Yeah, it's called incest I'm done. I'm just fucking done. This book is so hard to read...

>What does it have to do with attention span? It has to do with finding it hard to read on when there's truly disturbing parts of it. Even Harold Bloom had to put down Blood Meridian the first time he read it, because it was just so graphic. I often find myself putting a book down and needing to come back to it later when there's any sort of sexual abuse in it, because I just find that sort of thing disturbing.
See

he's not actually lolita's father

Read the second half of my post

>post 4 contextless words from a book
>expect people to know what you're talking about

This is a sign of actual autism, by the way.

...

hey OP, i understand. i dislike reading certain themes too. i mean, a guy could spend his entire life crafting proustian prose on the subject of a dried piece of dogshit, and there could be an infinite fount of critical perspectives, the guy could be a nobel prize winner, who goes on to be an incredibly respected literary critic, he could even have inadvertently cured cancer a few times with the words he set down. still would be a book about dogshit that i don't want to fucking read.
fuck the elitist plebs, they're worse than commies. at least commies have the decency to kill you right off.

you have only one reason to ever read a book. when you fucking want to. it's always going to be up to you.

i even understand the frustration of just wanting to like something because you know others quite like it, the desire to share in a pleasure with others, see what they see. sometimes they're just doing shit you'll never like, such as eating freeze dried iguana nuts, or reading and discussing a book about a child rapist. just gonna have to accept that there will be shit you're never gonna be into.

Nicely said user.

>eating freeze dried iguana nuts
lol

What exactly did you expect OP?

I think you just may be too sheltered if all you get from this book is "eww, gross."

he didn't say that was all he got from it. rather, he didn't enjoy the child fucking, and the other aspects of the book were not rewarding enough for him to continue. but it's strange to assume that he's just too sheltered, and that if he were more worldly, he'd enjoy the good parts about fucking children instead of looking at all the icky parts.

Sheltered wasn't the right word, you're right. I meant to say he is a pleb who should stick to reading young adult novels, lest rewarding literature give him the vapors and maybe even challenge his world view.

You should try to annotated edition, read a bit at a time. It's well worth it.

yes, let us have our world view that child rape is bad and not entertaining challenged! that surely will only result in the most positive of things.
i'm sure you're very smart, but there's no reason to walk around hurting people's feelings for not liking a particular novel you might like. not being able to handle dissent is quite a plebeian personality trait, i must say.
also, it's funny that you think a book about child rape is "adults only", i think you should challenge your own world view and suggest that it should be taught in elementary schools across the nation.

Man he's gonna have fun responding to this!

We had very different reactions to this book.
I had to keep stopping because I was laughing to hard.

Just watched the 1962 adaptation by Kubrick. I thought it would've been good because Kubrick and the fact that Nabokov himself wrote the screenplay. I also thought Peter Sellers was playing Humbert. Pretty disappointed overall. They didn't change too many things but it just felt so flat and sterile. Didn't like James Mason's performance either. Anyone else seen it?

>not just reading the damn book

It's okay to dosent like a novel, desu

It will be bad if you try to make everyone else stop writting similar themes, desu, them you are a piece of shit, like the retards who try to shut it down Shakespeare.

...

That said, I can't avoid to make a friendely joke about you not liking Lolita, desu.

2deep4me

That said I will be honest and say that by the end of the book I felt very bad for Humbert, desu.

There's another movie by Adrian Lyne that is a little more risque (and fun).

Yeah I was not expecting it to have so much comedy, and good comedy at that.

That said, it manages to be disturbing too. I was able to read on as it's clearly supposed to be disturbing and enhanced the experience of the book, seems it was a bit too much for OP. Which is fine I suppose as long as they don't try to claim it's a problem with the book rather than themselves.

Also I'm surprised at how many people missed that OP is directly quoting the book. Lolita explicitly refers to it as incest since, though not blood relatives, Humbert is acting as father figure.

Incest? More like wincest.

> Lolita
> difficult

That's a new one. Very funny, OP.

If he were to have children with Lolita, a relationship with those children would be incestuous

>i can't read

i did the same thing. Its called "stopped right there"

Yeah, that was the point. Nabokov specifically wrote it to a study on a well educated man who was still an irredeemable monster.

You don't have to feel bad about putting things down that make you feel uncomfortable, but just rest assured that that was the point, and it wasn't trying to justify that kind of behavior.

>baah waah the content triggered muh morals

you are a vermin and a philistine

Lolita is dearly beloved by Veeky Forums, so there is no point in putting in the effort to make a thread about it, bashing it without a good enough reason. You'll just be ridiculed, and you'll have deserved it.

This is the kind of post that you'd see on /r/books.

>people are actually replying without saging
this is just /k/ for douchebags now

This

Yeah I've watched it too. From what I understand Kubrick had a lot of issues with censorship. So, and perhaps this is a tautology by now; was unable to fully translate the depths of the novel to cinema. (As if it were possible with Lolita anyway).

>tfw it's hard to read because of constant erections

>the guy who reads for the story is also mad about commies

color me surprised

OP just give it another shot when you're ready. I think your repulsion to the content is clouding your judgement and perhaps more tragically, prohibiting you from experiencing one of the greatest literary pieces of at least the 20th century.

Also, if you're that overtly repulsed, you're reading the novel incorrectly. You're supposed to be engulfed in the beauty of Nabokov and Humbert's language, so much so that you read on in support of your protagonist despite the reality, which Nabokov doesn't conceal. Hence -
"There would have been a lake. There would have been an arbor in flame-flower. There would have been nature studies—a tiger pursuing a bird of paradise, a choking snake sheathing whole the flayed trunk of a shoat. There would have been a sultan, his face expressing great agony (belied, as it were, by his molding caress), helping a callypygean slave child to climb a column of onyx. There would have been those luminous globules of gonadal glow that travel up the opalescent sides of juke boxes. There would have been all kinds of camp activities on the part of the intermediate group, Canoeing, Coranting, Combing Curls in the lakeside sun. There would have been poplars, apples, a suburban Sunday. There would have been a fire opal dissolving within a ripple-ringed pool, a last throb, a last dab of color stinging red, smarting pink, a sigh, a wincing child.”
- 'a wincing child'.

I read the book, you mongoloid. That's why I said they didn't change too much, and it felt flat and sterile. It was like a stuffy stage play and while it captured the plot, it didn't capture the beauty of the prose.

Yeah, I think I'll check out the 1997 version. Thanks.

i quit it too, because it was boring and overwrought

I'm a fairly sensitive/timid person but I'm 100 pages into Lolita and obviously I don't know how bad it gets but so far, although it has definitely made me uncomfortable in some sections, it hasn't bothered me enough that I have had to put it down.

The prose is excellent, and while pedophilia is definitely the central theme, there is more to it than that I think. The stuff about how Humbert wanted to kill his second wife but couldn't bring himself to do it, but then she died in a freak accident really caught me off guard and I actually found it very thrilling.

I kinda wanna read some right now, what am I even doing on Veeky Forums? also I want to say, I read Blood Meridian and I actually loved it, I don't think it was as fucked up as people say. like it was fucked up but I never felt like it was so excessive that it was obscene or something.

I honestly feel like as a plot point, the way Charlotte dies was pretty lazy and too convenient. I thought it would've been more interesting to see how their relationship would have to develop if she was still in the picture

I read about 50 more pages today and I see what you mean but what happens after Charlotte dies, the whole buildup to Humbert getting Lolita in the hotel and then how that plays out was really exciting and suspenseful, because the whole time you're like holy shit, holy shit, is he actually gonna succeed in raping her?? but then they flip it on you and she "seduces him"

Explaining Woody goes in my top 3 favourite memes

>nabokov explains child rape using clever campfire metaphors
truly oscar-worthy

Too bad you aren't harold bloom hahahahaha loser