Nope... just an attention whore. It is however not a bad book, and you should read it, the watch the original movie.

Yeah, I only recently learned that Kubrick had his hands all over that Lolita.

Slip a fake jacket over the cover.

Only if you're stupid and don't get it. Seriously.

No it doesn't you retard.
it lets you draw your own conclusions from the book.
But it wouldn't make you a pedophile.

I couldnt stand that book. I couldnt read it. I tried real hard. I couldnt get through ...
The author would change "Time Frames" Three times inside one paragraph. He'd be speaking from a prison cell or some thing, then jump to the time he was with lolita, then jump to his own childhood, then back to the prison cell.

It was retarded. maybe this sort of stuff works better in Russian. IDK
I will never read it. It irritates the shit out of me.

>>68
Maybe it was just above your reading level?

The book isn't retarded. More than likely, you're retarded.

It´s on my "to read list", but as far as I know the whole book can be resumed in the petty defense of a pedophile (main character) which by his description (that he gives himself as he narrates) is a really nice guy who can´t understand why his beloved girl has bad notes at school and seems sad all the time (spoiler: she is being fucked)

lol wtf

Nabokov was definitely not supportive of pedophilia.

He wrote about incest too btw.

Funny story, on my first day of college I was carrying this book with me on the way to class. I was reading it out of curiosity, and because, English majors love to read! But I quickly realized that this is a book that should only be read in private because everyone will think you are a creeper.

lol I ended up reading this story on the bus, completely unaware of what it was about and kept getting weird looks.

I'unno, that's like saying reading Batman will make you a superhero. The protagonist (note I didn't say 'the good guy') is a paedophile and it's through his eyes but that just serves to prove ever more how fucked up both he and the poor girl are.

It's a classic but I'd avoid it if you have a weak stomach.

If you jack off to it, yeah.

>>68
i never finished it either, i didn't hate it but so many people talked it up to the point that it could never live up to what i was expecting. ill give it another go some day.

i don't think reading it will make you look like a creeper, it's a classic. from what i got out of it it's not exactly easy to sympathize with the main character anyways.

No, though I guess it could make you realize you've been a pedophile all along if you like the thought of what's going on in the book too much.

Most readers find Humbert (the protagonist, who's doing all the pedo'ing) to be pedantic and generally repellent. And more importantly, most readers have no trouble noticing that Humbert not only is obviously fucked in the head, but even admits to realizing how fucked in the head he is.

On the other hand, Wikipidia informs me that some people read the book and come away thinking it's the story of an evil, opportunistic little girl who preys on a weak-willed older man. I can only conclude that these are objectively bad people.

>>306

they're probably getting that impression from watching the movie, i'd imagine.

Nah, it just means you're curious.

>>68

someone hasn't read a light in august