/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22039826]

>pedophilia is... le good!!
seriously, why are you faggots so obsessed with this shit?

[Anonymous No.22039857]

Most of the people here are tastelets.

[Anonymous No.22039896]

>>22039826
I found it repulsive too. People like to play it off by saying Humbert is portrayed unsympathetically and Nabokov is taking the piss but that's just a cheap cop out. It's evident that Humbert is a not so thinly veiled self-insert and just a vehicle for Nabokov's pedo fantasies. It's quite telling that Nabokov bristled whenever a reporter would ask him direct questions about this. His interest in entomology is also just another outlet for his repressed sexuality.

[Anonymous No.22039924]

>>22039857
Death in Venice is Lolita, but gay and more pretentious

[Anonymous No.22039961]

>>22039826
You've never actually read it if you think it's pro-pedo. It's about as anti-pedo as you can get. Humbert's a pathetic piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.22039963]

>>22039896
Nabokov's a freak. One of his fantasies is to get publicly humiliated by a young girl, he's written about it before
https://poetryrussian.blogspot.com/2014/05/lilith-by-vladimir-nabokov-i-died.html

[Anonymous No.22039981]

>>22039963
Humiliation fetish is so weird. At that point you probably just crave death constantly.

[Anonymous No.22039992]

>>22039981
Sex is mostly about the interplay of domination and submission and so are most fetishes. Being is just a form of emotional submission.

[Anonymous No.22039995]

>>22039963
lol he wrote a lot of weird shit. Here's a poem he wrote about how superman can't fuck because the sheer force of his cum would kill Louis and level several buildings.

https://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/the_best_american_poetry/2021/04/nabokovs-superman-poem-by-vladimir-nabokov-june-1942.html

[Anonymous No.22039998]

>>22039992
*Being humiliated

[Anonymous No.22040009]

Fucking retard the book is not even erotic. Just the native girl part in Papillon was way hotter, the book is just memed to hell due to its summary.

[Anonymous No.22040698]

>>22039826
>>22039896
t. il/lit/erates
the only eroticism in that book came from you self-hating pedos, it's gross as shit.

[Anonymous No.22040760]

>>22040009
>>22040698
>"It's right there," she said. "I can feel it."
>"Swiss peasant would use the top of her tongue."
>"Lick it out?"
>"Yeth. Shly try?"
>"Sure," she said. Gently I pressed my quivering sting along her rolling salty eyeball. "Goody-goody," she said nictating. "It is gone."
>"Now the other?"
>"You dope," she began, "there is noth—" but here she noticed the pucker of my approaching lips. "Okay," she said cooperatively, and bending toward her warm upturned russet face somber Humbert pressed his mouth to her fluttering eyelid. She laughed, and brushed past me out of the room. My heart seemed everywhere at once. Never in my life—not even when fondling my child-love in France—never— Night. Never have I experienced such agony. I would like to describe her face, her ways—and I cannot, because my own desire for her blinds me when she is near. I am not used to being with nymphets, damn it. If I close my eyes I see but an immobilized fraction of her, a cinematographic still, a sudden smooth nether loveliness, as with one knee up under her tartan skirt she sits tying her shoe.

This isn’t grotesquely erotic? Nabokov knows what he’s doing, the self-flagellation gives him a convenient out whilst publicly indulging in his sick fantasies.

[Anonymous No.22040772]

>>22040760
No, it isn't erotic. It's a pervert's twisted vision of what "apology" looks like, by laying the blame on a child for his own fantasies. "She's just too lovely for me not to trick her into being a fetish object!" It makes me viscerally ill.

[Anonymous No.22040776]

>>22039998
No, all being.

[Anonymous No.22040782]

>>22039924
They're not similar at all, really

[Anonymous No.22040816]

>>22040760
imagine hating a nigga for getting some pussy

[Anonymous No.22040844]

>>22039995
Damn Brodie from Mallrats needs to cite his sources

[Anonymous No.22042323]

>>22040760
Bros...

[Anonymous No.22042352]

That is the opposite of what the message of the book is

[Anonymous No.22042376]

>>22039826
pussy is pussy

[Anonymous No.22042394]

>>22039826
I never read it but I thought it was about how mentally ill the MC is and how he convinced himself that the daughter was in love with him even though she was giving him signs that she was afraid of him. Classic unreliable narrator.

[Anonymous No.22042406]

>>22042394
>never read lolita
>thinks it has le unreliable narrator
Very common combination.

[Anonymous No.22042416]

>>22042406
Isn't it though? I saw paragraphs about how the girl was afraid of him but the MC thought it was just her "playing cute games" or some crap

[Anonymous No.22042419]

>>22039961
this
if you think it's pro-pedo you have either never read it or there is something wrong with you

[Anonymous No.22042651]

>>22042416
Not at all, the narrator is honest about Dolores’ relationship with him. The only time you could call him “unreliable” is at the beginning of the book when he romanticizes and justifies his attraction to children.

[Anonymous No.22042655]

>>22039826
Look where you are dumbass

[Anonymous No.22042692]

Let’s settle this once and for all—what’s the first line of the book, and what’s the last?

[Anonymous No.22042701]

>>22042651
lying pedo

[Anonymous No.22042717]

>>22042692
I googled them and can't find the correlation

[Anonymous No.22042721]

>>22042717
The point was for them to be shared in the thread and be presented as evidence one way or another. I can't do that at this moment; since you have found them, could you?

[Anonymous No.22042730]

first line in lolita:
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth

last line in lolita:
I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.

[Anonymous No.22042769]

Fucking a slutty 14 year old isn't pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.22042867]

>>22042730
So the opening and closing notes of the narrative are both profound and elaborate expressions of longing from Humbert about Lolita. All that seems to change is that Humbert has resigned himself to an existence without the object of his desire, but his desire has not lessened. Clearly then, this desire, so encapsulted by just the word Lolita, is central to the book. But what would the book have us think about this desire? Now, the first line presented here, is not really the first line, because the book includes a false forward. What are the first and last sentences of that foreward?

[Anonymous No.22042889]

>>22039826
I want to read this but I'm scared people will give me a look of disgust. What do I do?

[Anonymous No.22042915]

>>22042889
do a barrel roll

[Anonymous No.22042943]

>>22042867
Shut up

[Anonymous No.22042971]

>>22042943
No.

[Anonymous No.22042984]

>>22042915
What?

[Anonymous No.22043005]

>>22042984
I should have stopped coming here back in 2010. It's nothing, disregard this

[Anonymous No.22043086]

>>22042701
>says that Dolores cried herself to sleep every night
>calls himself a monster
>says that he ruined Dolores' life
But hes freaking unreliable amirite?

[Anonymous No.22043117]

The more I hear from both sides, the more it seems that Lolita is about Nabakov himself, and is the psuedo-confession of a pedophile, who wants to justify his guilt and self-loathing as just shame in the tastelessness of his uncontrollable taste, while knowing deep down that really he hates himself because he's wretched and worthy of hell.

[Anonymous No.22043144]

>>22043086
There are parts were he justifies his actions to make himself seem like he's doing the right thing. The actions you mentioned is something that even he can't justify.

[Anonymous No.22043154]

Lolita is just a human depiction of a bad person. Humbert Humbert is a pedophile thats presented as conflicted, thoughtful, and often pathetic instead of pure evil. Its the kind of thing thats done all the time in media to murderers and such, but when a pedo is presented in a sympathetic light the zoomers and moralfags work themselves up into some righteous anger bullshit. I have no doubt that if Humbert was written to be a serial killer that targeted children he would be far less controversial.

[Anonymous No.22043177]

>>22043144
>There are parts were he justifies his actions to make himself seem like he's doing the right thing.
And when does he do this exactly? He uses flowery prose to justify his attraction to children early in the book, but he never portrays his actions toward Dolores as morally right. Cathartic and gratifying at first yes, but never right.
>The actions you mentioned is something that even he can't justify.
I listed every bad thing he did in the book, i.e., raping Dolores, ruining her life.

[Anonymous No.22043196]

>>22043117
Probably

[Anonymous No.22043205]

sounds like you never read the book

[Anonymous No.22043207]

that book was better than any porn

[Anonymous No.22043209]

>>22043154
First, Lolita is written to be erotic, even if only in part. Second, when evil characters are portrayed in a sympathetic light, it's always recognized for some purpose; most often, it's done to show that really we're all monsters or something like that; somewhat less often, it's done to say that even though the murdering is wrong, the cause itself is not really so unjust. Dirty Harry, for example, is a dirty cop, but sometimes dirty police work is the only way some criminals are stopped; the movie asks us, then, what's really the right moral path--to let some criminals get away with it, or to punish them beyond the limits of the law? So, what's the purpose of Lolita? Sure, criminals are portrayed in sympathetic light all the time. But the question always remains--why? What's the point of Lolita? And if you say the book doesn't come to any definite conclusion, what's the question? What is the purpose of the novel? If it's without purpose, then why should we tolerate a book that contains what is clearly meant to be erotic depiction of pedophilia? To what good end is this done?

[Anonymous No.22043215]

>>22039826
He was redeemable right up until the final interaction with lolita, my opinion is it was simply major autism

[Anonymous No.22043220]

>>22040772
Where in this passage is he meant to be apologizing? Or blaming for that matter? All I see is him doing weird shit with a little girl and proclaiming his love for her

[Anonymous No.22043234]

>>22042419
i don't care if it's "ackchyually chud, it's anti-pedo!", i'm NOT reading it

[Anonymous No.22043247]

>>22043154
>>22043196
Yeah, I'm starting to think that Lolita is actually, just pedophile erotica, but that pedophiles are so self-loathing that they can't actually bear self-recognition, so they have to frame it as something so absurdly hyper-intellectual in order to feel like they're not actually indulging in something evil but just something tasteless.

[Anonymous No.22043254]

Almost as retardeded as the people that think American History X is pro-nazi

[Anonymous No.22043255]

>>22043209
The point is to explore a type of character thats rarely explored, to show that the typical evil archetype isn't as simple as we'd like to think, and to write beautiful prose. Why does there need to be some society wide message to take away from it? Why does a book need to be made for a good end? What even constitutes a "good end"? I'd say there are parts of Lolita that are so beautiful that they justify the entire book, controversial subject matter and all. And as for the book having erotic sections, of course it does. The book is written from Humbert's perspective, you're meant to feel his sexual attraction for Dolores the same way you feel his ever growing neuroses about the police and Uncle Gustav and Dolores escaping him.

[Anonymous No.22043262]

>>22043254
The protagonist of AHX changes. HH does not. The moral commentary of AHX is very clear. The moral commentary of Lolita is unclear, and the author even denied that there is any moral commentary.

[Anonymous No.22043264]

>>22043247
Theres nothing hyper intellectual about Lolita. Its just a good book that moralfags refuse to read because its subject matter is too controversial.

[Anonymous No.22043278]

why do anons analyzing lolita act like the author wasn't aware of the shock value it has

[Anonymous No.22043318]

>>22043255
Nothing is done without a reason. A bad reason for writing a book would be to encourage evil behavior. You say Lolita is not written to encourage, promote, or entertain pedophiles? Fine. So what is the point? Why read it? Why a pedophile instead of a cannibal? Why a pedophile and not a Nazi? Why a pedophile and not a public exhibitionist? Why a pedophile and not a violent rapist? Why a pedophile and not a lonely goatherd? Why a pedophile and not Oedipus? Does it need to be a broad social commentary? No. But if you can’t come up with a reason why it’s worth reading, what conclusion can I come to about why you read it? Why should I read it? Why should anyone read it?

[Anonymous No.22043380]

>>22043318
I've already told you why Lolita is worth reading, but you keep ignoring me. Lolita is a book that explores something thats almost never explored. Its worth reading for that alone. I'd also read a book about an exhibitionist or a nazi or a cannibal or whatever else if they explored such a taboo topic as well as Lolita does.

[Anonymous No.22043484]

>>22042406
i read lolita and it has le unreliable narrator
>>22042394
it is. no normal person reads lolita and comes away with any other understanding. this is a bait thread

[Anonymous No.22043490]

>>22043086
if you don't understand the implications of self-flagellating you're probably really easily manipulated. your gf probably fucks other guys and convinces you it was your fault. you should learn more about people.

[Anonymous No.22043496]

>>22043220
>Where in this passage is he meant to be apologizing?
the book is addressed to his jury you fucking moron

[Anonymous No.22043847]

>>22039826
>>22039896
>>22039961
>>22039963
>>22040009
>>22040698
>>22042394
>>22042406

read L'Amant de la Chine du Nord
or
L'amant

same story first is second but reedited like 10 years later

is like lolita through the eyes of the girl, but they do fuck

[Anonymous No.22044043]

>>22043380
But why is it worth exploring? Are you reading books that explore cannibalism from a first person perspective? Or rape from a first person perspective? What is to be gained by exploring pedophilia as opposed to any other deviant and evil activity?

[Anonymous No.22044079]

>>22043234
Your loss, nabokov harnesses words like Clint Eastwood with a 6 shooter

[Anonymous No.22044139]

>>22039826
You just answered both of your questions.

1. They are faggots.
2. They are pedos.

[Anonymous No.22044144]

>>22039961
And "people" who read that worthless gutterslop are even more pathetic.

[Anonymous No.22044156]

>>22044043
guy literally just said he would read those books if they existed. you're a retard with a tiny brain

[Anonymous No.22044160]

Lol, all the anxiety in this topic. The book is to be enjoyed. If you have issues with it then don't read it and fuck off. Seriously since when did literature become so pussy? Are these brain washed zoomed minds?

[Anonymous No.22044171]

>>22039995
Larry Niven, eat your heart out

[Anonymous No.22044177]

>>22040772
What's your gender? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.22044187]

>>22044177
agree with that anon, and male

[Anonymous No.22044489]

>>22044160
you can enjoy the book without letting Nabokov off the hook for being a pedo

[Anonymous No.22045195]

Because pedophilia is good.

[Anonymous No.22046271]

>>22044160
its just /pol/ really. edgelord contrarianism has reached schoolmarm levels

[Anonymous No.22046557]

>>22044043
>NTA
I read a lot of books, many of them about topics that I find disgusting.
I have read books that have cannibal protagonists, rapist protagonists, protagonists who enslave people, protagonists who ruin the lives of people who trust them, who murder children, who lead armies of child soldiers, who kill people for fun, and any number of other terrible things.
One thing these books have all had in common is that they were quite good. Personally, I would much prefer to read a good book about a disgusting topic than a boring book about a pleasant topic.
Ultimately by saying "Oh I would never read a book about that", all you are doing is making a declaration of intent to never leave your comfort zone as a reader.
When you read a book that ISN'T appealing to you, that DOESN'T focus on warping itself to fit your sensibilities, you are being presented with an opportunity to grow, both as an enjoyer of literature and as a person.
All of this is conditional on the merit of the book of course. If a book is poorly written and only includes these elements for shock value it is best left ignored. Lolita isn't like that though. Lolita is a beautifully written, page-turning thriller about America as viewed through the lens of a deranged, pathetic pedophile. It may well be the most well written book that was not written in the author's native tongue, ever.
I went into it expecting it laugh at the funny meme book about the guy who touches kids and was overwhelmed by the quality of the writing and the unpredictable directions the story goes in. Some elements of the story are inspired genius (particularly the foreword- in all the books I've read only one other time have I seen an author attempt the same trick- marvelous).
Lolita is a constant inspiration to me as an author. I would not be the writer I am today if I had never read it.

If that isn't enough justification for you, I can gush about it for several more hours without pausing for breath.

[Anonymous No.22048486]

Any men who wouldn't fuck a cute 13 year old is lying

[Anonymous No.22048496]

>>22046271
The evolution of 4chan sure has been something

[Anonymous No.22048497]

Lolita is an exploration of how women constantly deceive themselves and reinterpret their past actions to serve their spiteful needs as they grow older and lose their beauty.

[Anonymous No.22049082]

>>22048497
This is the best interpretation of the book I've heard, it really highlights how differing men's and women's perspectives are

[Anonymous No.22049098]

>>22040760
If Chamber of Secrets Emma Watson was trying to suck your dick, you’d be fucking sweating, too, you fucking sanctimonious fruit.

[Anonymous No.22049129]

>>22039826

His sexual descriptions of pre-teens are pretty in-depth for a guy who isn't at least a closet pedo, but some people in here acting like the ending isn't HH talking about what a monster he is for robbing a girl of her childhood.

And if you haven't read the book, why even bother commenting.

[Anonymous No.22049138]

>>22049129
>some people in here acting like the ending isn't HH talking about what a monster he is for robbing a girl of her childhood
he's self-flagellating as manipulation. the problem isn't that the retards itt missed what he's saying, the problem is they don't understand what manipulation looks like.

[Anonymous No.22049268]

>>22039826
Seriously the redundancy of this place is embarassing, and it would need so little to be fixed.
When talking about Lolita, please start posting the annotated edition. I beg you. This volume alone serves as a Lit 101 text on how to read, and if we posted this one instead of other bullshit editions people would read the text and post about the text, not about:
>pedofil gud, pefodil bad
which is the average tone of the discussion here. So, anons of the future: if you have never read a book, or if your familiarity with literature is low, read pic related. It EXPLAINS to you why it's good, and why good books are good in general, which you very much need.

[Anonymous No.22049295]

>>22049268
Can you post some examples of the annotations, please?

[Anonymous No.22049441]

>>22049138
>manipulation is when you tell people exactly what you're doing
Wow anon you are a genius.

[Anonymous No.22049452]

>>22049441
that's an entirely different sentence. try again

[Anonymous No.22049579]

>>22049295
The book is available on library genesis, check it out by yourself

[Anonymous No.22050200]

At which part of the book did you guys start disagreeing with Humbert and realized how much of a monster he actually is? for me it was:
"And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires, and her sobs in the night—every night, every night—the moment I feigned sleep"

[Anonymous No.22050281]

you people sound like you are better off reading some ai generated bible for the entire life than caring about something out of your level. assuming this sort of thread is not some kind of elaborated agenda driven shit. and by the way our author is very much honest and open about what he does than a certain country that loves bragging about its saintly conservatism while selling its women's pussies to more than 57 countries of the world. at least repetitive threads can't trigger you which maybe is a good thing, i can't just coming here being angered every single time and whoever pushed these shits did a great job but for a different reason.

[Anonymous No.22050585]

>>22050200
Well, Annabel Lee is an obvious manipulative tactic, so I never trusted him. However, the scene where he's touching Dolores, as she's sitting between him and her mother, Dolores is squirming to get away, he supposedly thinks it's teasing, and her mother thinks it's her being rude, almost made me throw my kobo at the wall. Twisted piece of shit he is.

[Anonymous No.22050901]

>>22050585
Shut the fuck up woman

[Anonymous No.22051025]

>>22042984
DO A BARREL ROLL

[Anonymous No.22051052]

>>22039826
required reading for my university

[Anonymous No.22051562]

>>22050901
wut

[Anonymous No.22052539]

>>22039857
cope

[Anonymous No.22053112]

>>22051025
My god. I am a little past page seventy now (I am reading more slowly due to my physical pain) and I am still so, so amazed. I hate to suggest that a story wherein the narrator is a pedophile is beautiful - I really do… but I am inclined to suggest this, due to the prose. I can’t stop talking about the prose. I mentioned in an earlier post that this story is more challenging than any other I have read this year, which is true - the prose (writing style) is phenomenal, and unless you are very well read, I do think you’ll most certainly come across a few words in this book that you don’t immediately know (sometimes a bit tough to figure out using context clues, sometimes not.) I was thinking whilst reading today that if it weren’t for the subject matter - a pedophile lusting after a middle schooler - this story would make for a great romance novel (if only the main character were describing an adult woman…) I feel, truly, like I am in a different time and place when I read this book - fantastic imagery. The main character is so, so manipulative, but whenever I start reading this one, I just can’t seem to put it down. I don’t root for the narrator, I know that he is a sick, immoral, man, but I just can’t get enough of his perspective. The way that his mind works fascinates me. It’s just so interesting seeing someone who is clearly intelligent (and yet arrogant and untrustworthy all the same) explain their perspective. I really do want to clarify that I do not condone pedophilia at all, and that I actually do not find the main character easy to sympathize with. I am uncomfortable, yet simultaneously love the narrator’s eloquence. I also really like the transitions in the story, and the imagery really helps sell it (this is the kind of book that you would want to read during summer at the park.) It reminds me somewhat, somehow, of a Shakespearean play, in regards to the prose (and, to some extent, the plot.) I still REALLY recommend it.

[Anonymous No.22053125]

>>22053112
I get how this book is often misunderstood as advocating for pedophilia, but my criticism has nothing to do with that. Rather, what irritates me about the book is how uninteresting the main conceit seems to be, and how besides that the only saving graces are the beautiful prose and sometimes humorous story beats. As far as I understand the book, Nabakov is playing a game with the reader which involves trying to discern truth from fiction in a story conveyed by a highly motivated, narcissistic, and warped narrator. And while this game can be fun, as the reader like a detective looks for inconsistencies and skewed visions to figure out where the narrator is lying, it ultimately ends up feeling pretty trivial. Like, what am I getting out of this book besides this meta narrative interplay? Humbert Humbert isn’t exactly the kind of character I care to spend 350+ pages with. If the answer is just basking in the beautiful prose, Nabakov certainly isn’t alone in 20th century fiction for his beautiful prose. If the answer is Nabakov’s satirization of American culture, the romance genre, and academic interest in Ancient Greek and French culture, it’s not like he coalesces those themes into any grand synthesis. Nabakov simply just makes pointed shots at those subjects every so often. If the answer is deep engagement in the plot, again it’s not as if the book is alone in being well-plotted. And certainly it could use some trimming, especially in what seemed like an endless series of episodes in Humbert and Lolita’s adventures across America.

[Anonymous No.22053198]

>>22039963
> they stared at my mace
Lmaooo