I wanna start off by saying that I'm not a very literate person. I'm not an avid book reader or book critique but while reading lolita I did notice one thing that kind of made me second guess it's placement in the western canon or at least its genre or how if should be viewed as a piece of literature.I guess my assumption about literature is that it's a form of expression but more precisely an appreciation of the art of writing itself. And so when an authour writes a book it's both in respect to the the message being expressed and the specific mode of expression. Everything's external and a love of the art and I guess bad art is one that serves only to exalt ones own ego and skill is not good literature because it is grounded neither in respect for what is expressed nor for how it is expressed, but merely in the self.And that's exactly what I felt lolita was. It took me a few reads to understand it because again I read it as like a 19 or 20 year old and going from 0 book reading to something like lolita probs wasn't the best decision. But when I did understand it, it felt like nothing more than pretentious melodramatic piece.My first clue of this was when humber and Dolores are in the car and talking and Dolores replies with "you talk like a book". That was kind of a wink at what nabakov was trying to do with this work. There were other moments in the book where a paragraph would unfold in an elaborate, poetic, almost dazzling prose, only to end with a sharp, nonchalant, almost dismissive remark, as if, after reaching a crescendo, he simply shrugs it off, reminding the reader that for him such brilliance is just routine.Maybe I'm being too vague, like I said I'm not a reader, cultured or even inteligent enough to ve a critic. But I hope someone gets what I mean. I may have come off as vague but definitely not harsh and I'm curious if anyone else has came to the same conclusion.
>thesis statement>supporting evidence>conclusion
i hate metafags. just enjoy the classic american roadtrip
>>25202028why do you think you have the authority to second guess it's placement? that's pretty arrogant. you even admit you're not very literate, nor are you an avid reader. That's like saying; "I don't watch sports, but I don't think LeBron is a very good basketball player. I think he's overrated." In fact, you're really pissing me off.
>>25202028You probably haven’t read any other book to compare it to. Don’t take pride in this by the way. Get the fuck out of here, back from whence you came. I hate /lit/ and what it’s become I HATE IT.
>>25202118I'm not necessarily comparing it typical standards of literary quality but instead in terms of what the ends of writing is. I felt like the book betrays the authentic and organic essence of literature by making it a self aggrandising work. I won't deny it's supremacy though. The more I read it the more I realise that nabokov is exactly who he thinks he is.>>25202148Umm, chile... anyways. (Pic rel is for you)
>>25202187>the book betrays the authentic and organic essence of literatureYou said you aren't a reader, and you're saying shit like this. Just shut the fuck up.
>>25202028I feel like you understand the punchline of the joke Nabokov was making, but don't find it as funny as I did. Humbert Humbert glibly, and vainly, tries to rationalize his behaviour. A hoard of normies (those, at least, who are not put off by the subject matter) have since become lost in the verbal labyrinth, mistaking superb style for meaningful substance (or a sincere attempt at meaningful substance, on Nabokov's end), but at its core, quite like Pale Fire (the moon's an arrant thief; Nabokov shines his stolen language on the reader, if you will), its taking the piss. I think Nabokov, a fantastic, all-too-measured stylist, appreciated his own limits, and mocked them brilliantly.
>>25202187if you can read and understand laurence sterne's "tristram shandy" i MIGHT consider your opinion on this book, which was not written in your native language. literature is the subjective art form, the pure exultation of the ego in every formal degree.>brilliance is just routineit's not brilliance, it's intellectualized coping, like humbert's whole nymphette mythology. and this is clearly nabakov's view of the character. the man who "treats [his] characters as galley slaves" cannot be said to possess much negative capability. prose is really all humbert and nabakov have, and nabakov is painfully aware of this (unlike humbert, who revels in it)
>>25202028i think you'd be a good reader anon. you've paid attention to something like>That was kind of a wink at what nabakov was trying to do with this work. There were other moments in the book where a paragraph would unfold in an elaborate, poetic, almost dazzling prose, only to end with a sharp, nonchalant, almost dismissive remarkwhich is in the right direction. there are many things that i disagree with you about but i want to say as a big fan of the book and the nab you have expressed yourself in a very unannoying way.its important not to confuse humbert's ego and melodrama with nabokov's. that variation in sentence length is a small part of what offsets what would have otherwise been a sincere attempt at romantic overflow. is nabokov showing off his skill? yes. but if that skill is storytelling with unique detail and language and characters and humor and harmony and a setting built one roadside attraction at a time and the hundred different ways he uses narrative perspective, i don't think it's bad art.
Not a bad critique for someone who claims he isn’t well read. Do you plan to read any other venerated books? I wonder what you’d think of Pale Fire. It’s more masturbatory than this.
>>25202265>its taking the pissidk how it's ever been taken as anything other than that. The showdown with Quilty is a great example of how unserious it all is. Quilty is like a cartoon parody of Humbert's pretentiousness and that whole segment is so slapstick you know it's not meant to be taken seriously.
>>25202265>>25202287>>25202397These response actually made me do an entire 180. I was just talking with someone about this and they also pointed out the book should be read through the lense of humbert since the entire work is written from the perspective of a delirious pompous fat cat. And upon pondering it a bit further I think all misunderstandings of the book stem from the conflating of humbert h and nabokov. I'll admit this has given me a deeper appreciation of what nabokov accomplished with this book.>>25202404I do plan on reading more. But im more of a practical reader than someone who enjoys the act itself. I believe that if I can not get something out of it then it's no different to me than watching television or reading a comic.
>>25202478the second half of lolita is a comedy
Why would you admit you don't read then expect us to take you seriously?
