Previously, I have discussed the complicated history with Vladimir Nabokov’s satire Lolita-or rather, the debate over whether it is a satire or not. Building of my prior blog post, today we will look at what exactly it is that Nabokov is satirizing.

Although there is the obvious topic of the over-sexualization of young girls in society, Nabokov also satirizes revisionist history. Specifically, Nabokov touches upon how dangerous it can be to rewrite history in favor of an individual (or group if applied to the larger world). Since Humbert is the narrator of his own story, there is little to no way to tell if what he expresses is what actually occurred. As I mentioned before, Humbert is an unreliable narrator as he does appear to gloss over many events that would otherwise be viewed very differently if not illustrated through his point of view. By allowing Humbert a center stage to share his romanticized view of his time spent with Dolores and air his dark humor about their adventures, Nabokov allows Humbert to rewrite his own history. Humbert is able to change the way he looks to his audience by downplaying Dolores’ anger through understatement and humor. 

As Karen P.L Hardison, a college professor and writer at enotes.com, Nabokov took motivation for this aspect of his satire from different events he was witness to:

“Vladimir Nabokov wrote Lolita as a satire of two concepts. The first is the concept the ease with which an individual or group of individual can reconstruct past events in their favor, i.e., rewrite history. This satirical element is said to have been motivated by Nabokov's having experienced both the Bolshevist takeover of power in Russia and the Nazi usurpation of power in Germany.”

Humbert's revision of his own history erases the abuse, torment, and endangerment that Dolores was constantly exposed to. At no point does Humbert admit wrongdoing in his 'relationship' with Dolores. Instead, he reimagines her compliance as a way to rewrite the atrocious life he forced a young, unwilling girl into. This in itself is what Nabokov is saying about romanticized revisions of history: rewriting what happens in the past to downplay negative events is dangerous and erases the struggles of those who were harmed.
Lolita erases all of Dolores' thoughts and emotions throughout this time period. For a majority of the book she isn't even called Dolores which strips away her literal identity and personhood. It seems that as narrator, Humbert creates two versions of Dolores: the real Dolores, a naive young girl, and Lolita, the willing nymphet. Since we only hear about Lolita from Humbert, we never can truly gauge how Dolores feels or how much she is likely protesting what is happening to her. Humbert's description of Lolita erases the unsavory truth to child sexual abuse and instead paints a picture of a sultry preteen desperate for the attention of an older man. The harsh realities are completely erased through Humbert's view of his time with Dolores. His revision of their history erases the pain and suffering that inevitably and undoubtedly occurred within Dolores.

It is not uncommon for works of fiction to be misinterpreted. However, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov is perhaps amongst the most frequently misinterpreted fictional works of all time. For years, thousands of people have considered this tale of abuse and obsession one of love and romance. Many  miss the satirical elements Nabokov uses in his novel. Even when I told a friend I would be reading Lolita for its satirical elements, her initial reaction was one of confusion:

"Lolita is a satire?"

What I did not understand about this confusion was that the narrator, Humbert Humbert (yes, his actual name is Humbert Humbert), is largely regarded as an unreliable narrator. Everything about Humbert- from his actions to his words- tell us as the reader not to trust him. Yet, many regard Lolita as a classic tale of love and passion. Early on in the first half of the book, Humbert makes his intentions clear: his love of prepubescent girls, or "nymphets" as he calls them. This is not a man searching for the great love of his life, this is a predator who cares little about the effects of his actions on the young girls he molests.

Reader must understand that in the possession and thralldom of a nymphet the enchanted traveler stands, as it were, beyond happiness. For there is no other bliss on earth comparable to that of fondling a nymphet.

Nabokov uses Humbert's delusion of consensual relations to illustrate how  untrustworthy he his. However, many readers do not grasp this. For a better understanding, consider this quotation:

Swell chance . . . I'd be a sap if I took your opinion seriously . . . Stinker . . . You can't boss me . . . I despise you . . .

Reading this, you likely imagined the speaker to be angry and displeased. However, when  Dolores (Lolita) says this, Humbert believes that she is being playful and flirtatious. Mind you, this is a girl who has not yet reached her thirteenth birthday. He believes that she is content with his molesting her, so how can people still trust Humbert as a narrator?

The Blame Game

Placing guilt can be a difficult concept, especially when it seems multiple people are at fault. Like an episode of Law and Order, works of literature can have a wide suspect pool in terms of who is at fault. While Shakespeare’s Othello is not exactly an episode of Law and Order, there is still major divide in discussion about whom is at blame. The reason for varied opinions over who is responsible for the tragic outcome of the play is because of a divide in opinion over how blame itself is placed. To explain further, consider this:

One person lies to another. As a result, the person who believes the lie does something drastic that cannot be undone. Who’s to blame?

With this in mind, I feel that Othello is at fault for the tragic outcome of the play because while Iago did consistently lie to him, it was Othello’s poor judgement and rashness which resulted in his choice to kill Desdemona and ultimately, himself.

            In many ways Iago did pull the strings in his relationship with Othello by gaining his trust only to betray the general, choosing to “follow him to serve [his] turn upon [Othello]” (1:1)*.  Although Iago’s lies set Othello’s actions in place- his insistence of Desdemona pursuing an affair with Cassio deeply and quickly enraged the general- it was Othello who decided to pursue his course of actions. Upon misinterpreting Cassio’s, Othello immediately concluded that Cassio and Desdemona must “rot, and perish, and be damned” (4:1). Othello’s heart “[was] turned to stone” (4:1) because of what he believed happened; a change occurred inside Othello that would set him down a violent path. He was obviously led to this choice to harm Desdemona by Iago’s lies, but the shift within himself is what brought Othello to reason that Desdemona and Cassio had to die. Much of Othello’s intense anger stemmed directly from observing Cassio holding Desdemona’s handkerchief. To him, the handkerchief was clear proof of an affair. However, like many of the events that occurred which convinces Othello that Desdemona was having an affair, they were not even directly caused by Iago.

In many cases, things appeared to simply fall into place for Iago. Early on, Desdemona and Cassio blatantly display their close friendship  in public. “With as little a web as this” (2:1), Iago’s plan to destroy Othello’s life practically happened by itself. “[Cassio] took [Desdemona] by the palm” (2:1) and whispered in her ear, thus casting suspicion on the pair with little help from Iago. Even Othello's fateful decision largely came from witnessing Bianca shouting at Cassio for possessing Desdemona's handkerchief and Iago never intended for this to occur. While he did plan to convince Othello that Cassio's comments about Bianca were in fact about Desdemona, Iago did not foresee Bianca storming in much less her pulling out the handkerchief.  So much of what caused Othello to kill his wife did not even happen because of Iago but instead by coincidence (or fate, but this is an entirely different discussion). Desdemona also repeatedly urged Othello to give Cassio his job back and often vouched for Cassio's admirable qualities. Iago did not encourage Desdemona to do this at all. Instead, she elected to repeatedly discuss Cassio's bravery and nobility with Othello. How can Iago be guilty when so much of what pushed Othello to kill Desdemona was simply coincidental?
Additionally, Othello's own poor judgement and rashness led to his downfall. By taking time to speak with Desdemona, it is possible the matter of her infidelity could have been sorted out with ease. Instead, he jumped to conclusions based on the words of Iago and a few chance occurrences. Often in life, we must take responsibility for our own decisions and choices. Othello's choice and execution of Desdemona's fate was from his own accord. Thus, Othello is to blame for the play's outcome.