Reddit reviews Lolita
We found 20 Reddit comments about Lolita. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Great product!
Reddit reviews LolitaWe found 20 Reddit comments about Lolita. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Side note: If, like myself, you don't know any French, you might find yourself looking up phrases quite frequently.
Read Lolita. (really...it is an awesome book)
So a 4.3 rating on Amazon out of 886 reviews, are all from predators and child rapists? The classic movie adaptation of the book has a 4 star rating on IMDB out of 58,424 votes and a 95% rating by critics on Rotten Tomatoes. All predators and child rapists?
Well, my favorites are
The Moviegoer
The Road
A Confederacy of Dunces
Rendezvous with Rama
Watchmen
Snow Crash
Slaughterhouse-Five
Cat's Cradle
The Big Sleep
The Maltese Falcon
American Gods
A Clockwork Orange
Preacher
Fahrenheit 451
1984
Akira
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Lolita
Love in the Time of Cholera
Naked Lunch
Animal Farm
The Sandman
At the Mountains of Madness
The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Tales
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Brave New World
We
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
Damn... As a writer myself, I really wish that guy had plead not guilty and fought for a precedent.
Because even classic literature can be CP
Is it legal? Yes.
Will Amazon allow it? I guess it depends on the specifics. I mean, http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0679723161 is really popular.
If I'm not mistaken, Lolita was written in English and translated into Russian so you should be fine with any copy - I read this one. In terms of difficulty level, it pales in comparison to anything Tolstoy. For me it was easy to absorb, but I took it slowly only because the prose is so gorgeous you don't want to miss a word. If you're not like me going, "Damn, I need to experience that paragraph again," you'll probably get through it fairly quickly.
The authority on this subject is none other than a Mr. Humbert. You can read his memoir here: http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0679723161
On my summer reading list, I have:
I'm currently half way through The Conquest of the Incas. If anyone has interest in the Spanish invasion of Mesoamerica, I highly recommend it. It's a very vivid account of the political games Pizarro and his generals played to take over the Inca empire and solidify their grip in the New World.
It's the 50th Anniversary edition.
I've got the perfect book to cheer up your friend.
Eh men already have porn... and men actually do read erotica also, probably less than men who just watch porn but it's not like men never read it. For the most part people accept porn I don't think anyone would totally flip out if a book existed that men enjoyed that was very popular and about sex. I mean... Books like Lolita exist and while they are a bit controversial they are not considered outrageous by "women" or men.
I would say anything by Vladimir Nabokov. He writes some of the most beautiful prose I've ever read. He's best known for his book, Lolita. I would suggest that.
http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0679723161
Ew. Ew ew ew.
Well, we know what he's been reading. Too bad this book is NOT dating advice.
I think it was a book turned into two : movies
>Slavery and cannabis use are perfectly relevant examples.
They are relevant regarding laws, in the same way my marriage law example was. They are irrelevant in that they have nothing to do with coercive sex (except certain types of slavery) among children, unlike my marriage example. Is that because any comparable analogy would support me? Lessee.... What about how it is wrong to get someone drunk and rape them, but the laws didn't reflect that until recently. Better than the slavery analogy because it involves coercive sexual activity. But, then, it's wrong because the drunk person can't say yes.
Wonder what my old college textbook says about statutory rape (oh, yeah, forgot to mention, a degree in psychology with focus on personality disorders, human sexuality and child development)
╮( ˘ ､ ˘ )╭
>"Unlike other forms of rape, overt force or threat of force is not required, because individuals below a certain age are not considered capable of voluntarily giving their consent. In the United States, the age of consent ranges from 14 to age 18. These laws once applied only to girls as victims, but today they are applied to male and female victims."
Ref. available on request; I hate typing out bibliographies.
>Slavery is wrong. The fact that it has been legal across time and place for the majority of human history doesn't change that.
No, but for the majority of slavery's legality, it was considered moral. Once enough people realized that it was harmful and destructive, society fought to change it.
>Conversely, the use of psychoactive substances in a way that doesn't infringe on others is an ethical act. The fact that numerous laws prohibit this conduct in many places doesn't make it less so. It simply makes those laws unjust.
And these are "blue laws," laws put into place exclusively to police morality. (Excluding laws regarding drugs and infringement on others). These are laws like no buying liquor during certain hours, no public nudity, etc. blue laws are a completely different family of laws and are a pretty unique family. One could argue any blue law is unjust. But, then, laws constantly change based on morality. Morality is not a universal, standard thing. There is no universal morality. Morals are based on the culture they live in. They are tied to laws because we have a hard time distinguishing between what is good and what is bad. Our laws aren't perfect. They have to constantly evolve, and will never stop evolving.
>Interestingly, as with your pet cause, "science" has been used to justify and perpetuate the unethical laws that permitted slavery and prohibited the use of drugs (including alcohol).
Yeah, of course it has. It has also been used to argue eugenics, force sterilize "undesirables," and perform horrid experiments on people (not breaking Godwin's law, still talking US history). Science has also been used to discover insulin, make childbirth not the leading cause of death in women, travel to the moon, and comprehend what child abuse is and the detrimental physical, emotional, and mental effects it has on its victims. So, yeah, science is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
>Then you say
>Not only do I absolutely believe that laws that are allowed to be dynamic are a valid reflection of a societies' mores
>But that's inconsistent with your earlier argument. You told another commenter in the original thread that you would be OK with what happened **if it were legal*.
Nope. Never said that. You may be referring to where I said (added emphasis for clarity, since you didn't seem to get it the first time):
>Yeah, it's a small age gap, but it's also (if sexual) illegal in most places. If it wasn't illegal, I wouldn't be so up in arms. A 13 year old girl can legally be forced to marry by her parents in New Hampshire; it's legal so while I may not like it personally, nothing can be done. It's legal. My issue here is that, depending on the state, this is potentially illegal.
I said in the case of something being legal, even if I disagree with it, or feel it is immoral, my hands would be tied to take action. Would you like to explain to me how you got "if it was illegal, I'd be Ok with what happened" out of that? If you are going to misquote me and put words in my mouth, try not to be so obvious about it.
>You also seem very upset that I won't take the time to go rebutting all of your flawed analysis point by point. Please don't misunderstand. My unwillingness isn't because you're right about any of this - it's because your Chewbacca argumentation strategy is exhausting and not worth that type of time investment. If I thought you were interested in a rational, productive discussion about this, I would feel very differently, and would be much more inclined to spend time digging through ProQuest for you.
No, my offense is that you are not backing up your opinions, are putting words in my mouth, flip-flopping, and cherry picking the questions I presented to answer you, ignoring the ones where you would look bad if you answered them truthfully. While I am attempting a serious discussion where I point out fallacies in your arguments and give you the opportunity to defend your views more rigorously.
>Due to significant recent strides made by social progressives, we are seeing an onslaught of reactionary belief and behavior from various places along the political spectrum.
So now you are agreeing that the laws are being changed? Make up your mind. You bounce back and forth so much I'm getting whiplash.
>New laws that seek to divest adolescents of their bodily autonomy and agency as at least as much a reflection of that as it is a reflection of any advancement of An inflexible chronological age standard is a patently illogical way to determine an individual's* capacity to consent to sexual activity.
So we shouldn't have any age distinctions? Are you ok with a 13 year old having sex with a 40 year old, in any* situation? Of all the pertinent questions you have ignored, please answer this one. Because, if so, I know a book you may enjoy. If your answer is, "don't be silly, that's wrong!" Then I will ask a second part, where does the line go? Where do we determine a relationship needs to be investigated for potential abuse? A 5 year old and a 13 year old? A 13 year old and a 20 year old?
> if I wrote a book about a sexy 12 year old no one is gonna let me put it in their library
https://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0679723161 fairly certain you can find that in some libraries.
Good one, Sherlock.
Peruse Strange Interlude by Eugene O' Neill and Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. Hearken to the refrains of Ava Maria, crooned by the castrato Alessandro Moreschi. Accede to your turpitude, if you are a man of that strain. Wassail, consume, slumber and procure without a cumber. Acquire courtesans, scarlet women and cocottes so that you may know them. Bring your concupiscence to fruition. Deport yourself dolorously and fitfully, if you are predisposed to do so. Peradventure you may orchestrate. At the zenith of your sentience, execute self-murder to elude tribulations.
http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/0679723161
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Interlude-Eugene-ONeill/dp/B00005XP6R/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426449020&sr=1-2&keywords=strange+interlude+by+eugene+o%27neill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjvfqnD0ws
> Self-publishing has no gatekeeping process.
Is your argument that anything is better than nothing? If so, we'll have to agree to disagree.
> Amazon does a little "after-the-fact" gatekeeping, i.e. they have pulled self-published how-to manuals on rape and pedophilia
Nope, still there.
> On the other hand, like with the Internet, the lack of gatekeeping in self-publishing supports an open and unfettered exchange of ideas, whether those ideas are just bad quality writing or are actually bad ideas
I'm not sure if you are saying there are no bad ideas among traditionally published books, or just fewer.
The fact that traditional publishing occasionally upholds the prejudices of traditional publishers is not a recommendation.
> a publisher places a number of safe bets that will have high returns (Stephen King, James Patterson, Nora Roberts, Sue Grafton) to be able to afford to take greater chances on publishing works that they know will only attract a smaller (but perhaps more dedicated) audience, or for taking chances on new writers, etc.
That's the mechanism they talk about, as if it were some sort of recommendation. "We use our marketing muscle to foist the same old thing on most readers -- and use the money to push books we personally like on other readers! And we do it for only 70% of the proceeds! We're practically saints."