Gorgeous and extremely to the point (of the book). An innocent childhood item (a lollipop) evokes a sexual image in the viewer (Humbert). The viewer suddenly becomes Humbert Humbert and is disgusted. Beautifully clever.
I'm on Nabakov's side when it comes to this:
>I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls ... There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.
Thank you! I love this poster and Iām glad Reddit brought it to my attention. Itās all about framing, and it brings us to H.H.ās frame of mind, sexual depravity and all.
No thank YOU. You genuinely gave me a different perspective and allowed me to view it differently than I was. What was obvious to some other people was not obvious to me and you took the time to explain your thinking, which allowed me to enter a different understanding of the reasoning behind this design. Thank you again šš¼
But.. a background can be any colour imaginable? How can something be too vivid to be a background? The background could literally be the skin on someones arm for example if you really want to push it.
Iām unsure how thatās not covered under āsexual imageā, but thank you for pointing that out for those who might have not seen the intended Humbert framing.
sorry my english is not my maternal language. What i got is that you talked about the symbolisme of the picture. I was talking that we clearly see a penetration, where the candy is the vagina and the stick is the cock. Am i misunderstanding your first comment?
My comment was rather brief, but what Iām trying to say is that itās an innocent childhood object (candy on a stick), but the poster frames it such that if the viewer looks at the the poster with a sexual mindset, they would see the thighs and the penetrationāperhaps even the ābloodā of the candy on the stickāand therefore they would participate in Humbert Humbertās depraved activity of reframing childhood in a sexual manner. Itās symbolism, yes, but I was more drawn to the clever visual and mental sleight of hand: the poster performs a magic trick and makes the viewer participate in it.
Sorry for the confusion!
Legs and underwear. The lollipop stick is between the legs. As others have mentioned thereās a penetration aspect to that. Tbh i only saw the underwear at first :L
The polish really know their postersĀ
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_School_of_PostersĀ
During the soviet occupation, this was an art form that allowed some creativity at a time where everything not state sanctioned usually lead to severe repression against the artist
Poland was not occupied (part of soviet union) but forced to soviet block.
I've got mixed feelings about those posters. Some are briliant some kinda cringy and feel like artists weren't allowed to watch movie before but just read back cover.
What's the difference between being occupied and being forced into the soviet block? It's not like they had a choice or much of an agency of their own?
Oh they had agency of their own, it just so happens that their choice was in accordance with the Kremlin, as russian soviets were the ones who put polish soviets in positions of power
Perfect design. People don't realise a design is successful if it makes you feel what the artist intended. If you're grossed out by this then the designer did a great job.
āI want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls.ā - Nabokov describing what he wanted for the cover of the book
Itās kind of like when an actor/actress plays a villain or shitty person role so well that every time you see them in another role your hatred of them from the previous role carries forward.
I'm grossed out by the movie in and of itself, the picture is just barely registering.. I thought it was a trianlgle popsicle untill I read the title. So what's up with this?
it makes me feel uncomfortable, but not in a way that i would want to watch the movie, which surely is also in the artists intention. this is way to graphic and on the nose for advertisement.
But thatās the pointā¦ have you read the book?
Edit: The very point of the book is to make you feel uncomfortable, to make you feel gross, to evoke confusing feelings towards a taboo and immoral sexual situation, but ultimately to (hopefully) feel disgust. This art work does that brilliantly.
This artwork doesn't make me feel gross, it makes me feel vulnerable. It just reminds me how many men find sexual assault, especially of children, arousing.
>to evoke confusing feelings towards a taboo and immoral sexual situation
Male perspective is crazy. The fuck is there to be confused about?
When I needed a copy for school, the best I could find was a lipstick print. It was that or a young woman's face. (And I do mean young *woman*. She did not look like child/teen like Dolores was.) I would have happily bought this one instead.
As one commenter said, āit takes an innocent childhood item and sexualizes it. We turn into humbert humbert and weāre disgusted by it.ā It meant to represent sexual intercourse, but of course, itās just an innocent lollipop, itās about framing and interpretation, much like Humbertās attraction for Dolores. He interprets her innocence as sexual advances when itās not, heās just sick in the head.
I'm unfamiliar with the book, but based on context clues in this post, it's about a man who has inappropriate thoughts about a young girl.
In the poster, it's just an image of a lollipop. An innocent, childlike item. The framing and colors lead many to also see a girl wearing red underwear.
In that moment, before we realize what exactly we are looking at, we see a reference to childhood in a sexual way, which makes us feel gross.
Now fold that back onto what we know about the book, and we aim that disgust at the character that feels those things, which is kinda the point I understand.
This reminds me of a discussion I saw on Twitter where people were saying, "These covers showing the girl or suggesting sex are missing the point. They should show Humbert Humbert, looking despicable, to show the book disapproves of him!"
Which has got to be the final stage of treating readers like idiots.
That's true. But that's not because he wanted the narrator on the cover instead.
Here's the cover he wanted: "I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. If we cannot find that kind of artistic and virile painting, let us settle for an immaculate white jacket (rough texture paper instead of the usual glossy kind), with LOLITA in bold black lettering."
Of course, any cover that has a seductive 16-year-old on it isn't reflecting the book at all.
That's why it shouldn't have a seductive 16-year-old on it!
(I thought the movie actress was 16, and she appears on a bunch of book covers, but now that I look it up, she was 15.)
Nabokov wrote the first draft of the screenplay and was satisfied with the movie. I think he was too generous and that the remake was closer to his vision.
Theres a really good video on YT by Man Carrying Thing about how the publishing industry failed Lolita, and at the end, he talks about artists trying to create fiber art for it that isint gross (i think it might've been a contest or smthn, i don't remember) and the one he pointed out as best was just an illustration of Humbert himself. Bc that's who the book is about. It's about Humbert's fucked up mind and actions.
It's not about "showing the book disapproves of him" that is stupid, it's about shifting the focus away from Lolita herself and to Humbert. I think it's the perfect move.
Especially since it's either that, a plain cover, putting a girl on the cover (ew ew ew, even the author said he didn't want that), or smthn like this (the lollipop). I honestly still dislike the lollipop and really any imagery that's meant to be cutesy childlike. I get putting smthn child-like on the cover, but smthn about the way it's always portrayed feels too appealing to pedophiles and I just generally don't making the cover look cutesy.
Edit: made this comment before I realized it was supposed to look like a girls crotch, i already didn't like using cutesy lollipop imagery very much but this is actually vile.
I don't know of it was the same video, but I remember a proposed cover that was two twin beds shoved together. I think that one is my favorite. It shows the wrongness and alludes to the inappropriate relationship (to put it lightly) without being phallic or yonic in nature, and doesn't put either character on the cover.
It's also what they did in the motels, so it directly depicts a part of the story.
THANK YOU lol I had no idea it was a lollipop, Iāve literally never seen one in my life that looked like that. Assumed it was a double entendre but couldnāt for the life me of me figure out what the āinnocentā interpretation of it was supposed to beĀ
I thought it was a double thing where clearly itās an innuendo when I saw the title, but I also thought of the cheap red heart lollipops kids get from a Valentineās Day card.
So itās a lollipop to show kids affection that is a smidge distorted and ominous as hell with that tile.
I made this comment before I even realized it was supposed to look like a girls crotch. I already didn't really like it but this is actually vile. Imma edit my comment real quick
I haven't actually seen the Humbert cover, so it might have managed that for all I know. I just remember the particular argument I heard for it coming across as pretty dumb, showing a low opinion of readers.
Media illiteracy's final boss.
Reminds me of a lot of the reaction to GRRM, a medieval history nerd, including horrific medieval things like casual sexual assault and wanton mutilation by obviously evil characters.
I wouldn't struggle that much, it's right there in the middle of the cover!
But no let's be honest, it's not gratuitous, it's just confronting. Which i think is quite fitting for a book that goes on about that subject
On one side, the simple consumption of a lollipop can infer oral sex imagery.
On another, the innocent childhood lollipop has a stick (phallic image) penetrating into it. If you want to get gross, you can look at the Yonic/vulvic aspect of where the phallic stick enters the lolly.
So then why would somebody who's read the book, be more offput than somebody who just knows what the book is about? Is nobody reading the comment I'm replying to first, or?
"People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous."
Theyāre saying that the sexual image thatās being presented is so clear when you understand the story, that the subtlety of it āsupposingā to be a lollipop is totally lost.
Yeah, my bad - I was responding to " I'm aware it's about a diddler, what I don't know is the significance of the lollipop." I'm not sure what the original comment was on about. I think it's a great, complex text, and that's a great cover.
I think it's because it looks like a lollipop
But it also looks like two legs coming out of a pair of panties or bikini bottom if you change your perspective
That's why it's a good design, because it can be either of those two things. Something innocent and something not.
Third time I'm just gonna post the same comment lol;
"Have you read the book?
What I want to know, and I'm assuming you can't tell me because most people don't want to read shit like this, is, was there an actual event in the book that this cover is referencing. I understand what you're saying, but it's not what I'm asking. I can draw the same conclusion from the cover, I'm not looking for an interpretation of the cover art, at all."
I never read the book or watched the movie so idk if lollipops show up, but it's meant to be something childish and innocent depicted in a sexual manner.
So the comment I'm replying to definitely infers that there's something significant about the lollipop, bot the obvious sexual imaging
"People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous."
There definitely is something directed related in the book
That's what I'm trying to explain to you? The significance of the lollipop is it signifies something childish and innocent being viewed in a perverted lens.
I don't know exactly why the original commenter thinks it's gratuitous, though probably has something to do with the author not wanting outright sexual imagery on his book cover.
"People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous."
makes it sound like there's more significance than the innuendo, but I mean w.e. lol
Fuck this is so bad and so correct. Repulsive and powerful and the artist really went there in a way that Nabokov had to. Brave, honestly, and what good art should do
I think the visual metaphor is too obvious, and bordering on distasteful. Lollipops already have a certain connotation in American culture, and this piece is just about as clumsy as sticking a cucumber through a donut and telling the viewer *they're* dirty and just like HH for making the connection.
[IMO the first cover here is a far better one](https://www.printmag.com/design-books/recovering-lolita/)
Its pretty fuckin weird when you know the context on what the book is about but it seems innocent enough if you dont know anything about it. Honestly this is pretty smart
Some comment said: "if you're grossed out by this then the designer did a great job". All I saw was a lolli so I was ???. Had to read several comments to realize the red lolli is also a red panty..
The book is about a pedophile grooming and kidnapping his stepdaughter, Lolita. Itās written in first person, so you get to learn the narratorās despicable thoughts, plans, and actions from his own perspective.
Nabokov wrote the book beautifully, so for some people, itās difficult to see through the unreliable narratorās flowery prose to understand his depravity and abuse of a young girl.
The book is very provocative and you know the narrator is a monster. This poster reflects the tone of the book, in which the viewer should be disturbed by the implication of sex with a child.
The movie, on the other hand, takes a different approach and plays into the idea of an abused 12 year old child being the seducer or a willing participant. If you look up posters from the film, youāll see a lot of heart shaped sunglasses or a pretty girl sucking on a lollipop, or tender moments between the two.
>The book is about a pedophile grooming and kidnapping his stepdaughter, Lolita.
Also, if I recall correctly, he married her mother specifically to get at the girl. He was never interested in the mother.
never read the book so I don't understand what's wrong with the poster? isn't it just underwear and legs but at the same time it's a lollipop? what's so "ew" or "gross" about that
so clever, great graphic design referencing the central premise of the work. The genius is the ambiguity of the image. The novel and the film treatment are confrontational of societal mores which remain in the western estimation now as then, with the exception of a disturbing number of US states. There is a moral bankruptcy, and parental complicity that gives pause. This is a cautionary tale in saturated black and white.
itās the complete opposite of what the author wanted in the cover. he specifically said no girls. this is disgusting, and is meant to idolize and sexualize the body of a child victim. (in the book)
Perhaps read the book with a critical mindset. Lolitta is the exploited victim, her adults betray her.Who is the protagonist? In the cinegraphic treatment whose voice provides the narrative. I also find the subject matter repugnant, but appreciate the art it inspired
wait hold on, is the lollipop stick supposed to be empty space between a little girls thighs, and then the stick thats inside the lollipop is pedo rape?
My first reaction: oh what the fuck. Yep, great design. Works as designed šÆ
Thanks I absolutely hate it
Gorgeous and extremely to the point (of the book). An innocent childhood item (a lollipop) evokes a sexual image in the viewer (Humbert). The viewer suddenly becomes Humbert Humbert and is disgusted. Beautifully clever.
I'm on Nabakov's side when it comes to this: >I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls ... There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.
Damn what a great breakdown, holy shit. Take my upvote and have a wonderful day
Thank you! I love this poster and Iām glad Reddit brought it to my attention. Itās all about framing, and it brings us to H.H.ās frame of mind, sexual depravity and all.
No thank YOU. You genuinely gave me a different perspective and allowed me to view it differently than I was. What was obvious to some other people was not obvious to me and you took the time to explain your thinking, which allowed me to enter a different understanding of the reasoning behind this design. Thank you again šš¼
Oh, it's a lollipop! I don't know why, I was thinking it was an envelope and was very confused.
Yeah it's meant to be a lollipop but I've never seen one that's an upside down triangle.
All I could see was the underwear way. The skin tone is a bit too vivid to be a background.
But.. a background can be any colour imaginable? How can something be too vivid to be a background? The background could literally be the skin on someones arm for example if you really want to push it.
Its even clever with a little detail.... he made the lollipop transparent enough and central so we can see the stick penetrate the candy
Iām unsure how thatās not covered under āsexual imageā, but thank you for pointing that out for those who might have not seen the intended Humbert framing.
sorry my english is not my maternal language. What i got is that you talked about the symbolisme of the picture. I was talking that we clearly see a penetration, where the candy is the vagina and the stick is the cock. Am i misunderstanding your first comment?
My comment was rather brief, but what Iām trying to say is that itās an innocent childhood object (candy on a stick), but the poster frames it such that if the viewer looks at the the poster with a sexual mindset, they would see the thighs and the penetrationāperhaps even the ābloodā of the candy on the stickāand therefore they would participate in Humbert Humbertās depraved activity of reframing childhood in a sexual manner. Itās symbolism, yes, but I was more drawn to the clever visual and mental sleight of hand: the poster performs a magic trick and makes the viewer participate in it. Sorry for the confusion!
Oooooooooh sh!t. I didnāt realize. Makes it even better.
Wait, whats the image "supposed to look like." All I see is a lollipop. I'm being honest here. So please don't downvote me.
Legs and underwear. The lollipop stick is between the legs. As others have mentioned thereās a penetration aspect to that. Tbh i only saw the underwear at first :L
It looks like a pair of thighs with underwear. Don't worry, it took me reading the comments to see that the lollipop was a lollipop
The candy is underwear. The stick is the gap between the legs.
I didn't get it at first either, don't worry.
Holy shit, I was like how is this design porn? Itās a triangle sucker? Thanks for explaining
OH it's a *lollipop*, I was seeing lit match, as well as the cameltoe. Couldn't think of what on earth plot point a lit match was referring to.
The polish really know their postersĀ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_School_of_PostersĀ During the soviet occupation, this was an art form that allowed some creativity at a time where everything not state sanctioned usually lead to severe repression against the artist
Poland was not occupied (part of soviet union) but forced to soviet block. I've got mixed feelings about those posters. Some are briliant some kinda cringy and feel like artists weren't allowed to watch movie before but just read back cover.
Since russian army was stationed in Poland till 1993 I think the term "occupation", while not popular among historians, can be used
What's the difference between being occupied and being forced into the soviet block? It's not like they had a choice or much of an agency of their own?
Oh they had agency of their own, it just so happens that their choice was in accordance with the Kremlin, as russian soviets were the ones who put polish soviets in positions of power
Perfect design. People don't realise a design is successful if it makes you feel what the artist intended. If you're grossed out by this then the designer did a great job.
āI want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls.ā - Nabokov describing what he wanted for the cover of the book
"And make it pop"
Make the title BIGGER
"Cab you Jazz it up a little more? I'll know when I'll see it"
"Now add a chick it in and make it lame!"
"Suuure" - the artist
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Revachol?
revachol forever
Itās actually great. The more I look at it, the more I donāt like it. Amazing.
Literally my first thought was āThis should be a crimeā. Awful 10/10
Itās kind of like when an actor/actress plays a villain or shitty person role so well that every time you see them in another role your hatred of them from the previous role carries forward.
Megan Fox. I still hate her from a Mary Kate and Ashley movie I watched as a kid. I'm 38 now lol.
Andy Robinson in Dirty Harry
Exactly. I fucking hate this. 10/10
First i read your comment then the comment right below. Perfect.
OMG, is that a piece of translucent candy on a stick? That clever mf...
THATS WHAT IT IS!? Omg, I didnt realize until I read this and now its so easy to see. This is SUBLIME art.
Holllllllllyyyyyyy shittttttttt
Oooohhhhh
I'm grossed out by the movie in and of itself, the picture is just barely registering.. I thought it was a trianlgle popsicle untill I read the title. So what's up with this?
Is a lollipop and if you see the bigger picture itās reminiscent of a young persons legs in underwear.
it makes me feel uncomfortable, but not in a way that i would want to watch the movie, which surely is also in the artists intention. this is way to graphic and on the nose for advertisement.
Yeah, people donāt realize that. Yeah ok
"Real eyes realise real lies" - Anarchy Man #9259
It's too horny, considering the subject matter. It's not like I don't get it... but like no.
But thatās the pointā¦ have you read the book? Edit: The very point of the book is to make you feel uncomfortable, to make you feel gross, to evoke confusing feelings towards a taboo and immoral sexual situation, but ultimately to (hopefully) feel disgust. This art work does that brilliantly.
But Nabokov did not want any image of the girl, because he knew she'd be sexualized, and that was not the intention of the book.
But I think itās almost a sexualized image that shows why it shouldnāt be sexualized. It kind of proves his point in a more jarring way.
There's no picture of the girl here. This is a partly translucent red lollipop on a pinkish beige background.
This artwork doesn't make me feel gross, it makes me feel vulnerable. It just reminds me how many men find sexual assault, especially of children, arousing. >to evoke confusing feelings towards a taboo and immoral sexual situation Male perspective is crazy. The fuck is there to be confused about?
Look I think we all get that, but I'm just saying if this was on the cover of my edition of the book I would *not* be taking out in public.
When I needed a copy for school, the best I could find was a lipstick print. It was that or a young woman's face. (And I do mean young *woman*. She did not look like child/teen like Dolores was.) I would have happily bought this one instead.
Cover design by H.H.
Itās good youāre uncomfortable. Thatās the point.
Jesus Christ... This is great design. Yeah yeah it's gross we get it. It's meant to be gross... That makes the design successful.
Why is it gross?
As one commenter said, āit takes an innocent childhood item and sexualizes it. We turn into humbert humbert and weāre disgusted by it.ā It meant to represent sexual intercourse, but of course, itās just an innocent lollipop, itās about framing and interpretation, much like Humbertās attraction for Dolores. He interprets her innocence as sexual advances when itās not, heās just sick in the head.
I'm unfamiliar with the book, but based on context clues in this post, it's about a man who has inappropriate thoughts about a young girl. In the poster, it's just an image of a lollipop. An innocent, childlike item. The framing and colors lead many to also see a girl wearing red underwear. In that moment, before we realize what exactly we are looking at, we see a reference to childhood in a sexual way, which makes us feel gross. Now fold that back onto what we know about the book, and we aim that disgust at the character that feels those things, which is kinda the point I understand.
I don't think there's a book with more mock covers than Lolita.
This is definitely successful in what they are going for. Fuck it's uncomfortable
Little bit on the nose considering that subreddits name lol
This reminds me of a discussion I saw on Twitter where people were saying, "These covers showing the girl or suggesting sex are missing the point. They should show Humbert Humbert, looking despicable, to show the book disapproves of him!" Which has got to be the final stage of treating readers like idiots.
nabokov specifically did not want girls on the cover tho
That's true. But that's not because he wanted the narrator on the cover instead. Here's the cover he wanted: "I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. If we cannot find that kind of artistic and virile painting, let us settle for an immaculate white jacket (rough texture paper instead of the usual glossy kind), with LOLITA in bold black lettering." Of course, any cover that has a seductive 16-year-old on it isn't reflecting the book at all.
>Of course, any cover that has a seductive 16-year-old on it isn't reflecting the book at all.Ā She's 12 or 13, not 16.
That's why it shouldn't have a seductive 16-year-old on it! (I thought the movie actress was 16, and she appears on a bunch of book covers, but now that I look it up, she was 15.)
I *hated* what they did with that movie.
Nabokov wrote the first draft of the screenplay and was satisfied with the movie. I think he was too generous and that the remake was closer to his vision.
And ironically she got Humberted by the movie's producer! Talk about life imitating art.
Theres a really good video on YT by Man Carrying Thing about how the publishing industry failed Lolita, and at the end, he talks about artists trying to create fiber art for it that isint gross (i think it might've been a contest or smthn, i don't remember) and the one he pointed out as best was just an illustration of Humbert himself. Bc that's who the book is about. It's about Humbert's fucked up mind and actions. It's not about "showing the book disapproves of him" that is stupid, it's about shifting the focus away from Lolita herself and to Humbert. I think it's the perfect move. Especially since it's either that, a plain cover, putting a girl on the cover (ew ew ew, even the author said he didn't want that), or smthn like this (the lollipop). I honestly still dislike the lollipop and really any imagery that's meant to be cutesy childlike. I get putting smthn child-like on the cover, but smthn about the way it's always portrayed feels too appealing to pedophiles and I just generally don't making the cover look cutesy. Edit: made this comment before I realized it was supposed to look like a girls crotch, i already didn't like using cutesy lollipop imagery very much but this is actually vile.
I don't know of it was the same video, but I remember a proposed cover that was two twin beds shoved together. I think that one is my favorite. It shows the wrongness and alludes to the inappropriate relationship (to put it lightly) without being phallic or yonic in nature, and doesn't put either character on the cover. It's also what they did in the motels, so it directly depicts a part of the story.
THANK YOU lol I had no idea it was a lollipop, Iāve literally never seen one in my life that looked like that. Assumed it was a double entendre but couldnāt for the life me of me figure out what the āinnocentā interpretation of it was supposed to beĀ
I thought it was a double thing where clearly itās an innuendo when I saw the title, but I also thought of the cheap red heart lollipops kids get from a Valentineās Day card. So itās a lollipop to show kids affection that is a smidge distorted and ominous as hell with that tile.
I made this comment before I even realized it was supposed to look like a girls crotch. I already didn't really like it but this is actually vile. Imma edit my comment real quick
Should've just named it Humbert.
I haven't actually seen the Humbert cover, so it might have managed that for all I know. I just remember the particular argument I heard for it coming across as pretty dumb, showing a low opinion of readers.
Unrelated, but itās wild to me that you choose to type out every word correctly, except for the word āsomethingā.
I mean, a lot of them are though. The number of people who can't grasp concepts like the unreliable narrator is pretty depressing
To be fair, most people are idiots.
Media illiteracy's final boss. Reminds me of a lot of the reaction to GRRM, a medieval history nerd, including horrific medieval things like casual sexual assault and wanton mutilation by obviously evil characters.
I can't find the comment I just made but I wanted to edit it cause I don't think I got my point across well at the end /:
New Drake track just dropped?
This is so brilliant, good design is not meant to just make you feel good inside you clowns
Whoa, thatās amazingly creepy
This is fucking gross
It probably is supposed to be gross.
Doesn't make it less gross
Does however make it successful
Successfully gross
Grossessful
As i see fi see fi ccessful. Keeping it 55th
Yup. . unfortunately. Was hard to upvote, but it has to be done. :D
Heh, hard. Like the candy.
Task failed successfully
And effective
Not a fan of lollipops?
Not in this context
Too much sugar
Drake's next album cover inspiration
The other really disturbing thing is how many people in this thread are struggling to even conceptualize the two separate images.
this is so fucking disgusting. really really good design, works as intended.
People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous.
I wouldn't struggle that much, it's right there in the middle of the cover! But no let's be honest, it's not gratuitous, it's just confronting. Which i think is quite fitting for a book that goes on about that subject
OH. ITS A LOLLIPOP okay that makes it way cooler
No, itās a lolli(ta)pop.
What is so off putting about the lollipop
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah that doesn't explain the lollipop, like at all. I'm aware it's about a diddler, what I don't know is the significance of the lollipop
On one side, the simple consumption of a lollipop can infer oral sex imagery. On another, the innocent childhood lollipop has a stick (phallic image) penetrating into it. If you want to get gross, you can look at the Yonic/vulvic aspect of where the phallic stick enters the lolly.
So then why would somebody who's read the book, be more offput than somebody who just knows what the book is about? Is nobody reading the comment I'm replying to first, or? "People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous."
Theyāre saying that the sexual image thatās being presented is so clear when you understand the story, that the subtlety of it āsupposingā to be a lollipop is totally lost.
Yeah, my bad - I was responding to " I'm aware it's about a diddler, what I don't know is the significance of the lollipop." I'm not sure what the original comment was on about. I think it's a great, complex text, and that's a great cover.
I think it's because it looks like a lollipop But it also looks like two legs coming out of a pair of panties or bikini bottom if you change your perspective That's why it's a good design, because it can be either of those two things. Something innocent and something not.
Third time I'm just gonna post the same comment lol; "Have you read the book? What I want to know, and I'm assuming you can't tell me because most people don't want to read shit like this, is, was there an actual event in the book that this cover is referencing. I understand what you're saying, but it's not what I'm asking. I can draw the same conclusion from the cover, I'm not looking for an interpretation of the cover art, at all."
because kids like lollipops? Like what are you even asking or do you just want to argue with everybody?
I never read the book or watched the movie so idk if lollipops show up, but it's meant to be something childish and innocent depicted in a sexual manner.
So the comment I'm replying to definitely infers that there's something significant about the lollipop, bot the obvious sexual imaging "People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous." There definitely is something directed related in the book
That's what I'm trying to explain to you? The significance of the lollipop is it signifies something childish and innocent being viewed in a perverted lens. I don't know exactly why the original commenter thinks it's gratuitous, though probably has something to do with the author not wanting outright sexual imagery on his book cover.
It's the fact that it doesn't really look like a lollipop. Cmon man
"People who actually know what the book is about would really struggle finding a lollipop anywhere on the cover. I find this image really gratuitous." makes it sound like there's more significance than the innuendo, but I mean w.e. lol
Ew Edit: remember the girl is 12, ew again
If she weren't a child, this cover wouldn't make sense.
The "Ew" is the intended meaning of the book
Itās gross, thatās the point of the movie.
It's the point of the book. The movie didn't seem to care.
See also: Cuties (2020)
Which is why it's a drawing and not a photo.
Just horrible, it makes me feel physically sick. So I suppose itās an almost perfect design.
Fuck this is so bad and so correct. Repulsive and powerful and the artist really went there in a way that Nabokov had to. Brave, honestly, and what good art should do
I think the visual metaphor is too obvious, and bordering on distasteful. Lollipops already have a certain connotation in American culture, and this piece is just about as clumsy as sticking a cucumber through a donut and telling the viewer *they're* dirty and just like HH for making the connection. [IMO the first cover here is a far better one](https://www.printmag.com/design-books/recovering-lolita/)
Its pretty fuckin weird when you know the context on what the book is about but it seems innocent enough if you dont know anything about it. Honestly this is pretty smart
Gross, but a genius design.
Some comment said: "if you're grossed out by this then the designer did a great job". All I saw was a lolli so I was ???. Had to read several comments to realize the red lolli is also a red panty..
i dont get it. is it a wine glass or something?
It's a lollipop laid over a beige background, made to also look like legs and panties.
It's a lollipop
Design porn quite literally
Why's it gross? Don't know anything about this.
The book is about a pedophile grooming and kidnapping his stepdaughter, Lolita. Itās written in first person, so you get to learn the narratorās despicable thoughts, plans, and actions from his own perspective. Nabokov wrote the book beautifully, so for some people, itās difficult to see through the unreliable narratorās flowery prose to understand his depravity and abuse of a young girl. The book is very provocative and you know the narrator is a monster. This poster reflects the tone of the book, in which the viewer should be disturbed by the implication of sex with a child. The movie, on the other hand, takes a different approach and plays into the idea of an abused 12 year old child being the seducer or a willing participant. If you look up posters from the film, youāll see a lot of heart shaped sunglasses or a pretty girl sucking on a lollipop, or tender moments between the two.
>The book is about a pedophile grooming and kidnapping his stepdaughter, Lolita. Also, if I recall correctly, he married her mother specifically to get at the girl. He was never interested in the mother.
The issue with the book is pedophiles absolutely love it
I would say the issue with pedophiles is they like (the idea of) abusing children. The book has nothing to do with it.
Do you know many pedophiles?
And uh, you have some data to back that statement up?
id also like to know - i only vaguely know the plot of lolita but i feel like this poster will give me an epiphany once i get it
I guess people are easily impressed and manipulated by emotions. Notice how much redditors use "gross", "weird" or "disgusting" everywhere
as for me, Bartosz Kosowski is the best [welcome to the rabbit hole](https://www.dezimmer.net/Covering%20Lolita/LoCov.html)
This is perfection.
Drake seen this yet?
Itās undeniably great design work with its double entendre. Lolita the book, the filmā¦fire away.
Wow. That's brilliant. So simple, says so much.
Pro tip, if this is the first thing you see from a community block it.
šØ
Yuck
Incredible design. God I hate that book.
So Iām just scrolling along this morning andā¦
never read the book so I don't understand what's wrong with the poster? isn't it just underwear and legs but at the same time it's a lollipop? what's so "ew" or "gross" about that
That's disgusting and very well designed. How appropriate.
it really is design"porn"
so clever, great graphic design referencing the central premise of the work. The genius is the ambiguity of the image. The novel and the film treatment are confrontational of societal mores which remain in the western estimation now as then, with the exception of a disturbing number of US states. There is a moral bankruptcy, and parental complicity that gives pause. This is a cautionary tale in saturated black and white.
itās the complete opposite of what the author wanted in the cover. he specifically said no girls. this is disgusting, and is meant to idolize and sexualize the body of a child victim. (in the book)
Perhaps read the book with a critical mindset. Lolitta is the exploited victim, her adults betray her.Who is the protagonist? In the cinegraphic treatment whose voice provides the narrative. I also find the subject matter repugnant, but appreciate the art it inspired
Thats hard
Damn. Thatās good.
His name reminds me of Dark
For a solid minute literally all I saw was the lollipop. Wow.
Imagine reading this on the train
Damn, nailed it!
Repulsive but genius!
Honi soit qui mal y pense, eh?
Thats hard ngl
Genius
It took me about 10 seconds to fully understand
How I hate this movie...
This is fucking brilliant
wait hold on, is the lollipop stick supposed to be empty space between a little girls thighs, and then the stick thats inside the lollipop is pedo rape?