>>25328109
Is there any point to reading this book at all? it always seems like its fans just use this book for fap material but won't admit it.

>>25328109
Your wrong because Dolores says squashed squirrel and stops showering

That is not the prevailing reading among women, just men

>>25328113
It's not really that explicit, most of the nasty stuff is just implied

>>25328109
>(and only socially acceptable)
I don't think that's right, when I told some IRL people I was reading it they gave me a disgusted look and said "why??". I think most people see it as just the pedo book
>>25328109
>No other novel gets this treatment.
Any story that stars a bad guy gets the same treatment, books or movies. Just because a character exists doesn't mean the author is telling you he's a good guy. I'm not saying Lolita is one way or the other, but that is a silly statement imo

>>25328109
The discourse around this book is probably the biggest indicator that most people who talk about it are lazy sacks of shit who didn't actually read it.
The book begins as a pseudo police report and detectives talking about how Humbert is a horrible person. That literally sets the tone of interpretation of the book AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY NOBODY FUCKING BRINGS THIS UP AS A COUNTERPOINT FOR IT BEING A PRO PEDO BOOK. It's clear as day. It's spelled out for you. It's told in a way that is morally black and white with no need to critically think about the nature of Humberts character. Then we get to experience the perspective of an objectively terrible human but it's written in a very interesting way.
That's it, that's the book, no further need to debate unless it's about the quality of what was written. I don't mind arguing with moral fags but no piece of literature or media has ever managed to collect such a passionate group of people that have either not read it or are too fucking stupid to understand it.

File: IMG_8078.jpg (85.9 KB)

>>25328381
>no piece of literature or media has ever managed to collect such a passionate group of people that have either not read it or are too fucking stupid to understand it

Anon I…

>>25328393
I concede that is a great point

>>25328109
The point of reading the novel is in the reading, not in the interpretation. Nabokov loved to implicitly mock his would-be (literary, not as in "haters") critics. In that way, he's almost open about how he wants to be read.

>No other novel gets this treatment.
"Unreliable narrator" is an entire genre. You have never heard of Shutter Island?

>>25328135
Excellent point, yet unacknowledged.

>>25328164
If you only approach the wrong people, maybe. Girls who read still appreciate literacy in Nabokov, if you can say anything about it.

>>25328381
I think your read on how it is perceived is massively overblown. The idea of Lolita as some "banned" book, too transgressive to even mention, is almost marketing propaganda. Yeah, it was hard to publish in the 50s. That doesn't mean much by today's standards, or even 1960s standards. It has been adapted into horny films by extremely mainstream filmmakers.

>>25328447
Pimp you are strawmanning me. I didn't mention it being banned or too transgressive or anything of the sort. I am saying that discourse surrounding the book almost always comes back to people moralfagging about a concept that is spelled out in the opening chapter.

>>25328381
This. I think wokeness and the self-righteous PC crowd is at least partly responsible for that way of approaching Lolita nowadays. One of the most common criticisms of the mentally retarded, perpetually offended, Peter-Pan-syndrome cunts opining on the work is how Dolores (Lolita) lacks any dimension, or that there is no real exploration of her experience throughout the whole ordeal. And it's like, "YEAH - Ya dumb bitch! Because the story is told from H.H.'s point of view! And he doesn't really love or care about Dolores because he's a giant piece of shit, superficial pervert! He doesn't care at all about this girl beyond her ability to satisfy his twisted lust! He's all about control and self-satisfaction. So, why the fuck would Dolores have any true voice in his confessional story? It all revolves around him. This is how predators work! Now, go back to letting everyone on Reddit know how not-racist and not-sexist and not-transphobic you are with all the free time gained between not reading all those words in novels that offend you."

tldr - Many people are reactionary retards who posess exactly zero scope of thought.

>>25328459
Perhaps I exaggerated too much, but I just don't feel like it is seen as controversial by "most people who talk about it" at this point. I think if people have heard of it at all, it's as a literary classic. A subversive one, but the literate set expects that of 20th c. postmodern masterworks.

>>25328109
This is far from the only book with an unreliable narrator. You're just too retarded to process stories beyond taking the narrators at face value.

>>25328489
I think that there is a huge difference between people that actively engage with discussion about the contents of the book and people that talk about what they "think" the book is about. My anecdotal experience is that the latter far outweighs the former

>>25328381
>The book begins as a pseudo police report and detectives talking about how Humbert is a horrible person. That literally sets the tone of interpretation of the book
>but I put warning in beginning of my ageplay rape porn that everyone in it are consenting adults that are only acting, they don't actually love the idea of it

>>25328511
Well I wonder what kind of people you have been talking to, then. My read would be that the majority of people who are talking about it in an uninformed way, at this point, are "Lolita girls" who think it's aspirational. Easily scandalized conservative Christians don't even know about it anymore.

>>25328516
Another one filtered. In this very thread no less. Very sad

>>25328518
I am envious of who the people you get to speak to about books with. As you can see one of my (You)s is from the archetype I am describing

>>25328519
You can't write well of what you yourself don't relate to on some self-despicable level. Even if you hate yourself for it (have multiple contrary compartmentalized desires).

>>25328534
Yes and Tolkien grew up in Middle Earth and Newton was the physical manifestation of a calculus equation. Do you possess an imagination? Have you ever tried a thought experiment where you try to imagine someone else's perspective? Thinking the way you do is a logical fallacy that will lead you down a very stupid road.

>>25328552
>he doesn't know analogy and metaphor
WW1 was worse than any fantasy battlefield—40K is literally WW1 reimagined. Tolki just synthesized WW1 with Beowulf and the Odyssey.

>>25328558
>>25328552
Orcs are literally just hairy Mongols—literally.
He also grew up in South Africa, so likely knew the minds of subhumans very well.

>>25328558
Ah yes I did forget the part in WW1 where semi immortal beings used magic to make a river flood. Fuck off lad, I made a point about imagination and you redirected with bullshit. Also that isn't what 40k is about. The word "literally" needs a restriction set on it.

>>25328563
Another example of literally being used incorrectly.

>>25328552
>thought experiment where you try to imagine someone else's perspective?
You can't imagine a quality you've never experienced. You can only synthesize. Ever read Kant?
Perhaps you can argue that he transposed his experience of desiring petite adult women but changed the object pronoun/verbs. But that's how an LLM writes, don't think it would work as intensely well as instead admitting the fact that probably ALL men have some ephebophilic tendencies.

>>25328572
No, he literally likened them to mongols in a letter.

>>25328579
Now we are getting into the semantics of what "imagine" actually means. Semantic debates are boring and lead nowhere useful.
Haven't read Kant.
My original point when I posted was not whether or not he actually was a pedo, I never made a judgement on that. What I was originally saying was that people interpreting the book as being pro pedo usually haven't read it.
Your reply is definitely the most reasonable so far though.

File: ww1-german-gas-mask-v0-uzbumif5iyif1.jpg (69.3 KB)

>>25328568
The technology that no one had experienced before WW1 was akin to being thrown into a different world with different laws. Flying chariots, dragons, monsters without faces.
No longer human.

>>25328583
"Likened".
So he didn't write "orcs are literally Mongolians"?

>>25328595
Literally mongols [in appearance].

File: shidy mongorians.jpg (21.5 KB)

>>25328591
Hide yo Kidz hide yo wife

>>25328593
Each example you listed has a long storied history originating from many cultures and existed in the cultural zeitgeist prior to Tolkien's experiences in WW1.

>>25328596
Anon you proved my point. Thank you for your honesty

File: hurin.jpg (154.6 KB)

>>25328599
Dinosaur bones.
The delirium of battle in every age warps perception. Like hypnogogic dreams when you don't wake up properly. Confuse a shadow for a large snake or spider on the wall.
Be soldier
Haven't slept for days
See fireballs across the sky

>>25328603
O assumed we weren't autistic here and understood shorthand heuristics and concepts like hyperbole.
Orcs and such in fantasy aren't adding features but taking existing things and removing features. Dragons are things everyone have seen, every time you confuse a branch on the road is your rodent ancestry screaming from out the ancient abyss of prehuman experience

File: skink.jpg (167.9 KB)

>>25328568
Ancient peasant see lizard in the rocky hills
Ancient 75iq pleb runs because baby dragon means huge adult dragon must live nearby, he's heard stories of their bones!

>>25328610
I agree with your points but it is a particular bugbear of mine that literally is now essentially meaningless because of its constant inappropriate use.

>>25328591
>Your reply is definitely the most reasonable so far though.

lol that reply is ridiculous and the person who wrote it is an idiot.