"the scepter of my passion"

you don't understand the humor and context of this passage because you don't read. I question why you are on this board

This is some Midas-touched prose if the king gave him the hover-hand.

>I keked so hard.
But why its not funny

you are at least attempting to be clever, and I hand out (You)s for far less. So: here's you're (You)

fuck, I wish my name could be longer.

I feel an edit coming.

>old pathetic beta molesting a child
Yeah, it's hilarious. But if you meant funny as in bad, you're right.
>was ready to offer her everything, my heart, my throat, my entrails
Reads like an angsty teen who's trying too hard.

Read the book dude. this is a relationship between H.H. as a child and his childhood friend Annabel. No molesting going on here, cretin

Lol typical pseud who shits on authors and novels without actually reading them

>you don't understand the humor and context of this passage
Maybe you're right. I hope it's the context. But compare this to Rimbaud, who was an actual horny young man desperately seeking some tender love, and you'll notice how forced and clumsy Nabokov actually is.

I don't really understand your complaint. You seem to think that Nabokov is self-inserting as H.H. or something, and that you're supposed to take what he says without irony. I suggest you actually read the book

scepter implies the overlordship he's already intoned AND his benis, it's good

Ironic bad writing is still bad writing

m8 i've read the book, stop repeating yourself

My complaint is that HH is a caricature, not a well crafted character. No man who feels so deeply about a woman talks like that. Irrepressible passion has an authentic common sense touch to it which HH's voice as a narrator lacks severely and which any man who has ever been in "painful" love will recognise (including you and I). HH is just Nabokov writing with a selfish purpose of achieving ecstasy while inventing prose. It's not HH's natural authentic voice. Not his full voice, so to speak. It's muffled by Nabokov's pen.

I hope that makes sense.

You didn't read the book. Humbert explicitly says that he's using art to get over his tragedy with Lolita. Art is a palliative for him.

bad critique, no genuine reader writes like that

Based

Not really. I wouldn't call it good. It's nothing special. Mediocre even.

The whole point is that it’s tryhard. It’s supposed to be funny. You’re taking it like it’s intended to rival Tolstoy’s “she saw him, as one sees the sun, without looking”. It’s not. It’s making fun of erotic novels. Similar to the satirical passages in Ulysses.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the widely acclaimed author of multiple classics isn’t “mediocre” or hackneyed, and that, instead, you’re just dumb. Is that an impossibility? What are the odds of it, would you reckon? Can’t be super low, right?

except it isn't bad writing because it gives you a sense of the sort of (faux-aristocratic, subtly obsequious) person Humbert Humbert is supposed to be. If you want to call it bad writing, straight up, you need to support that in some way, user. this is the sort of thing they might teach you in AP English Literature, if you choose to take it this August.
What sort of person do you suppose Humbert Humbert is? Again, if you have read the book--which in all honesty I doubt--you would understand that H.H. isn't honest with himself and that he isn't honest with the reader

HH is not an artist in my opinion. He's too selfish to be one. But even if i concede that he is, why do you think he's doing 'art' as palliative? Is it because he's afraid of dying or because Nabokov wants to put pretty words into his mouth? I have a sneaky feeling it is the latter, but only Nabokov knows for sure.

you win

Unreliable narrators are cheap antics, as per my shit taste ofc.

>gives you a sense of the sort of (faux-aristocratic, subtly obsequious) person Humbert Humbert is
I know what Nabokov is trying to do, the point is he fails at it. The central flaw of Lolita, and all Nabokov (Despair is particularly bad), is how flat and lifeless his characters are. Lolita is like a Dickens side character given a whole novel. It's clever and postmodern I guess, which is why undergraduates like it, but ultimately unsatisfactory

hh is a caricature, the whole book is a caricature

no hes not, he tries to elevate art into the realm of truth, which is the biggest sin an artist can do according to Nabokov,

HH only acknowledges the shit he does after Nabby directly intervenes into the narrative in the fight scene at Pavor Manor. There he still tries to project his pedo shit onto Quilty with the poem, but by Quilty only seeing the aesthetic value of this sentencing poem HH is denied to continue projecting his constructed autistic pedo worldview onto the narrative. Thats why the death of Quilty is so melodramatic and why the guests dont acknowledge HHs murder of Quilty, its all a shitty game to force HH into this ungenuine moral awakening

Love is when somebody else's happiness is essential to your own.

why is it all one long sentence

I do like ploughshare of my virility

>He shoved her backwards upon the bed and then mounted her as if he were mounting his horse and encunted her with his near throbbing engine.

>and then mounted her as if he were mounting his horse
HI HO NYMPHET AWAY
YEEHAW EAT MY DUST HANSEN YOU DOGGONE VARMINT

Attached: 1560570674748.jpg (391x671, 54K)

Kek

column of my drenching cum is good, and beam upon my balls. FUCK LOLITA

haha holy shit, what must one be on to think this smut is brilliant

I don't disagree (or agree) with your analysis but H.H EXPLICITLY states in the book that art is a palliative for him to get over his Lolita situation. I do have an issue with you stating that HH is trying to project his "autistic" pedophilic worldview onto the world. Clearly you're just saying that because you have a moral objection to pedophilia. He feels genuine remorse in the book and acknowledges that he hurt her. I generally don't trust pedophobes to analyse this book objectively though.