>>25198602
>it's another anon pearl clutching thread
At least incel threads are usually less long winded when vomiting their bile

>>25198602
well that's just like, your opinion man

>>25198602
The book would have been better if Dolores was a tad younger. Lolita loses some of its verisimilitude when you realize that the girl is an eleven year old hag.

>>25198602
Why did God make people pedos. The worst part is there are many pedo saints. St Augustine

>>25198622
Then she wouldn't have turned into a cheating whore as she approached puberty during the road trip
If she just turned into a smug teading mesugaki she would not have been nearly as detectable and therefore there would be no conflict

Such evil is banal at the end of the day (sic)

>>25198602
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES

or just keep them hidden TRUMP 4 MORE YEARS

>>25198610
>>25198617
>>25198622
>>25198628
Again just reaffirming my point.
You people aren't even animals; your something bellow animals.
A consciousness which CHOSES to act like this is lower then an animal which cannot think.
Its why animals dont go to hell but people do.
Because all of you could chose not to be shit; yet you chose to be shit.
>>25198625
>Why did God make people pedos.
Because Adam and Eve ate from the tree and now people capable of such things.

>>25198633
>bellow
Lol
God despises ESLs

>>25198602
These issues become filtered out once they enter into the artistic medium, and Nabokov was quite clear on his anti-didacticism. And yet I don't even see where exactly is this tremendous evil you're implying?

>>25198633
trying 2 hard

>>25198637
>Nabokov was quite clear on his anti-didacticism
You can be ""clear"" about whatever you want about something; if it leads to a different result your still to blame for the consequences of your action.
If a dude tried to create a cure for small pox and ended up creating weaponized version of small pox that killed every human on earth that dude would still be a piece of shit who should have never gotten into science in the first place.
Same goes with Nabokov and writing even if you believe he had every positive intention (I dont).
> And yet I don't even see where exactly is this tremendous evil you're implying?
THAT IS the great evil.
Your inability to perceive the evil.
That is the thing that Nabokov birthed.
It's like a nerve gas that suppresse the immune system but for morality.
Either that or it simply illustrates the fact of our ingestion of the gas prior.
This is WHY humanity will stagnate upon this rock and ultimately kill each other off.
Because. YOU. simply. cannot. understand. or. accept. the difference. between. right. and. wrong.
Death and life.
Good outcomes and bad outcomes.

>>25198649
>If a dude tried to create a cure for small pox and ended up creating weaponized version of small pox that killed every human on earth that dude would still be a piece of shit who should have never gotten into science in the first place.
This is such nonsense, completely disanalogous to what's going on in Lolita. Nabokov never even intended to author a narrative-prompt for moral condemnation. He simply does not care, and is correct in pointing out that the subject of pederasty harbors much aesthetic potential. Why are you so mad anyway?

>>25198660
> and is correct in pointing out that the subject of pederasty harbors much aesthetic potential.
Again dude; just proving my fucking point.
>Why are you so mad anyway?
Because people like you are the reason the world is shit and this book (and your defence of it) demonstrates that.
There could be no war, no pain, no evil at all but you fucking absolute brain dead fucking dopamine addicts have to be so obsessed with your own fucking mental masterbation
>"Look at the pretty prose!"
>"Aren't the prose pretty!"
>"Gib more pretty prose please!"
>>>"Look at the pretty apple!"
>>>"Isn't the apple pretty!"
>>>"Gib more pretty apple please!"
It's. all. the. same. SHIT.
100,000 years of scum like you holding back are species from its potential, damning us to suffer and die in the name of fucking WHAT?
FUCKING PROSE!?!?!
GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING COCK SUCKING
>>>>""""PROSE!?!?!?!?"""
FUCK you dude.
Fuck you to the depths of hell.

>>25198663
meds

>>25198663
You talk of decline but it seems to me that the world was much better off when pederastry wasn't so frowned upon. We had Dante and Petrarch.

>>25198680
lol just maybe we had situations that supported art and culture irrespective of whether or not people thought it was ok to fuck children.... did you ever think about that? or did you just maybe wanna fuck children?

What a pedantic retard you are, I truly pity you, to reduce the sheer breadth of the “human condition” on just one of many “controversial” works of literature, and to lump us all with your imaginary strawman. You may find yourself unable to appreciate a piece of literature due to its subject matter, regardless of its artistic merits, and that’s all fine and dandy. But you have no right, no FUCKING right to bring ALL us of down to wallow in your self-pitying “damnation.” You DON’T know us and our values and our struggles, and you never fucking will. Your God has given us free will, and we, including you, are free to use this will of ours to express ourselves in whatever way we desire; and that very same freedom gives us the ability to introspect, to separate fiction from reality, to recognize and appreciate whatever beauty, however small, in truly hideous things, while not at all supporting that hideous thing itself. Or are you implying that YOU lack this most basic mental capacity? Are you so lacking in sensitivity that you can only see things in black and white, and miss out on the entire spectrum of colors that our world has always been bathed in since time immemorial? If so, then I truly pity you.

>>25198663
while saying "the subject of pederasty harbors much aesthetic potential" is one of the STUPIDEST things ive ever read,
YOU () are a dimwit cunt and should fuck the fuck off

>>25198698
bro just tell him to fuck off.

tldr

>>25198702
I know, don’t feed the troll and all that, but I fucking hate grandstanding, pearl-clutching people like OP, I just couldn’t help it. At least this helps me get my thoughts out properly.

>>25198706
Op's thread is a consistent bait thread i have seen for many years. Imagine thinking the people you argue with here are looking for genuune discussion. Imagine coming here for genuine discussion
Lol

>>25198718
…I’ve just recently migrated here, dude. Nothing to blame on but my ignorance, I guess.

this is giving me PTSD flashbacks to when I told one of my friends that I finally read the book and despite the subject matter found it to be beautiful and thought provoking and he goes "eww don't you know that's epstein's favorite book"

>>25198722
You came from a different board and thought you wouldnt be interacting with the exact same drooling meme brained chuds who dont read?

>>25198706
based self expression bro

>>25198723
in greek myth fathers eat their children all the time

>>25198728
The MB threads are quite quality. They got my hopes up lol, but in a way, I’m still kinda glad that it’s still the same after all

>>25198734
Yeah my morning bowel movement threads are indeed the best here

>>25198696
No sir pederastry was literally not frowned upon, as you can see if you've ever read classical literature. And I'm not even saying that this was the cause of great culture, just that they are correleated in a way that's not captured by your rants.

>>25198701
Explain why it is stupid then you knave.

>>25198696
Also, you are obviously failing to grasp the difference between simply "wanting to fuck children" and pederasty as such, a conceptual confusion I am not too interested in working out for you.

>>25198745
>correlated in some way
shut the fuck up

>>25198752
ok jeffrey, let me check my files

>>25198756
youre still fucking dumb. if you had structured your statement about desire and taboo- ok.

but you didnt. youre talking about CHILD FUCKING.

so fuck you.

>>25198757
Once you come to distinguish contemporary child abuse from pederasty as it is present in the works of Plato, Xenophon, Petrarch, Dante, Shakespeare etc... we may be able to have a conversation here. Otherwise I'll let you continue to play the jester.

>>25198761
You likely have low comprehension skills. Humbert is only a continuation of the pederast literary tradition and taste as is seen by the quality of his prose and lexicon. However, Humbert is also poisoned in the same way most modern minds are poisoned, instead of his desires only being sublimated into literary expression, he turns pornographic and carnal in his actions. This is one of the most prominent themes in Lolita that you have clearly failed to see.

Actually, Nabokov himself condemned Humbert to Hell.
>there is a green lane in Paradise where Humbert is permitted to wander at dusk once a year; but Hell shall never parole Hermann.
The book might not have a dumb universal message but it was definitely written by someone with a moral sense that the events are disgusting. Humbert might be romanticizing, but Nabokov is not. Humbert is not just a pedo. He is a deceiving, drugging, murdering, eyeball-licking madman. As with all books if you're not six years old, you have to judge it knowing that the events are all made up, based on how well made up they are.

>>25198767
>>25198764
keep promoting your epstein pizza shit, cunt

PISA forever bro

>>25198602
If you can't empathize with Humbert Humbert, you can give up on art. Just read regular slop for the masses.

>>25198602
>i've never read this book but let me tell you my very strong opinion on it
This is a zoomer thing, right? This sort of performative morality has already become so boring; I hate to think that I'm going to likely have to hear it for decades more to come.

>>25198602
the lady doth protest too much

>>25198602
there's a lot of born agains who genuinely believe that a born again woman has her STDs eradicated by God when she marries a Christian on this site

>>25198602
Is it bad that I lost most of my sympathy for Lo after it was revealed she wasn't a virgin?

>>25198868
What happened is that you expected to remain a victim, right? Maybe that's why Lolita is so enduring, because it's not just about a crime, but the conditions of the people that led to the story. From that point you really have to ask "Was Lolita actually seducing Humbert like he said (which I thought previously was a red faced lie)?"

File: true love.png (387 KB, 700x420)

387 KB PNG

>>25198809
This!

I think even if Nabokov himself was a pedo, the story itself is still pretty clearly a cautionary tale about how following through with dating a child would basically be the most hellish and horrible thing that could happen to you

>>25198876
Mayhaps...

>>25198602
>If you must feel something the only thing one should feel reading this is moral condemnation of the one who wrote it
Have you even read this book? It's not about how great pedophilia is you fucking moron

>>25198698
> But you have no right, no FUCKING right to bring ALL us of down to wallow in your self-pitying “damnation.”
I do if you adhere to the behavior i am describing.
>You DON’T know us and our values and our struggles, and you never fucking will.
And i dont give a shit.
If you do mental masterbation defending a pedo book you are the bottom of humanity and nothing you will ever do for the wrest of your life will make up for it.
Your only hope is the grace of God.
> Your God has given us free will, and we, including you, are free to use this will of ours to express ourselves in whatever way we desire; and that very same freedom gives us the ability to introspect, to separate fiction from reality, to recognize and appreciate whatever beauty, however small, in truly hideous things
And that free will also made you responsible for your actions.
It made you accountab le for the things you CHOSE to "apperciate" or ""recognize""
> Are you so lacking in sensitivity that you can only see things in black and white, and miss out on the entire spectrum of colors that our world has always been bathed in since time immemorial?
There is no nuance with shit.
It is simply evil, nothing more nothing less.

>>25198809
If empathizing with Humbert is the price humanity pays for art i would rather se the whole of the endeavor consigned to the fire.
I'd rather every written word be blooted out and the potential for higher thought wiped away if it can ONLY lead to people """apperciating""" the fucking pedophile Nabokov.
>>25198837
Literally just the product of a bunch of people who saw their friends victimized as minors not wanting to live in a world where that continues to happen.
You people will fucking lose.
>>25198924
It doesn't matter what its """"about"""" in any bullshit abstract sense.
The fact that people defend it, the fact they find it ""interesting"" IS the problem.

>>25198947
Fucking NPC. Stop wasting the bandwidth of my literature board.

>>25198947
>If empathizing with Humbert is the price humanity pays for art i would rather se the whole of the endeavor consigned to the fire.
>I'd rather every written word be blooted out and the potential for higher thought wiped away if it can ONLY lead to people """apperciating""" the fucking pedophile Nabokov.
Let me guess, Christian?

>>25198975
Yeah no shit dude, unapologetically.
And when i se what the alternative i'm only more convinced of the rightness of my belief.

>>25198978
Are you a Catholic?

>>25198983
Yep.

File: 1269767123.png (239 KB, 423x550)

239 KB PNG

>>25198978
>>25198986
It's too easy

>>25198986
what do you make of this? >>25198770

I actually kind of agree. At one point in the book I remember he describes how her butthole is bleeding after he rapes her. The book is defended on the grounds of its "beauty," but the subject matter lacks beauty entirely. Even if the sentences do have flashes of pretty descriptions, and even if they give you the Nabokovian "tingle of the spine," you're still reading about a little girl being raped. The common idea that some flitting stimulation of the nerves should outweigh the moral beauty of the substance when assessing a work's merits reveals the hollowness of the values held by our critical institutions and its readers. It also reveals a mass psychological phenomenon I've noticed among most people who claim an affection for high art. A self-imposed hypnosis is achieved and they uphold the consensus, no matter how unnatural or perverted. The average person will hear about Lolita's synopsis and wonder why anyone would read it; the haughty consumer of fine arts will offer several justifications for why they've negated their own disgust, and those who've not undertaken this process of self-hypnosis will listen with perplexity.

>>25198999
as usual, morality contra psychology

>>25198988
Blow me pedophile.
>>25198770
Again i just dont se how this is relevant.
Even Nabokov personally condemned Humpfry if the end result of the book he wrote is that people symapthies with pedophile its still a bad book and he's still a shit person for having written it.
Again weaponized small pox ect.
The most interesting (and horrible) thing about the book to me honestly just how many people feel the need to defend it.
How mindlessly some ""well written prose"" will get them defending actual child rape, "thinking about it seriously," discussing it in college classes.
Essentially what this books is a dose of herione.
For a certain kind of person (a kind of person who sadly makes up the majority of the human species) it lights up dopamine receptors in their brain even though they know on some level the consumption is bad for them.
So they keep consuming it, keep destributing it, keep making sure this poison has a life of its own for centuries and centuries.
The real legacy of the book (if there is any) is a testament to the flaw of the human condition.
Not in nobakov or humpfry but just in every midwit /lit/head and pedophilic college professor who apperciates the book in every way shape or form.
It's not an accomplishment to be respected, its just an act on par with the seprment twisting man into his own image in eden.
It's just devil shit and its not particularly interesting and its not worth any serious exorcise of thought.
It's just fucking crack for the species that saw the fruit "looked good to eat" and so they ate it.
>>25198999
This.
Fucked this exactly
also czecked.

>>25199011
nabakov was raped by his uncle. you can't see this because morality is not a tool for analyzing literature

>>25198999
kek cant into butthole beauty

>>25198999
>the moral beauty of the substance
does that moral beauty come from the actions that are depicted? the character is bad, yes. he does bad things, yes. why are we reading about him? because it's interesting. because the reality of the book is complex and well thought out, like ours. because the world is beautiful with it's diversity, including moral diversity, and literature can have terrible terrible characters as well. just. stop. reading.
>how her butthole is bleeding after he rapes her.
not in the book, but arguably worse things are.

>>25199011
according to you, all evil is god's weaponized small pox. to many it doesn't matter that god didn't intend it to go this way, people chose to eat the fruit. people choose to sympathize with humbert (surely only the most forgetful readers do). i know you're as insincere as humbert, but there is a parallel between god creating terrible people because there is ultimate good in the creation of the world, and nabokov creating humbert. except lolita caused infinitely less suffering.

>>25199050
there's no such thing as evil and there's no such thing as free will, cromag

>>25199050
> the character is bad, yes. he does bad things, yes. why are we reading about him? because it's interesting
Okay but W.H.Y. is it interesting?
What the fuck about it makes your little dopamine receptors light up so fucking much you have to defend a book written from the perspective of a child rapist???
If you think about anything long enough it can BE ""interesting.""
Consider a fucking flower, or a mountain or a grain of sand on the beach; the only reason to consider a pedo book is that you CANT help yourself.
You just follow your most base instincts to whereever they lead you and this IS the cause of every evil in the world. Rape, child abuse, murder it all comes down to people being slaves to their passions rather then their reason.
Its all just fucking animalism.
> i know you're as insincere as humbert
In what way?
What makes you think this??
>there is a parallel between god creating terrible people because there is ultimate good in the creation of the world, and nabokov creating humbert.
No there is parrelel between Nabokov creating a BOOK and God creating the universe but as to what was authored that's where the similarities end.
God created a perfect world and let his children corrupt it.
Nabokov fed his creation poison from the start.

>>25199065
holy christ fuck the fuck fucking fuck off

>>25199075
Never, fuck you pedophile.

Morally grandstanding over an 80 year old book is so funny. OP is right, we should only read books about good people doing good stuff

>>25199079
i dont fuck kids nor am i, UNLIKE YOU, obsessed with fucking kids

ITS ALWAYS THE HYPOCRITES FUCKING THE CHILDREN

watch out for the van
beep beep

>>25199089
The issue isn't the subject matter the issue is its effect on people and the way it portrays the pedophile.
People who read it just have this hypnotic repition about how "good" it is and accept the normalization of pedophilia with it.
You could write a book where humpfy is the villian and it would be fine but to write a book like this in a world with human being that react like this to it is morally wrong.
>>25199092
>"Y-y-YOU NOT LIKING PEDOPHILIA MEANS YOU SECRETLY WANT TO FUCK KIDS!"
Yeah, yeah, yeah dude and everyone affraid of spiders wants to fuck a spider.
Heard it all before.

>>25199107
I think the book is good and pedophilia is bad so checkmate dipshit

Thread over

>>25199107
you're such an insufferable midwit. your analogy doesn't work because you're comparing an already analogistic use of the word "phobia" to literal clinical arachnophobia. phobes are not medically phobic in the same way that arachnophobes are afraid of spiders

>>25199113
If you think the book is good you dont think pedophilia is bad by definition
At least not bad enough to make the book bad.
>>25199116
okay so do people with clinical phobia of spiders also want to fuck spiders??
What the fuck are you even saying dude?

>>25199053
i don't believe them either.

>>25199065
>Okay but W.H.Y. is it interesting?
because he is a distinct and memorable character. he lives a life and has a mind and has a way of speaking that is different than what we have seen. his perspective hides things that you try to find out by reading better.
>Consider a fucking flower, or a mountain or a grain of sand on the beach
ironically more of the book is about those things than about kids. but part of the challenge this book undertakes is taking what would otherwise be an empty exercise in morbid shock value and making something with integrity and little easy shocks.
>You just follow your most base instincts to whereever they lead you
my base instinct isn't attraction to kids. you read like a raging repressed pedo.

>God created a perfect world and let his children corrupt it.
both created corruptible works.

>>25199119
>If you think the book is good you dont think pedophilia is bad by definition
Is it the same with murder mysteries?

>>25199119
>If you think the book is good you dont think pedophilia is bad by definition
>If you like apocalypse now you think war is good
Stfu retard

>>25199124
>because he is a distinct and memorable character. he lives a life and has a mind and has a way of speaking that is different than what we have seen.
Yeah and that viewpoint is the viewpoint of a fucking pedophile dude.
The POINT is to make you empatheis with him and in so far as the book achieves that for the median impressionable reader it is morally abhorent for doing so.
>but part of the challenge this book undertakes is taking what would otherwise be an empty exercise in morbid shock value and making something with integrity and little easy shocks.
Yeah; watering the poison down so you drink it.
Again none of this makes it any better.
>my base instinct isn't attraction to kids.
Your base instinct is to be etertained by """prose.""
And for the sake of """prose""" you will accept any amount of evil, any amount of rape, any amount of death destruction that might befall the world because of your actions.
A book could drive the world into a nuclear war and you'd still defend its fucking """prose""" if they lit up your frontal cortex in the right way.
>>25199128
No because those aren't told from the persective of the murderer.

>>25199147
>No because those aren't told from the persective of the murderer.
This nigga hasn't read crime and punishment

>>25199147
>No because those aren't told from the persective of the murderer.
a lot of them are. go rage against them.

>>25199147
>Yeah and that viewpoint is the viewpoint of a fucking pedophile dude.
"he has a different mind than i do" is the point of view of someone with a similar mind?

>>25199147
>you will accept any amount of evil, any amount of rape, any amount of death destruction that might befall the world because of your actions.
there is no evil in reading about fictional events. i don't empathize with the pedo. whereas there is evil in creating the universe which is filled with those things, all for the sake of... what? not even entertainment.
>>25199147
>A book could drive the world into a nuclear war
if we are counting unintentionality, then the bible unintentionally did cause a shit ton.

>>25199065
>I am going to create a terrible world where quintillions of sentient beings will suffer terribly just because
>Wow, YHVH is soooo based
>I am going to write a beautiful book about why pedophilia is... le bad
>AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE JEWSUS SAVE ME FROM THESE EVIL WORDS!!!
Can Christcucks do anything besides lash out in anger at their betters?

>>25199173
>a lot of them are. go rage against them.
Do people also pretend those books have ""beautiful pros""?
Do they ceaselessly defend them and try to justify them like they with lolita??
People understand shit like breaking bad and the sopraons are a societal cancer on some level; lolita refuse to accept it about their own perfered work of ""art.""
>there is no evil in reading about fictional events.
No but there is promoting and defending it.
> whereas there is evil in creating the universe which is filled with those things, all for the sake of... what?
Those did not exist until the fall.
We are the author of evil; not God.
>>25199238
>>>Muh """beautiful""" pedo book
lol
and you people wonder why we think the only way the world can propser is if you fucking degenerates are forced to toe the line at gun point.

>>25198602
Bump for more shizo OP babel

>>25198999
Lolita raped Hubert, if not physically mentally.

>>25198602
>I failed to realize the whole point of Lolita is what a scumbag Humbert is
>I'm midwit enough that I was taken in by his smarmy, manipulative voice and was unable to process the cognitive dissonance
You're too stupid to read this book anon, stick to Cradle

>>25199630
amazing since at the end of the book Humbert explicitly realizes he's selfishly stolen away her childhood and that it wasn't even for love as he delusionally told himself throughout. I know this thread is bait but it's still shocking anyone at all comes to this conclusion

>>25199327
>Do people also pretend those books have ""beautiful pros""?
yes. a lot of well regarded books are about murder, some from the murderer's perspective. your rule is that you shouldn't write from the perspective of bad people?
>breaking bad and the sopraons are a societal cancer
because they're about bad people?
>promoting and defending it.
the books, yes. not the actions.
>Those did not exist until the fall. We are the author of evil; not God.
if lolita caused sympathy toward rapists, that was the fall of lolita. nabokov only gave people the "free will" to be bad readers.

>>25199630
>>25199648
OP explicitly says he hasn't read it.

>>25198602
You are a woman or fundamentalist loon.

File: lolita-confrontation[1].jpg (634 KB, 1260x994)

634 KB JPG

>>25198602
didn't read the book but the Stanley Kubrick movie is probably my most rewatched film of all time. 10/10 cast and directing. Maybe you should give it a shot OP

OP, you're expressing rage at the evil of the world which certainly exist, which is relatable. The world is filled with evil shit. That book, however, is not an avatar for said evil. You're doing yourself a disservice by agonizing over it. There are smartest approaches to the catholic sentiment.

>>25199651
> your rule is that you shouldn't write from the perspective of bad people?
You shouldn't write a book that leads people to glorify and defend evil or its representation on ethical or aesthetic grounds.
The book Lolita and the show breaking bad are great examples of this as i promise you they have LITERALLY led people to become drug dealers and pedophiles and led thousands more to fantasize about it as can be seen on any forum either work is talked about.
You can say people are stupid for this, you can make some edgy joke about how anyone this easily manipulated should be sterilized or executed but the fact of the matter is millions of people the world over (even yourself to an extent) fall into this category.
It would be better world if we just had leaders who accepted the nature of human condition and kept this absolute trash away from the public.
It doesn't matter what prose you use in your child rape erotica; it's still child rape erotica.
>>25199678
Nothing gets better if we cant even admit the problem dude.
Lolita isn't just a symbol its an example of what is wrong with our broader society and i will say (at least for my own part) a truly grotesque example.

>>25198602
What's your point exactly? I don't even think nabakov would even disagree with your feelings towards the subject matter. But I don't see how the premise leads to the conclusion.

>>25198602
>evil

dumb moralfag

>>25199864
>The book Lolita has LITERALLY led people to become pedophiles
I guarantee that this is not true

>>25199864
this is the most fun i have access to atm. sorry to prolong this thread everyone.

>You shouldn't write a book that leads people to glorify and defend evil or its representation on ethical or aesthetic grounds.
you shouldn't send down a book that did those things for millenia either.
>defend evil or its representation
so don't even represent evil!?! surely you didn't mean that. did you mean don't represent it without making it very explicit that it is evil? but then our conception of evil would not be the "fruits it bears" (which lolita does represent, that's what the book is about) but because a book tells you so, which would easily lead to more evil.
>to become drug dealers and pedophiles
the book made them pedophiles? do you think you could become a pedophile by reading lolita? ironically, it's god that makes them pedophiles.
>(even yourself to an extent)
what did i do?
>It would be better world if we just had leaders who accepted the nature of human condition
so our leaders, being able to predict what we would do with our free will, can limit our free will, but god can't?
>child rape erotica
except the few naughty scenes are extremely indirect, for half the book there is no lolita, and it more and more becomes about how bad the consequences are. anyone expecting erotica would be extremely bored.

This thread was a test to see if you could sense unreliable narration by yourself, without parroting others. Just about all of you failed. See you on the next one. It will be about another book by another author.

>>25200046
back in my day we just called it trolling instead of trying to make it out to be some kind of thought experiment

>>25200046
>i was just pretending to be retarded
Classic move anon, very nice.

File: images[1].jpg (10 KB, 252x200)

10 KB JPG

>>25200046
See you on the next one OP And don't forget to watch the 1962 film version starring Peter Sellers, James Mason, Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon as the titular nympeth!!!

>>25199923
Based on what?
>>25199944
>so don't even represent evil!
No just dont glorify it.
Dont try to make it interesting or compelling.
Make it abundantly clear how stupid and fruitless it all is (at least by the conclusion).
>the book made them pedophiles? do you think you could become a pedophile by reading lolita?
No but i think a man predisposed to alcholism may be made an alcholic by his first drink.
It is the same way with a certain type of a person and lolita.
>what did i do?
You defend the book

>>25200046
lol, not me.

>>25198602
Why do white men love underaged girls so much?

>>25198610
It's pearl clutching to complain about pearl clutching

>>25198602
go ahead poindexter, explain whats so bad about the book without resorting to muh feels or pedophobia

Nabokov got molested when he was little and Lolita was his way of dealing with it.

>faux moral outrage thread on dubbya dubbya dubbya dot fourth channel dot organization
*YAWN*

>>25198634
Op btfo

>>25198663

You are trying too hard. Bait quality dropped to about 7/10.

>>25200545
>Dont try to make it interesting or compelling.
but evil is frequently charming, manipulative and tempting in life. without that face of it, only meaningless depictions for children like you could exist. are you also against those overtly moralistic Scorsese movies?
>by his first drink.
ye its not a great first drink. i assume they will be more enticed by children than by three hundred pages of alliteration and word play (which you seem to frame as the tempting part, as if art doesn't completely get in the way of a budding pedo trying to get off), followed by guilt, with all of the pedophilia made almost implausibly horrific.

>>25200604
>"Explain what's bad about the book without resorting to """pedophobia"""
In what world did you believe this was going to be a compelling retort to me dude??
To anyone?

>>25198602
Bait used to be believable.

>>25201246
in other words you can't