>The man ate the fruit before it was ripe, and discovered that it was bitter, and became terribly ill.
痴人の愛 is a better version of lolita
>>24102704It's just low-grade Japanese French fetishism. It's not good.
>>24102435great taste anon
Huh?
>>24102938Dolly = unripe fruit that seems tasty but when eaten actually makes you sick.The man = Humbert
>>24102958The fruit: Nabokov's novel.The man: Nabokov.
If you dislike everything what do you even like
>>24102958he was cannibal, Humbert humert?
>>24102435he didnt think it was bitter
>>24102435>Whoa I'm going to make the book boring to make the reader bored realizing that dating a 14 year old is pretty boring.
>>24103349The book was incredibly popular when it came out and allowed him to buy a Swiss villa or something and retire.>>24103347>Lolita, when she chose, could be a most exasperating brat.You didn't read it, did you?
>>24103347I mean, technically, Humbert didn't think so ultimately, since he's trapped by his fantasy. But what I said in the OP should ring true to most people who are dealing with this problem. I made the post because pedophilia seems to keep rearing its ugly head around here, unironically.
>>24103349>Perhaps, the first time I read it, was as a "hot book," the way you'd go at in the way you'd go at Lady Chatterly, and you'd be told which page to read.https://youtu.be/8171K40pJho?si=GbibdjOl-DpSyHxg&t=562The point of the book and why it was so successful is because Nabokov basically duped people. People bought the book, expecting porn, but instead got literature. They were forced to look at an uncomfortable issue that everyone has to deal with when they reach a certain age, and Nabokov more or less provides the solution to the problem. And... it's not that he makes the book boring, intentionally. That's not what I meant by "bitter" in the OP, in case that's what you were talking about. In fact the book is very funny and enjoyable to read...
>>24103392What, the problem that a pedophile hides his horrific abuse behind a literate self-justifying "pity me" story designed to fool middle aged women Americans fascinated by a pathetic continental failed academic?I'd rather be Quilty and hire mexican dogs trained to fuck people like they're tables.
>>24103400Uhh... Everyone has to deal with the problem of pedophilia once they get to be in their 20s. People with a naive understanding of sex and love will feel attraction toward children. The clowns on pol keep saying that pedophilia is based, and a lot of people see that, and start ruminating about it, without much guidance, and start jerking it to lolicon. And many will seek out realicon after a certain point.It wasn't just aimed to trick middle aged women... He expected men to buy it too... But yes the relationship between Humbert and Charlotte is also impossible.
>>24102435never read the book, the fanbase for it sounds like a bunch of sweaty guys with neckbeards
>>24103444There are quite a few well-dressed academics too.
>>24103417>But yes the relationship between Humbert and Charlotte is also impossible.It isn't *impossible* but Humbert is insulting Charlotte through the Urn, and Humbert is insulting his reader through the invention of Charlotte, and Nabokov's text is insulting its reader by presuming that you'll forget that Humbert invented this entire story.Humbert strongly suggests that Quilty's cousin is systematically raping Dolly. A few chapters after the "Typesetter, fill this page," indicates that "Dolores" the supposedly "unencrypted" version of Lolita doesn't exist either. "I didn't use real names, typesetter fill this page with my love."It is a puzzle box for wankers. The two options are to break Nabokov's nose, or set up those mexican rape dogs and tables. Except of course, that Humbert invented Quilty as well…
>>24103476are you schizophrenic
>>24103496No. Reread the book. The text is a series of wrappers,A girl died and a man died in prison for murder of a man, the cops found this text (Hi, I'm Humbert, I'm going to tell you a story, but my telling of the story is going to have obvious insertions and removals, but, if you don't notice them then there's this story (I'm claiming to have fallen in love, but my claims are highly irregular and suspicious and involve gaps (Raping a child in hospital who is in high fever is totally cool, because you're imagined you're Charlotte and Dolores simultaneously)))Most readers forget the really obvious instruction by the text that the text is multiple layers of lies and deliberately deceptive. Consider, "Only a faithful wife could read my diary about raping her daughter—OH NO MY WIFE IS FAITHFUL!!!!"
>>24103476I saw a documentary that suggested Nabokov himself was the victim of pedophilia and this was his confessional. I'm sure if you spend enough time with his oeuvre you will find out.The relationship with Charlotte is similar to Madame Bovary. Love is an oft-discussed topic in literature, of course. And similar between Humbert and Dolly. Can an intellectual and an idiot fall in love? Does real love penetrate the personality? I remember I dated a pretty basic woman, and it was difficult, but we could have made it work. But she didn't want to wait for me and I was dealing with family issues at the time.It's a puzzle box for academics, an invitation for studious types to take their study more seriously (the first chapter is a reference to "Annabel Lee" by Poe), and a simple medicine for the general public.
>>24103513>I'm sure if you spend enough time with his oeuvre you will find out.Nabokov as a hypertext is less interesting to me than Lolita as a single puzzle, or his other novels as single puzzles. I think we ought all have disdain for the butterfly catcher. My problems aren't ornate clockwork, they're vast empty plains which are still too full, so Nabokov won't be useful to be any time soon. Maybe I'd be a happier man if I had a major neurotic structure instead of the peversity I've ended up with.
>>24103525Read his essay Good Readers and Good Writers. He spent five years writing it, and he was very well-read himself. There are a lot of allusions in the book to all sorts of things in History and Literature. If you don't look these things up, you're not going to solve the puzzle. I mean, he starts the book off with a very obvious Poe reference. In an interview he described writing the book as "tackling a problem" - the problem of pedophilia. But he wasn't always forthright in his interviews either. Who know what else he is talking about in the book. Another somewhat obvious theme in the book is Chess. He was a Chess master. One could make the connection that when Quilty steals Dolly, it's as if he has stolen Humbert's queen. Have you examined the book with that critical lens? If not, you don't fully understand it. In that essay I'm pretty sure he even mentions the critical theory that all one needs to understand a book is contained within it. But it seemed like you had qualms about Nabokov's motivations for writing it. That is probably to be found elsewhere in his work, but possibly can be found in just this book alone.Idk what perversity you're dealing with but the solution is in the name... What is perverse is "wrong" on some level. We can take the idea to the extreme by simply asking: Was Genghis Khan, with all his concubines, happy?
>>24103547>One could make the connection that when Quilty steals Dolly, it's as if he has stolen Humbert's queen. Have you examined the book with that critical lens? If not, you don't fully understand it.We ought to doubt whether Quilty exists: Humbert's very early projection onto "Quilty's Cousin: The Dentist" is rather useful there. Sure "Quilty" steals Dolores: thus the uncovering of Humbert's eyes to "Lolita"'s continuous engagement in sex, or rather to "Dolores"' lack of child-hood anymore, for we ought rightly to doubt Humbert's continuous projection of fun times with boys at Camp Climax onto her. The only difference between before and after isn't Dolores' complicity, but her adulthood (even as a pre-adolescent). Quilty stealing Dolly is just the precursor to the worst possible thing: Dolores becoming her own woman by being pregnant to a teenage boy willing to be a father; her exit from polymorphous perversity and her entry into generation.I'm not really bothered with Nabokov's motives in writing: as you say the text is complete in itself and comes with its own toolkit sufficient for disassembly.Neuroticism, Psychosis and Perversity are all wrong—you get what you get.
>>24103563Ok Mr. GPT.
>>24103584Chat GPT wouldn't spontaneously bring Zizek up mate. Learn to fucking read.
>>24103586Idk about Zizek. I'm only 30. Read the essay then determine whether you want to spend more time with the book. I daresay you haven't uncovered all there is to uncover in there. Nor have I. But I'm quite preoccupied with other topics of study at the moment. Perhaps once I have a general understanding of history, the arts, and literature, then I will take another look at the book myself.
>>24103598When you get around to hermeneutics, you'll discover the undiscoverable, or unrecoverable, element of texts applies to all texts. Nabokov just "puts it in" special. Zizek provides the best literary critic summary of Lacanian analysis at the moment. Amidst way to much speed freak writing. But Neurotic/psychotic/perverted is an interesting typology.
>>24103613Don't harbor disdain for Nabokov until you've read that essay and given Lolita a good ol college try.
>>24103613https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60543558-good-readers-and-good-writershttps://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Good+Readers+and+Good+Writers.&hsimp=yhs-102&hspart=mozilla&type=dssThe first link downloads a PDF if you want to risk it.
I think there should be more pedophile dust ups like in the end of the book, and make that into a video game. Touhou style, so mythical and historical are all on the table.
people really have next to no clue what theyre talking about when they start talking about the puzzle aspect of this book. it stems from unfamiliarity with the kinds of tricks he pulls in other books i think. no, he didnt dupe people expecting the book to be porn just because the book happens to not be porn. nabokov wouldnt have cared about that kind of reader anyways. nor does it tackle pedophilia as a generality. its about humbert, not pedophilia in the abstract. nor is the book secretly about nabokovs uncle or whatever. >>24103503>the text is multiple layers of liesnta but you sound like a schizo. we dont really have a reason to doubt the framing narrative with dr john ray jr, nor would it be interesting if it was unverifiably a lie. humbert doesnt try to hide the rapes in the hospital. you could argue its obfuscation through distraction. >because you're imagined you're Charlotte and Dolores simultaneouslywhat??? write properly>Only a faithful wife*a loving>>24103476>Nabokov's text is insulting its reader by presuming that you'll forget that Humbert invented this entire story.there are claims in his manuscript that could easily be falsified in the world of the novel by the police. you would have to assert his motives in lying. is he trying to save face? then why confess to previously having planned on murdering charlotte, valeria and maximovich? is he trying to charm? then why include licking dolores' eyeball or the passage about using lolita to produce another girl when she gets old and so on, or the handjob in the classroom etc.nabokov writes puzzles with "elegant solutions." it was all lies lmao is no such solution and amounts to it was all a dream. >>24103563>We ought to doubt whether Quilty existsye the man that humbert is in prison for killing. he would have to be completely mad to be lying about quilty.
>>24102435Thats a perfect way to describe pederasty. Great metaphor.
>>24103613>zizek and lacanor you could engage with the particulars of a novel before referring to the most primitive generalizing philosophies phrased in irrelevant ontology babble to hide the fact that nothing interesting or true is being said.
>>24102435Uhm actually unripe fruit is usually sour, and overripe fruit is usually bitter, so your analogy makes no sense>man ate lolita fruit, but discovered its a milf fruitDoesn't make a lick of sense, how could he mistake a milf for a lolita...
>>24104490>no, he didnt dupe people expecting the book to be porn just because the book happens to not be porn. nabokov wouldnt have cared about that kind of reader anywaysHe went to court over the pornographic aspect of the work and was fully prepared to defend himself. He knew people would eat it up.> nor does it tackle pedophilia as a generality. its about humbert, not pedophilia in the abstract.He brings up a lot of historical references to pedophilia, how it's been a common problem for people for many a year.> nor is the book secretly about nabokovs uncle or whatever. https://youtu.be/V8OwyqvSh2g?si=ftiLch55-7vvknqRIt's this interview or another one where this theory is suggested.
Wow. This thread is further up it's own ass than Humbert ever got into Lolita.
>>24104490> nabokov writes puzzles with "elegant solutions." it was all lies lmao is no such solution and amounts to it was all a dream. >the man he killed Is like Dolores only created in Humberts narrative which obfuscates the hospital rape and (post facto) uses dramatic irony about why he had to murder Charlotte.It is all a lie would be boring. But Humbert’s *characterisations* of his interlocutors and his own actions are part of Humberts lies to himself, and that these are the important lies compared to his attempts to lie to us. Quilty having a fuck farm obscures eyeball licking much as the Dentist filling her cavities obscures the lake/beach sequence. Does Humbert even realise how fucking pathetic he is: he’s one step away from Fuciing Raskolnikov when he claims to have fantasies. Fantasies that are incompatible with the conniving murder roadtrip.Most readers I’ve encountered don’t realise that the hospital is a vicious high fever violent rape by the by. Humbert fooled them.
>>24102435>what if the book, like, had layers, and like, it lied to the reader, and like, what if the narrator is the baddie? but like its all in his head.I'm so sick of this one-note faggot. its pure novelty.
interesting
>>24102958Charlotte = old and rotten fruit, rancid, actually makes you violently sick.Dolly = flowering cherry, emitting a virgin fragrance, hiding inside a sweet heavenly nectar that The man drank by the mouthful.
>>24106091Dude, what if I told you that Charlotte *is* Dolly. Now smash my urn and rub my ashes into your 44 year old pre-teen minge.
>>24102435Did Nabokov make any money on this shit?
>>24106273>The book ... became the first since Gone with the Wind to sell 100,000 copies in its first three weeksyou tell me
>>24103392so it's NOT cunnykino?
>>24106091A combination of naiveté and deception, of charm and vulgarity, of blue sulks and rosy mirth, Lolita, when she chose, could be a most exasperating brat. I was not really quite prepared for her fits of disorganized boredom, intense and vehement griping, her sprawling, droopy, dopey-eyed style, and what is called goofing off—a kind of diffused clowning which she thought was tough in a boyish hoodlum way. Mentally, I found her to be a disgustingly conventional little girl. Sweet hot jazz, square dancing, gooey fudge sundaes, musicals, movie magazines and so forth—these were the obvious items in her list of beloved things. The Lord knows how many nickels I fed to the gorgeous music boxes that came with every meal we had! I still hear the nasal voices of those invisibles serenading her, people with names like Sammy and Jo and Eddy and Tony and Peggy and Guy and Patty and Rex, and sentimental song hits, all of them as similar to my ear as her various candies were to my palate. She believed, with a kind of celestial trust, any advertisement or advice that that appeared in Movie Love or Screen Land—Starasil Starves Pimples, or “You better watch out if you're wearing your shirttails outside your jeans, gals, because Jill says you shouldnt." If a roadside sign said: Visit Our Gift Shop—we had to visit it, had to buy its Indian curios, dolls, copper jewelry, cactus candy. The words “novelties and souvenirs” simply entranced her by their trochaic lilt. If some café sign proclaimed Icecold Drinks, she was automatically stirred, although all drinks everywhere were ice-cold. She it was to whom ads were dedicated: the ideal consumer, the subject and object of every foul poster. And she attempted—unsuccessfully—to patronize only those restaurants where the holy spirit of Huncan Dines had descended upon the cute paper napkins and cottage-cheese-crested salads.
>>24106273>>24103368
>>24105199>He went to court over the pornographic aspect of the work and was fully prepared to defend himself. He knew people would eat it up.has nothing to do with him writing the book for that purpose. >He brings up a lot of historical references to pedophilia, how it's been a common problem for people for many a year.humbert does to justify himself. not nabokov. nabokov famously hated generalities and for good reason. "No, it is not my sense of the immorality of theHumbert Humbert–Lolita relationship that is strong; it is Humbert’s sense. He cares, I do not."> https://youtu.be/V8OwyqvSh2g?si=ftiLch55-7vvknqRnowhere in the interview is anything like that suggested. i had forgotten how unbelievably cute he was here though.>>24105562>Is like Dolores only created in Humberts narrative which obfuscates the hospital rape and (post facto) uses dramatic irony about why he had to murder Charlotte.??? what are you saying? these are real people in the world of the novel and that these names are protective aliases is revealed upfront. >Quilty having a fuck farm obscures eyeball licking much as the Dentist filling her cavities obscures the lake/beach sequence.quilty and his uncle's perversions are given way less space in the book, are way more in the background, and most of quilty's existance is outright hidden. humbert's own guilt trip is way more foregrounded, again, by humbert.>>24105880its not the novel itself that is like that>>24105352although im being up my own ass myself, i am annoyed by nobody saying anything concrete thats backed up by the text
>>24103496he is. i've been seeing him in lolita threads for years now, writing posts like these again and again but less lucid over time, and with references to the book increasingly distorted
>>24106353I don't think HH was bothered too much about that (especially when he got to bury his face between Dollys thighs every night).
>>24106893>its not the novel itself that is like thatI don't know about Lolita, but Pale Fire sort've is. Kinbote at the end hits you with the "hehe maybe I'm just pulling your leg LOL", not just that but he pulls the rug on you again in the index. like, real clever vlad, you smug faggot. tell me more about fat bitches and why I should feel bad about everything why don't you.
>>24107657im glad you brought up Pale Fire, because im more familiar with that one. the presented narrative of the commentary is definitely "all in Kinbote's head" in a much different way than in Lolita. Kinbote is a suicidal maniac and he is thus much less concerned about being outed for his delusions/fictions. how much he himself buys into his own Charles the Beloved story is put to question at the end like you said. the most probable implication is that he constructed this elaborate tale to "flip a page" in his life like Shade diagnoses, to escape his past, and towards the end one gets the sense that he is accepting the reality of his situation and after a final tribute to his delusion by putting it on paper, tying it to another artistic work to immortalize it, will chuck himself down the hills. what saves the "it was all lies" from being cheap is that, one, in pale fire the reader is always aware of how incongruous Kinbote's tale is with the rest of the fictional world that both Kinbote and Shade present, and two, just like in other Nabokov works you are able to come to confident conclusions about the "real" world of the book beyond the presentation of Kinbote from connecting various details, including Kinbote's real name, why the "assassin" killed Shade etc. >why I should feel bad about everythinganother aspect of Nabokov's later works is that he places the real optimism of his stories in the afterlife of the books. there are ghosts in Pale Fire that intrude on the story which is what really makes the book come together, making all of Shade and Kinbote's metaphysical ruminations that much more meaningful. the presence of these ghosts is hidden in the texture of the world and not the text, like Shade says in the poem. you have to reread the book with careful attention to every "reflection" found in the commentary. reflection is the most abundant theme in the book (it's even in the title) which points to this solution. Brian Boyd's book on this is very incomplete and i'll need another reread to list all of them. but the point is, if you are very careful, you can find hints pointing to a "reality" of Nabokov's worlds that can't just be dismissed as confirmation bias. Nabokov doesn't want the reader to go "damn this nigga fooled me again," he wants them to go "yes! i found out what happened."
I'm reading this for the first time and it starts funny, it's impossible not to be charmed by Humbert's witty, somewhat deranged writings but then it transitions into not being funny and then just becomes upsetting. The end to the book's first part is so terrible: "At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.” Him being a pedophile somehow isn't even the most upsetting part about Humbert, his horribleness transcends it just being that. I was ready to hate him for being a pedophile, but i stated to hate him for, well, everything.
>>24107514this dim realization he has doesnt penetrate his obsessive fantasy>>24108162humans can be quite monstrous
>>24103368Only when she gets older does he feel that way
>>24103525Holy fuck you are a larper
>>24108598no this is when theyre driving round the country
>>24108598It's understadable.
>>24108598wrong
