Humbert's confession is written in an extraordinary language. Is this an extension of Nabokov's own language or is Humbert's language appropriate to his circumstances and motives? What does Humbert's prose hide, and where does it reveal?

Humbert’s confession is written in an extraordinary language. It is by turns colloquial and archaic, erudite and stilted, florid and sardonic. It is studded with French expressions, puns in several other languages, and allusions to authors from Petrarch to Joyce. Is this language merely an extension of Nabokov’s own–which the critic Michael Wood describes as “a fabulous, freaky, singing, acrobatic, unheard-of English” (Michael Wood, The Magician’s Doubts: Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 5.) –or is Humbert’s language appropriate to his circumstances and motives? In what way does it obfuscate as much as it reveals? And if Humbert’s prose is indeed a veil, at what points is this veil lifted and what do we glimpse behind it?

The cadencce of Nabokov’s writing takes some getting used to, and once you do, you realize his descriptions are flippant and sarcastic, and can make you smile. His account of Humbert and Lo’s tour of the US was quite entertaining. I’ve never read anything else by Nabokov and wondered if everything was written this way. I take it from the question, it is not. I don’t think Humbert’s language is necessarily appropriate to his circumstances and motives. Of course, if the writing was more straightforward, it would be pornography.

Humbert is pretentious. His language hides his insecurities.

I read this thinking Nabokov was a pedophile and wrote everything sarcastically and flippantly.

Humbert needs to justify his immorality so he cloaks it in language that seems rational and matter of fact. I agree with the other commenter these could be also be sarcastic.

1 Like

One of the things I enjoy about reading anything by Nabokov is how brilliantly he uses language - especially considering English wasn’t his first language. But I think he pours it on extra thick for HH. HH obviously thinks himself smarter than everyone else around him, and uses florid language with lots of literary illusions to prove it.

The extraordinary language is what kept me reading Lolita. I had not read Nabokov before but now interested to read more. Regardless, I think the style fits Humbert and contributes to his characterization as a manipulator, egoist, and nihilist.

Humbert’s obsession with nymphets seems artistic in itself, allowing him to hang all his creativity on this obsession. He loses control of the obsession that eventually overwhelms his art as we can see in his declining ability to present his story after Lolita leaves. He immortalizes his passion through the intricacies in the confession, which elevates the story itself. The “truth” of the story becomes secondary to its extraordinary presentation.

His language seems fitting for his narcissistic personality. I can almost picture him standing on a platform, high above all the other lesser humans, spewing his lofty narrative to the world.

1 Like

I agree with this characterization of the book. The way he speaks, the constant use of French, serves as a wedge, to separate him from “ordinary” hicks he encounters and judges. Perhaps to disguise his own base personality?

1 Like