anonymous No.12414434]

>>12414391
>everything I've read up until this point could have been told in less than half of the space and time it's taken so far
I mean, what do you want? A 1 page book that says "Man like young girl"?

[Anonymous No.12414435]

If you want "the point," can't you just read the wiki summary? Maybe even cliffnotes, so that you can talk about it as if you've actually read it.

[Anonymous No.12414437]

>>12414391
Didn't like the book too, to me the book should have ended after he fucked the girl, there was no need to continue. And I hate how to writer is a pseud putting so much unnecessary fancy words and french words

[Anonymous No.12414446]

>>12414430
Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.12414447]

>>12414404
Well aren't you doing the same thing?
>While the prose is really pretty, an overwhelming amount of the text is completely fucking unnecessary
That's where you stopped adding new information and started expanding on your thoughts. It wasn't "necessary," but you included it. Maybe you should stop reading for "necessity" and try to understand WHY Nabokov is adding what he's adding

[Anonymous No.12414458]

>>12414437
>how to writer is a pseud
Better a "pseud" than an illiterate

[Anonymous No.12414466]

>>12414446
?

[Anonymous No.12414471]

>>12414437
>to me the book should have ended after he fucked the girl, there was no need to continue. And I hate how to writer is a pseud putting so much unnecessary fancy words and french words
Goddamn you're retarded

[Anonymous No.12414473]

>>12414419
>>12414420
Are you guys for fucking real? So you guys read stories about things happening to people, but not for the stories, the things happening, or the people? You guys will eat trash provided it's aesthetically pleasing?

>>12414434
I want a book that doesn't have everything come grinding to a halt so I can read half a dozen pages of the various foods he thinks this girl's vagina might taste like or something. Moreover, I would prefer it if those half dozen pages weren't taking the place of actual, story relevant details.

>>12414435
>This guy is obfuscating details of the story behind a fog of pointless text.
>Well why don't you just read the story with all the details removed, huh?

[Anonymous No.12414476]

>>12414447
Did you mean to reply to him?

[Anonymous No.12414487]

>>12414473
Are you new here? How did you find /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12414502]

>>12414473
>I want a book that doesn't have everything come grinding to a halt so I can read half a dozen pages of the various foods he thinks this girl's vagina might taste like or something. Moreover, I would prefer it if those half dozen pages weren't taking the place of actual, story relevant details.
You're reading incorrectly. Considering the fact that it's first person, how else is it supposed to be? We have to read Humbert's thoughts, his though processes take up pages, but how else will we know what he is thinking? That's not the story coming to a halt. And did you ever think that his monologues are the story relevant details? The story doesn't just exist only when two characters talk to each other or go somewhere

[Anonymous No.12414507]

>>12414458
Burger isn't my first language

[Anonymous No.12414515]

>>12414473
>So you guys read stories about things happening to people, but not for the stories, the things happening, or the people?
Those are just a few aspects of literature, same as aesthetics. Literature is not just these 4 elements your dumb self was barely able to extract.

You're too much of a fucking ignorant. I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.12414575]

>>12414391
dont listen to these psueds
literature is meant to be critique
we need more of it here.
im new to /lit/ too and soon as i find a better place im GONE!

[Anonymous No.12414578]

>unable to appreciate a highly regarded entry level lit book which is written to be enjoyable

Sorry, perhaps reading isn’t for you, head over to /tv/ and you may find it more to your tastes

[Anonymous No.12414587]

>>12414507
I'm also an ESLfag, so, anything is possible.

[Anonymous No.12414600]

>while the prose is really pretty
Droning opinions you don't understand
>an overwhelming amount of the text is completely fucking unnecessary
Proving you don't understand that opinion
>The book is drowning in superfluous metaphors and descriptions while actual events seem to barely happen at all.
Literally reading for the plot
>I have almost no idea what their relationship is actually like, any event or action on their part that could give me insight into it is obfuscated by piles of bullshit.
Missing that the entire point is that HH sugarcoats everything he says to make sure that the reader sees what he wants him to see and nothing else, and even when he does tell the reader something awful he makes sure to make it as beautiful and poetic as possible to distract him
>He's a child molester and she's a tsundere
Kill yourself
>both of them seem to simultaneously control one another
Good job, you fell for HH's tricks
>he seems to have challenged himself to be as nebulous and verbose as humanly fucking possible
Lolita is a very easy read, and another huge point that you've missed is that HH is a massive snob, so that in conjunction with him trying to sugarcoat everything leads to what you're complaining about
>everything I've read up until this point could have been told in less than half of the space and time it's taken so far
So? The plot of 2001 could have been done in 20 minutes, probably less. That doesn't mean it's worse off because it's not 20 minutes. There is more to art than fucking plot.
Literature and art in general is not suited to you as you are right now. I used to agree that authors should get to the point until I read Lolita and the idea of enjoying prose clicked for me - books I read after that with good plots/settings/whatever but occasionally awkward writing like Brave New World and No Longer Human were the ones that annoyed me more, even if I still like them. And of course plot can be a part of why a book is good, you'd have to be a complete fucking pseud to deny that, but it is not the only thing.
If there's one piece of advice you should take from my post, it's that you, as you are right now, should never ever EVER go near Ulysses or In Search of Lost Time. Both fantastic books that would give you an aneurysm

[Anonymous No.12414605]

>>12414404
Dude, EXCELLENT critique of OP's points, you have really showed yourself to understand the novel well enough to defend it from any specific criticisms.

[Anonymous No.12414608]

>>12414473
Okay, so, contrary to your opening post, you now need the details, except not the details according to the author but details according to your own idea of what they should and shouldn't include. There are of course multiple reasons for why Nabokov elected to use his specific style, including his own sensibilities and the mindset of HH which he so carefully tries to capture - you can listen to e.g. a Yale lecture on the book if you really care to understand these things (there's a entire course for freshmen on American lit available on youtube, it's very, should I say, accessible).

If the entire point of your post is "I don't like this book," then just read something else. If the point is "I like it but only at times," then, once again, read the cliffnotes. They'll have an analysis page with all the *important* details highlighted for your convenience.

[Anonymous No.12414611]

>>12414502
Follow my logic here.
>I pulled up and asked the man standing on the street corner for directions...
>I pulled my car up to the street corner where I spotted a portly looking man, mustachioed, dressed like he had just finished a days work of pretending to be more professional than he actually is. His mauve slacks, almost dangling from where they were cinched around his distended stomach, were just wrinkled enough to indicate that maybe his wife had neglected ironing them, the light tan line around his finger and tired face...

In both of these example sentences I pulled out of my ass, the protagonist pulls up to an unnamed character, asks for directions, and drives off. This unnamed character is neither seen nor heard from again. So why, as a hypothetical author, would I choose the latter of the former? They both convey the same amount of necessary information, while one has an excess of unnecessary information. Lolita, as a book, has a lot of shit like this, and it adds up quite a bit over the pages. Humbert is supposed to be recalling what landed him in jail after the fact, and regularly plugs up holes in his story with this kind of shit.

>>12414515
>>12414578
>I can't actually counter your criticisms, but I disagree anyway in ways I won't specify.
The battle cry of the mentally challenged.

[Anonymous No.12414627]

>>12414600
By the way I should make it clear that when calling No Longer Human awkward, I'm talking about the translation, I have no idea how well written it is in Japanese

[Anonymous No.12414631]

>>12414404
>>12414407
>>12414412
>>12414419
>>12414420
>>12414446
>>12414447
>>12414471
>>12414578
Wow /lit/ is full of pedos. Guess i shouldn't be too surprised because this is 4chan after all.
>n-n-no i read lolita for t-t-the prose *starts sobbing*
Sure thing. Now why don't you have a seat anon?

[Anonymous No.12414637]

>>12414631
go back to /tv/

[Anonymous No.12414638]

>>12414600
>Missing that the entire point is that HH sugarcoats everything he says to make sure that the reader sees what he wants him to see and nothing else, and even when he does tell the reader something awful he makes sure to make it as beautiful and poetic as possible to distract him
Is that what he's trying to do? It doesn't work at all, then. As a matter of fact I kept thinking "Shit, this guy really isn't trying to downplay his actions or make himself seem better" while I was reading.
>Good job, you fell for HH's tricks
He was trying to trick me into thinking he was malicious AND pathetic?
>Lolita is a very easy read
I didn't say it was hard to read.
>and another huge point that you've missed is that HH is a massive snob, so that in conjunction with him trying to sugarcoat everything leads to what you're complaining about
"It's supposed to suck"
>Literature and art in general is not suited to you as you are right now. I used to agree that authors should get to the point until I read Lolita and the idea of enjoying prose clicked for me
Oh so because I find your particular preferred flavor of art wanting, I am unfit to judge art in general? Are you always this solipsistic?

[Anonymous No.12414640]

>>12414611
Instead of posting your own awful attempts of imitation, post an example of supposedly superfluous information so I can explain in detail why you’re retarded.

[Anonymous No.12414655]

>>12414608
>contrary to your opening post, you now need the details
I always need details. This book is sorely lacking in details. How many synonyms you could come up with for the color of something doesn't add any detail to it's description, what is difficult to understand about that?

[Anonymous No.12414656]

>>12414637
>pedo tells anon to go to 4chan's pedo capital
Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.12414667]

You don't HAVE to like a book. That doesn't make it bad.

Moreover, everyone has their tolerance for expansive imagery. Some people love George RR Martin, some people can't read his books. Some people love Cormac McCarthy, some people can't read his books.

That said, your mistake was assuming that your preference and opinion were actually fucking analytical or worth talking about.

No, you're disinterested in the text for a shallow reason. That's fine. Nobody put a fucking gun to your head to read it.

Don't compare that preference to an educated opinion if you have no interest in trying to understand why its written how its written.

[Anonymous No.12414672]

>>12414391
You're 100% right, OP. It's a book that makes normies feel sophisticated, because they're reading lengthy word salads.
Although it's not a bad book by any means, it's lacking in passion and engagement.

[Anonymous No.12414707]

>>12414640
>I reached my destination around half past two; parked my car in a pine grove where a green-shirted, redheaded impish lad stood throwing horseshoes in sullen solitude; was laconically directed by him to an office in a stucco cottage; in a dying state, had to endure for several minutes the inquisitive commiseration of the camp mistress, a sluttish worn out female with rusty hair. Dolly she said was all packed and ready to go. She knew her mother was suck but not critically. Would Mr. Haze, I mean, Mr. Humbert, care to meet the camp counsellors? Or look at the cabins where the girls live? Each dedicated to a Disney creature? Or visit the Lodge? Or should Charlie be sent over to fetch her? The girls were just finishing fixing the Dining Room for a dance. (And perhaps afterwards she would say to somebody or other: "The poor guy looked like his own ghost.")

Here, a random paragraph I picked after opening to a random page. You could say this as "I pulled up to the office in a stucco cottage and denied being given a tour by a sluttish, worn out looking woman. She said Dolly knew her mother was sick but not critically, and offered to have someone named 'Charlie' go fetch her."

[Anonymous No.12414716]

>>12414631
>he has to morally agree with every protagonist he reads
Imagine being this much of an NPC

[Anonymous No.12414718]

Leave this board and never return if any one of these apply to you:

>you read any form of genre fiction
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

[Anonymous No.12414730]

>>12414667
>That's just, like, your opinion, man.
>If you don't like it, just don't read it.
>Why are you talking about a book you're reading, here, on /lit/ of all places?

[Anonymous No.12414749]

>>12414446
>Stop embarrassing yourself.
yeah on an anonymous board. no karma here plebbit; you can fuck off back

[Anonymous No.12414769]

>>12414707
>She knew her mother was suck
Hmmm

[Anonymous No.12414777]

>>12414769
Oops. The misspelling of "counselor" with the second 'L' is actually in the book, though.

[Anonymous No.12414790]

>>12414638
Do you like 2001? If so, why? Because it's certainly not because it's concise with its plot.

[Anonymous No.12414803]

>>12414790
I haven't seen the movie or read the novel.

[Anonymous No.12414805]

>>12414707
>I want books to have fewer details
>I want want the writer to "get to the point" like a children's book
>I want everything to serve the plot like a movie
Überpleb, kys. Try genre fiction, because literary fiction is clearly not for you. There's not much left to be said, really.

[Anonymous No.12414816]

>>12414391
>He's a child molester and she's a tsundere
Lol are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.12414819]

>>12414611
Follow my logic here.
>he is obviously a tourist from some other board
>he didn't lurk for 2 years before posting
>he acknowledges he doesn't know shit about literature
>from his lack of exposure and knowledge, he has this dumb preconcept about what literature is supposed to be like
>reads 1 book
>his opinions make little sense
>IS THIS LITERATURE?
>BECAUSE IF IT IS, LITERATURE SUCKS. FIGHT ME.
Why would I waste my time discussing a book with you?
What could you possibly learn?

[Anonymous No.12414821]

>>12414707
You could try other writers, y'know. Carver, Hemingway, and some others might be what you're looking for. I mean, what do want us to do? Convince you otherwise? Shorten the novel for you? What are we supposed to do with your complaints? You like what you like. Period.

[Anonymous No.12414824]

>>12414391
We only pretend that this book has merit so that the pedos oust themselves and we can quietly report them to the FBI. You aren't actually supposed to read it newfag.

[Anonymous No.12414834]

>>12414824
kek

[Anonymous No.12414847]

>>12414718
It appears I’m safe for this board, thank you for your time, gentlemen

[Anonymous No.12414856]

>>12414816
This is why anime is a cancer on the mind. Everything becomes a trope and this guy unironically thinks the book would be better with all the imagery and flavour taken out.

[Anonymous No.12414864]

>>12414718
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
Bloom BTFO
Niggers BTFO

[Anonymous No.12414877]

>>12414856
And he can't work out why the characters act the way they do because there isn't some guy on the sideline explaining it to death.

[Anonymous No.12414880]

>>12414805
>I really like a book that tells a story to include a lot of things that do nothing to serve the story
>But since I can't actually quantify any reasons for this I'm going to just attack your taste instead
Maybe they'll teach you how to argue a point in high school.

>>12414819
Let me get this straight. I can't see the merit of this book because I don't know anything about literature, which implies what makes this book good is that it closely adheres to the standards of literature which I seem to be completely ignorant of, rather than being good for competently telling an interesting and informative story. But, for some reason, you refuse to tell me what the standards of literature are because it would be a waste of your time.

In other words, this book is only good because it follows a secret set of rules that you won't tell me. Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.12414912]

>>12414575
Yum yum Malevich is so cool

[Anonymous No.12414937]

>>12414880
>I really like a book that tells a story to include a lot of things that do nothing to serve the story
Consider that perhaps those things do in fact serve the story. Perhaps you just can't see how. Or perhaps the "story" isn't even the point.

[Anonymous No.12414962]

>>12414880
>I want everything in the book to serve the plot like in a movie
Maybe they'll teach you how to read in primary school.

[Anonymous No.12414965]

>>12414937
Okay, I'm with you so far, so what IS the point then?

[Anonymous No.12414970]

>>12414962
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.12414975]

>>12414707
>>I reached my destination around half past two; parked my car in a pine grove where a green-shirted, redheaded impish lad stood throwing horseshoes in sullen solitude
This paints a vivid picture of the scene in my head when I read it.
>I pulled up to the office in a stucco cottage and denied being given a tour by a sluttish, worn out looking woman
This does not.

[Anonymous No.12414993]

>>12414975
We spend a lot more time with HH than we do with the camp, yet there is a far clearer description of the camp than HH. Why not just let the reader imagine what the camp looks like themselves, considering the visual description of the camp doesn't actually affect anything?

[Anonymous No.12414996]

>>12414970
>>12414880
>N-not an argument! Hehe
Also not arguments. You really thought we'd rush to try to convince you otherwise? We're not in Plebbit, faggot. If you have a pathetically pleb opinion, just kys. inb4 "n-not an argument", kys twice.

[Anonymous No.12414998]

What's the best edition of Lolita? Is there anything special with the 50th anniversary edition except an extremely arousing cover?

[Anonymous No.12415008]

>>12414996
Then why are you even replying? You just keep coming back to say "You're wrong and I'm not gonna actually explain why hehe" over and over again. Are you a woman?

[Anonymous No.12415011]

>>12414993
>it doesn't have the details I want boo hoo
Why would he reveal details about himself? Jesus Christ, why are you even readint this? Quit. Play vidya or watch a Marvel movie or something.

[Anonymous No.12415016]

>>12414880
OP, don't worry about /lit/'s opinions. There are certain authors and works which you can't seriously criticize - you can meme about them, sure, but if you bring up sincere gripes they bring out their sincere pitchforks. But yeah, don't worry. I haven't read Lolita in a while, but it is to my memory that Nabokov employs more style than substance. Granted, the novel certainly has both, and the eloquent prose is not merely for show but to showcase the nature of Humbert himself, that said, I don't think Nabby towed in as much content as he could have, and so we're left with a very unique novel in premise and execution, succeeding in crafting an atmosphere of consistently beautiful prose - and yet, something somewhat without substance. Just be true to yourself and don't let the hiveminds, here or elsewhere, get to you.

[Anonymous No.12415022]

>>12414391
ALL Russian literature starts off strong, sags in the middle and has a strange, magical and often sad ending

[Anonymous No.12415027]

>>12415011
>Why would he reveal details about himself?
The main character? The protagonist? Why would we get details about him in a novel about him? That's what you're asking me?

[Anonymous No.12415034]

>>12414965
I can't help you specifically with Lolita because I haven't read it. Part of it is >>12414975

It could also be that something is described in detail for symbolic reasons. For example I'm reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by Joyce, and chapter 2 contains this paragraph:
>Aubrey and Stephen had a common milkman and often they drove out in the milkcar to Carrickmines where the cows were at grass. While the men were milking the boys would take turns in riding the tractable mare round the field. But when autumn came the cows were driven home from the grass: and the first sight of the filthy cowyard at Stradbrook with its foul green puddles and clots of liquid dung and steaming bran troughs, sickened Stephen’s heart. The cattle which had seemed so beautiful in the country on sunny days revolted him and he could not even look at the milk they yielded.
This seems inconsequential to the "plot," but it symbolically mirrors Stephen's own loss of innocence and subsequent disgust with himself that occurs later in the chapter.

[Anonymous No.12415045]

>>12415008
I'm not wasting time with you if you fundamentally dislike the book. Why even try? Convincing you why you're wrong it'd be plebbit tier. Maybe ask r/books the same question or browse the archive for the millions of times faggots like you have asked the exact same shit. It seems like you want to experience zero effort like a typical teenager. I won't do your job any easier. Work for your answer.
> Are you a woman?
Are you retarded? I know the answer. Dont know why I'm even asking.

[Anonymous No.12415052]

>>12415027
Look up what an "unreliable narrator" is.

[Anonymous No.12415057]

>>12414962
lol how will pseud OP ever recover?

[Anonymous No.12415063]

>>12415027
>what is an unreliable narrator
Jesus. You're worse than I expected.

[Anonymous No.12415064]

>>12414391
>>12414391
im i guess wha>>12414391
t u might say sorta well read for my age and i didnt like lolita that much.

[Anonymous No.12415069]

>>12414880
Literature doesn't really have standards.
Unlike anime, characterization in literature is not always just about "character design", a backstory and a few personality stereotypes explicitly attached to it. Good characterization in literature sometimes takes hundreds of pages to paint an accurate picture.
The narrative doesn't need to be the standard pseudo omniscient viewpoint of the camera.
Literature doesn't need a plot. Sure, the standard dramatic structure (intro-conflict-resolution) is pretty frequent, but that's not the exact same thing as 'plot'.
Literature does not need to be informative, it's a form of artistic expression. Like I said before, if you want straight forward information, read the newspaper.

[Anonymous No.12415082]

>>12415016
Thank you for saying so. I really, genuinely enjoyed the first half, but all at once I realized I was getting a whole lot of colorful flashing spotlights pointing at an empty stage, so to speak.

>>12415034
There are moments in the book where exactly what you're talking about happens, and I notice them and appreciate what they say about the characters. However, when you have a dozen symbols that all mean the exact same thing, and you just keep getting them one after another before finally just explaining the symbol outright, the punch wears off and it just feels like you're being waterboarded.

>>12415052
>>12415063
Oh so if I write a novel and do something lazily, I could just say the narrator is unreliable and therefor criticisms are invalid. Cool.

[Anonymous No.12415092]

>>12414391
Narrative time is a pretty important aspect of understanding works of literature, when Nabokov focuses on description he is pausing the story time to create metaphors. He uses pause a lot.

[Anonymous No.12415108]

>>12415082
>Oh so if I write a novel and do something lazily, I could just say the narrator is unreliable and therefor criticisms are invalid. Cool
Are you a nigger? I'm starting to think so. No way an evolved mind would say this. If so, I can understand you. Otherwise you might be just baiting.

[Anonymous No.12415127]

>>12415069
>if you want straight forward information, read the newspaper.
bad advice tbqh

[Anonymous No.12415148]

Imagine writing plebbit the post and then continuously replying to everything to justify yourself. This isn’t your blog, no one cares about your opinion.

[Anonymous No.12415167]

sorry u got tangled n caught in the retard filter like a (gay) mutt in a dog catcher's net

[Anonymous No.12415198]

>>12415082
>colorful flashing spotlights pointing at an empty stage
What a remarkably accurate summary. It's sad too, because Nabby was such a stunning prose-writer that if only he had devoted more effort to the actual content of the novel, and not merely how it was presented, the novel would be in even greater esteem today, and possibly one of the top five of its century. Then again, my views are of course subjective, and others do hold it to already be among that list.

[Anonymous No.12415219]

>>12414391
Holy shit. I haven't even read the thread yet, but this is no doubt one of the most retarded OPs I've seen on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.12415223]

>>12414391
>retard is filtered out by a pleb filter of a novel
>proceeds to sperg like a woman in her period for the entire thread
Days without a retard's thread: 0

[Anonymous No.12415271]

I've already posted in this thread with another post a bit more critical but I am going to try and help you now
Has she been kidnapped yet? You do actually have some plot coming up - finding out what happens to her when she gets older and what HH did that he got imprisoned for - and a chapter that focuses on HH reflecting on how little he really ever knew her, which may help with your problem of their relationship being unclear and should definitely stop you thinking of Lo as a tsundere.
Obviously you shouldn't be reading just for the plot anyway and you are missing the point but I thought I might as well say that all of Part 2's plot is near the end, and if the chapter I just mentioned and the final chapter don't hit hard then I don't know what to say.
Some books that may be more up to what you're looking for for the moment (keep in mind this is temporary) are books like Stoner, 1984 and Of Mice And Men.
>Stoner
Very succinct but beautiful prose, the plot isn't high stakes, it's about the life of a nobody, but there is definitely a plot, there may also be 'literally me' appeal for you as there is for a lot of people, also has one of the best opening pages I've ever seen
>1984
Very utilitarian prose, you'll probably love the ideas, just don't be one of those people who never shuts up about it
>Of Mice and Men
If you didn't read it in school, it's a simple but great story with simple but effective prose, everyone likes Of Mice and Men

Basically all of them have prose with less 'unnecessary detail' which would probably be better to ease you in. I should be clear here that neither simple nor elaborate is inherently better.

[Anonymous No.12415294]

>>12415271
Why are you spoonfeeding this dunce? Probably a woman or a kid that came with the pewdiepie crowd.

[Anonymous No.12415309]

>>12415271
>Has she been kidnapped yet?
I'm 10 or 15 chapters from the end.
>Obviously you shouldn't be reading just for the plot anyway
I was reading it for the prose and plot until the plot left and the prose decided to take over everything.
>you are missing the point but I thought I might as well say that all of Part 2's plot is near the end
Good, I look forward to it.

Thank you for your recommendations.

[Anonymous No.12415340]

>>12414631
>This is 4chan after all.
xD 4chan is liek the darkest most fucked up place on the internet i like it desu :)

[Anonymous No.12415350]

>>12414631
Obviously bait but whatever.
The book doesn’t glorify HH’s behavior. It more in line with those “to catch a predator” shows where you’re just cringing watching people’s lives go down the drain.

[Anonymous No.12415460]

>>12414404
this

[Anonymous No.12416065]

>>12414391
stick to reading wikipedia plot summaries, kid.

[Anonymous No.12417058]

Just re-read it and shut the hell up

literature is subjective experience. you don't have to like Lolita. but you can appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.12417790]

Yeah, feel this way about alot of books...
Get. To. The. (Fucking.) Point.

(But at least Lolita has given voice and a merited touchstone for pedo culture.)

[Anonymous No.12418407]

>>12414391
Don't worry, OP. It seems I feel the same as you. It didn't even hold my interest enough to finish the damn pretty thing

[Anonymous No.12418469]

>>12414993
The description of HH is how he perceives the world around him. This is what makes character studies interesting. Its not interesting reading a list of qualities attributed to a character.
The exmple >>12414707 tells u alot about HH.
>camp mistress, a sluttish worn out female with rusty hair.
Even this description of a women working at the camp is made sexual and devalued. The fact that this is just someone HH met tells u a lot about him and the way he perceives the world (which is what ultimately what leads to his downfall u know the plot).

Also the book is like 200 pages long u could read it in 2 days at leisure, OP is just here to create a rustle.

[Anonymous No.12418472]

>>12415294
if anything its women who read for prose and not the plot.

[Anonymous No.12419032]

>>12414391
Older books were written with piss poor editing and tone. It's actually a miracle that a lot of books from 75 years ago are as good as they are, but even a novice editor could rip apart passages from Paradise Lost for example

[Anonymous No.12419202]

>>12414437
I was believing you up until this point but this is b8.

[Anonymous No.12419304]

It's like demanding for music have a plot. Facts are expended once you consume them once, but prose allows for constant rediscovery the same way one might examine a sculpture or a painting and gain repeated aesthetic pleasure. Beautiful prose beautifies memory, and those things that you never notice in your daily life are invigorated because of the mnemonic mystery of a phrase or description. Art is largely for its own purpose. Nabokov has served his own purpose writing Lolita and his other books, rediscovering the world around him and creating little literary chocolate-boxes for his own perusal. You, on the other hand, are a wanderer through life without any perch, finding less intensity in the world around you than those of the poets or artists. That is largely your own problem, and all I can say is I pity the one who cannot grasp the clearest fire of life from a solitary leaf.

[Anonymous No.12419309]

>>12419304
I can't tell if these posts are supposed to be ironic or not