"No one knows what an unreliable narrator even is"? Really? I do. The idea of an unreliable narrator seems straightforward: when the narrator says such-and-such, readers shouldn't automatically take their word for it. It's the perfect analogue of "unreliable testimony" in ordinary circumstances. I guess this is Wasmuth's 2nd definition?
Surely there are clear cases of unreliable narrators? Narrators who exaggerate everything, "This guy walked in, he must have been ten foot tall, and he talked louder than an atomic explosion" etc?
I certainly don't see what being an unreliable narrator has to do with the implied author (if "implied author" talk makes sense in the first place, which I also have doubts about). That Wayne Booth book is overrated, I found it a muddy mess (but then I'm coming with standards of clarity and argument from philosophy, not literary theory).
But—I didn't follow all this on twitter, and I'm not a big Lolita reader, so I didn't get the Lolita case. If Humbert is unreliable, then there is something he says (or suggests or hints at or whatever), that is not true in the story. What is it? Is it just, that his affair with Lolita was morally okay?
Agree about implied author. No one has said why they think Humbert was unreliable, which tells you something about the debate. The Wasmuth paper gives some good answers but mostly looks at technique. If lying to us makes a narrator unreliable I wonder then if the narrator of Emma counts?
Yeah I kinda agree despite the official definition making those references to the moral order subscribed to by the implied author. Morality has nothing to do with it in principle imo, eg child narrators are often unreliable -- factually. Although it can be -- a morally alien narrator is more likely to interpret events "unreliably" ie in ways different then the (actual or implied) author would, and implicitly, the reader who shares that morality. Of course interesting things begin to happen when the reader and author disagree, because then the whole question of "true" nature of fictional events pops up.
I feel Humbert is unreliable not because he excuses his behaviour with Lolita but because his sketchy morality colours his accounting for facts, especially his interpretation of her behaviour. Most clear in sexual scenes/reports. Incidentally, this is exactly how many real life rapists (especially in non violent non stranger rape cases) are unreliable too.
In many respects a deliberately unpleasant book by a clever and unapologetic author. It is also a great love story, imho; the narrator is also not to be understood as they would have us understand themselves - there is deceit in the narrative. It is an emotive topic and can be difficult to deal with viscerally when first considering it - the internal narrative of HH, is, to my mind, a pretty realistic representation of the type people develop to justify or normalise their conduct and incorporate into their self-view. Great literature should challenge, make one think, and perhaps even shock. Lolita qualifies.
Vladimir Nabokov and his literary hero are very complicated characters with some similar features. Why do we have to consider a novel as unpleasant or amoral? Why can't we agree that HH loves Lolita with all his passion, as Nabokov describes at the beginning of his novel, if I remember correctly, and at the end, he comes to help her because she is still dear to him? You have to trust the author. There is a double-point novel. From the point of view of Lolita, she is, without any doubt, a suffering creature, and here you are right: HH is a pedophile. But it is a great love story. I agree with John's view of Nabokov's novel as a great literature.
Here in Florida a high school principal was fired for showing a photograph of Michelangelo’s David to high school students. A parent equated nudity with pornography. People who object to Lolita because of Humbert Humbert’s wickedness labor under a similar misperception. As long as the novel has existed, “moral” readers have been its enemies. Dangerous Liaisons, Madame Bovary, Death in Venice, Ulysses … How can anyone read the exuberant, ecstatic first page of Lolita and not be dazzled by the art of writing? Or not understand immediately that this character is a comic construct with very dark shadows? Lolita has faced such accusations since its inception. No publisher would touch it. Only when Graham Greene praised it as one of the best books of 1965 did opinion begin to shift. The idea of a moral test for literature is misguided; that’s the politest thing I can say about such reflexive censorship. Oscar Wilde perfectly expressed the conundrum in the preface to his own controversial novel: “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” If only it were.
So you think moral or political criticism of Birth of a Nation, or Triumph of the Will, is misplaced? You don't think the horrible moral / political views they express mar them as works of art?
Comparing Nabokov — who fled Russia to Germany, where his father was assassinated, then to France, where his brother lived until killed by the Nazis, then to the US — to Leni Riefenstahl seems a bit of a stretch. I would judge your examples as propaganda, not art. If you’re at all familiar with Nabokov, you’ll know he was a far from a propagandist as possible. Much closer in spirit to Oscar Wilde. Where do you draw the line? Are the works of Cormac McCarthy immoral, Blood Meridian for example? Judge Holden is a sadistic murderer. He is also an indelible character. My favorite independent bookstore has piles of politically correct novels on the New Books table every month, which I assume would pass current morality tests. I’ve read a few and find them insipid. What novels would you recommend that reach the level of Lolita or Pale Fire and also champion the correct moral/political point of view?
We don’t need to draw the line—Wilde was talking about all books not just art. Nor do we need to join the aesthete movement. I am reminded that Ayn Rand thought Anna Karenina was morally bad.
Moral readers were the presumed audience for many early novels—Richardson, Austen. Fielding offered a counterpoint. Samuel Johnson worried that realistic fiction would be morally corrupting.
So it’s not crazy to see a moral function in literature but is crazy imo to see literature as a moral test, as if appreciating Nabakov equates to some inner moral quality. Maybe careful reading can cultivate that inner quality , but at the point you might be Lionel Trilling and call Lolita a great love story…
Agreed! Lolita is not a moral test, but it is not a love story either. I find much of the critical defense of this novel to be much line with Humbert's own. I believe Nabokov expected this. Aesthetically, it is a masterpiece.
"No one knows what an unreliable narrator even is"? Really? I do. The idea of an unreliable narrator seems straightforward: when the narrator says such-and-such, readers shouldn't automatically take their word for it. It's the perfect analogue of "unreliable testimony" in ordinary circumstances. I guess this is Wasmuth's 2nd definition?
Surely there are clear cases of unreliable narrators? Narrators who exaggerate everything, "This guy walked in, he must have been ten foot tall, and he talked louder than an atomic explosion" etc?
I certainly don't see what being an unreliable narrator has to do with the implied author (if "implied author" talk makes sense in the first place, which I also have doubts about). That Wayne Booth book is overrated, I found it a muddy mess (but then I'm coming with standards of clarity and argument from philosophy, not literary theory).
But—I didn't follow all this on twitter, and I'm not a big Lolita reader, so I didn't get the Lolita case. If Humbert is unreliable, then there is something he says (or suggests or hints at or whatever), that is not true in the story. What is it? Is it just, that his affair with Lolita was morally okay?
Agree about implied author. No one has said why they think Humbert was unreliable, which tells you something about the debate. The Wasmuth paper gives some good answers but mostly looks at technique. If lying to us makes a narrator unreliable I wonder then if the narrator of Emma counts?
Yeah I kinda agree despite the official definition making those references to the moral order subscribed to by the implied author. Morality has nothing to do with it in principle imo, eg child narrators are often unreliable -- factually. Although it can be -- a morally alien narrator is more likely to interpret events "unreliably" ie in ways different then the (actual or implied) author would, and implicitly, the reader who shares that morality. Of course interesting things begin to happen when the reader and author disagree, because then the whole question of "true" nature of fictional events pops up.
I feel Humbert is unreliable not because he excuses his behaviour with Lolita but because his sketchy morality colours his accounting for facts, especially his interpretation of her behaviour. Most clear in sexual scenes/reports. Incidentally, this is exactly how many real life rapists (especially in non violent non stranger rape cases) are unreliable too.
Interesting piece, thank you.
In many respects a deliberately unpleasant book by a clever and unapologetic author. It is also a great love story, imho; the narrator is also not to be understood as they would have us understand themselves - there is deceit in the narrative. It is an emotive topic and can be difficult to deal with viscerally when first considering it - the internal narrative of HH, is, to my mind, a pretty realistic representation of the type people develop to justify or normalise their conduct and incorporate into their self-view. Great literature should challenge, make one think, and perhaps even shock. Lolita qualifies.
I like that description of the narrative yes!
Vladimir Nabokov and his literary hero are very complicated characters with some similar features. Why do we have to consider a novel as unpleasant or amoral? Why can't we agree that HH loves Lolita with all his passion, as Nabokov describes at the beginning of his novel, if I remember correctly, and at the end, he comes to help her because she is still dear to him? You have to trust the author. There is a double-point novel. From the point of view of Lolita, she is, without any doubt, a suffering creature, and here you are right: HH is a pedophile. But it is a great love story. I agree with John's view of Nabokov's novel as a great literature.
PS Apparently I can’t edit my comment. 1955, not 1965.
Here in Florida a high school principal was fired for showing a photograph of Michelangelo’s David to high school students. A parent equated nudity with pornography. People who object to Lolita because of Humbert Humbert’s wickedness labor under a similar misperception. As long as the novel has existed, “moral” readers have been its enemies. Dangerous Liaisons, Madame Bovary, Death in Venice, Ulysses … How can anyone read the exuberant, ecstatic first page of Lolita and not be dazzled by the art of writing? Or not understand immediately that this character is a comic construct with very dark shadows? Lolita has faced such accusations since its inception. No publisher would touch it. Only when Graham Greene praised it as one of the best books of 1965 did opinion begin to shift. The idea of a moral test for literature is misguided; that’s the politest thing I can say about such reflexive censorship. Oscar Wilde perfectly expressed the conundrum in the preface to his own controversial novel: “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” If only it were.
So you think moral or political criticism of Birth of a Nation, or Triumph of the Will, is misplaced? You don't think the horrible moral / political views they express mar them as works of art?
Comparing Nabokov — who fled Russia to Germany, where his father was assassinated, then to France, where his brother lived until killed by the Nazis, then to the US — to Leni Riefenstahl seems a bit of a stretch. I would judge your examples as propaganda, not art. If you’re at all familiar with Nabokov, you’ll know he was a far from a propagandist as possible. Much closer in spirit to Oscar Wilde. Where do you draw the line? Are the works of Cormac McCarthy immoral, Blood Meridian for example? Judge Holden is a sadistic murderer. He is also an indelible character. My favorite independent bookstore has piles of politically correct novels on the New Books table every month, which I assume would pass current morality tests. I’ve read a few and find them insipid. What novels would you recommend that reach the level of Lolita or Pale Fire and also champion the correct moral/political point of view?
We don’t need to draw the line—Wilde was talking about all books not just art. Nor do we need to join the aesthete movement. I am reminded that Ayn Rand thought Anna Karenina was morally bad.
Moral readers were the presumed audience for many early novels—Richardson, Austen. Fielding offered a counterpoint. Samuel Johnson worried that realistic fiction would be morally corrupting.
So it’s not crazy to see a moral function in literature but is crazy imo to see literature as a moral test, as if appreciating Nabakov equates to some inner moral quality. Maybe careful reading can cultivate that inner quality , but at the point you might be Lionel Trilling and call Lolita a great love story…
Agreed! Lolita is not a moral test, but it is not a love story either. I find much of the critical defense of this novel to be much line with Humbert's own. I believe Nabokov expected this. Aesthetically, it is a masterpiece.
What I find puzzling is the inclination of some who like to compare Lolita with The Lover by Marguerite Duras.