Auto-translated
The Mule - How to practice child love
Interesting and informative!
Interesting and informative!
Imaris
Posts from What are you reading right now?
Auto-translated
Open
Do you read books?
43
voters
Single choice
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
Imaris
Небо
Auto-translated
I just finished reading Azumanga. I recently finished the third book in the Horus Heresy series.
Небо – мольбы не ждёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт
По вопросам модерации: [email protected]
Саня Изи
Auto-translated
Horus Heresy
Is this somehow related to Satanism?
Смысла нет, но вы держитесь там. Удачи, здоровья, хорошего настроения!
И пока в кармане пачка милкиуэйев - значит все не так уж плохо на сегодняшний день
И пока в кармане пачка милкиуэйев - значит все не так уж плохо на сегодняшний день
Небо
Auto-translated
Yes.
Небо – мольбы не ждёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт
По вопросам модерации: [email protected]
Hermit
Auto-translated
I finished reading the book "With a Tangled Skein," and I've started reading "With a Bloody Sword." I'm continuing to read the "Information Center" section of the kprf.ru website.
Amko
Силос Занж
Auto-translated
There’s a lot, for example: Dale Carnegie – How to Win Friends and Influence People (or something like that).
Наш мир полон тайн и чудес.
Многие их ищут, многим они вовсе не нужны, а многие даже не замечают их, не понимают что они вокруг нас, каждый день, везде.
А эти чудеса порой, сокрыты в обычных, привычных предметах.
Многие их ищут, многим они вовсе не нужны, а многие даже не замечают их, не понимают что они вокруг нас, каждый день, везде.
А эти чудеса порой, сокрыты в обычных, привычных предметах.
Amko
Auto-translated
Many things, for example: Dale Carnegie - How to Win Friends and Influence People (or something like that).
Небо
Auto-translated
What's up, Azumanga? Great!
Added after 45 seconds
A lot of things, for example: Dale Carnegie - How to Win Friends and Influence People (or something like that).
Вегтам
Auto-translated
Why write about what you're reading right now when it's much better to write about what you've already read? And do it in detail, so that someone who trusts your opinion and reads your review can decide for themselves whether it's worth reading.
Anne Rice - Interview with the Vampire. I'm almost finished. I won't be myself if I don't mention it to my aunt later.
Наше оружие - неожиданность! Неожиданность и страх, страх и неожиданность - это два наших оружия! Плюс безжалостность - три наших оружия: страх, неожиданность и безжалостность! И ещё фанатичная преданность Папе - четвёртое! Наше оружие включает в себя... наше оружие включает в себя... страх, неожиданность... я сейчас!
Amko
Auto-translated
No. I'm talking about Horus Heresy, is it worth reading?
Саня Изи
MS Visual C/C++ 2010
Смысла нет, но вы держитесь там. Удачи, здоровья, хорошего настроения!
И пока в кармане пачка милкиуэйев - значит все не так уж плохо на сегодняшний день
И пока в кармане пачка милкиуэйев - значит все не так уж плохо на сегодняшний день
Imaris
Auto-translated
rap
Auto-translated
R. Zelazny, "Night in October".
Imaris
Auto-translated
A long piece of writing that will be of interest to no one, if only because no one has read this work and few intend to ever do so.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, "Lolita" (1955).
I wanted to write my impressions of reading "Lolita" yesterday, but I never got around to it. And somehow... I'm not exactly eager! Perhaps it's because this book left no particularly vivid impressions in my mind. It's just that it often happened in the past that after reading a book, I would spend a long time thinking about that world, about something related to the events within it, even if I didn't understand all those deep meanings dissolved by the author in the lines of the text. But now, even though I read the book in a week and did so every day—meaning I didn't take huge breaks between acts of engaging with literature, as often happened before—I somehow didn't connect with "Lolita." Or maybe I've just become even more indifferent-schizophrenic and am now doomed to receive true bliss from only a very rare book (ah, if only I still read them). Although when Humbert met Dolores at the end, I even shed a tear, and more than one. I felt sorry for him. True, he is a fool himself and is to blame for much, but it would be terrifying to be in his place.
As for the deep meanings, which I dislike so much—dislike because I never delve into them—I hardly caught any this time. Therefore, I'll write instead about the author's style.
I liked Nabokov's style. He usually writes in long, complex sentences filled with epithets, comparisons, metaphors, and god knows what else (I'm not well-versed in tropes), yet he manages to pack a lot of meaning, emotion, and experience into a single short phrase, just a small part of a sentence. At first, such a style (or rather, syntax) even causes some difficulty in reading, but I got used to it quite quickly (other people, those well-read, might not have to adjust at all); perhaps a certain uniformity in the speech constructions contributed to this. But one shouldn't think that the entire text is written in such a style, although these thoughts are close to the truth.
Everything written further contains spoilers, which, however, no one gives a damn about, and people on this forum hardly need to read all this anyway. Furthermore, the next paragraph and a half may contain an unpleasant topic for reading.
Humbert is a fool. And to a greater extent, a pervert. I don't understand how he can have sex with Lolita three (three!) times a day. It's incomprehensible; is it really possible for a person, and at his age (37 years!), to want to do this so often, and to be unable to control himself or intentionally miss an opportunity to copulate with a person (or masturbate, for example)? Although Humbert probably can control himself, but doesn't want to. As for Lolita, the author portrayed her as almost indifferent to her sexual life—just like in child porn, where girls gaze (or do not gaze) with their poker face at the actions of their violators.
Humbert is a fool. From Lolita, he only wanted sex, which, from the impression I get from his descriptions, gave him not physical, but spiritual pleasure, as well as simply the feeling of closeness to a nymphet (here he can still be understood; there is nothing condemnatory or vulgar about this). But he was almost entirely uninterested in her personality, her life, and did not share, nor even attempt to share, her tastes and hobbies. However, Humbert wrote once that Dolly herself was taciturn with him and nullified any attempts at ordinary communication.
Lolita. A vile, selfish nymphet, an underage slut (I will allow myself to use this vulgar but very accurate word here). Humbert did not resort to violence and would not have done so under any circumstances toward Dolores, therefore she could demand almost anything from him in order for him to physically enjoy her, and she demanded; and Humbert gave money and promises. True, he sometimes brazenly took both back, which greatly offended the girl.
Regarding the first assertion made in the previous paragraph, I was speaking of Lolita's piggish attitude toward Humbert. Although the latter was wrong in many ways, he was heavily dependent on Dolores, strongly attached to her, and could do nothing about it. She didn't love him (but one cannot condemn her for that), however, she could have at least tried to make things better for him—smile more often, perhaps give gifts (while Humbert bought her whatever she wanted according to any whim), and generally treat him better; after all, she simply wouldn't have survived without him.
I don't know what to write in conclusion of my small "towel" of a text—I've never been able to create an ending for any text, whether it be a school essay or some similar text written of my own volition. I'll say, for example, that overall I liked the novel, even if it didn't leave a deep mark on my soul, that I don't feel like rereading it, that I initially wanted to read it for obvious reasons, that I found far fewer common traits with the main character than I expected (or wanted) to find, and that Lolita, strangely enough, justified many of the impressions I had formed about her in advance.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, "Lolita" (1955).
I wanted to write my impressions of reading "Lolita" yesterday, but I never got around to it. And somehow... I'm not exactly eager! Perhaps it's because this book left no particularly vivid impressions in my mind. It's just that it often happened in the past that after reading a book, I would spend a long time thinking about that world, about something related to the events within it, even if I didn't understand all those deep meanings dissolved by the author in the lines of the text. But now, even though I read the book in a week and did so every day—meaning I didn't take huge breaks between acts of engaging with literature, as often happened before—I somehow didn't connect with "Lolita." Or maybe I've just become even more indifferent-schizophrenic and am now doomed to receive true bliss from only a very rare book (ah, if only I still read them). Although when Humbert met Dolores at the end, I even shed a tear, and more than one. I felt sorry for him. True, he is a fool himself and is to blame for much, but it would be terrifying to be in his place.
As for the deep meanings, which I dislike so much—dislike because I never delve into them—I hardly caught any this time. Therefore, I'll write instead about the author's style.
I liked Nabokov's style. He usually writes in long, complex sentences filled with epithets, comparisons, metaphors, and god knows what else (I'm not well-versed in tropes), yet he manages to pack a lot of meaning, emotion, and experience into a single short phrase, just a small part of a sentence. At first, such a style (or rather, syntax) even causes some difficulty in reading, but I got used to it quite quickly (other people, those well-read, might not have to adjust at all); perhaps a certain uniformity in the speech constructions contributed to this. But one shouldn't think that the entire text is written in such a style, although these thoughts are close to the truth.
Everything written further contains spoilers, which, however, no one gives a damn about, and people on this forum hardly need to read all this anyway. Furthermore, the next paragraph and a half may contain an unpleasant topic for reading.
Humbert is a fool. And to a greater extent, a pervert. I don't understand how he can have sex with Lolita three (three!) times a day. It's incomprehensible; is it really possible for a person, and at his age (37 years!), to want to do this so often, and to be unable to control himself or intentionally miss an opportunity to copulate with a person (or masturbate, for example)? Although Humbert probably can control himself, but doesn't want to. As for Lolita, the author portrayed her as almost indifferent to her sexual life—just like in child porn, where girls gaze (or do not gaze) with their poker face at the actions of their violators.
Humbert is a fool. From Lolita, he only wanted sex, which, from the impression I get from his descriptions, gave him not physical, but spiritual pleasure, as well as simply the feeling of closeness to a nymphet (here he can still be understood; there is nothing condemnatory or vulgar about this). But he was almost entirely uninterested in her personality, her life, and did not share, nor even attempt to share, her tastes and hobbies. However, Humbert wrote once that Dolly herself was taciturn with him and nullified any attempts at ordinary communication.
Lolita. A vile, selfish nymphet, an underage slut (I will allow myself to use this vulgar but very accurate word here). Humbert did not resort to violence and would not have done so under any circumstances toward Dolores, therefore she could demand almost anything from him in order for him to physically enjoy her, and she demanded; and Humbert gave money and promises. True, he sometimes brazenly took both back, which greatly offended the girl.
Regarding the first assertion made in the previous paragraph, I was speaking of Lolita's piggish attitude toward Humbert. Although the latter was wrong in many ways, he was heavily dependent on Dolores, strongly attached to her, and could do nothing about it. She didn't love him (but one cannot condemn her for that), however, she could have at least tried to make things better for him—smile more often, perhaps give gifts (while Humbert bought her whatever she wanted according to any whim), and generally treat him better; after all, she simply wouldn't have survived without him.
I don't know what to write in conclusion of my small "towel" of a text—I've never been able to create an ending for any text, whether it be a school essay or some similar text written of my own volition. I'll say, for example, that overall I liked the novel, even if it didn't leave a deep mark on my soul, that I don't feel like rereading it, that I initially wanted to read it for obvious reasons, that I found far fewer common traits with the main character than I expected (or wanted) to find, and that Lolita, strangely enough, justified many of the impressions I had formed about her in advance.