|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:10 pm
((Yes Otu, I did copy this from my dA journal, but hey, you guys should hear it too, eh?))
"Unreliable Narrator" - n. - Literary Device in which the credibility of the narration is seriously compromised. Usually due to psychological instability.
This is the subject of my English Independent Study. For this, I'm tackling a total of two novels. These are:
Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
Invisible Monsters - Chuck Pahlaniuk
Lolita is a book, narrated by Humbert Humbert. His issue is...well, to put it simply, he's a *****. Obsessed with "Nymphets" (Lolitas), he eventually goes to Charlotte Haze's house to find lodgings, and nearly turns it down if it weren't for the Lolita of which his affections turn to. Wiki it from there.
Invisible Monsters was Chuck's first book written, but was dismissed for being too "Disturbing." So he wrote Fight Club to go piss them off. Written in a very non-linear format, it opens up with the ending, with someone getting shot by a naked, burned bride while the narrator's having giggle fits about it all. Continue in Chuck's style of totally screwing your views up.
Think I'm tackling awesome?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:22 pm
Interesting... xD;; I haven't read either of those books before. Are they good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:42 am
Irish, have you read them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:12 pm
Nope, but they sound... interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:43 am
Are they good?
I haven't gotten into Invisible Monsters yet, but Lolita scares the crap out of me ._.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:15 am
Which book did you like better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:30 pm
As I said, I haven't read Invisible Monsters, but Lolita is well written...
...perhaps TOO well written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:02 am
What do you mean by "too?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:37 am
They way the book is written is that it goes into insane amounts of fantasy detail, but almost nothing based on fact. Considering the wandering mind of Humbert Humbert, that's not too good. And the subjects...>.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:16 pm
Fantasy detail? What do you mean by that? XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:11 pm
hahahahaha
do you really want to go into that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:54 am
What's so funny. xD Fantasy detail?? I'm assuming that means unnecessary details?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:48 pm
Just finished Invisible Monsters, for those who want an update. Compared to Lolita, I absolutely LOVED Invisible Monsters. And I still quote it, too. =D
"He's got the kind of football scholarship where your eyebrows grow together and you forgot to get a degree."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
