>check the /lit/ wiki and pick a random book from the /lit/ starter kit chart.>Lolita it is>Read about a hundred pages>Book is about a brain damaged French pedo that kidnaps a little girl, screws her and gaslights her>Eventually the author tries to attribute a slight guilt to the little girl>Keep on reading trying to find a moral to the story>There none too evident>The book is just a story about a disgusting human being obsessed with "pubescent nymphets"Really, I read the author's afterword and all, but I just can't believe that bullshit. Nabokov probably was into little girls himself and found a way to let out some steam by writing the book. Don't get me wrong, there are no books that shouldn't be written, and even this shit has some value, but my point is, why is it in the /lit/ starter kit? Please don't say it's because 4chan is full of pedos, it's too predictable
>>25428868>>Keep on reading trying to find a moral to the story
>>25428868I have no goddam idea why that book is popular with anyone other than pedophiles either. It’s embarrassing that it’s in the starter kit. I don’t know who put it in there or why either.
>>25428868>>check the /lit/ wikiHasn't that been gone for quite a while now? How old is this bait?
>>25428868I dropped lolita when the girl fucked some random other guy. It's cuckshit.
>>25428879Nope, it's there. I particularly like the recommended books section and its reading charts, though. However, it's not error-free
>>25428886God it’s number five on the list even. It’s ranked ahead of Moby Dick
I recently talked with some 20 yo girl who approached me at a bar. She told me that she doesn't read much but that she recently read Lolita and really enjoyed it. I had to admit that I have not read it and left the establishment in shame.
More than the contents of this novel, I hate it how it legitimized Nabokov as a friend. He was a nobody before it and a nobody later, wrote 20+ books and yet solely due to Lolita he can trick you into thinking he's this big figure in literature. Then again some people believe that wrapping a turd in a million cute intricate bows changes the nature of the turd.
>>25428868>the author tries to attribute a slight guilt to the little girlYou mean the narrator>moral to the storyLiterature isn’t supposed to have a moral unless you’re a child
>>25428868A lot of literature is like that. Try reading a math textbook.
>>25428868The moral of the story, if you want to call it that, is about how the beauty and ambiguity of language can be used to hide an ugly, sinister truth. The wordplay in the book is incredible, and honestly pretty funny in a lot of places.Also, trying to read it purely for morals is missing the point, you should know that already. And pinning Humbert's morals on Nabokov is just as retarded.
>>25428868Not every book is like that. Read something normal, like Gravity's Rainbow.
>>25428868Crazy to think how much Russia was changed in just one hundred years. This man was born 70 years after the death of Dostoievsky. Really makes Russian Messianism appear silly in hindsight
>>25428956>More than the contents of this novel, I hate it how it legitimized Nabokov as a friend??? I get your (retarded) point but as a friend?
>>25428868>Trusting a /lit/ chartRetard. Like half of the users here are reddit users (muh r/TrueLit disapora literature talks is like so deep Chuddie) and the other half is tourists who are following along the chart made by the first retards who settled there and then never move past it
Why do you think there would be a redeeming quality for a pedophile at the end of the book?Typical American who grew up watching Disney shit.
>>25428868>Eventually the author tries to attribute a slight guilt to the little girlReminds me of a few conversations i had where i received a weirded out look when i said that i'm reading "Lolita" when the topic of what everyone's reading was brought up. >The avarage normie's first association with the title is the fucking hentai tagGrim
There is not a single area in that book where he fucks Dolores though. It's just implied.
>>25429417NO SPOILERS
>>25429464He doesn't fuck her, CHUD. There's absolutely ZERO description of him doing such a thing either beyond maybe the bit were he talks about fucking an underaged prostitute in post-WWII Europe and even that wasn't anything special.You WILL NOT find anything worth getting your rocks off over in that book you SICK FUCK.
>>25429473FUCK! THEN NOTHING! I WILL READ CONFESSIONS BY AUGUSTINE THEN! FUCK YOU! AND NABAKOV TOO.Sorry. I got derailed by my sceptre.
>>25429477GOOD.
>>25429417It's hilarious seeing people going into reading Lolita thinking thinking they're about to read some extremely graphic and descriptive piece of pornography. If anything, the book is shockingly chaste given its subject matter.
>>25429473The bit on the couch?
>>25429497I've seen more descriptive "sex" scenes written in uber devout Christian theology treatsies.
Daily reminder that Steve Martin wrote a short story about Dolores Haze as an adult.
>>25428868>>Keep on reading trying to find a moral to the storyThankfully he's not that kind of writer.https://youtu.be/Ldpj_5JNFoA?t=27If you need your stories to have morals then you can skip nabokov completely.
