Reviews tagging 'Body shaming'

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

19 reviews

rebekkamafia's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

isbahusman's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark tense medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

g1lg4mesh's review

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious reflective sad tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

I find myself in a pickle of sorts in reviewing this book- I cannot in good faith blindly recommend it, and yet it is simultaneously the most incredible text I have ever engaged with. Lolita simply redefines the standard of the masterpiece, building not a glass ceiling (such tangibilities are beneath it), rather, casting the colloquial “bar” to the very heavens, where it may never be seen again. Only read this book if you are prepared to finish it- know too that this is no simple matter- but read this book, if you may be so bold. It will challenge you, and you may want to hurl it into a fire at times, but still, you simply must make it to that final page. This is a book that redefines the 5th star, and shakes any attempt at literary tier lists to its very core.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

manybees's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional funny reflective sad medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
Despite its reputation I found it more sad than disturbing. Dolly Haze is probably one of my favourite characters in all of literature. I’m gonna be thinking about this one for a while.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

gabriella_'s review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark tense medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

This is literally one of the worst books I’ve ever read and the fact it’s well written makes me hate it more
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

kelisabeth's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.5

It feels wrong to rate this high, though it was incredibly well written
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

cateyeschloe's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional sad tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

“Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as ‘nymphets’.”
 
Right from the jump, our narrator “Humbert” begins laying the groundwork of excuses to defend himself and other pedophiles for their actions and desires.
 
“… there must be a gap of several years, never less than ten I should say, generally thirty or forty, and as many as ninety in a few known cases, between maiden and man to enable the latter to come under a nymphet’s spell.”
 
Over and over again, Humbert tells us that he and people like him are more or less guiltless in succumbing to their desires. He constantly lays the guilt at the feet of the children whom he claims are “little deadly demon[s] among the wholesome children”. He explains that not all little girls are “nymphets”, but that the ones that are are very special and have some near-magical ability to seduce a man with her presence alone, sans any actions or words on her part.
 
Humbert repeatedly seeks to infantilize himself, making himself seem absolutely pathetic and weak, completely out of control, with no ability whatsoever to stop this onslaught of “seduction” from literal children.
 
“… the majority of sex offenders that hanker for some throbbing… physical but not necessarily coital, relation with a girl-child, are innocuous, inadequate, passive, timid strangers who merely ask the community to allow them to pursue their practically harmless, so-called aberrant behavior… We are not sex fiends! We do not rape… We are unhappy, mild, dog-eyed gentlemen, sufficiently well integrated to control urge in the presence of adults, but ready to give years and years… for one chance to touch a nymphet.”
 
Now, as far as the writing goes, I feel a couple of different ways about it. I would say a very large chunk of this book, for my personal tastes, is excessively wordy and rambling. However, I do believe that this is intentional on Nabokov’s part because even Humbert addresses his wordiness at times, claiming that he is plumping up the text of his memoir to provide evidence that he “did everything in [his] power to give [his] Lolita a really good time.”
 
Even so, there are entire chapters that could easily be eliminated and the story would be more streamlined and smoother to read. I struggled to keep pushing through around the 50% mark in the book, and the last 25% of the book was equally as difficult for me to get through just from boredom.

This book also has a lot of archaic vocabulary and many, many passages of French with random bits of Latin. I was very grateful to have been reading this as an e-book because I gave the Define and Translate features a WORKOUT. 
 
There are random sprinklings of racism throughout the book as well, mainly executed in the ways Humbert describes Black people – especially their appearance – that he encounters, even going so far as referring to a Black employee in a hotel as “Uncle Tom”.
 
Misogyny is another common theme throughout the book, probably unsurprisingly. Humbert often talks about his complete disdain for adult women. He despises them, calls them “stupid” and “idiots”, and ceaselessly describes them as “ugly” or “fat”.
 
“There are few physiques I loathe more than the heavy low-slung pelvis, thick claves, and deplorable complexion of the average coed (in whom I see… the coffin of coarse female flesh within which my nymphets are buried alive)…”
 
I will say, one of the points the Foreward in Lolita emphasizes is that there are no “lewd” scenes in this book, there’s nothing graphic, no depictions of the multitude of rapes that happen to a 12-14 year old in this book. And Nabokov is telling the truth. Despite the lack of “graphic” details, it is ABUNDANTLY clear every time it happens, and Humbert’s use of flowery language (especially referring to the rape as “making love”) does nothing to soften the gut punch of realizing what’s happening every time.
 
I don’t think you could rightfully read this book without commenting on the fact that Humbert is absolutely, definitively an unreliable narrator. We are never allowed to see the events that transpire from the “Lolita’s” perspective (Dolores is her name, and I will be referring to her as such from here forward). Humbert consistently describes Dolores’ words and actions, but we are almost never allowed to hear her speak for herself and never to see things from her perspective. Even the few times in the book where we do get a direct quote from Dolores, it is still penned by Humbert’s hand, and we simply don’t know where reality actually lies.
 
“… it would take hours of blandishments, threats, and promises to make her lend me for a few seconds her brown limbs in the seclusion of the five-dollar room before undertaking anything she might prefer to my joy.”
 
Numerous times, Humbert admits that he uses force and coercion to get what he wants from Dolores, at one point even threatening if she turned him in to the police and he went to prison, “What happens to you, my orphan?”. He describes the derelict condition of orphanages and homes in detail to her and ends with: “This is the situation. This is the choice. Don’t you think that under the circumstances Dolores Haze had better stick to her old man?”
 
If I were completely honest, I would find it absolutely infuriating to hear anyone make the claim that “Lolita” is, in reality, a seductress. This rings completely hollow and devoid of the truth we see between the lines of her story –  one of constant physical, mental, and emotional abuse from birth, consistently being used and manipulated by more than one person, and then – if anything – manipulating her oppressors with the very thing they want from her to gain some kind of advantage or escape. The very fact that Dolores had to weaponize her own body, her own sexuality, her own self is heartbreaking and a tragedy. And to look past that fact and merely claim that she was a “vile and beloved slut” as Humbert (and perhaps some of his audience) does, is reprehensible and an insult to the victims of CSA and SA in the real world.
 
Nabokov ends the book with an Afterword that I grappled with digesting. In it, he claims that this story, Lolita, has no moral. That there is no moral weight to this story nor that anything should be gleaned from it. That it is just a story. I feel that I fundamentally disagree. Writing, in and of itself, carries a weight of responsibility, but a book on a topic like this? It must answer that responsibility. To leave it without a firm stance simply opens the door to what, I feel, culture has done with the idea of a “Lolita”, glorifying it rather than depicting it as the horror that it is.
 
“I have but followed nature. I am nature’s faithful hound.”
 
Humbert is a twisted individual who repeatedly convinces himself that he “loves” and cares for his victim, despite all the evidence to the contrary. He is a deeply troubled character with clear mental health issues even aside from the pedophilia.
 
This book was extremely difficult to consume, and it took me quite a while to read it because I kept wanting to take breaks and step away from what I was reading. It’s a hard read. Well written and a topic that should be addressed and discussed, but definitely one that should be broached with the content and trigger warnings in mind.

.
.
.

I did watch both film versions of Lolita, one from 1962 and one from 1997.
 
The ’97 film, in my opinion, honestly was too gentle in its depictions of Humbert’s relationship with Dolores. If anything, it came across as heavily romanticized and the actress who played Dolores was, I believe, 16 and looked about that age. It’s a disservice to the story to have Dolores look older than the 12 years she is at the start of their journey together. The audience should be faced with just how uncomfortable it is to see these things happen to a pre-teen child.
 
The ’62 version was for me a better film as far as production quality goes, but it somehow was even more reserved in its depictions of Humbert’s relationship with Dolores. It was basically never stated for 90% of the movie that their relationship was sexual, and I had the same issues with this version as the other – that this is a failing in its retelling. 
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

taelights's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark sad tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

I was honestly a bit worried going into this book because I have seen people in the past have bad takes on this book saying it's a love story or that it romanticizes pedophilia or that it's suppose to make you sympathize with a pedophile. But this is also a book that I've always been morbidly curious about and wanted to form my own opinion of so I decided to give it a try. 

Now I honestly think anyone who believes this book romanticizes pedophilia is either 1) fucked up, 2) has not read the book and is making assumptions, or 3) doesn't have an ounce of critical thinking skills and no ability to analyze a book. You can tell that Nabokov doesn't agree with Humbert's character or actions. 

Honestly this book was lowkey kind of a masterpiece. Vladimir Nabokov's writing style is beautiful and this is such a good genius example of an unreliable narrator story. The subject matter was of course disgusting and so many lines made me feel nauseated but it was such an interesting read. I kind of want to read it through again in the future to better analyze the book now that I have a picture of the whole story arch. 
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

dearbhlanoonan's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional sad slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
Expand filter menu Content Warnings

bill369's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.75

I and my dear friend have read Lolita together.

I don't have a favourite character and I suppose it wasn't the author's intention for the reader to like the main characters. He did that well. I do dislike both Humbert Humbert and Dollores.

For me, this book was rather boring. Sure the plot was interesting in a way however not gripping enough. Reading this book even felt like a chore at a time. Except for the marvellous writing, there's nothing to highlight. And for the writing and the writing only, this book gets the rating it gets.

Page 300, made up predestined destiny.
 
I have often noticed that we are inclined to endow our friends with the stability of type that literary characters acquire in the reader’s mind. No matter how many times we reopen “King Lear,” never shall we find the good king banging his tankard in high revelry, all woes forgotten, at a jolly reunion with all three daughters and their lapdogs. Never will Emma rally, revived by the sympathetic salts in Flaubert’s father’s timely tear. Whatever evolution this or that popular character has gone through between the book covers, his fate is fixed in our minds, and, similarly, we expect our friends to follow this or that logical and conventional pattern we have fixed for them. Thus X will never compose the immortal music that would clash with the second-rate symphonies he has accustomed us to. Y will never commit murder. Under no circumstances can Z ever betray us. We have it all arranged in our minds, and the less often we see a particular person the more satisfying it is to check how obediently he conforms to our notion of him every time we hear of him. Any deviation in the fates we have ordained would strike us as not only anomalous but unethical. We would prefer not to have known at all our neighbour, the retired hot-dog stand operator, if it turns out he has just produced the greatest book of poetry his age has seen.
 

The end of the book was one of the better parts. I did enjoy it.

Overall, I'm glad I read the book. The writing is amazing despite the story being unappealing to me. 
Expand filter menu Content Warnings