Lolita

If you want titanium cock read Ada

read it again in a year and it might click

not everyone has the same opinions on everything

Why did Van shrug off his other sister though it really rustled my js

\

kys

/thread

Daily remainder Nabokov was right about Dostoevsky and how he was mediocre at best

I finished reading the book three minutes ago, and I must say that what I liked about it was how well written it is. If you pick it up and like reading it, then you might go ahead and finish it, since the entire book retains the same style. If you are not entertained by the prose, then go read something else and say you didn't like it

Daily reminder that even in his reviews Nabokov was an unreliable narrator

it has a good prose, and an amazing narrative.

It made modern English beautiful.

English is a horrible, badly patched up language that makes for a blunt (though not as much as German or Japanese) yet queasy (though not as much as French) mess of a dialect. Not to mention the horribly grammar that makes no sense (ie periods before a closing quotation mark).

Navokob came and, while keeping all of these rules, injected the lyricism of Russian novels, and I'd go as far to say he also took some of Latin American magic realism's lyrical approach (he worshipped Borges, after all) to prose, into an English novel that of course, became an insta-classic despite, and not due to as some might think, the controversial subject matter.

It's never explicit except perhaps at one point when he says he needed to relax so he gave her money and pulled down his trousers

>English is a horrible, badly patched up language
What is Wodehouse? What is Orwell? What is Amis?

Nabokov is a fabulous writer, one of the best - but he's hardly alone, or some saviour of the language.

>ie periods before a closing quotation mark

>american english

kek

Good post

Wodenhouse and Orwell are great. I haven't read Amis.

However, Wodenhouse and Orwell use pretty simple english. It's pretty and concise, but not transcendental.

Navokob took that step ahead. Again, he made English sound kinda like a contemporary Russian or Latin American novel, while Wodenhouse and Orwell were stuck in, well, Aesop.

First of all:
>reading for plot

Second of all: Lolita has quite the plot.

Will do.

...

I'm almost done reading it, should finish tomorrow, and I'm liking it. The only part to get me riled up was near the start, where he says to be a pedo "you have to be an artist and a madman", etc. Nothing else so far has given off the sense of ecstasy John Updike says Nabokov writes with on the back cover. I really liked the tennis part in chapter 20 of part 2; what took DFW 1000 pages Nabokov did in maybe 3 or 4. The French phrases are annoying, and eventually I stopped translating them unless they were dialogue or something. It's really good

nothing else so far to the same degree that first part did, I mean

Well, yeah, the nymphet definition paragraphs are by far the best part of the book. You're right.

It's still quite solid all around though.

>Ada
Looked this up and it sounds like exactly what I'd like to read next. I've got lots of patience, however I'm not particularly well read and I hear there are lots of allusions. Will I be doing myself a disservice to read it now with an annotation like this one:

ada.auckland.ac.nz/

It says I should only use the annotation after I've read it 'dry' once, but if every other puzzle of a sentence is going over my head maybe that's not worthwhile.

will this novel tempt?

this picture tempts me

why is reading for the plot a bad thing

Because plot is only a single element of what makes up a book and is almost always never the most important element. People who specifically read books for the plot read in a way that removes 90% of the power and subtlety of literature.

because
prose>storytelling
writing and reading is all about convincing others of your intelligence

it's reading specifically and only for the plot that is bad newfriend