This reminded me of our talk about how Nabokov plays games. Obviously known as a great writer, he has mastered the skills of deception. He mentions in his interview how he never gets attached to the characters in his books. To him they are merely characters, figures of his imagination. The interviewer asks how oftentimes, "writers talk of how a character takes hold of them and in a sense dictates the course of action" (69). Nabokov replies by saying how every character sticks to a course he's made for them and that any writer who has experienced that must be deranged. The way that Nabokov writes about Lolita from Humbert's standpoint almost makes you feel like he does have an emotional attachment to the character. If I had not read this interview, I would of thought so. I think that is a game in itself. That he can write as if he is attached to the character but in reality Lolita is just some individual he made up who sticks to the exact plan he has come up. Last class, we compared Nabokov's writing style to a chess game. In chess, every move is working towards a greater purpose (check mate). In a novel, every detail, works towards a greater purpose as well. Just like one of my classmates mentioned last class, an author wouldn't make one of it's characters go to the store to just buy milk. Instead, there would have to be a reason behind the trip to the store. Every detail must be thought out much like every move in a chess game. It takes strategy and skill to "win the game" or write a well composed novel.
There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered:
- Storyteller
- Teacher
- Enchanter
- "It is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer" (5).
- "Finally, and above all, a great writer is always a great enchanter" (5).
The fact that Nabokov can pull readers in on a story about a pedophile and his relationship with a child makes him an enchanter. If I were to meet the character H. H. without reading Lolita, I would detest him. Taking a child's innocence is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. However, Nabokov lets you in on H.H's thinking and his tortured soul. The reader begins to understand or try to understand this complex character. A certain sympathy is given to the character who can not control his desire for pre-pubesent girls. What is fascinating about the character H. H. is that he knows what he is doing is wrong. In the first couple chapters it is stated that he respects normal children and would never disturb their innocence. However, when it comes to certain little girls he cannot help himself. When the reader knows that the character is aware of his crime and knows that it is terrible, there is a certain compassion shown towards Humbert. I think about this in real life examples. When I read about crimes on death row for example, no matter how wrong a crime can seem, if the criminal feels sorry and knows they were wrong, I cannot help but feel the slightest bit of empathy for them. But, if I read about crimes in which the wrongdoer does not feel bad for at all, it is much more difficult to feel sorry for the criminal. Much the same with the book Lolita. Due to the fact that Nabokov paints the character H. H. in a certain way, it makes the reader feel kindness towards him, even if he is doing something that we all know is wrong and repulsive. Nabokov takes a subject that is so taboo and enchants his readers into wanting to know more of the story and see if they can figure out this complicated man.
