lolita

            While reading Lolita I notice that the reader begins to wonder why Nabokov, I fairly prolific writer would write a 500 plus page novel on such a offensive subject matter.  It could be to some extent Nabokov wishing to allow readers a chance to understand, or even empathize with some of the worlds most despised individuals.  I could also be shearly for the sake of generating tension and controversy, a way for Nabokov to strike a match under his audience and critics, eliciting some degree of response, be it negative or positive.  I feel as though, that if not the primary motivation for writing such a novel, another possibility could at least be one of the most interesting outcomes of this piece of literature. 

This motivation, or outcome is the viewer’s involuntary necessity to acknowledge, and even analyze the presence of manipulation, not only in the character’s manipulation of each other, but also in the author, and the narrator’s manipulation of the viewer.  The best way to successfully force this acknowledgement is to build the most persuasive manipulation in the literature.  At the same time Nabokov is constantly, repeatedly hammering into the viewer’s consciousness the fact that they are being tricked, or persuaded.  He builds a very strong persuasion, but instead of hiding it, he showcases it.

            It could be arguably stated that there exists a potent concentration of manipulation in any decent piece of literature.  Reading books for the classics, to the contemporary fiction that arrives every day, most readers will never acknowledge the presence of the author or character’s manipulation.  This is not to say that such influences are slight by any means; the basic mechanism of any form of entertainment exists in suspending the viewer’s judgment momentarily, and accepting the words, pictures, or motions portrayed as both true and beautiful.  This is not a difficult thing to do reading a beautiful, or insightful novel, even one that contains viewpoints or perspectives not shared by the reader.  Almost all great novels will be remembered because they so successfully suspended their reader’s disbelief. 

            The most striking aspect of Lolita is that if forces the viewer to comprehend a sense of irony and the clash between the author, and his character’s manipulation, and the reader’s own sensibility and morals.  By taking a subject matter that is despised in our day, quite possibly one of our nations greatest fears (aside from terrorism) we are constantly behind forced to comprehend the author’s influences.  Had Nabokov chosen a less controversial subject, I feel the novel would have had significantly less impact as it wouldn’t have forced to clash within the reader.  Nabokov’s writing is eloquent and beautiful enough that I feel Nabokov feels a necessity to interject tension in the experience of interpreting his novels, for without such tension the prose would just go down too smoothly; we as the reader would accept his words and his stories with zero complaints and take it all at face value.

              To quote a passage from Lolita “Please, reader: no matter your exasperation with the tenderhearted, morbidly sensitive, infinitely circumspect hero of my book, do not skip these essential pages!  Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me; try to discern the doe in me, trembling in the forest of my own iniquity; let’s even smile a little.  After all, there is no harm in smiling.”

            These passages for me really bring to the forefront the subject at hand right now, manipulation, in both how it is used and it’s very presence in literature, unmasked in this case.  I have had many experiences with family, friends and lovers using their own vulnerabilities as leverage over me; therefore I am no stranger to the social convention that is the guilt trip.  It is partially due to my own experiences that I am extremely self-conscious of guilt tripping.  I found it very interesting therefore when I caught Humbert, the narrator of Lolita guilt tripping me in this passage, portraying himself as the vulnerable hero, who, if I so chose it, could be willed into nonexistence.  Humbert then proceeds to try to grasp power over the viewer by actually giving the viewer the permission to enjoy the novel.  The combination of what Nabokov and Humbert (I do consider there to be a strong distinction between the two entities), are saying, and how I accept their intentions leads to a strong dichotomy between what we as the viewer believes, and what we will refuse to accept.