Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov: a review

I never really intended to read this book, but I saw it at the library and decided to delve into this truly controversial book. I knew it wouldn’t be an easy read, but I wanted to try to understand it.

CW: paedophilia, child grooming, child abuse, sexual assault, rape

Now, other than knowing that this is about a paedophile, I actually didn’t really know anything else about it. I had heard of the two adaptations from the 1960s and 1990s. From what I knew, the idea of Humbert Humbert, the lead character, being justified in his abhorrent actions comes from Hollywood. Where else is a twelve-year-old made desirable, and a nonce made into a hero?

            Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov follows Humbert Humbert, a Frenchman who has a predilection for young girls that he deems to be “nymphets”. He meets such a girl in Dolores Haze, and what follows is a series of disturbing events that Humbert attempts to justify in his own twisted way. It’s a first-person character study that shows that one side of the story is never enough.

            Okay, so, in the foreword, Nabokov claims that he has ‘no intention to glorify “H.H.”’. Intention is always important, and I wanted to bear this in mind as I went through. Humbert is the only person to glorify his actions, and if you do keep in mind that he is one of the most unreliable narrators you’ve ever seen, you’ll see that Nabokov’s intentions were heeded.

            I was immediately uncomfortable, and as soon as I read “nymphets” for the first time, I felt it in my bones that I’d have to read it over and over again. I was right, but I wish I weren’t. Also, the way he commits some of his early crimes in children’s homes really reminded me of Jimmy Saville, so that was a whole new level of discomfort.

            My early impression was that, by the end, I’d feel much the same way about Lolita as I did about American Psycho. It’s well written, and the character work is great (from a writing point, not morally) because I simply cannot stand the lead and only wanted to read more to see if they’re brought to justice. I think my early impression was about right; reading this book was just repeating the phrase ‘I hate it here’ over and over again because, yeah, this is a really good character study of someone who is seriously deplorable. Oh, and he’s also a racist because why wouldn’t he be?

            As someone with a real blindness for names, Lolita being referred to by a series of different names (Lolita, Dolores, Lo, Lola, Dolly) was genuinely confusing to me at times. Yes, I am aware that I should have got used to it by the end, but I never did. Just stick to one or two names. There’s no need to keep adding more for just one character.

            While this book is a good character study, the plot itself isn’t really all that memorable. Don’t get me wrong, there are specific plot points that won’t ever leave me, but most of it is kind of dull. It’s almost impressive to be able to write a book on such an awful topic and manage to make it a little bit boring. Throughout my only two real emotions were discomfort or boredom. I didn’t really know the actual plot going in, and I can certainly say it isn’t going to be what sticks with me. I’ll remember Humbert and his actions more than the overall plot itself.

            I really don’t understand how people have read this book and sided with Humbert. Lolita’s young age (she’s twelve when we first meet her, and I believe she’s seventeen by the end) is frequently called to attention. It should be clear, if you have any sort of decency, that Humbert is a dirty little man who prays upon an innocent young girl. He is an abuser and should never be turned into a hero.

            Well, this is certainly a book that I’ve read now. I’m glad I have, to be honest. I judged it due to adaptations when I should have been judging it for managing to be both boring and shocking at the same time. Look, I’m never going to read this again, and I can’t honestly sit here and recommend this to you. However, if you are curious, then go ahead. You might even enjoy the storytelling in a way that I didn’t. Please take this away from my review if nothing else: Humbert Humbert is a groomer, a nonce, and a truly rancid little man. Whoever it was in Hollywood that first thought that they should make this man a hero can only be described as a rancid little man. Actually, I should look it up because I’m almost certain that it was a huge director. I mean like a Hitchcock level direc— KUBRICK! It was fucking Stanley Kubrick. Who else would it bloody be?