Lolita: Literature’s Most Egregious DepaRture from purpose

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins.” (Nabokov, Lolita, 9). 

Few opening lines in literature are so hauntingly iconic. The character of Lolita is a twelve-year-old girl who is manipulated and raped by a man who is, briefly, her stepfather. Following her mother's death, her new father kidnapps her and whisks her away on a journey across America. Lolita escapes and later dies in childbirth at seventeen. Vladimir Nabokov’s creation of this narrative has become a highly controversial topic of debate amongst scholars who attempt to grapple with the nature of the story. Lolita, though, was not written to be the center of contentious discussion. Lolita's effect on the general populace directly counters Nabokov’s vision. This essay is an exploration of that vision, an analysis of how and why society has strayed from it, and an appeal to appreciate the written word. 

The “Lolita Aesthetic”: Its Creation and Its Myriad of Faults

Recognizing the contemporary audience’s perception of Lolita is crucial if a productive breakdown of the novel is to occur. The content presented by Lolita is shocking, and it often forces the modern reader to be on edge. Allowing the subject matter to consume all thought related to the novel does nothing more than anger the reader and completely detract from its artistic merit. The last 20 years have brought forth a surge in discussion related to moral issues. Gaining awareness of societal and personal flaws is wonderful, but not when someone becomes incapable of placing abhorrent actions on the back burner. 

The romanticization of self-destructive and abusive behavior has become almost synonymous with the novel. Lolita’s growing presence on Tumblr was accompanied by a rise in images of razor blades, romanticized screenshots from the movie with troubling song lyrics, and quotes from the book with fetishizing images. Tumblr’s romanticization of the 1997 film is particularly alarming, as the unreliable narration and inner thoughts of Humbert Humbert are not adequately translated into film. Instead, the movie is characterized as a “story of love”, and it paints a rather glorified picture of the events in the novel (HD Retro Trailers). 

To make matters worse, TikTok has brought forth a resurgence of the “coquette” aesthetic. This look emphasizes hyper-feminine pieces that give the illusion of girlhood and is achieved through pink ribbons in the hair, short dresses, patterns with delicate pink flowers on white backgrounds, heart-shaped sunglasses, and otherwise super-femme accessories. The aesthetic itself is not problematic if separated from its source material. The issue lies in social media’s (and the general public’s) willingness to romanticize the events in the novel for aesthetics. 

The mindset perpetuated by the “Lolita aesthetic” is not one that we should be sharing with others, and it is harmful for two reasons. It teaches young individuals that abuse, grooming, and pedophilia are “cute”, and it also completely detracts from the novel itself. Literature is consumed so that the reader can gain experience without actually having to live the event themselves. “Becoming Lolita” not only defeats the purpose of the book, but it renders the “why” of reading useless. So, while tying pink bows at the end of braids may be a nice addition to an outfit, doing so is only “cute” when it is purely aesthetic and not rooted in the romanticization of Lolita. 

Lolita, Author’s Purpose, and “Aesthetic Bliss”

Noting Lolita’s characterization as a work of artistry rather than a deep exploration of a particular theme or moral is essential to understanding the novel. Nabokov himself viewed the purpose of the work as pure “aesthetic bliss”, and condemned any reader who projected their sense of morality upon the novel (Lo., 315). He furthered this distinction from morality by the belief that he was “neither a reader nor writer of didactic fiction” (Lo., 314). Acknowledging that the subject matter contained in the pages of Lolita is highly controversial is important. Even so, “Lolita has no moral in tow” (Lo., 315).  Humbert Humbert, the man who engages in predatory behavior, has a beautiful moment of awareness towards the end of the story where he realizes that he is responsible for the miserable events of Lolita’s life. But, the moral implications that come from the novel stem not from the explicit (or implied) language in the book itself, but from the societies that the readers exist in. Like Chekhov, Nabokov is careful not to direct the reader down a funnel that results in the “correct” view of the story’s events. Of course, the modern reader will find it nearly impossible to view Lolita in a way that paints Humbert’s decisions in a positive light. But, that is a result of our societal milieu, not Nabokov’s.

Our view that the actions of Humbert are “vile” is derived from contemporary conceptualizations of consent and our perspective on childhood innocence. Thus, it is crucial to read the novel with the author’s purpose in mind - aesthetics. In his essay “Good Readers and Good Writers”, Nabokov argues (in a more elegant fashion) that entering a novel with preconceived notions about its contents or ideas is a crime. A reader must enter a work devoid of expectation. With Lolita in particular, Nabokov asks that readers leave their moral compass and emotional attachments at the door to view its characters through the artistic lens which he intended for them to be perceived. We as humans feel before we think. Nabokov urges the reader to intellectualize before succumbing to emotion. Lolita is not a journey through morality, and the reader's acceptance of this fact and their separation of the novel from their moral compass is the only way that it can be appreciated as it is intended to be. The actions of the personalities in Lolita don’t have any meaning: they are purely pieces of a much larger puzzle. 

As appreciators of literature, we so often get trapped trying to understand what a novel is trying to tell us rather than what it is saying. Literature is consumed in conjunction with the search for meaning, and the prose style is too often disregarded. The art of writing is dying, and Nabokov argued that this is a result of the “topical trash” that tries to preach a particular point (Lo., 315). Nabokov’s attitude that artistry holds greater weight than morality is supplemented by “Humbert’s [placement] of aesthetics over ethics” (Goddard 7). Humbert’s style of narration is especially eloquent, and it is clear that he took great care to contrive an erotically sensuous experience for his readers. Humbert often contradicts himself, aiding Nabokov’s quest to “resist deterministic categorization of individual motifs” (Goddard 11). Humbert is a hypocrite and it is extremely difficult to follow his logic through to conclusion. But, his unreliable narration is merely a tool to disengage his audience. If the reader is unable to obtain a grasp on his perspective, they will be incapable of satisfying their need to categorize. This defiance of traditional narration is intentional, and it is an attempt to force the reader to submit to Nabokov’s viewpoint.

After all, departing so violently from the "norm" leaves little ground to fall back on. He engages in detestable acts right before showing care and concern for her. He plays at being a loving father without actually committing to the act. Taken literally, the novel is Humberts’ attempt to explain his actions in a way that gains the audience’s sympathy. Through his eyes, Lolita serves as a lesson in understanding. More than anything, the pity that Humbert creates for himself proves just how powerful the written word can be in suspending belief. 

Humbert’s story is an extreme appeal to the darker side of humanity. It attracts the wicked desire to get away with a heinous act, it preys on the fact that the evildoer is the sole narrator, and it tempts aspirations of freedom from societal expectations. The contemptible acts outlined in Lolita are overzealous exaggerations of the more common wish to escape the confines of social morality. The ability to do something “bad” and not get caught is universally tempting. The thing is, though, most people have enough self-control not to engage that desire. Why is that? Well, morality is just a social construct. And while this particular societal concoction is usually useful, it can come off as quite constrictive. Typically, that social confinement is applied to things like marital infidelity or gender roles. It is not always as extreme as Humbert makes it out to be, and the decisions that Humbert makes in Lolita are absolutely not reasonable deviations from social norms. His actions are inexcusable and worthy causes for the punishment that Humbert would have received had he not died before his trial. But, that is not the point. 

Concluding Thoughts

If these claims were applied as a means to understand Lolita, they would be no better than the Freudian take on the novel sometimes employed by critics. Alternatively, I argue that the thought experiment provided by Humbert’s character relates not to the novel itself but to its audience. With the novel’s purpose in mind, Lolita gains the ability to provide insight into the audience’s ability to truly read. Earlier I mentioned how the romanticization of Lolita’s character is harmful because it defeats the goal of reading. That claim is true in more ways than one. On the surface level, inserting oneself into the story circumvents the specific purpose outlined by the author. The feelings that are evoked by the novel should be less of a targeted reaction to the events themselves and more of a response to the way that they are described. Humbert shares the “tender dreamy childness and a kind of eerie vulgarity” that he sees in Lolita with such a nonchalant attitude (Lo., 44). Those are simply the facts of his reality, and it is up to the reader to discern whether or not that reality is worth a second thought. Ultimately, “reality is a subjective affair” (Nabokov, Strong Opinions, 10). Through this point of view, Humbert constructs a falsified realness through the written word that starkly contrasts society's view of it. Humbert’s web of lies proves Nabokov’s point that a solid foothold in “reality” is not as strong of a basis for understanding as one might think.

The reader has to be willing to engage with him, an act which requires the abandonment of the obvious disgust that his actions produce. The outright vileness of his character is a manipulative tactic to achieve Nabokov’s greater vision: absorption of the text free from assumption. The dissociation of morality that Nabokov yearns for is not achieved by every reader, as doing so requires the conscious decision to humor Humbert. Thus, the reader discovers not only their capacity for understanding others but also their ability to remove themselves from the contents of a work to focus on its literary merit. Everyone needs a lesson in disassociation, as much as it may hurt to hear. Reading with the mission to gain an understanding of something is inherently human, but consuming literature to strictly comprehend an idea and not just to enjoy the written word is partially responsible for the decline of the industry. Escapism takes forms other than entrapment in a new world. For some people, there is no better way to avoid the harshness of daily life than by becoming enveloped in a web of language. That is why Nabokov wrote Lolita. Reducing the novel to its contents is cheating the level of thought that Nabokov lovingly infused into Lolita.

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita has become synonymous with the fetishization of young women. But, if Nabokov were alive today, he would harshly denounce this behavior. Lolita is an attempt at creating art and a lesson in understanding. Today’s society too often pushes for the marriage of artistry and morality. That union is not fair to the linguists who seek for language to be a force capable of portraying an entire narrative on its own. The language of Humbert Humbert, while troubling, is a perfect example of this. Modern readers will have to segregate society’s perception of the story from the novel itself, making Lolita an excellent exercise in reading to read and not to gain a newfound purpose in life. 

Works Cited

Goddard, Jessica Joan. “Realizing and Imagining ‘Aesthetic Bliss’ in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita and Pale Fire.” Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5070/b3232007687. 

HD Retro Trailers. “Lolita (1997) Original Trailer [FHD].” YouTube, 1 Apr. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro4ty8zWcko.

Nabokov, Vladimir. “Good Readers And Good Writers”. Cornell UP, 1948.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. Vintage Classics, 1989.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Strong Opinions. Vintage Classics, 1990.

Roth, Phyllis A. “In Search of Aesthetic Bliss: A Rereading of ‘Lolita.’” College Literature, vol. 2, no. 1, 1975, pp. 28–49. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111056. Accessed 25 Oct. 2023.