[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 45 KB, 280x432, lolita_nabokov_lolita_lips_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4245863 No.4245863[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

If you have not read Lolita yet, I recommend you stay out of this thread.


So I just finished it. How did others think of it? As for me, I loved the first part. It was Humbert at his most jovial, and so had the most fun prose, in my opinion. The second part seemed to drag on and on, though, and Humbert got more and more down trodden. This isn't to say, however, that the writing was poor - the prose (which has been said thousands of times) is spectacular, and anything read aloud from this book sounds like poetry.

I just felt lost. It seemed to me that part 2, while being a mite larger than part 1, contained a whole lot less. But then we meet Lolita at her home, and she tells him waterproof, and I can't quite remember what was up with that but flip back, and then everything begins to click, and I realize that I was only lost because I was asleep at the wheel, so to speak. It is true that the second part is longer, but it is not true that less was happening. It turns out that I had just not been paying attention. Flipping back through the whole thing I see it clear as day that Quilty was their pursuer. There almost is no chapter in which he isn't referenced. There's even the line where he specifically mentions that the playwright (Quilty) had ripped on Joyce - well, their pursuer was well read, of course.

It seems to me that the first part is all introduction, and the second part is the true 'novel'. I just can't believe how much was going on right before my eyes I missed. But I can't help but wonder - despite the lucid prose, and interesting characters, and well written humor, isn't this, in the end, a bit of a detective novel (Humbert loved french detective novels when he was young)? What carries it to be considered one of the greatest English novels of the 20th century, in your opinion?

>> No.4245868

>>4245863
It's a lot like Bioshock: Infinite. Dazzling in its beauty and shocking concept, but ultimately quite shallow. Nabokov himself said that he didn't want anybody to read any meaning into it beyond the explicit :S

>> No.4246123

It was great in so many ways.

The way humbert strings lolita's mother along gave me tears. Dat heartfelt confession letter.

The second part, when they're on the road is I agree,really is the breadth of the novel- the way they drive endlessly in pursuit of empty attractions and fine foods that always disappoint but give rise to the next destination. The placelesness of the american landscape that despite its beauty and vastness, seems all the same, offers no place where one feels rooted enough to stay. Long stretches of boredom and dissatisfaction, restlessness, interspersed with entertaining anecdotes, like that one affair in the park where they were seen naked. I assume this was the intended effect as there were parts where I was just bored to tears with the seemingly inane details of their trip.

I liked the reference to plato's theory of forms when humbert reunites with her, his realization that his love is for her alone. Not just the form of the nymphet. When he gives her the money, and asks her if she'll go with him one last time, when he comes to terms with the fact that she never loved him despite his love for her. Like a reversal of his relationship with her mother.

The part when he finally confronts quilty- shots him as he crawls up the stairs- how he screams with each shot, then as he lays in the bed but later crawls out. One of my favorite parts of the book- mainly because of how strange but funny the whole thing is.

Nabokov was also a Poe fan, and it shows- the part when he schemes about murdering lo's mother in the lake, swimming over to her and holding her under the water. The part when he and lola are at the hotel, he opens the door a crack, letting the light shine a beam on the curtains as he is thinking about what he is going to do with her - it's a reference to the tell tale heart.

Reading it I felt like I was only able to comprehend a fraction of its greatness but I loved what i could glean.

>> No.4246188

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291/lecture-5

>> No.4246190

>>4245868
except bioshock infinite is a bad game and lolita is a good novel

>> No.4246223

this book gets me so hard.

>> No.4246260

>>4246223
Pretty much this sums up the readers of the book.

What is more disgusting is how hard people try to sugarcoat their perversion by the "prose" of the book.

>> No.4247530

>>4246260
i read it when i was a 12 year old girl so

>> No.4247546

>>4245868
nabokov's thoughts on aesthetic theory are irrelevant when talking about lolita, the work. fuck off back to /v/.

>> No.4247571

>>4245868
I think you completely misunderstood Nabokov's point.

>> No.4247589

>>4247571
What was Nabokov's point?

>> No.4247646

I just found it somewhat boring, unfortunately. Their road trip adventures were hell to wade through.

>> No.4247655

>>4247589
make a good book for good readers

make a good book for himself

nabokov wasn't particularly high-minded, he just told great stories with great prose

>> No.4247659

>>4245868
the master baiter

>> No.4247673

>>4245863
>I recommend you stay out of this thread
>implying it's going to make a difference if i get spoiled or not
most people read the last part of the book to get a sense of what to expect on the first read. its not like a movie (unless it's a bad book)

>> No.4248030

>>4247673
why the fuck would you do that? you live a sad life

>> No.4248042

>>4248030
>why the fuck would you do that?
explained in the original post you illiterate

>> No.4248055

>>4248042
>not recognizing a rhetorical question
good job bro.

>> No.4248084

>>4247673

I guess I personally like to not have stuff spoiled for me. If you know from the beginning that it's Quilty who is their pursuer, I mean, that's the entire second half. The whole point of the book are the hints he drops you, and you are allowed to put them together at the end when Lolita tells him 'waterproof', and you flip back through violently realizing you missed something and piecing it together like a grand puzzle

I guess you don't like that sort of thing though

>> No.4248341

kids should be reading this! not romeo and juliet.

lolita is way more romantic. too bad americans are such prudes.

>> No.4249358
File: 334 KB, 464x645, Nabokov.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4249358

"Pedophilia is a made up problem. America is afraid of sex, and tells people they're damaged until they are."
-Vladimir Nabokov

>> No.4249717

>>4246260
>gorgeous prose is abhorrent because it may serve to arouse deviants, or even regular people

Plebian to define the concept, plebian for the ages.

>> No.4249888

I went into it expecting a deprived and an abhorrent tale culminating in rape and murder of an innocent child. What I got was something vastly more clever, fun, funny and sad, even sligthly haunting at times. It was great.

>> No.4249914

Insecure frightened man here with a question. I read Lolita in approximately 14.3 accumulated hours. By my estimates, that is about 121 words per minute.

I am frightened because of my apparently abhorrently slow reading speed. It is true I was looking up many terms as I read it, but that shouldn't have slowed me down that much. A college student is supposed to read at about 450 words per minute (apparently). I am worried that I will not be able to read all of the books I want to read due to my reading speed. I am wondering, though, if in general reading Nabokov is slightly slower going than other works are, due to his prose? Or were you guys able to tear through this one

I am just so frustrated because it's taking me an hour to read 20 pages in this blasted book, it's fucking ridiculous, I don't feel like I should read this slowly (now reading Pnin). I am certainly enjoying them, but want to enjoy more

Is Nabokov slower going? If not, how does one read more quickly while still comprehending the work? Does this skill develop naturally as I read more and more, or am I doomed because I didn't read much when I was younger?

>> No.4249966

>>4245863
>What carries it to be considered one of the greatest English novels of the 20th century, in your opinion?
Nothing, because it's not.

>> No.4249969

>>4249914
Do you also watch movies on fast-forward?

>> No.4249987

>>4249914
but reading more words doesn't necessarily mean more enjoyment. I mean, if i read through a particularly enjoyable part of the book I might turn around again or read it slowly to let the emotions and feelings sink in. There's certainly a temporal element to written work that is more difficult to grasp the faster you read.

And on a side note, the richer the text, the slower you read it in order to digest and understand. If you can read something very quickly and understand, it probably didn't have much content per word anyway.

>> No.4249989

>>4249914
Do you read out loud "in your head"? Mouth the words, etc.? This isn't a bad thing (it's especially pleasant for poetry), but it does slow your reading speed. Usually to about ~.120 words per minute since that's the speaking rate

>> No.4249996

I'm not even gonna deny it, I'm a pedo and I loved the book and had a hardon throughout most of it even if I don't condone Humbert's actions.

>> No.4250015

>>4249987

When I said more, I was referring to more enjoyment from reading more novels. I probably am thinking too far into the future, but I am actually concerned with and am picturing myself on my deathbed with a pile of books next to me I am still trying to trudge through

>>4249989

For Nabokov I certainly do, for articles and such online or reading posts here I certainly don't

I guess it's not all that bad