Lo-Lee-Ta

Dolores Haze. Dolores. Dolly. L. Lo. Lola. The daughter, the lover, the nymphet: Lolita. I must say, if my parents had chosen to name me Lolita, I would get it legally changed to Katherine, meaning pure. Since the publishing of Lolita in 1955 and the popularity that has stemmed from its controversial nature, there has been a negative connotation surrounding the name Lolita, and even Lola for that matter. Take, for example, the song “Lola” by the Kinks. Although the song does not pertain to the exact story line of Lolita and the name of the song was not admittedly influenced by Nabokov’s story, the ‘woman’ Lola in the song is a transvestite, sexually promiscuous and controversial, as is Dolores Haze (Lolita) in the novel. On nearly every baby name list I could find, Lolita means a sexually precocious young girl. But this is only the modern connotation of the name. In the past, Lolita, a name which is of Spanish origin, meant “sorrows”.

Just recently (early this February, to be exact) Woolworth’s, the chain of retail stores in Great Britain, removed bedroom furniture intended for young girls from it’s inventory because the brand name was Lolita. Angry mothers raised concerns and protested because surely their six-year old daughters would become sexually active nymphets from sleeping in, or merely coexisting in a world with, Lolita beds. Although the connection can be made between the brand name and the character in Nabokov’s novel, I found the whole thing to be a bit over the top and out of hand.

Now back to the real topic at hand, the novel itself. Many critics argue that Lolita is merely a plot device, one that Nabokov uses to create and develop the character of Humbert Humbert. But without the Lolita character, Humbert is just a middle aged pervert who sits in the park and dreams about young girls. It is not until he finds a young girl with whom he can act on his desires that his character comes full circle. Therefore I think that Lolita deserves more credit than being referred to as a plot device. She is a dynamic character, one that the reader can sympathize with, can become frustrated with, and one that can be hard to predict at times. The reader gets the opportunity to grow with her, following her from adolescence to adulthood. She starts young, prepubescent and ignorant. Then she matures throughout the novel, having multiple shifts in attitude and character, until the novel ends with her married and with child. Being able to follow her through this important part of life allows the reader to feel a connection with her that is lost with Humbert, who stays relatively the same throughout the story.

There are alternate reasons why Lolita strikes a nerve with readers, making a name for herself as a character rather than just a plot device or title. As humans, we know what is right and what is wrong. For example, in Western society murder is looked upon as wrong. And in nearly all cases, the murdered will receive more sympathy than the murdered, whether or not the murdered is equally in the wrong. Just like in Lolita, it takes an objective reader to realize, but Lolita is just as in the wrong as Humbert. Lolita is the one who brings upon the sex with Humbert, whether or not he sets up the situation in the first place. So why then, is Humbert the bad guy in nearly all eyes? Because we can read his perverted thoughts, we get an insight into his misleading plots, and we can see how he ignores his conscience. Lolita, on the other hand, is harder to understand because we cannot read her thoughts, and merely see her actions, which are often sporadic and in and out character, leaving us as confused as Humbert.

Lolita, plot device or not, makes the story what it is. She is somehow beautiful, stubborn, naïve, and rational all at the same time. She creates something for the reader to follow, fall for, and sympathize with, as she journeys around the country with her middle aged lover. She is both emotional and emotionless. She is innocent and yet sensual. She is wrong and yet right. Lolita is, in her own right, a walking paradox. (720)