Post for 9/24/13

There are several constantly shifting items in Lolita. Furthermore, frequency of their variation accellerates as the novel goes on. The first of these, is the way Nabokov breaks the fourth wall. Most frequently, Humbert Humbert calls the reader the "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury," which leads us to believe that the book is either a sort of legal invocation of the judgers. But then, this isn't the only way he refers to the reader. Sometimes he refers to the reader as "the reader" or "my dear readers", which has its own implications. He knows, or at least feels, that this work is going to be read. And he plays the game of the writer self consciously. This is really interesting, perhaps because the terms Humbert Humbert has used to address the reader thus far, this is the only one that in itself comments on the artificiality of fiction. The final one of these I can think of is when Humbert Humbert calls the readere "folks." It's massively out of character. there are two instances. Both on page 87. The first: "But d'ye know, folks--I just could not make myself do it!" The second: "And folks, I just couldn't!" This is totally fascinating. At once, we are faced with a completely overt moment. The moment is so deeply performative, it seems like it would be on a television show. This isn't just an acknowledgement of the reader. This is way more complicated. Because if it's true that this invocation is a performative one, (it seems like a very plausible thesis to me) then we must consider the performativity of the whole piece. Nabokov does this a lot. And this is part of his mastery. He introduces an single, speck of a different idea that forces us to re-evaluate the "normality." Nabokov, then drops very, very, very many of these absolutely minuscule references, that force us to think, "If this is a part of the playing field, I need to re-map my conceptions of the story, and the narrator based on this new information. And this information, in particular, shows Humbert Humbert as a showman. Not only does that completely invalidate all this idea of him being a subtle, quiet, gentlemanly figure, but it also makes us think about our own stake in the story. Are we primarily here (in the story) as readers? As audience members, waiting to be entertained? As people here to judge the morality or immorality of Nabokov and Humbert Humbert? Is Humbert Humbert telling his story to be heard out, or is he doing it to put on a show? If he's doing it to put on a show, what does that say about his truthfulness? Does he value truth over showmanship? The best storytellers often disregard truth. What is Humbert Humbert's place in all of this? What is our place in this? Do we believe him? Sure, he has an absolutely unforgivable desire to rape a twelve year old, but does that mean he would lie to us? The reason for him telling the story is integral to how we are to interpret his actions, and the things he says. What are we to do with all this massive uncertainty?

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH