Was he autistic? I'm reading this right now...

Was he autistic? I'm reading this right now, and I don't get why people call Lo a seductress when Hum's the one who acts like a literal autist. Lo's clearly not the bad guy here.

Other urls found in this thread:

lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Humbert is a bad dude trying to make people think he's not a bad dude, by kind of admitting he's a bad dude. Lo is not a bad dudette. I don't think the "people" you mention exist.

people seriously do blame Lolita, apparently even paid critics (see also every other piece of media where the main dude is clearly meant to be a piece of shit, but people are either stupid or deplorable in the ways the character is so they idolize him like Wolf of Wall Street or Don Draper)
lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/

but of course
are right

Is that adaptation any good from a Veeky Forums prospective?
that Lo is qt

I mean perspective. Fuck.

Not really, it's it's own story but it's not bad.

He is baby's first unreliable narrator, and he is the king of them. Assuming youve actually spoken to these "people", its likely they took this opinion from the Kubrick version, where Lolita is a precocious little whore who is much older than she is in the book.

Eh, Don is hardly a piece of shit. He's a genuinely good dude.

Chick uz fk hawt tubh. Wooden nnida b alotta seduckshun.

I remember having a teacher who told me the book was about a little girl who was trying to seduce an older man.

How old was this teacher?

He wasn't autistic, just a pseudo-intellectual and something of a loser.

People who call Lo a seductress are just fucking stupid. It's that simple.

so many retards itt with their one dimensional view for a story that's clearly supposed to have ambiguous morality

>le "everything is relative" meme

>dude he's evil cos he's a pedo lmao

Well present your opinion, well opinioned user.

the story works around the ambiguity of who is manipulating who

one would think humbert is manipulative, but he clearly shows he's at the mercy of lo's whims

at another times he becomes obsessive and completely controls her

in the end there's no clear way of knowing who is really in control, and we cant know if humbert is really an unreliable narrator since unlike other stories there's no clash with his narration and the storyline

Didn't Humbert start contriving to get her the moment he saw her though? Clearly there were times where she manipulated him for benefits, but that's not really the same as saying that she seduced him.

>if I put it in greentext it's not true

60-70ish

This.
Humbert kept trying to make up plans to be with her and wanted to fuck her from the very beginning. Dolly's 12, I'm seriously doubting she was able to be the puppeteer over a middle aged scholar.

The 1997 adaptation is recognized as the favorite among hebephiles, but since I've never known them to congregate on Veeky Forums, I can't tell you with any certainty. In any case I prefer Kubrick's adaptation insofar as it portrays Lolita precisely as I'd imagined her while reading

Well no, he's not a autistic, as you clearly have no idea what that his. He is a very disturbed, though mentally competent grown man.

Lo is a child who's basically been taught by adults how to be a manipulative scumbag, as that's how they all are to her.

She's a victim in a sense, sure, but she also beats her tormentor at his own game. Once again though, It's mostly hum, and maybe her mom too, who taught her to be that way.

*hits bong*
>dude it's been wrong for like A HUNDRED years now that makes it objectively evil
>dude weed lmao

Well, I was thinking maybe this was a young women with daddy issues self inserting as Lo, or if she was in her 30-40s, self inserting as Humbert and trying to justify things.
That's strange.

Is there a story where the unreliable narrator is proven unreliable?

This was a male teacher

pretty much any of poe's short stories

gogol with the portrait

etc etc

the idea revolves around madness being apparent
humbert isn't mad, he's obsessed

I had to look back at your original post to make sure you hadn't specified, guess I just assumed, which is strange.
Does it reveal some deep sexism that I assumed this teacher who's opinion I disagreed with was a woman, or am I just an idiot?
Either way, I'd say that teacher was probably trying to justify his own feelings.

But in the Portrait the narrator isn't unreliable, save maybe for the last page. I think narrators are unreliable only when they're characters narrating first person

You may or may not be sexist, that judgement is up to you. I tend to disagree with females about literature, but I myself am female so I don't think of it as sexism, but rather as the way those women have been taught to think. Assumption just goes along with personal experience.

Read Nabokov's Paris Review interview. Humbert is the "bad guy", but it's not strictly because of his pedophilia. Lolita was the "victim", but that's not all she was. It's just not a conventionally moral story even if it has apparent elements of one.

I don't know how it's possible for anyone to make the argument that humbert is a good guy, or simply misled, or manipulated by Lo.
He is a pedophile. He acted on his pedophilia. He sexually abused a twelve year old girl.

Nabokov's books are inherently amoral.

What do you mean by that? Having sex with a child is clearly an immoral thing to do.
>Inb4 pedophilia isn't immoral
Because we're on Veeky Forums.

Im confused. Does she die giving birth like in the irons movie? Was Clare Quilty really impotent, or did he say that only so Humbert wouldn't kill him? Are Peter Sellers and Sue Lyon the only redeemable parts of the Kubrick joint?

Despair, by Nabokov

define "sexually abused"
she gave him a handjob for money and that's pretty much all that's implied in the book

i think you're acting off a scare right now because you couldn't read the book without focusing entirely on the pedophilia

Ty

are you retarded? That's the point the novel establishes in the first five pages. You're supposed to observe what purpose the beautiful prose has and how similar obsession and the healthier kind of love really are.

>but I myself am female
Veeky Forums is 70% female, you only have to specify if you're male, otherwise everyone will just assume the standard.

classics for noobs pls

>that's pretty much all that's implied in the book
>implying

>one would think humbert is manipulative, but he clearly shows he's at the mercy of lo's whims

no, he's at the mercy of his own desires that he only happens to project on a particular child. the child has no agency in this.

>in the end there's no clear way of knowing who is really in control

other than, you know, actually looking at the power relationship in the situations presented. no matter how much humbert declares himself to be in thrall to lolita the sexual fantasy, lolita the person is not in control.

>Veeky Forums is 70% female
Is there some source for these numbers?

is that why everyone chimps out when you say you dont read women authors?

Everyone chimps out at you when you say you don't read female authors because it reeks of actual prejudice, considering some of the best works of literature have been written by women.

But yes, also.

>she gave him a handjob for money and that's pretty much all that's implied in the book

huh? did you miss the entire middle of the book where he repeatedly fucks her in a series of motels? did you miss the part where the first time he fucks her he proudly comments on how his dick is too big for her? or the part where she runs off to a gas station bathroom the next day because her torn vagina is bleeding?

or are you purposefully lying about the content of the book and hoping nobody else read it?

>I've never known them to congregate on Veeky Forums
>being this new
>dude child marriages were SUPER common a hundred years ago and not looked down on by anyone
>dude revisionism lmao
kys pedo

kek

Citation needed

No

>considering some of the best works of literature have been written by women.

>he thinks ulysses is better than genji

>So pleb that hasn't read Emily Bronte, Byatt, Woolf and still hasn't cottoned on to the genius of Pride and Prejudice.

>child
She's had sex though. She was an ordinary teenager.

Well there's your problem, he probably thinks all women are whores

>the genius of Pride and Prejudice
>Literal 19th century First World bourgeois problems

>3 names and 1 book
>thinks that proves anything
>it's not even the right 3 names
you know there's hundreds or thousands of male writers that are better than emily bronte, right?
atleast take charlotte bronte you fucking pleb

>Doesn't understand that Austen was a satirist and much of the narrative in her novels is played for irony and giggles.

>Prefers Charlotte over Emily.

This is Veeky Forums irony right? No one could be this retarded.

Charlotte was completely unremarkable and she'd be completely forgotten by now if it weren't for the prowess of her sister Emily.

she experimented with kids her age, which is normal. being turned into a sex toy by an adult is not. the abuse comes from the discrepancy in knowledge and power, not her literal age.

humbert knows precisely what he's doing and how ("you see, she had nowhere else to go!") but justifies himself with this creepy notion of "virtue": first he wants to drug and rape her because she won't lose "virtue" if she's unconscious, then he claims touching other kids in the bushes already "ruined her virtue" and so he can do whatever he wants to her, because it doesn't matter what you do to a "ruined" person. harming actual people is permissible to humbert, only crimes against this abstract notion of "virtue" count.

if you have any citations go for it

kek

>she experimented with kids her age, which is normal
No it's not, stop normalizing degeneracy.

Yes, my vagina

/thread

every other reply is not worth reading/reiteration of this

end this thread now

kids were doing "show me yours and i show you mine" and discovering masturbation since time immemorial. it's called sexual development. stop defending the puritan repression that enables child abuse.

I don't think that's true, sir, as I'm usually treated as make unless stated otherwise, and the otherwise is usually
>you know the rules

>Doesn't understand Veeky Forumss unspoken rule that you pretend to be male and assume everyone is male for the most part even if you're female, unless there is a specific reason.

That's /co/ though

this one's better

i guess you haven't seen her new horrible fake tits then

I refused to look after I've heard that.

Literally can not understand going for that when your whole niche is lolicore.

You're autistic, OP.

but hes not bad for being a pedophile, hes bad for being an asshole

being a pedophile doesnt make you a bad person in and of itself

*Tips folder full of cartoon frogs*

Why is pedo hate so strong lads? I'm pretty sceptical and nihilistic about most ethical issues but I literally want to torture people who mess with little kids.

Is it an evolutionary thing? There's just this thing between upstanding citizens where you can disagree on everything else but hurting pedos and it's a glorious bonding experience.

>lit is 70% female

yeah, sure.. thats why we have the "why are all girls superficial whores who only read young adult fiction" thread every day, right?

Veeky Forums is almost a third /pol/ crossposters at this point and everyone knows that /pol/ has closeto zero women

>I was 20 the first time I saw a vagina
>everything else is degeneracy

yeah no wonder you /pol/acks are always so butthurt

what part of my post made it a fedora worthy response?

being a pedophile and messing with little kids is not the same thing

for every child abuser there's a bunch of guys who hate themselves and their lives because they know they'll never have satisfying sex

those guys are heroes desu

>Is it an evolutionary thing?

no, rather it's a simpleton thing

apparently she did it for her boyfriend? as with all fake boob tragedies the ultimate reason is the shit taste of men.

I don't hate non-practising pedos I should have specified perhaps mate, just the ones that actually mess with kids.

I feel really bad for the lads who have this urge despite themselves and try to be good people despite it.

>the shit taste of men.
*normies

waco sylvan

Well, he's an american.

Here's the american.

Don't be too hard on the american.

you tried user, but humbert was from europe. i'm sorry.

Humbert simply became an american.

You think calling autistic people 'bad guys' is going to somehow change the fact that you have autism.

Such a shame, she was so cute.

>Everyone chimps out at you when you say you don't read female authors because it reeks of actual prejudice, considering some of the best works of literature have been written by women.
hahahahahahahahaha

Nabokov's wife could never fucking believe how many critics thought Lo was to blame, or that the author was steering them that way. She said "Lolita cries every night, and the critics have not heard her tears." The evidence is clear enough, even though HH shrugs it off.

Sure, the pol crossposters are men. But most of the misogyny on this board is either women self loathing, ironic, or legitimate pol/r9k misogyny.

You might want to actually read the book before debating.

Pleb pseud.

i cucked your mom fag

So you fucked my dad?

Not him/her, but I'm kinda into that myself

>You might want to actually read the book before debating.
what does he do sexual with lolita and where in the book is it stated
ive read the book and what surprised me was how little sexual content was actually stated

Most of it isn't directly stated, but rather heavily, HEAVILY implied me compadre.

anne >

>dude its just implied lmao
where in the book