Gianni Zucchet
18 November 2021
Nabokov’s Lolita: Fictionalized Reality
The “based on a true story” disclaimer we so often see in horror movies brings out a sense of despair to our rationalizing minds, no longer can we say: “Ok. This is terrifying. Thank god it’s fake”, rather, we are forced to accept some unknown part of the work as reality. This is the case with Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, where we see some metaphysical elements that blur the line between real and fake, going as far as referencing the all-too-real kidnapping of Sally Horner which mirrored the novel. That being said, the tale of Dolores Haze is one Susan Sontag would certainly appreciate, as it leaves little to no room for interpretation; it is a work that lays all its cards on the table, and perhaps this is what made it so controversial, since we were no longer able to, “make[s] art manageable, conformable.” (Sontag, s. 5) through over-interpretation.
Certainly, a work in which the protagonist is a paedophilic, and perhaps mad, character, Humbert Humbert - if his name isn’t enough of a red flag- is bound to hit you in a place you’ve never been hit before. Sontag however, would argue that this is exactly what art ought to do, it should be impactful, make you consider new ideas, and perhaps even bring awareness to an unsung phenomenon in society. The most terrifying aspect of the book is that by its conclusion, some readers may feel sympathetic to Mr. Humbert, because his story is an intricate one. In fact, the novel does not declare him the worst person in the world, but rather, through Humbert’s mental dialogue, we see an exertion of justification, planning, and over-thinking, to make sure his treacherous desire will cause the least possible harm to his victim.
The novel is as rich as it gets with form, allowed in part by Humbert’s background as a French literature professor, and Nabokov’s wealth of knowledge in French. As I was translating colloquial French in the novel -upsetting myself for not taking French in high school- I was pleasantly surprised by their meaning, as it added a niche poetic quality to the work. This is perhaps the only manner of over-interpretation I allowed myself while reading, staying true to Sontag’s essay, and I do think she would be okay with this manner of interpretation. Moreover, Nabokov is one of those great genius writers that can effortlessly blur the line between prose and poesy, one line is precisely what it is, and the next is poetic and thoughtful, there is a good blend of dialogue, followed by action, even inaction to emphasize moments of uncertainty. This argument that Sontag makes on the idea of Transparence: “Transparence is the highest, most liberating value in art-and in criticism today. Transparence means experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are.” (Sontag, s. 9) might be an issue in this novel. I’m recalling the scene in which Humbert and Dolores have a sexual encounter, where Humbert expresses he will not share this in detail (thank god), this scene is where the line for Transparence should be drawn; if it is far too obscene, and illegal, we should not invoke her argument.
On the other hand, what makes Lolita, and other fictions stand out from the rest, is actually a few key fundamental qualities. These qualities allow us firstly, to become a part of the novel, as the invisible man in the room watching everything develop, and secondly, to become uniquely attached to the development of said characters. A good novel is one that grips you to flip the page, and more importantly one that makes you pick the book back up after a day in the real world. If it is a novel well-done, then we begin to develop an ethical responsibility to see the work to its end, and follow the characters -invisibly- to their conclusion, as we are surprised, horrified, and disappointed at how they develop. The first quality necessary which allows this to happen is a protagonist with a backstory that haunts their present, waiting to be resolved. Humbert’s pedophilia is rooted back to his own childhood, specifically the way he was prohibited privacy with the girl he loved, who was coincidentally around the same age as Dolores. Thus, we need not wonder what caused him to develop his horrific tendencies around the so-called “nymphets”, since it is spelled out for us with his childhood. The issue of modern art is that we are given crumbs, and are then forced to make bread out of it, while good works used to give us the whole bread and a glass of wine to go along with it. Secondly, Dolores, or any character that is in a perilous or difficult situation, speaks to a psychological and moral faculty that we all possess. When a character is presented in a dire situation, and the author (or creator) has done a good job of making us the invisible man in their midst, we have determinedly hope that they may be rescued or escape from said situation; because although they do not physically exist, we exist as metaphysical beings inside the novel.
Works Cited
Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Lolita. Vintage International, 1997.
Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation. 1964.