Lolita vs American Psycho 

First of all, I refuse to read either book. One because I get nauseous, the other because it deeply enrages me that it was published in the first place. But it's good to put them side to side and compare them. I'll speak from American Psycho reviews, and multiple analysis I've heard of Lolita. The rotten mind behind American Psycho enjoyed living the explicit descriptions of a woman's corpse, and Nabokov understood what he had to express with the story — that pedophiles must have some type of internal narration to excuse themselves. You can tell Nabokov despised Humbert (I mean, he even refused to give him a name) and perfectly reflected his abuse in how he absolutely destroyed Dolores' life. Yet American Psycho paints Bateman like a victim. What do you mean he seeks punishment? How does that even tie to the main theme of the artificial life he leads to impress everyone else? It is absolutely, deeply unrelated to what we see in the entire movie before he says that. It's never hinted at, or even subtly implied in some way.

The moment I found out what the book was actually like, my first thought was: the book is pointless but the director of the movie gave that putrid male an excuse and he's running with it.