/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18728836]

In 1958, Dorothy Parker described the novel as "the engrossing, anguished story of a man, a man of taste and culture, who can love only little girls"

[Anonymous No.18728839]

>>18728836
Dorothy Parker was fucking filtered HARD kek

[Anonymous No.18728853]

>>18728836
Wow. What a lame thinker. Good god.
What did she think of Catcher? Did she spot the rapes.

[Anonymous No.18728857]

>>18728839
>>18728853
In 1959, novelist Robertson Davies wrote that the theme of Lolita is "not the corruption of an innocent child by a cunning adult, but the exploitation of a weak adult by a corrupt child. This is no pretty theme, but it is one with which social workers, magistrates and psychiatrists are familiar."

[Anonymous No.18728860]

Wait, not only was she filtered but shes basically expressing the exact type that Nabokov was making fun of with Dolores's mother! Ha!

[Anonymous No.18728865]

>>18728857
This is a somewhat better one but there is a definite allegorical layer in there about how European and American culture interacted in the 20th century

[Anonymous No.18728882]

>>18728860
Remember that the old sows husband was much older than her…

[Anonymous No.18728921]

>>18728836
so? it is
>>18728857
ugh
>>18728865
ughh
>>18728860
>the exact type that Nabokov was making fun of with Dolores's mother
yeah nabakov is the type to "make fun of types"

[Anonymous No.18728924]

>>18728921
Literally the entirety of Pale Fire is making fun of types so yes

[Anonymous No.18728952]

>>18728924
seems you were filtered on that one

[Anonymous No.18729013]

>>18728921
>so? it is
>he thinks humbert can love
read closer, lenny

[Anonymous No.18729023]

>>18728952
Ok, I will bite. What did I miss

[Anonymous No.18729026]

>>18728952
>he says this while making 10 post threads about "deep secret unspeakable hidden bigger picture" key where they spend the entire time chasing half connections and half symboks that don't even fully fit the story.
Yeah bro, it is totally about suicide and afterlife even though there are only 10 pages concerning them in the book.
Nabokov filtered you so hard you have become the character he parodies

[Anonymous No.18729029]

>>18729023
Prepare for brian boyd tier analysis. A lot is written; very little said.

[Anonymous No.18729130]

>>18729023
i see ive baited another lolita thread into discussing pale fire with me heheh... but thats what we get for letting the PF threads die

>>18729026
hello once again spoilertag poster. surely the threads dying is more of a sign of lits illiteracy more than anything.

so youre still ignoring that all three characters have the same birthday, the many many grey/gradus and shade connections, shade and kinbotes shared literary opinions with nabokov (which would make a "its a parody" reading very awkward), kinbotes mirrored qualities of shade, that the entire poem is about the afterlife, kinbotes long digressions about the afterlife and god, the stillicide puns... all just to support your reductive theory that the book has a very dull and devoid of beauty point which is to parody academia (which lets be honest is an easy target) instead of a beautifully interconnected piece about themes that nabakov meditates on time and time again in his works? seems to me that the clues being fruitless red herrings that are meant to prank academics is exactly what people thought before signs and symbols was solved. its more probable to me that that was the real red herring all along.

like i said, i dont agree with boyds conclusion, but you cant dismiss the evidence. i dont fully agree with this either, but its a lot more on the right track, with even more evidence
>http://www.nabokovonline.com/uploads/2/3/7/7/23779748/v3_06_roth.pdf

[Anonymous No.18729144]

>>18729130
I asked for your opinion

[Anonymous No.18729174]

to add two more,
kinbote first arriving in america when shade has a heart attack-becoming, as his doctor says "half a shade" and his sleep walking dream

I once overheard
Myself awakening while half of me
Still slept in bed. I tore my spirit free,
And caught up with myself — upon the lawn
Where clover leaves cupped the topaz of dawn,
And where Shade stood in nightshirt and one shoe.
And then I realized that this half too
Was fast asleep; both laughed and I awoke
Safe in my bed as day its eggshell broke,
And robins walked and stopped, and on the damp
Gemmed turf a brown shoe lay! My secret stamp,
The Shade impress, the mystery inborn

>>18729144
im still looking for
>deep secret unspeakable hidden bigger picture
but these two posts are a good summation of my progress, if you read this too
>http://www.nabokovonline.com/uploads/2/3/7/7/23779748/v3_06_roth.pdf

[Anonymous No.18729422]

>>18729130
Only Shade and Kinbote share birthdays. Gradus is Kinbote's creation. It doesn't matter what his bday is. Kinbote clearly created him right in the book to align with some of the symbolism in the poem. If you think that their sharing of opinion is a reference to Nabokov then why would he portray himself as a neurotic guy and a guy who is clearly a mediocre poet? Wasn't that your argument for disregarding Shade and Kinbote being parodies of academics? Consistency please. The main characters sharing birthdays is a perfect Nabokovian trap for overanalyzers that Nabokov is parodying in the book.
>all just to support your reductive theory that the book has a very dull and devoid of beauty point which is to parody academia
you very clearly did not read my posts properly if that is what you think I said. It fits. That second post again is complete waffling. This is the entire problem. You have already made up your mind that there is a key against the lack of any evidence. You have hung up on a few symbols and trying to fit the narrative in it, even though the narrative repeatedly falsifies what you believe. Now you see Kinbote coming to America as a reference to Shade's personality splitting even though the book, implied or otherwise, provides us extensive background on his life before America. Not to mention the autobiographical elements concerning Kinbote and Nabokov. Yet here it is again, false connections. Kinbote had a life in the narrative before coming to America and Shade's implied personality disorder, but you conveniently ignore it to once again push your symbols that very vaguely come together if at all.
You have already made up your mind that it is about suicide and afterlife despite these things at best being peripheral parts of the book. I can explain absolutely every little chink in the book because I put reasonable and useful time into it. This is why you don't have anything substantial figured out and it is also why Brian boyd has spent decades writing essentially fanfiction and still couldn't come to a definite theory backed by the events in the book. How do you not see the clear parallels with the book's academic parodies and yourself? Not even being condescending.

[Anonymous No.18729431]

>>18728836
Why do women fantasize about being the loli? The only girl I was ever interested in romantically was obsessed with this book and it freaked me out.

[Anonymous No.18729511]

>>18729422
>Only Shade and Kinbote share birthdays.
i thought so too, but Gradus has the same birthday, look it up.
>Gradus is Kinbote's creation
read that article if you want more, and the boyd one points this out very well. gradus is undeniably connected with shade, even if he is seemingly (even to kinbote) kinbotes creation.
>Kinbote clearly created him right in the book to align with some of the symbolism in the poem.
which and why? considering kinbote always derails the poem
>a neurotic guy
his mirror reflection, his mr hyde
>who is clearly a mediocre poet
1-did you check out nabakovs other poetry 2-he is still just a character, whos a reflection of him, and again youre not adressing all the opinions they share
>overanalyzers that Nabokov is parodying in the book.
where has nabakov elsewhere parodied overanalyziers? have you read his other stuff with all the tricks? is he both giving incentive to look for clues everywhere (which in his other works, especially those similar to pale fire has lead to satisfying conclusions that enrich the story) and also parodying them? while himself being a very anal reader?
>provides us extensive background on his life before America
i thought even you admitted that his narcissim was what made him see himself as a king. so you think the fantastical zembla (meaning resemblence, implying its a reflection of reality) is real, and kinbotes backstory isnt made up? how did i conveniently ignore it?

im not pushing my symbols onto anything as i havent got a perfect narrative yet. but i have truckloads of very suspicious connections that in your reading are all there to trick me and create layers of excess
>I can explain absolutely every little chink in the book because I put reasonable and useful time into it.
thats a very open minded mindset which isnt at all like me who has his mind made up with a complete concrete theory. projection is another key theme.

im not saying that the book is ultimately about suicide or the afterlife (though come on, theyre central even at a surface level) i dont know what will be the end concrete narrative. but it seems to do with reflections

the last theory ive linked to paints too much of a coherent picture, read it plisu. i dont believe its final, but its an intended layer
pale fire: the (full) moon stealing the suns light, a leech leeching off of shades personality, just as the commentary is a leech on the poem, kinbote as a werewolf botfly, his mirror self, a mr hyde (who nabakov calls a parasite on jeckyll)

[Anonymous No.18729538]

>>18729431
Electra complex.

To be controlled by the other.

You're trying to view a woman as a man with a cunt, rather than a woman with a penis.

[Anonymous No.18729722]

>>18729511
>gradus is undeniably connected with shade, even if he is seemingly (even to kinbote) kinbotes creation
Yes he is. But there is no implication that his personality is based on Shade's. Not in the commentary, not in the poem.
>have you read his other stuff with all the tricks?
Yes, which is why I say what I say. The resolved tricks in his other books make sense. Fully. Pale fire, or the version you are engaging with, is a wild goose chase where the threads tie up well without any of the "But what if he was implying this crazy thing instead of what is readily implied and put on the page". But you have made up your mind. You keep going on about making the 3 people the same person even though it will need the entire account of Kinbote's and Shade's life to be false which is not implied anywhere in the narrative. Even those who have already made up their mind as to what the book is about can't make a coherent argument that doesn't ignore 80% of the book.
>you think the fantastical zembla (meaning resemblence, implying its a reflection of reality) is real, and kinbotes backstory isnt made up?
Zembla is as real in the story as New Wye. This is the same guy who gave us Anti-Terra as a real place don't forget that. Botkin projects his fantasy onto a place that has a resemblance with his homeland in Russia (another autobiographical element from Nabokov; makes more sense than your Hyde connection). It is no different than me writing a book about my spy adventures in Siberia, it does not mean Siberia was not a real place. The history is invented but the place in the story is real. Botkin already has an implied history (his implied abuse at the hands of a relative might even explain his homosexual fantasies) being a Russian emigre and all, so yes once again his coming to America has nothing to do with Shade's personality disorder.
kek. That theory fits perfectly without any need of the 'Shade is Kinbote'. Makes even less sense when Kinbote is actually giving the reader all of Shade's secrets. Nothing implies that he is leeching of his personality. If anything he is detailing his own personality in a book about Shade's poem. That is very obvious from the start. How does this change how anyone views the narrative in any way? Again a parody of academics parroting their own interpretations of a book as definitive. You are too hung up on them having same opinions on the book. You repeatedly say that they are same as Nabokov and then meta reading of the text, yet take offense with my rather obvious meta reading of the text. Decide for yourself. They became friends because they had similar taste, it doesn't mean they are the same person. You keep saying reflections but reflection imply resemblance; Shade in the poem and Kinbote in the commentary thus cannot be reflections.
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.18729728]

>>18729511
(2/2)

I am really not interested desu. These half connections either elaborate tediously on the very obvious or are some nonsensical connections supported nowhere in the book except in the string of words that engendered them. Last time you kept going about the waxwing image despite the symbolism changing little to nothing in the way of interpreting the narrative of the book. The dynamic between Gradus and Shade is there in the symbolism but the reader already knows that Gradus is Kinbote's creation, so how does it change anything in the narrative in a meaningful and wholesome way? It doesn't. You are chasing threads for the sake of them. Maybe you should be open minded and realize that not everybody is so nonsensically obsessed with a single book that they overanalyze the shit out of it and then tell people they did not get it even though none of your theories are neither provable nor complete.

[Anonymous No.18729981]

>>18729728
>is a wild goose chase where the threads tie up well
is it a wild goose chase or do the threads tie up well?
>none of your theories are complete.
ey im trying to complete them here. youre not helping by continually dismissing very obvious curiosities such as shade and kinbote being mirror reflections (exile rather than stay-at-home, lonely homosexual rather than happily married man, vegetarian rather than meat-eater, bearded rather than clean-shaven, left-rather than right handed, theistic rather than atheistic-at least in the debates-which are all very in fitting with the definitely important two images, "pale fire" and "waxwings") and the connections between shade and gray, and their birthdays. please just tell me how all these fit into your reading
>But what if he was implying this crazy thing instead of what is readily implied and put on the page
but whats on the page is deception, and crazy things are alluded to between the lines
>Shade's life
not at all. look up the article plisu
>Kinbote's
zembla may be real but we do agree that he isnt the king right? his past is very dubious. otherwise, how does that fit into your reading at all?
>If anything he is detailing his own personality in a book about Shade's poem.
in this theory, its the other self trying to take control.
>meta
im not against all meta interpretations, but one is trying to make a point about real life, and one is enriching the story of the books world through the use of the real world. i sense in nabakov, surely you must too, an artistic sense that seeks the latter
>resemblance
theyre both grieving over the loss of their creation (his zembla, hazel), shade belives in an afterlife at the end of the poem, the king has dreams where he is straight and loves his wife, they are polar opposites, but they have the ying yang similarities
>The dynamic between Gradus and Shade is there in the symbolism
is that excess too? whats the intent behind that in your reading? goose?
>obsessed with a single book
like nabakov when writing this book, or reading others? he starts off his lectures on literature's intro, good readers and good writers, with a quote from flaubert
>What a scholar one might be if one knew well only half some half a dozen books"
>and then tell people they did not get it
they didnt if theyre discarding these. not saying i understand it. but hopefully youre not actually advising on giving up like you said, and can provide a satisfying reading where those details and connections arent leftovers youre sweeping under the rug. if you dont care, then thats something else. if you do, then providing insights like you did last time with their positioning at the end is greatly appreciated, and is an example of a good reader "fondling a detail"

[Anonymous No.18729992]

>>18728857
based. moralfags and "unreliable narrator"cels on suicide watch