remember folks

[Anonymous No.22441783]

this is a major work of world literature, posting about it doesn't make you le based child rapist and it's immediately obvious to all of us you haven't read it

[Anonymous No.22441789]

>>22441783
Kys troon
Ywnbaw
Day of the rope is coming
Christ is King
Go back

[Anonymous No.22441795]

>>22441783
>My knuckles lay against the child‟s blue jeans. She was barefooted; her toenails showed remnants of cherry-red polish and there was a bit of adhesive tape across her big toe; and, God, what would I not have given to kiss then and there those delicate-boned, long-toed, monkeyish feet
I read it just for the prose

[Anonymous No.22441809]

>>22441789
Do Christcucks really?

[Anonymous No.22441836]

>>22441795
Footchads keep on winning

[Anonymous No.22442017]

>>22441783
Based reminder anon.

[Anonymous No.22442114]

>>22441783
I just finished this but I'm confused by one part. What's up with Lolita loving Quilty? She runs away from Humbert to live with Quilty, who's an even worse pedophile, yet she actually loves him. She confesses to Humbert when he sees her again that if Q wanted her she would leave her current husband Dick, but she wouldn't leave with Humbert. The only reason she left Q was because he wanted her to do porn, not because he was having sex with her. She even admits that he met and groped her way before Humbert came into the picture, when she was just ten. I'm confused because the novel leads you to believe that she was sobbing and crying while with Humbert because she was being violated, but it turns out it was just because she didn't like Humbert personally. I feel like it undermines the premise a bit and further gives fuel to pedos to justify their sickness.

[Anonymous No.22442561]

>>22442114
it's an erotic novel about sex with a minor, don't expect it to make sense

[Anonymous No.22442588]

>>22441783
>this is a major work of world literature, posting about it doesn't make you le based child rapist and it's immediately obvious to all of us you haven't read it
You're illiterate.

[Anonymous No.22442614]

>>22442114
>She confesses to Humbert when he sees her again that if Q wanted her she would leave her current husband Dick
She never says this. Think you may have misread the part when she says she would sooner go back to Q than leave with Humbert.

And her “love” of Q is more or less just borne of her being a naive child abused by her pseudo father seeking an escape. And Q sort of represents this alternate version of Humbert in someways. (E.g. Humbert describes himself as a “manque talent” while Q is a successful playwright, etc.)

[Anonymous No.22442638]

>>22441783
I figured most normies realize this but I had a friend get rid of that book along with other "objectifying" shit in his collection and made me wonder why he had the book in the first place (okay, it's the same reason I do).

Also someone on r!ddit matter-of-factly said the book "is universally hated." For real? I've only ever heard roasties tout it as a love story.

[Anonymous No.22442657]

>>22441809
No, just that one schizo who burns copies of the book

[Anonymous No.22442672]

>>22441783
no one really freaks out so much irl about that book as you all pretend

[Anonymous No.22442819]

>>22442114
Basically what >>22442614 said. When she turns down running away from her husband with Humbert and mentions that she'd rather go with Quilty over Humbert, Humbert's narration mentions that she says it with the underlying meaning of "He broke my heart, YOU ruined my life." She doesn't love Quilty more than her husband, but she did love him (even if it was the result of her fucked up time with Humbert). She never loved Humbert.

[Anonymous No.22442866]

>>22442114
To add to other anons, you also have to remember that women have an uncanny power to know exactly what to say to maximally hurt a man. It's a form of female power play. She probably just knew it would be hurtful to throw it in as a jab at him, a way of saying she has the power of choice and he's at the bottom of the list of her choices. Women say all kinds of stuff to their ex's, the truth is unimportant, only what will add to their show of power.

[Anonymous No.22442874]

>>22442561
>erotic novel

[Anonymous No.22442894]

>>22442874
I got a boner whilst reading it, <spoiler>and did too<\spoiler>.

[Anonymous No.22442993]

>>22442874
You can't read the first half of the book without admitting it's an erotic novel.
The whole second half is to dash forbidden fantasies with a does of reality, so it is not a pro-pedo book. But you can get your rocks off in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.22443027]

Two people I know (one an author, the other a literary critic) both describe it as one of the funniest books ever written.

[Anonymous No.22443254]

>>22442114
>because she was being violated
her mother died and she was imprisoned with an obsessive neurotic who barely let her have friends. its not just the rape.
>but it turns out it was just because she didn't like Humbert personally.
so?
>I feel like it undermines the premise a bit and further gives fuel to pedos to justify their sickness.
its not about pedophilia as a generality, let alone a denunciation of it. how dull of a fictional narrative would that be.

[Anonymous No.22443351]

>>22441783
/lit/ faggots:
>Anime is for pervs
Also /lit/ faggots:
>OMG LOLITA

[Anonymous No.22443500]

>>22441795
its crazy how you can just describe things and people will call it good prose. like woah there was a le bandaid. and there was only remnants of nail polish?! Ö how does he do it

[Anonymous No.22443691]

>>22443500
although this passage was picked ironically by anon, it still showcases a lot of artistry. a lesser writer would have called it a day at the nail polish, but nabby not only specifies the particular red with an image synaesthetically appealing to taste (which in turn signals humberts sexual hunger), but is able to imagine the adhesive tape and the fact that as you've said it is only remnants of polish. both details have all sorts of literal (like her tomboyish but still fashion conscious nature, again, a lesser writer wouldnt have paired those attributes) and figurative implications (i mean come on, remnants of red, band aid...), but are also subtle and particular enough to not be tastelessly in your face with symbolism. although i enjoy the color and further tomboyish characterization that the monkey image adds, i personally hate how he chose to use "monkeyish" instead of "monkey-like" or just "monkey feet". it just sounds very awkward to me. i highlight stuff i dont like with red on my e-reader and one of the few reds in lolita is this part. the monkey image also is part of a motif where HH calls L a monkey throughout ("bananas for my monkey" etc) and the extratextual theme of nabokov identifying humbert with a baboon in a zoo in interviews. this is significant since the novel is about HH and L's imprisonments of each other, and ultimately the author's imprisonment of them, who is invoked in the same sentence when HH calls on God, since the author is his god. normally any random passage from lolita would contain more apparent alliterations but there is still sound play here with the o's in
>those delicate-boned, long-toed,
maybe the r's in
>remnants of cherry-red
and the th's in
>then and there those
achieved with a fun anastrophe since the conventional order would be to put then and there at the end

[Anonymous No.22443700]

>>22443500
>Ö
also sg amk hamamböceği

[Anonymous No.22443765]

>>22443500
although this passage was picked ironically by anon, it still showcases a lot of artistry. a lesser writer would have called it a day at the nail polish, but nabby not only specifies the particular red with an image synaesthetically appealing to taste (which in turn signals humberts sexual hunger), but is also able to imagine the adhesive tape and the fact that as you've said it is only remnants of polish. both details have all sorts of literal (like her tomboyish but still fashion conscious nature, again, a lesser writer wouldnt have paired those attributes) and figurative (i mean come on, remnants of red, band aid...) implications, but are also subtle and particular enough to not be tastelessly in your face with symbolism. although i enjoy the color and further tomboyish characterization that the monkey image adds, i personally hate how he chose to use "monkeyish" instead of "monkey-like" or just "monkey feet". it just sounds very awkward to me. i highlight stuff i dont like with red on my e-reader and one of the few reds in lolita is this part. but the monkey image is also part of a motif where HH calls L a monkey throughout ("bananas for my monkey" etc) and the extratextual theme of nabokov in interviews identifying humbert with a baboon in a zoo. this is significant since the novel is about HH and L's imprisonments of each other, and ultimately the author's imprisonment of them, who is invoked in the same sentence when HH calls on God, since the author is his god. so both HH and L being monkeys signifies their imprisonment. that that HH uses long-toed and monkeyish as romantic epithets speaks a lot about his neurotic obsession and calling attention to her bones is a nice slight macabre touch, especially with the poe allusions in mind. normally any random passage from lolita would contain more apparent alliterations but there is still sound play here with the o's in
>those delicate-boned, long-toed,
the r's in
>remnants of cherry-red
and the th's in
>then and there those
achieved with a fun anastrophe since the conventional order would be to put then and there at the end.

so just in two sentences about feet he showcases his style and technique, paints characters with contradictions through both details and the narration of those details, hints at the larger plot and themes, and still keeps the sentence lengths varied.

>Ö
sg amk hamamböceği

[Anonymous No.22443952]

>>22441783
is it really a pedo book