Humbert should have killed her
schizo opinion, i've never heard anyone suggest that before
>>24750698She stabbed him in the back to run off with an ugly_bastard and then acted like their relationship meant nothing. Her asking him for money was more heartless than anything Humbert did
this book has really captivated /lit/s attention
>>24750679Someone give me a QRD? I don't want to read it due to stigma
>>24750707I think it's understood by all parties that if you murder your stepdaughter's mother and rape her for a few years when she's 12 that you can give her a little money at least when she's married and pregnant>>24750754An American road trip with a little pedophilia thrown in
>>24750754Just don't read it in public then?But if you want a synopsis: >Main character is a pedo >Rents a room in a house belonging to a single woman with a young daughter >Romances the mother to get access to the daughter>Mother dies, mc adopts the daughter, they roam around the US while he rapes her>Daughter runs off to get raped by a different adult>Mc kills the other guy
>>24750679She did not report Humbert to the authorities, she did not blackmail or try to extort money from Humbert (she did ask for some money but it didn't feel like an extortion). I see no grounds for murder.
>>24750765>they roam around the US while he rapes herIt was consensual.
>>24750754It’s frequently taught in high schools and it’s a hit on “Booktok.” There is no stigma besides the one made in your own mind.
>>24750781Oh shit seriously? OK I'm buying it rn
>>24750777she cried herself to sleep every night
>>24750777A child cannot consent
>>24750754Lolita is a comedy rife with parody and allusions to classic literature. The main character is a self important Eurotrash intellectual who spins a web of lies and deciet about how he totally didnt kill his wife, pinkie-promise, and to be completely honest his underage step-daughter totally wanted it. And really, he's just a generally all around great father protecting Lolita's sweet, sweet nymphette cunny from all the other sexual predators out there. So really, he's a hero. Oh, and there are some sex scenes but they're not important and mostly glazed over.
>>24750781>It’s frequently taught in high schoolsBlatantly false statement
>>24750793Young girls are emotional, you see. She could be crying over anything
>>24750794Neither can feminists.
>>24750794Of course they can, Dolores was a child at the time not a mentally retarded person.
>>24750816Children do not have the experience to make such a decision and it's beyond idealistic/naive to claim otherwiseShould a 10 year old be allowed to enlist in the military? Get married?Request euthanasia?Sign legal conteacts of any kind?
>>24750764>>24750765>>24750793>>24750794>rapePlease, that little slut was asking for it.
>>24750865Came here just to say this. That little bitch was asking for it. If I were there, I’d have broke that little cunt’s jaw, started citing FBI black crime statistics to her, then forced her to watch Pearl Davis videos about why we should repeal the 19th Amendment for several hours Clockwork-Orange style.
this shit was in my grade school library, why is it a big deal now
>>24750679He did though, while she was pregnant from another man too.
>>24750853>marriage euthaniasia, legal contractsIt's just rubbing genitalia against another persons genitalia, it's not a complicated concept.
>>24750794>A child cannot consentOn the contrary - OP did consent to sucking his uncle dry despite being too underage to even post her.
>>24750794>>24750853>nooo you can't just choose to fool around at 10, you're not EXPERIENCED enough!!!!>nooooo don't get pregnant at 15 like your entire body is screaming for you to do, you don't have the EXPERIENCE!!!!!>nooooooo don't have a baby yet you're only 25!!!!!! think of all the EXPERIENCE you'll be missing out on!!!! wait until 35 at least!!!!!!>hey why is our race dying out
>>24750794feminists' aoc histrionics are proto-trannyism>she's factually consenting but you have to pretend she isn't or you're a bad person>he's factually male but you have to pretend he's a woman or you're a bad personit's nuts to make a virtue out of affirming falsehood. what if we rooted our behavior in reality instead
>>24750798>spins a web of lies and deciet about how he totally didnt kill his wife, pinkie-promise, and to be completely honest his underage step-daughter totally wanted it. And really, he's just a generally all around great father protecting Lolita's sweet, sweet nymphette cunny from all the other sexual predators out there. So really, he's a heroeverything you wrote here is retarded and wrong. you should read the book for yourself instead of relying on the interpretative skill of 90iq youtubers.
>>24751459Everything I said was 100% accurate, you illiterate monkeypox spreader. When Humbert has sex with Lolita for the first time, he glazes over the details as if it's not important, and says he just let her take the lead and do what she wanted. Then immediately afterwards, as they're leaving the hotel, some guy reading a newspaper glances at Lolita and Humbert goes off on a rant about what a disgusting pervert this guy is for fantasizing about her. Did you even read the book?
>>24751466NTA but he literally didn’t kill his wife though? Charlotte got hit by a car
>>24751470According to who? Humbert. She discovers Humbert is plotting to drug her and Lolita so he can rape her. She says she's annulling the marriage and leaving him and then... oh she just so happens to die in a very violent way that breaks her skull open. What a coincidence. And this very convenient event just so happens to let Humbert off the hook so he can continue to be with Lolita.
I don't like these graphic covers; they feel a bit like they're trying too hard to be provocative. In fact, I almost feel the generic Penguin cover is more provocative: as if it's saying "we can't show you, but we can tell you.~ Come -- read me."
>>24751491I find the cover in OP to be particularly egregious and upsetting because they have the girl (who I assume is meant to represent Dolores) big, dumb adult hips when the book specifically describes her hips as ”unflared” and narrow.
>>24751491nabokov explicitly requested the original publisher to not have any girl depicted in the cover iirc.
>>24751466>Everything I said was 100% accuratenope.>he totally didnt kill his wife, pinkie-promisethere is no reason to believe he lies about any plot events, you fell for a 90iq meme.>to be completely honest his underage step-daughter totally wanted ithe repeatedly admits he bribes her into sex, manipulates her into sex, physically forces her into sex>he's just a generally all around great father protecting Lolita's sweet, sweet nymphette cunny from all the other sexual predatorsyou're retarded. he tells HER that he's her "protector," and then tells YOU, the reader, that it's manipulation designed to control her so she doesn't go to the police. you're very bad at reading.>So really, he's a herohe explicitly calls himself a rapist and says he deserves decades in prison
>>24751479>According to who? Humbert.so the same humbert that throughout the story admits to the murder of quilty, the planned murder of charlotte, literally hundreds of rapes etc etc, is for some reason trying to conceal exactly one of his crimes, and in a way that would be sure to fail within the frame narrative, since his description of the accident would have to be contradicted by the police report? that's very dumb. humbert is not concealing any secret murders. this novel doesn't have a m night shyamalan twist for you to figure out. you got memed.
>>24750679He probably did and he made up the story about her running off and marrying to cover his tracks.
>>24750707"Stabbed him in the back" implies they ever had a mutual relationship not based off of lies and power imbalances and hebephilia.
>>24751491I got the annotated version
>>24751634You're probably baiting, but he's an unreliable narrator, anon.
>>24752183>he's unreliable because he didn't spend 35 pages describing the shape, texture, and taste of her pussy to me!!!ok pedo
>>24752183not in the sense you're implying. again, you fell for memes. read the book again, slowly. he doesn't lie to the reader at all.
>>24751479This is the most retarded interpretation ever. I'm hoping and choosing to believe that you're the same sperg who has been shitting up these threads for a decade now and that this mongoloid reading hasn't actually managed to spread to others.
My only takeaway from this book was that both Dolores and the MC were horrible people.
>>24751664not that anon, and im usually the one arguing what you are, but nabokov is also known for shyamalan twists hidden in details. quilty is definitely woven that way into the novel, including appearances that humbert never learns about, and quilty might have arranged the murder of charlotte (which has some evidence)
>>24750679
>>24750754you should read it because of the stigma. be a stigma male
Why are there so many pedos on lit? Groyper infestation?
>>24754093>newfag detected
>>24754093>Why are there so many pedos on lit? People-that-i-disagree-with infestation?
Humbert should have spanked the brat until she submits to daddy.
>>24751540Yeah well he was wrong.
>Lolita leaves him as soon as she possibly can>story ends with him killing his mirror image>while completely losing touch of reality>Nabokov refuses to elaborate on details of the story, saying that people should never draw moral lessons from fictional stories>adds that the book was inspired by learning a French zoo was selling charcoal drawing made by an ape>retards unironically still sympathize with Humphrey>>24754093Overton window funneling. If you want to speak freely get ready to listen to a lot of degenerates.>>24754355Looking at this I cant help but reflect on "puritan laws" being condemned as restricting art, whereas in reality all media marketing somehow turns into a race to the bottom of depravity to squeeze out an extra shekel at every opportunity
>>24754355None of those girls look like how Dolores is described in the novel
>>24754355>>24754404Yeah not a single one of these is lore accurate
>>24750679There just isn't enough time to discuss how a plot that could have been the most worthless pornography becomes, in Nabokov's hands, a great and tragic love story, and I could exhaust my reservoir of superlatives trying to describe the quality of the writing.-J.K. Rowling
>>24755436never forget that everything that women want to put men in prison for they also secretly goon to
>>24755452Women's desire to be forcefully taken by men and their bias towards written media has almost entirely obliterated the respectability of publishing and of reading in general these days. It's basically the greatest argument for the restriction of women's liberty, it's literally for their own good (because it's what they desire).
>>24754403>>adds that the book was inspired by learning a French zoo was selling charcoal drawing made by an apehuh...
>>24754403>adds that the book was inspired by learning a French zoo was selling charcoal drawing made by an apehe made that up, no ape ever painted such a picture and it was never published in any magazine. he wrote about this topic multiple times across several decades and the afterward is him all like "it was strange to write this character who is nothing like me and has desires I could never imagine." Nabby was pretty funny,
>>24752610You're right. Humbert is actually a very reliable narrator. I bet he never lies or stretches the truth once in the entire novel. In fact, he may be the most reliable narrator ever written. Thank you for your very astute interpretation of events, you mouth breathing troglodyte.
>>24755436>>24755452She is 100% correct, but I think she absolutely values it first and foremost as goon material, and the quality of Nabokov's writing is a convenient excuse. Why are women like this?
Based and logical op
>>24755452Nobody has ever gooned to Lolita, unless they really enjoyed the cover art.
>>24756510it's embarrassing how self-assured you are about this stupid second-hand opinion. yes, humbert has been called an "unreliable narrator." no, that does not mean he's secretly murdering people and lying about it to the reader. that's not what the "unreliability" of his narration is. you've had this stuff explained to you upthread but you ignored it so you can keep stubbornly repeating a dumb meme. you're the troglodyte here.
>>24756664of course they have lol, and i don't just mean pedophiles getting off to the sexual situations; for a woman reader, the entire story is highly arousing because women eroticize male desire, so as long as they self-insert as lolita (which they do) they have a whole book of a (high-value, handsome, "classy") male going nuts over them, breaking all the rules and throwing his life away just to possess them etc. this is the same kind of situation that repeats endlessly in their smut novels.
>>24756838The death of Charlotte is very convenient. I don't think that it ultimately matters whether it was by design or coincidence. It needed to happen in order for the story to unfold. You can certainly have your suspicions regarding her fate given that Humbert wants to take her out of the picture and it being followed by her accidentally dying at a point where she would have exposed him is very convenient for Humbert. I do think him being unreliable narrator being used to rewrite whatever aspect of the book one pleases is a major mistake however, I think it was an accident since there's nothing else to indicate the contrary other than him being unreliable. H.H's unreliable testimony is quite apparent with how he weaves his narrative to be very sympathic to his actions. Starting off by building his backstory and trying to make his longing for a nymphet almost sympathetic (it really isn't). The way he speaks of Lolita and his actions with her is also quite obviously false and this is revealed by her actions which go against the narrative he's telling. It makes his story seem contradictory once her actions start to go against the story he's told. H.H's is just a pathetic little weasel, but it is funny to see this weasel present himself as Don Juan.
>>24756901>The way he speaks of Lolita and his actions with her is also quite obviously false and this is revealed by her actions which go against the narrative he's telling. It makes his story seem contradictory once her actions start to go against the story he's told.there is no contradiction. she has a crush on him and has sex with him willingly the first time. then she realizes she's a prisoner and it turns into a nightmare. he is very clear that after that first time in the hotel he has to use manipulation, bribery and forcible rape to keep the "relationship" going. he isn't lying to the reader about what lolita feels, he just doesn't really give that much of a shit.
>>24756933I disagree, her engaging in sexual intercourse with him willingly is highly dubious. He has already set the stage and written her interest in him in beyond doubt (if you take him at his word). There's also the matter of her age. The reason we have age of consent is because we don't believe that kids can consent to sexual intercourse because they simply don't have the mental faculties of doing so. So even if it was "willing", her will was to do something she didn't fully comprehend. There are contradictions following that of her cries and anger for instance. He includes them while presenting interpretations that seem far fetched (inaccurate). So what are these recharactizations then if not lies or embellishments that serve to lessen his malice? I'll concede that he might not outright lie, but he does bend the truth to continually paint circumstances in a more favorable way for him.
>>24756950it's irrelevant to the conversation if her consent was valid or informed or whatever. we're talking about whether he's lying about the facts and you haven't presented any arguments. what makes his account of their first time "highly dubious"?>There are contradictions following that of her cries and anger for instancewhat contradictions? what contradicts what in his account, specifically? what does her anger contradict? what does her crying contradict?>he does bend the truth to continually paint circumstances in a more favorable way for himhe spends page after page outlining his strategies for "terrorizing" (his word) the child into obedience so that she doesn't go to the police. he offhandedly mentions that he rapes her by force. why would a person trying to make himself look good volunteer that he's covered in scratches from the child he's raping fighting back? i have no idea what book you people are reading when you say shit like this.
>>24756950Faggot.>>24757041The fag is arguing backwards from his decided opinion; there's no point in conversing with him.The idea that HH murdered Charlotte when she died in the middle of the street in broad daylight with multiple witnesses and even physical evidence corroborating the story is fucking deranged. Only a completely dishonest retard could possibly try to claim that. Anyone trying to spout some dumb shit like that should simply be insulted and ignored.
>>24756838The problem with you is that you only care about what Humbert says, and you're not at all interested in how he says it. Maybe you should try reading the annotated edition of Lolita, and pick up all those glaring subtleties that flew over your head.
>>24757100maybe you should try reading any edition of lolita at all so that you can argue about it substantially instead of smugly vagueposting.>glaring subtletieslol
>>24757100>Maybe you should try reading the annot-ACKSo, I googled that, funnily enough, it's annotated by some Alfred Appel Jr.So then I looked him up and he doesn't have a very long wikipedia page and it wasn't very informative, but, lo and behold, his wife and son both have stuff about their "Early Life", and guess what I fucking (((found))).You're just a fucking parrot. You didn't bother reading the book and analyzing it yourself; you're just telling us what some random yid piggybacking off of Nabokov told you to think. Hell, you're not even telling us what your puppetmaster's argument is, you're simply repeating yourself while declaring you're right and presenting absolutely nothing to support it.Unless you're suggesting that he completely fabricated the events, when he has no motive for doing so and the entire premise of the book is that he's writing it as a confession for the jury in a trial. A trial, where any such claims would easily be checked by looking into the records of the accident.In which case, what reason do we have to believe that Charlotte even existed in the first place?Perhaps she was from his previous marriage and he actually stole Dolores away as a child and fabricated a new identity, and the concept of Charlotte was merely uNrElIaBlE nArRaTiOn and lies he told others inquiring about the motherPerhaps what he said was a lie to his neighbors about Dolores actually being his daughter from a tryst he had with Charlotte was true. Maybe that Charlotte was also fucked in the head and not only knew of but supported their hypothetical incestuous age-gap relationship and his lying of events is to preserve the perception of her moral character.Once you start throwing away the concept of reality with>but le unreliable narration!!1!one!!1!You might as well throw out the whole fucking bookSo; either the entire premise of the book is brought into question, he somehow orchestrated her death in a manner fooling everyone, or they were all in on itThe driver, the driver's father, the nurse, several neighbors, the policemen who arrived "hardly more than a minute after the accident", and even the "pretty child in a dirty pink frock" who handed him the letters must have all been in on a plan to get him access to Lo's prime nymphet cunny? But, then, why not simply utilize the "pretty child"?Or perhaps he merely fooled them! All he had to do was drug charlotte, then use some manner of fishing wire contraption to dangle her head into the street to get hit by the car, while also controlling the dog to cause that car to swerve to begin with, then clean up all physical evidence of the device without being seen and get back into the house before his phone was called.Maybe he simply beat her with a hammer, then utilized a plethora of drugs and magical hypnosis to convince everyone involved of the sequence of events he wished to deceive them with! He's unreliable after all, how do we know he's not a wizard?!Fucking retard.
>>24757181Didn't read anything you wrote but your wrong
>>24750754He got the idea from a story about an ape that was taught to draw and the first thing it drew were the bars of its cage. Humbert is that ape and the pattern of his passion for dolores is the drawing.
>>24751459>t. european>>24757181>t. retard self-insert pedophile
>>24757183>>24757392
>>24756478he was forced to write the afterword by publishers to make people feel better about the book. even if it isn't true, the illustration of the ape is a nice way to think about its theme, as is this passage from the last chapter: "I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art."
>>24752610>>24751664>missing the point this dramaticallyI'm surprised that you're able to read this post, let alone the book.
>>24750679is there a single cover of this goddamned book that isn't a sexualization of a child
>>24757480what is "the point"?
>>24757503the shape of humbert's passion for dolores is a kind of doomed love that blooms and flowers and dies. It parodies the muses he alludes to (anabelle lee, carmen) and recapitulates the pattern of his passion. Lolita is of course doomed because she will not always be Lolita. The game being played with Humbert's manipulation is to sketch this kind of a doomed romance, while the real pattern of his passion only throbs through beneath the text of his narrative. Notably, Humbert's account is unreliable, as he is intentionally written to make mistakes that the author never would, such as confusing species of moths and butterflies (Nabakov was an accomplished lepidopterist and is quoted as saying he would never make this kind of error) and also is in his own account insane. In other places, the secret nerves of the novel are hidden in details of the world, e.g. the Beardsley class list, coincidences "that at once point to the authorial consciousness that has plotted them and can also be imagined as coordinates situated in time and space, marking the labyrinth from which a character cannot escape."
>>24757660that's a really pretentious way to not actually disagree with the posts you claimed were missing the point
