Chat about discussing Lolita (split from Mature Discussions thread)

[StillILearn]

I think that it is a fantastic idea (especially since I just turned 18 ). There would be some problems with flaming/trolling etc, especially in threads on religion, but I think that overall it would work - a large majority of the members here are intelligent and are able to conduct a civilised discussion/debate. I know of other forums where religion and politics have been intergrated with little to no problem.

Any chance of dragging you back on over into the Lolita thread, MC? I'd really love to hear your opinion of that work of art, and I just know you have it kicking around there someplace.

Stewart? What about you?

abc?

 

[steffee]

Stalking the Lolita-readers are we, Still?

Beer good, I think, is reading it too. Or wanting to, at least. And one of our sadly-departed members has recently read it...

Especially someone who doesn't read books.

Well, exactly.

I thought I had removed 'disagree' from your vocabulary.

I don't agree with that.

 

[Shade]

I'd join the Lolita thread too (even though I wasn't asked ) as I'm a big fan of the book, but to be honest StillILearn, that whole thread I find just too daunting even to open! What is it now, about two and a half thousand posts?

 

[steffee]

I'd join the Lolita thread too (even though I wasn't asked ) as I'm a big fan of the book, but to be honest StillILearn, that whole thread I find just too daunting even to open! What is it now, about two and a half thousand posts?

Aww Shade, don't be wary, we're a harmless bunch over in that thread (although there is a bit of pointless banter) and love to play with new-to-the-thread Lolita lovers.

Besides, forget the past 150+ pages and just pretend they aren't there. We will happily re-discuss anything, and if need be, someone will gladly trawl through the pages looking for an exact quote, or something.

 

[Stewart]

The length of the Lolita thread is one reason that I haven't involved myself with it. I just don't have the time or inclination to trawl through that so that a) I know what's been talked about already; and b) I don't repeat anyone else. The other reason is that I need to do something I rarely do and that's read the book again (although not in the immediate future) as, while I enjoyed the first part, I was, for the latter, like one of those horses at the back of the pack in the Grand National who have, at some point, thrown their jockey - I was happy to finish the course and enjoy all that went with it, but I'd lost my way and reaching the end was never going to be a cause for celebration.

 

[StillILearn]

I'd join the Lolita thread too (even though I wasn't asked ) as I'm a big fan of the book, but to be honest StillILearn, that whole thread I find just too daunting even to open! What is it now, about two and a half thousand posts?

Shade, I was feeling too shy to even ask you again. I was hoping that you'd maybe give us a quick peek when we finally work up the courage to tackle Pale Fire (which may be in the year 2010).

I'd say that a good number of the posts in that thread are comprised of folks like me hanging onto their seats on the Lollercoaster ride and screaming with delight.

All the rest are quite worth their weight in gold and should be given the proper scholarly attention.

 

[steffee]

Wait... did someone mention Pale Fire?

Stewart: huge groans at the horce racing reference, but I think we all felt like that the first time we read Lolita.

Still: some of your posts are very valuable, as you well know!

 

[pontalba]

The length of the Lolita thread is one reason that I haven't involved myself with it. I just don't have the time or inclination to trawl through that so that a) I know what's been talked about already; and b) I don't repeat anyone else. The other reason is that I need to do something I rarely do and that's read the book again (although not in the immediate future) as, while I enjoyed the first part, I was, for the latter, like one of those horses at the back of the pack in the Grand National who have, at some point, thrown their jockey - I was happy to finish the course and enjoy all that went with it, but I'd lost my way and reaching the end was never going to be a cause for celebration.

Quite Right. Why have a nice long discussion when a thread can be limited to 20 or 30 posts and just cover everything?
/yawn/

 

[StillILearn]

Quite Right. Why have a nice long discussion when a thread can be limited to 20 or 30 posts and just cover everything?
/yawn/

And why on earth would anybody want to reread a book? (Like twelve times or so.)

 

[pontalba]

And why on earth would anybody want to reread a book?

Sing it Sister!

 

[StillILearn]

I blame Peder. Peder deserves most of the blame.

 

[steffee]

Pontalba, Still, that's not the way to encourage people to join us. We're wanting the Nabokov threads to take over the world, remember. Friendlier!

 

[StillILearn]

Ooops! Sorry! I was grinning broadly as I typed! (And I'll betcha pontalba was too, although she has prolly now wandered off somewheres to get herself a cup a coffee.).

 

[Shade]

Pale Fire, interestingly, is the opposite of Lolita, in that it seems to me to be less than the sum of its parts. Make no mistake, I'm very fond of it (well, my username is taken from it, after all), but it is really just a big intellectual w*nking session for Nabokov. Nothing wrong with that of course when it's done well, which Pale Fire is. As such I don't think it has remotely the discussion capabilities that Lolita does. I'm not sure if I've posted on it here but if not then my thoughts from when I last read it a couple of years ago can be found here.

Quite Right. Why have a nice long discussion when a thread can be limited to 20 or 30 posts and just cover everything?
/yawn/

Don't take on so, pontalba. StillILearn was urging people over and Stewart and I were just explaining why we weren't coming.

 

[pontalba]

Ooops! Sorry! I was grinning broadly as I typed! (And I'll betcha pontalba was too, although she has prolly now wandered off somewheres to get herself a cup a coffee.).

Tea actually, and if Shade thinks that is "taking on", y'all wouldn't want to see me even irritated.

I was merely making a statement of evident fact.

btw Shade thanks for the take on Pale Fire. I have not read it yet, but have it ready to go (so to speak).

 

[steffee]

Shade, wow, what a post.

And Kinbote, our commentator, is the maddest and most detached of all unreliable narrators that have ever been. He believes himself to be the exiled king of Zembla, 'a distant northern land', and that Shade was murdered by a regicidal Zemblan contract killer called Jakob Gradus, or Vinogradus, or d'Argus, or Jack Grey (curiously close to John Shade itself), who was aiming for him, Kinbote.

Gotta love (and make an attempt at understanding) a narrator like that!

There's a lot of links (in the depths of the Lolita thread, most likely) relating to Pale Fire...

Peder, I'm sure, has read it. It's the one book we all hum and har over making an attempt with.

Pontalba, enjoy your cuppa!

 

[Stewart]

y'all wouldn't want to see me even irritated.

You can get cream for that sort of thing these days anyway.

 

[pontalba]

You can get cream for that sort of thing these days anyway.

Oh? Who is your distributor?

 

[Peder]

Please people!
To whomever it may concern,
I am glad for the tumult over Lolita! She deserves every bit of it and excites it wherever she goes.
She does it! Not us.

But the thought that people would avoid further discussion of Lolita here on BAR because of the size of that thread, and all the fun it has had, just really destroys me! And so I'll say something I have been thinking this morning, and may end up being very sorry for the saying. But it is from the bottom of my heart and I think it needs saying.

We don't own Lolita! (Whoever 'we' is.)

And if new people are reading Lolita, and they are, and want to discuss it, and they will, that's good! That's excellent! That's what the game is about! And if people want to discuss the little girl after having missed out on the first discussion, well then by all means be positive and be creative and let there be a new second discussion! Trash the first one, forget about it, and ignore us old-timers! Have new fun with new insights with new people and new creative juices flowing, and live it up! Have a ball! Everyone is entitled to that enjoyment of the first time once in their life, and it can happen again and again, whenever and wherever new readers make the great discovery and want to talk about it. We have had our fun. You go to it, and have your fun! It is something I encourage with every ounce of my ability, because, I guarantee, you will have a blast just as we did!
So go to it and let's see that new thread!
And let's hear those new fireworks!
We have had our turn.
Now it's your turn!

Most sincerely,
Peder
for 'we'

 

[steffee]

We don't own Lolita! (Whoever 'we' is.)

If 'we' is Humbert the Horrible, then that could be debatable. Sorry, 'she' did that, not me.

And if people want to discuss the little girl after having missed out on the first discussion, well then by all means be positive and be creative and let there be a new second discussion!

'Tis a grand idea.

Trash the first one, forget about it, and ignore us old-timers! Have new fun with new insights with new people and new creative juices flowing, and live it up! Have a ball! Everyone is entitled to that enjoyment of the first time once in their life, and it can happen again and again, whenever and wherever new readers make the great discovery and want to talk about it. We have had our fun. You go to it, and have your fun! It is something I encourage with every ounce of my ability, because, I guarantee, you will have a blast just as we did!
So go to it and let's see that new thread!
And let's hear those new fireworks!
We have had our turn.
Now it's your turn!