Reviews with content warning for Racism - Lolita

Reviews tagging 'Racism'

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

42 reviews

ketreads's review against another edition

challenging

2.5

Lolita is a perfect example of an author setting out the task of getting an idea, a character, on paper and doing it most effectively.

Nabokov's purpose of writing the book, to capture a pedophiles point of view, was expertly done. Humbert in all ways encapsulates a being able to cause untold damage to an innocent. Humbert is undeniably a horrible, calous, and unrepentant villain. Reading the mental gymnastics this character went through to justify his actions was infuriating and it feels almost so over the top to be comedic. How can a character be so reflective and yet so blind to the irony of his own judgement.

I often found, especially in the 2nd half, the inner dialogue of Humbert very difficult to follow. I'm not sure if this was intentional, to show his mental decline, but I found myself unable to understand what a lot of sentences were saying. The ones I did, were very well written, almost poetic so it feels more intentional by the author than otherwise.

I'm also not sure whether to say I "liked" the book but I do think it achieved what I sought out of the book. Read at your own peril!

Content Warnings

racheltrow_'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

4.5

How dare he write such a fucked book in the most beautiful prose and it not even be his first language.

Content Warnings

shayh's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot

4.0

Content Warnings

lesbegays's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark slow-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

i have no idea how to rate this. it’s disturbing and disgusting and also so very human. i hated reading it but was also enthralled.
i always have been and always will be drawn to stories about atrocities committed in the name of love, about evil done to loved ones not in spite of that love but because of it, about love that is twisted and selfish and incomplete but still very much love, about people who only know how to give love in ways that won’t feel like love to those who receive it. i think this is essential reading for anyone drawn to those themes in stories who can stomach this particular type of evil.

Content Warnings

joaura's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.75

Did not finish. Stopped reading at 63%.

Reading this book was not only higly triggering and disturbing, but felt so pointless in trying to analyse it on a higher level.

I read a plot summary for the last third I had left and I'm glad I did that instead of pushing through the remaining pages of this novel.

I understand why it's a classic.
But!
I don't understand how it's described to be dangerously decieving the reader into sympathizing with Humbert.

~

I don't want to add anything to my initial review explaining why I didn't finish this novel, even though I managed to read the remaining pages after cooling down a bit.

This book was a tough read, expecially for me as a survivor myself.
Please be careful reading this piece of work if you've had experiences regarding child sexual abuse yourself.

Content Warnings

xahom'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? It's complicated

4.25

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.

Content Warnings

sorryiateyourbooks's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective sad medium-paced

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

3.0

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

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.

Content Warnings

More...