What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lolita Complex
Through the use of case histories, professional opinions, court transcripts, interviews and police records, the author investigates the activities of real-life Lolitas and Humberts and offers insight into an important social problem. The book provides an abundance of case studies of such relationships in different parts of the country. These real life dramas demonstrate the prevalence of sexual experiences between young girls and older men, and the reasons for such relationships are carefully analyzed.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1966
2 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 26, 2025
This book, in the most layman's terms, is wild.
I came across it a bit ago, and the low ratings, scathing reviews and general discomfort surrounding it, made me initially think it fell somewhere between sexual propaganda and medical misinformation. Naturally, however, I was intrigued—especially given the publication date, 1966: 11 years after Nabokov’s novel, and 4 years after the Kubrick adaptation.
Trainer begins the book with more or less of a disclaimer how he’s simply presenting these stories as they were told by the victims and, occasionally, perpetrators. Mind you, he does not use those terms. The jargon he chooses to use in the book is, perhaps, the most off-putting, and I’ve been debating back and forth whether this is because he wanted the book to be more accessible to average readers, or if he genuinely just thought aligning the terms “Lolitas” (victim) and “Humberts” (predator) wasn’t distasteful. This is especially discerning when, more than once, the examination of prepubescent girls being “seductresses” is presented as being a logical phenomenon.
I genuinely could not tell whether Trainer understood (let alone, digested) Nabokov’s novel. Maybe he just thought the novel was a good springboard to discuss a very important subject. After all, it’s clear Trainer might have been attempting to educate the public; it’s just a matter of whether he did it successfully.
This book is mostly a collection of “cases” from the 60s. He examines teachers, fathers, stepfathers, serial pedophiles, murderers. These cases are sad, grotesque, and astonishing. One case in particular—the one involving Vallerie, Dave, and Dink—holds extraordinary levels of disbelief, and it’s a perfect example of how truth is stranger than fiction, because the details certainly seem more fit for a seedy spy drama (although, let’s not forget Nabokov was partially inspired by the real life case of Sally Horner). Vallerie’s cycle of abuse is so tragic that it’s a miracle she found herself (seemingly) able to eventually escape it. I can only hope this woman continued to live a happy, healthy life—if, of course, she even existed.
Shining light on cases like Vallerie’s is what would give merit to Trainer’s work—however, there’s probable speculation that this book is a sleazy invention parading as scholarly academia. Russell had no credentials in the field, and a mere glance of his other works tells you all you need to know. The book blurs the line between presenting cases unfiltered and, maybe, playing more toward a collection of erotic short stories. One could argue this is cleverly meta of Trainer, mirroring Nabokov’s brilliant, beautiful presentation of horror—but, is this giving Trainer too much credit? I’d say it is. I’m not necessarily convinced Trainer was that self-aware, or talented. If you disregard Trainer’s other published work, it is still hard to give leniency on his narrative decisions, even just through the lens of a supposed sexology book from the 1960s.
After all, the word “victim” is only used 6 times throughout the entire book: 2 times when casually detailing a male’s impotency, 1 time when denoting an adult woman drowning, and 3 times when directly referring to a violent rape of a girl that ended in murder. Every other reference to a young girl lists her as “a Lolita.” I think this alone could probably warrant the negativity I’ve seen toward this book, and that’s understandable and, frankly, justified. But, again—was Trainer doing this because he was *that* uneducated, or was using “easy” terminology preferable because he thought the audience might grapple it better? Were the terms we use now just so foreign and inconceivable in 1966 that the only solution was to substitute them with a more sensationalist angle?
In the end, this is a fascinating book that is very much of its time. I don’t have defenses for it, but I have appreciation for what it’s trying to do. I read this book in one sitting, in about 3 hours, and I couldn’t put it down. It was just outrageously, unbelievably compelling in all its ignorance and scandal. Vintage sleaze, that’s for sure.
I came across it a bit ago, and the low ratings, scathing reviews and general discomfort surrounding it, made me initially think it fell somewhere between sexual propaganda and medical misinformation. Naturally, however, I was intrigued—especially given the publication date, 1966: 11 years after Nabokov’s novel, and 4 years after the Kubrick adaptation.
Trainer begins the book with more or less of a disclaimer how he’s simply presenting these stories as they were told by the victims and, occasionally, perpetrators. Mind you, he does not use those terms. The jargon he chooses to use in the book is, perhaps, the most off-putting, and I’ve been debating back and forth whether this is because he wanted the book to be more accessible to average readers, or if he genuinely just thought aligning the terms “Lolitas” (victim) and “Humberts” (predator) wasn’t distasteful. This is especially discerning when, more than once, the examination of prepubescent girls being “seductresses” is presented as being a logical phenomenon.
I genuinely could not tell whether Trainer understood (let alone, digested) Nabokov’s novel. Maybe he just thought the novel was a good springboard to discuss a very important subject. After all, it’s clear Trainer might have been attempting to educate the public; it’s just a matter of whether he did it successfully.
This book is mostly a collection of “cases” from the 60s. He examines teachers, fathers, stepfathers, serial pedophiles, murderers. These cases are sad, grotesque, and astonishing. One case in particular—the one involving Vallerie, Dave, and Dink—holds extraordinary levels of disbelief, and it’s a perfect example of how truth is stranger than fiction, because the details certainly seem more fit for a seedy spy drama (although, let’s not forget Nabokov was partially inspired by the real life case of Sally Horner). Vallerie’s cycle of abuse is so tragic that it’s a miracle she found herself (seemingly) able to eventually escape it. I can only hope this woman continued to live a happy, healthy life—if, of course, she even existed.
Shining light on cases like Vallerie’s is what would give merit to Trainer’s work—however, there’s probable speculation that this book is a sleazy invention parading as scholarly academia. Russell had no credentials in the field, and a mere glance of his other works tells you all you need to know. The book blurs the line between presenting cases unfiltered and, maybe, playing more toward a collection of erotic short stories. One could argue this is cleverly meta of Trainer, mirroring Nabokov’s brilliant, beautiful presentation of horror—but, is this giving Trainer too much credit? I’d say it is. I’m not necessarily convinced Trainer was that self-aware, or talented. If you disregard Trainer’s other published work, it is still hard to give leniency on his narrative decisions, even just through the lens of a supposed sexology book from the 1960s.
After all, the word “victim” is only used 6 times throughout the entire book: 2 times when casually detailing a male’s impotency, 1 time when denoting an adult woman drowning, and 3 times when directly referring to a violent rape of a girl that ended in murder. Every other reference to a young girl lists her as “a Lolita.” I think this alone could probably warrant the negativity I’ve seen toward this book, and that’s understandable and, frankly, justified. But, again—was Trainer doing this because he was *that* uneducated, or was using “easy” terminology preferable because he thought the audience might grapple it better? Were the terms we use now just so foreign and inconceivable in 1966 that the only solution was to substitute them with a more sensationalist angle?
In the end, this is a fascinating book that is very much of its time. I don’t have defenses for it, but I have appreciation for what it’s trying to do. I read this book in one sitting, in about 3 hours, and I couldn’t put it down. It was just outrageously, unbelievably compelling in all its ignorance and scandal. Vintage sleaze, that’s for sure.
Displaying 1 of 1 review