Reviews with content warning for Misogyny - Lolita

Reviews tagging 'Misogyny'

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

70 reviews

stindex's review against another edition

Go to review page

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

2.5

Content Warnings

sombies's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark tense

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

5.0

nabokov was crazyyy for this one. its wild how laser targeted his read is of the kind of joyless motherfuckers who fantasize about having complete control over little girls to avoid taking control of their own lives. ive known a humbert humbert and it's likely you know one too

Content Warnings

bycath's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark informative mysterious sad tense 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

4.5

Content Warnings

ketreads's review against another edition

Go to review page

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

jedore's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional tense slow-paced

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

3.75

“You know, what’s so dreadful about dying is that you are completely on your own.”

Lolita is the story of obsession and pedophilia that was as revolting as I had expected. At best, it was uncomfortable to be inside the mind of a narcissistic pedophile…at worst, utterly disgusting.

Character development was limited to the highly unlikeable pedophile, Humbert Humbert, but was absolutely masterful. In fact, Humbert WAS the story as there was very little action. (It would be fascinating to read a book from Delores’/Lolita’s perspective.)

To add to my negative feelings about Humbert, I found his pompous vocabulary and frequent use of un-translated French irritating. It also created emotional distance between me and this book.

This was one of those books I read purely out of curiosity and a desire to be better educated. Over the years, it has been regularly referenced in books, movies, and even song lyrics and I was missing out on meanings. Now I get it. I am glad I read it…all knowledge is power, but I won’t miss Humbert one bit.

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

schneehutte's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark sad tense 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

3.0

Well well well... after starting this book almost 6 months ago, I can only say that I am happy that I finished this before my birthday. I remember being excited about this book after seeing it in an episode of "Pretty Little Liars", and when I finally got it during Christmas, I thought this "thin book" was what was going to save me from a really long reading slump. A good literary kick, so to say. But boy, was I wrong!

Now, let me start by saying that this review of 3 stars is not because, as I am sure many people say, this book is disgusting, with a disgusting main character and theme. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely adore the controversial and taboo exploration. And of course, Lolita has all that: it is famous for that. For those who don't know: the main character, Humbert Humbert, is a pedophile that, after the loss of his childhood lover, seeks in young girls the characteristics of his past lover (girls aged 7 to 12, which he calls "nymphets") - until he meets Lolita, a 12-year-old American girl. And he decides that he would do anything to keep his control over her, and does atrocious things to this child and her mother, to keep Lolita in his cycle of abuse.

Now, after finishing the book, I have seen many critiques and analyses that claim that this book is a perfect example of an unreliable narrator. This is of course true. Humbert claims that Lolita, at one point, seduced him - that is of course not true. Lolita had no way of "seducing" him, as she doesn't truly know what "seduction" really is. But Humbert Humbert never "grew" on me the way that many readers describe he does: he is supposed to be this charming, handsome, intelligent man - but looking at the horrible crimes he commits page by page, it is really hard to look beyond the monster he is. I think Nabokov intended for the audience to (and I emphasize!) GUILTY sympathize with the main character as he shows part of his personality. I didn't feel this way at all and was honestly disturbed by everything he did, even if it is for Lolita's sake (in his vision, at least).

Now, why did I give this book 3 stars? After all, it is a complex book with complex themes, an interesting character, and a reflective piece of literary work - my style. So why?

Well, ironically, it is because of the writing - which I know is people's favorite part of this book. Nabokov can write beautifully. Too beautifully.

I had, every 2 pages, to search for a new word or straight up read a summary of what had just happened because the language was so difficult. The wording is poetic but confusing, the narrative was well-written but slow, and some chapters felt like torture. I will admit, English is not my first language (and neither is Nabokov's!), but one thing this book showed me is that I don't know English at all. The pacing being so slow didn't help either. The story dragged on and on, with descriptive paragraphs occupying pages and pages. It was so hard to concentrate while reading this story, that every time I picked up the book I just felt very unmotivated to finish - and with the pacing the way it was, I knew it might take a while for something impactful to happen in the story. And, as much as I know that it is a part of Humbert's character to write so "prose-ish" and "literary-ish", I just couldn't take it for very long. If anything, it made me even more annoyed at him, as I felt he was stalling the story to hide his atrocious crimes.

I guess the only way of knowing the true amount of stars I would give this book is to read it in Portuguese, my mother tongue. Because otherwise, I don't think I am re-reading this anytime soon, and it left my reading slump worse than ever. Sorry Nabokov, I think you are too good for me!

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

Content Warnings

getlostdave's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark funny medium-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

5.0

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...