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.