''Vladimir Nabokov's Comic Quest for Reality' - Nottingham eTheses

''Vladimir Nabokov's Comic Quest for Reality' - Nottingham eTheses ''Vladimir Nabokov's Comic Quest for Reality' - Nottingham eTheses

etheses.nottingham.ac.uk
from etheses.nottingham.ac.uk More from this publisher
28.02.2014 Views

- 148 - only lead to disaster. Being lost in a world of images, he is in the end even physically blinded to the finite realm and reality of "mere mortals"87 to which he has been morally blind all along. It is ironical that recognition of the truth should come to him only "in the dark-room of his blindness"88 but it must not be forgotten that, strictly speaking, it does not even "come" to him (Albinus, unlike Humbert, never becomes aware of things himself), but that the truth is revealed to him by his brother-in-law. Humbert Is blindness seems to be very much like Albinus', but whereas Albinus ends up in total darkness, Humbert becomes seeing in the end. From the conventional point of view, Humbert is guilty of continually abusing a child to satisfy his perverse sexual desire. In terms of his metaphysical obsession he is guilty of seeing in Lolita not the little girl she is, but one of those "chosen creatures I propose to designate as 'nymphets"', whose "true nature... is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac)" (L, 18). From the start, then, Humbert denies that Lolita's true nature is human. In a way, this adds to the comedy of their relationship. Lolita has been seen as incongruous and comic in her role of the cruel be- loved mistress, La Belle Dame Sans Merci. Now there is the additional incongruity between Humbert's idealized, unearthly version of her, and the very human, very terrestrial Lolita, who constantly inter- feres with, and threatens to destroy, Humbert's own reality. 89

- 149 - But Humbert's view of Lolita also adds another tragic dimension to their story, for from the start it is clear that he does not love her as she is, but as he sees her, as that fanciful, semi-divine being, a creation of his own mind (based on one of her qual- ities, namely her youthful beauty and loveliness), who comes between him and the real child. I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita for ever; but I also knew she would not be for ever Lolita... The words 'for ever' referred only to my own passion, to the eternal Lolita as reflected in my blood (65-66). Even on that memorable Sunday What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita - perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness - indeed, no life of her own. The child knew nothing. I had done nothing to her (62). He has possessed his own creation, more real to him than the child before him, and the child -a being apart - knows nothing. Later, of course, the child does not remain ignorant, but Humbert's attitude does not change. In his preoccupation with the fanciful nymphet in whom he senses and worships and wants to grasp some mysterious and otherwise unattainable beauty, Lolita and her soul and wonder elude him. He says he can !' "visualize , Lolita with hallucinational lucidity"; he says that he is "always 'with Lolita' as a woman is 'with child'" (107). Craving to attain the unattainable, he wishes he could "turn

-<br />

148 -<br />

only lead to disaster. Being lost in a world of<br />

images, he is in the end even physically blinded to<br />

the finite realm and reality of "mere mortals"87 to<br />

which he has been morally blind all along. It is<br />

ironical that recognition of the truth should come<br />

to him only "in the dark-room of his blindness"88<br />

but it must not be <strong>for</strong>gotten that, strictly speaking,<br />

it does not even "come" to him (Albinus, unlike Humbert,<br />

never becomes aware of things himself), but that the<br />

truth is revealed to him by his brother-in-law.<br />

Humbert Is blindness seems to be very much like<br />

Albinus', but whereas Albinus ends up in total darkness,<br />

Humbert becomes seeing in the end. From the<br />

conventional point of view, Humbert is guilty of<br />

continually abusing a child to satisfy his perverse<br />

sexual desire. In terms of his metaphysical obsession<br />

he is guilty of seeing in Lolita not the little girl<br />

she is, but one of those "chosen creatures I propose<br />

to designate as 'nymphets"', whose "true nature... is<br />

not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac)" (L, 18).<br />

From the start, then, Humbert denies that Lolita's<br />

true nature is human. In a way, this adds to the<br />

comedy of their relationship. Lolita has been seen<br />

as incongruous and comic in her role of the cruel be-<br />

loved mistress, La Belle Dame Sans Merci. Now there<br />

is the additional incongruity between Humbert's<br />

idealized, unearthly version of her, and the very<br />

human, very terrestrial Lolita, who constantly inter-<br />

feres with, and threatens to destroy, Humbert's own<br />

reality.<br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!