Apart from when Humbert tracked and killed Quilty, and perhaps the characterisation of Quilty himself, what are the other signs that Humbert was an unreliable narrator? What else do you think shouldn't be taken at face value?
Do you think Nabokov was a pervert? Or did he just understand them well enough to write one exceptionally well?
Wait, what? I trusted Humbert's every word.
that's when you thought he became unreliable?
most of the first parts of the book are setting up how it's not an accurate account.
Too late, you spoiled Lolita for me, now I'm going to have to track you down and force feed you eggs.
On literally the first page he tries to manipulate the reader by feeding us a question
>Did she have a precursor?
Making the reader think that it's because of the precursor he's a pedophile, that he's just stuck in time and trying to go back, in order to gain sympathy. This is a Freudian kind of thinking that seems valid to us (especially if we think of it ourselves) but that is actually not. Manipulation like this happens frequently in Lolita but it's not necessarily a misrepresentation of the actual history or event but it's still deceptive, which should count as unreliable in my opinion.
If you mean unreliable in that we actually get told contradictory things or lies or whatever, I'm not so sure.
nabokov most likely was a pedophile. perhaps not an active one, but he certainly spoke of his butterflies quite often. thomas mann was
a collector of butterflies as well, or at least alluded to them often. nabokov idolized tolstoi emphatically, though in reality he was a slave rapist and a widely known abuser of womenfolk.
in the end, who cares? the more important question is why the catharsis gained from reading tales of pedophiles or incest or rape or murder is considered morally sound, regardless of the flesh and blood of the characters, these entities exist within mind after mind, suffering unspeakable after unspeakable. i do not see how this can be moral out of principle.
Sorry about that dude. FWIW, the plot, while interesting, is almost immaterial compared to the quality of prose.
What is this unreliable narrator meme. It doesn't mean it's all just made up. He's just giving you the story as he perceived it, not Lolita or her mother or anyone else. He's unreliable because he's a person with his dislikes, desires and his individual perception of the world. It's not secret code where you have to decipher which part is truth or lie.
>nabokov collected butterflies
>mann collected butterflies
>mann was a pedophile;
>therefore, nabokov was a pedophile
I'm just giving you a hard time, I read Lolita years ago.
He's unreliable because he literally says he's lying to the reader.
yep! you got it.
wha is that jewish girl in color?
were you baiting? i mean maybe nabokov was a pedophile, but you gave no good reason.
also, why make no moral distinction between fictional/simulated suffering and the actual? did you just watch videodrome?
Humbert did kill him though, else he wouldn't be writing his "manifiesto" while awaiting a sentence.
op doesn't think humbert didn't kill quilty
you may see no moral imperative there, but that is probably because you lack the virtue necessary to avoid even simulated suffering as an echo of the vice shed by a truly moral entity.
when it comes to nabokov, i said his obvious pedophilic tendencies are irrelevant, as he is discarded due to the conclusions made above.
Then what did he mean with his first point? He tracked him down and shot him, thats obvious. Maybe im forgetting something, i read the book a few years ago
>you lack the virtue necessary to avoid even simulated suffering as an echo of the vice shed by a truly moral entity
so because reader and writer are moral agents, reading about a fictional rape or w/e is immoral full stop? absurd on the face of it. literature refines moral sensibilities. as for not reading something by a confirmed rapist, that is a different point, but honestly i see no obvious problem with this either
>when it comes to nabokov, i said his obvious pedophilic tendencies are irrelevant, as he is discarded due to the conclusions made above.
gross speculation.
i can see that you're resistant to virtuous morality that is further developed than literary exercise. odd, but your privilege.
as i said, nabokov is irrelevant. unfortunately you seem to be hung up on this fact.
i do hope that you realize that there is a severe limitation to art's attempt to develop morality. simulations are echoes, no matter how expressive in their mimicry, they still are phantoms, these phantoms still have enough influence to bar purity, however.
tell me bud, what is the nature of virtue?
the nature of virtue is the cleansing of all that is immoral or degenerate.
essentially, virtue transcends the mortal realm, as it is the pursuit of purity. though to aspire to this is an act of righteousness, though there is the tragedy of failure that taints any attempt even further. strong consideration of virtue is by itself an act against virtue as it seeks to simulate, and as i said, the echoes can lead one astray from purity.
you just described what virtue is not, what is virtue?
the nature of virtue is the cleansing of all that is immoral or degenerate.
as i said, the mere act of postulating on virtue is an opening to immorality, therefore, this discussion must come to an end. i do hope that this helped you, though.
The book literally starts with Humbert bullshiting you
define you terms bucko, you haven't given any positive definition, and to disparage simulacra on (4thChan) makes me dubious of you