Can someone explain to me why Lolita is praised as one of the

>>9925131
most people who like it sypatihze, it's what you call Freudlian

>Can someone explain to me where the fruit is? I tried looking in the bushes where other people picked them before but got distracted by the colour of the leaves and spent the whole time just looking at them. I'd like a real explanation because I don't believe there's any fruit.

HOMO thread

>>9925131
It's a classic story of the conflict between a person's selfish interest and its harmful effects on other people, taken to a parodic extreme. You're supposed to be "put off" by Humbert, he's not a good guy. Keep reading,

>>9925131
because it's the best at what it does. you yourself and not me because i'm not a little bitchmade faggot like (you), yourself, recoiling and writhing while reading are so put off by the subject matter that you are seemingly unable to see past your surface layer noob level shit reaction of ''oh man he's a pedo man oh god this guy is messed up in the head man" instead of trying to put yourself in the protagonists shoes and actually trying to you know, feel something and sympathize with the characters autistic self-immolating infatuation with lolis. it's not even like he's an entirely disgusting human being since he describes his early adolescence as a plausible cause for his lusts among other things. i dunno man maybe you're a fucking pedo and you're scared of liking the book and getting a boner while you're reading it that might be a possibility too huh you fucking bitch.

It's the first person account of a pervert. What did you expect from Humbert Humbert? Personal accountability? Nabokov is playing a game with the reader.

>>9926057
This, plus the incredibly beautiful and cheeky prose.

>>9925137
>>9925138
>>9925143
>>9925152
>>9926057
>>9926069
>>9926645
troll'd hard.

The writing is incredibly good. I'm not a believer in academic circlejerking but read other stuff and come back later to the book

I read the first sentence; vomited, then closed the book.

Oh, you realized you were retarded. I see.

>>9926908
So you vomited because came to the conclusion that you were an autist. Got it.

>>9926957
No, I already knew that. I didn't even care about the subject matter, the tone was just sickening.

>>9927017
You read possibly the most well constructed opening line in English literature and closed the book because you're a soft skinned faggot who can't stand feeling uncomfortable, congratulations.

>>9927026
>hipster acting this butthurt because someone didn't like his oh so wonderful pedo book

>>9927046
Weak bait. Nobody critical of this book would attribute the success to hipsters, you should have pretended to be angry woman instead. 3/10 see me after class.

>>9925131
what kind of books do you like?

>>9927094
Mostly any of the Warhammer books, right now slogging through the Horus Heresy. I do recommend, I must say, rather quaint.

>>9927059
I don't care who made it successful. Lots of crappy things are. I'm not reading some random degeneracy just because muh pretty words. See yourself.

>>9927097
thats your problem bro, you don't have enough baggage to truly understand why Lolita is good
is like listening to Korn and saying "why Ravel's quartet is good? I'm midway trough and so far it seems boring"

just read more, nothing against your warhammer books, but they are a totally different thing from Nabokov

can someone link me to somewhere that i can download a pdf of this book please?

>>9927101
Oh so you're a moralcuck. You know you won't catch pedophilia from reading it, right?

>>9925131
>I can't identify with the protagonist because he's a twisted individual
You goddamn fucking normie.

>>9927191
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/234330/mod_resource/content/1/Vladimir%20Nabokov%20Lolita%20Penguin%20Modern%20Classics%20%202000%20%281%29.pdf

>>9927392
thankyou my man

>>9927381
No, that's just you projecting. I don't really care about pedophilia within the context of some book.

>>9927101
> I'm not reading some random degeneracy just because muh pretty words.
Now explain why you don't.

>>9928418
The main character is despicable, which according to some is supposedly the whole point. Perhaps this is some "failure to sympathise" on my part, but why the fuck would I want to waste my time on someone blathering on about some fetish? Also, the whole tone is laughably bad. If he's going to bang some jailbait then he should just do it already and save the reader time from their life that they'll never get back. Maybe then something actually interesting could be done.

Clearly the author just liked to create the literary equivalent of guitar wankery, with some "immoral" story. Flashiness, no real substance.

>>9928583
The point is not Humbert being despicable. The point is the wankery of the prose and the depiction of his moral struggles and love for Lolita. I don't understand how one can't love ol' Nabby's prose, but ok. It's not just him saying "whew I got this old lad who loves a GIRL! No, did you hear me?, a GIRL!"

You're a disgusting Anti so of course you wouldn't like it. It's actually not good at all.
>>9926069
>pervert
Stop projecting

>>9925131
> struggles to empathise and humanise somebody because he dislikes what they have to say
> doesn't appreciate the gorgeous prose
> doesn't appreciate the depths of depravity Humbert Humbert is shielding us away from because he is an unreliable narrator
> doesn't appreciate that the book is there to challenge the reader into empathising - not necessarily liking or sympathising - with the protagonist

Sounds like the book has gone way over your head, OP. In fairness, I appreciate it's probably not the easiest book for people new to literature to read.

I'd say finish it, just to say you have read it. Then a few years down the line you should read it again once you've read more literature. It genuinely is a brilliant book.

>>9928708
The fuck is an Anti? It's also well established/agreed upon that humpert is a perv. Albeit a sensitive and eloquent one.

>>9928583
Not the anon you're arguing with, but I feel sorry you feel this way, anon. Partly because I love the book so much (and no, I'm not a degenerate), part of me wishes others to enjoy it or appreciate it as much as I did.

I don't think the tone is particularly bad though. The book focuses on his obsessions, his rationalisations for his obsessions and the difficulties with having such obsessions (many times he criticises Lolita for being too immature and that it would be easier for him to love an adult woman but he just can't quit it that easily). I think the tone and the prose replicate this semi-torment for him perfectly. Lolita isn't going to easily give him what he wants and, by the end of the book (if you believe Humbert isn't unreliable as a narrator), you'll see there's an aspect of guilt to all of his actions.

Although you don't need to like every protagonist (some of the best protagonists in film and literature are complete cunts, but you can easily understand why they are like that), I think Humbert Humbert is one of the more accessible unlikeable protagonists. Saying that, clearly the book isn't for everyone if you didn't enjoy it.

All I'd suggest is move on to other books more your tastes and after you've maybe read more, give Lolita another shot five or ten years down the line, anon.

>>9928836
antipedo/antihebe. No he's not, stop projecting you disgusting tel.

The poetry-like writing, the humor, the story... It's okay not to like it, OP, you can just move on.