Be true to your dick

>>8398843
you entirely missed the point of the novel

>>8398848
Explain?

>Doritos, light of my life, cheese on my fingers. My hunger, my munchies. Do-ree-toes: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Do. Ree. Tos. It was chips, plain chips, during lunch, weighing one-point-eight ounces in one hand. It was Nacho Cheese for snacks. It was Cool Ranch at school. It was Salsa Verde in the shopping line. But in my mouth it was always Doritos.

>>8398852
Lol. This is really funny. Is it from something?

>>8398843
You are the worst kind of fucking faggot to exist. You're the type of overly-sensitive, trigger happy little girl who cries "wah wah this book hurts my FEELINGS and the subject matter doesn't conform to my idea of what things SHOULD be like wah wah". The kind of person who tosses a book because it contains taboo subject matter.

You should just kill yourself, reading is not for you.

>>8398869
This.

>>8398869
Unfortunately, I think you have me all wrong. I never "Tossed the book"... I pushed onward and finished it like a responsible adult. It is in retrospect that I am discussing how uncomfortable the subject matter was... But right, reading isn't for me...

>>8398860
my brain

>>8398869
simmer down, lad

>>8398843
just read a critical study or some write-up if you want to understand what you've missed.

>>8398877
Well, it's really funny.

Thanks. I will be sure to look some up to read and analyze, but just for a quick dose think you could fill me in?

>For the record, It was a good book. Just hard to read at times for the content. Why couldn't he just have written about loving a girl his own age?

Nigger did you really just fucking...? Ah, I'm going to pretend I didn't read that.

File: 1448426536025.jpg (53KB, 1356x514px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1356x514px

>>8398843
it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible, dutiful.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support, which he sees as ''a childish useless submissive woman'' [or whore and he feels betrayed by her]
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

>>8398886
Sure, would you also like me to wipe your ass as well?

Fuck off kid, reading isn't for you if you didn't understand it.

>>8398888
Lol. What? Seriously... the book could have just been about Charlotte instead.

>>8398893
Well, If you don't mind?...
Also, Chill out dude. Saying reading isn't for somebody that just finished a book doesn't exactly make sense either.

>>8398892
Just be gay, dude.

>>8398886
Thanks, it's my magnum opus

I haven't yet read the book, but I do remember a good discussion about it a few months ago that shed light on Nabokov's intentions and the book's themes.

also you seem new, don't fall for cheap pasta like this >>8398892 shit

>>8398843
>Why is this book so well liked?
It's probably liked for several different reasons.
For example: the flowery vocabulary, as you observed it, is very well employed.

>>8398904
You are quite welcome.
I will have to do some research then. I wish I had seen that discussion now. It sounds interesting.

Lol. And okay, I won't... Is that frequently posted or something?

>>8398895
No, it can't be about Charlotte. Perverse, perhaps? But Lolita's just the right key for Humbert's music.

>>8398910
True. But I meant generally on this board, specifically. I see the novel mentioned very often here. Is there something about it that makes it one of /lit's favorite books?

File: rise.jpg (15KB, 497x326px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 497x326px

>a coquettish little nymphet will never give you a handie under a desk

>>8398922
The word play, Nabokov's humor, the overbearing literary braininess, the novel's pace, its subtleties, all these make it a favorite book. But maybe there are some people who just like the ta/b/oo subject matter.

>>8398895
If the love interest is Charlotte then you lose Nabokov's indictment of moral readings of works of literature. The novel needs to be about some immoral to show that since it isn't real one can experience what would be immoral as a pure aesthetic experience.

>>8398935
Very interesting. So are you saying that the novel just had to be about something that society deemed "wrong" for it to work? Could it have as easily been about bestiality?

File: summer-wars.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>8398843
Roughly this OP
>>8398935

However, there were parts in the book that made me question that. There is a scene when they are on the road together and Humbert lets slip that Dolores is crying. He doesn't say anything more about it and the scene almost immediately moves on.

Before that I don't remember ever Humbert mentioning that she was unhappy, but rather that she was seducing him. All of a sudden the book had a different weight to it. I was already suspicious of the Humbert as the narrator because of the introduction, but this felt different.

>>8398947
Yes. The book was art for art's sake. It was trying to push the medium forward or at least perfect what was available.

Any topic would do, but a writer has to think about their reader, and to write beautiful immoral smut is one way to make the reader question what is going on.

>>8398948
Very good take. That scene struck out to me as well. The narrator, between bouts of insanity, tries to make the "relationship" seem playful and seductive in nature. That scene stuck out like a sore thumb. It was uncomfortable for a brief moment, and then ole mister Humberger glossed over it as if nothing had happened. That one little section made me question every interaction they had in the book.

>>8398948
Nabokov has compared his writing to chess puzzles before. The delight of a chess puzzle is discovered when one tries to solve it and in doing so one is at once amazed at the skill and imagination of its construction. To see Dolores crying is the same as to realise that line and variations in relation to that you were working on to be suddenly exposed for a clever and intentional placement of a piece you up to know thought served no purpose. People overplay the role of prose in this novel. It is very important but the careful construction is very much its equal. There is no morality. Only intellectual joy.

>>8398953
True. Except, I don't know if I would classify this as smut. I honestly expected it to be FAR worse than it actually turned out being. I was expecting the 1950's version of 50 shades of grey (Obviously with better prose) but got nothing of the sort. It was actually quite remarkable how the author wrote an entire book about a very sexual relationship without ever really talking about the sex. For that alone, It was a well written book.

>>8398972
Wait, so can you expand on this a little? I like where you are going.
I didn't know that he referred to his own writing in that way. That actually makes the chess scenes in the book that much more fun. In what other ways was the book supposed to be a chess match?

One thing that I didn't quite get was the big reveal at the end. He goes on and on about how the reader should have known where this was all leading, but I actually hadn't guessed anything about the whole fiasco. It kinda blind sided me. Was there more that I was supposed to be anticipating?

>>8398988
A game of chess is not the same thing as a puzzle. There is no opponent. Only a joy derived from intellectual ability, application of skill and aesthetic enjoyment of the puzzle created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_puzzle

ahaha that fucking cover

>>8398993
You like that cover do ya?

>>8398988
You mean the confrontation with Quilty or him saying that this book will be published after him and Lolita pass?

>>8399001
Not so much the confrontation with Quilty, but the revelation before that. When he meets with Lo at her new dwelling and they are discussing things. He goes on and on about how the reader probably would have guessed who was to blame or whatever... but I really hadn't.

Also, In what way do you mean that the book is to be published after they pass is a reveal? Was that supposed to mean something more than I gathered?

>>8398988
>>8399001
I'm not going to keep up with this thread, so

If it is the reveal about when the book should be published, think back to the forward

If you didn't read the forward go read it now.

>>8399011
yeah i got that, but i think part of it is nabokov taunting the reader.

Although dolly is clearly in contact with the playwright, as soon as we are told it's an old woman, it immediately goes to the back of our mind just like humbert's. So we become complicit in his stupidity

>>8399013
Wow. Thank you for this. I had read it a while back but the refresher certainly helped. It was very cleverly masked.
So did audiences really think this was a real memoir when it was first released? It is written as such and I never thought of it in that way.

>>8399022
Wowzer. very neat stuff... Man, this Nabokov guy sure can write. It's amazing how we become Humbert and are left as dumb as he is in that moment. None the wiser.

>>8398843

Why are surface level readers even on a board like this? I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of the unreliable narrator and piece apart the book in three voices. HH, Lolita, and Nabokov. When you read a chapter consider what each one of these people is trying to tell you and deduce from there. Lolita is not something you gloss over and read solely for plot.

>>8399054
Well, I certainly don't think your assumption that I am a surface level reader is even close to accurate. As for being on this board, based on some of the posts... I don't think everyone on here exactly adopts a monk-like lifestyle to read these books.
With that said, many of these replies have helped me tremendously and this post as served it's initial purpose. I admitted right off the bat that I had just finished the book for the first time, So I was still trying to piece together a book that you state is "not something you gloss over and read solely for plot". Now that I have better bearings on what I had just read and was trying to digest, I can now go back and revisit it.
In this, your logic doesn't make much sense... Bash the guy that is in the process of deconstructing and text for not having previously deconstructed the text... like wha?
But thanks for the suggestion. I plan on tackling it again in coming days with more insight. I will read each chapter as you suggest.

>>8398843
You aren't meant to like Humbert. He's a monster and a cruel, self worshipping ass hole. His "excuse" is ripped off from Poe and all he wants to do is indulge his desires. The novel is not a romance story, it's a critique of Humbert as a character and plays with literary conventions about true love and such as well as seeing if presenting a pedophile a certain way males him easier for the audience to like and accept.