What is Our Obsession with Lolita?
a look into our collective mind and obsession with little girls (even as little girls ourselves) - notmewrites essay
“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta…”
AN: this a long one, so grab a coffee or tea and breakfast and read this like your morning newspaper xo
Disclaimer: I in no way agree with the romanization of Lolita, the nymphet movement, or the sinister side of the coquette aesthetic. This is an essay from the perspective of someone who was influenced by these things at a young age, meaning I have been on both sides (being Lolita and hating the idea of it). I will be discussing music, Tumblr, and TikToks that have fed the movement to its monstrous size that it now is. Ex: Lana Del Rey, coquette, My Dark Vanessa, Tumblr, and age gap relationships.
TW: CSA, SA, coercion, sexualization of minors, childhood trauma, neglect, drugs, and internet safety issues
I enjoyed becoming and embodying Lolita, because even though I was now legal, I was men’s gateway drug to what they really wanted: me when I was 12.
Dear Dolores,
I am sorry. I am sorry for your loss of innocence, for the picture wrongfully painted of you, and for wanting to be you so badly when I was a child. As now I see how desperate for love you truly were, as was I. We had a lot in common as children and for that I am sorry dear, poor, Dolores.
Love,
Mel
Lolita. An infamous name, which isn’t even the name of the main character the novel is based upon, rather a given one that holds an implied seductiveness and is the epitome of a “nymphet”. Dolores is her true name, a 12 year old girl with curly, frizzy hair, a staple of a feminine childhood.
The novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov is written from the perspective of the predator, alias Humbert Humbert, a 36 year old described as lanky, hairy college professor and literary scholar whose favorite past time is preying on little girls and obsessing over a particular girl, Annabel, he met when he was teenager, who he cites as his “first love” and the cause for his attraction to children. Her untimely death has kept Humbert trapped in a time loop, one where he is constantly searching for that feeling he experienced at that age.
At first he is seen as a completely normal, traditional, and thoughtful man, one who had just had some bad luck and needed a place to stay after his friend’s home in New England that he planned on staying in burnt down. He began to send out feelers for places to rent so he could continue to work. As that was his propose for moving to New England in the first place, to teach.
Humbert’s obsessive nature only grew and became more hungry as he accepted an offer to live in a boarding house, the home of Charlotte Haze and her daughter Dolores. Once he laid eyes on her, his repressed sexual desire awakened and he became quickly enamored with her.
Humbert’s voice in the novel is rather frightening, as he is very honest with his feelings towards Dolores from the beginning. From the descriptions of her tousled bedhead, to the way she walked around the house with only one sock on. Going into details about her child-like nature, not hiding the fact that those innocent qualities of youth were something that sparked something quite the opposite in him.
As a reader, you can’t help but be disgusted, to the point of putting the book down a dozen times until finally one day you don’t pick it back up, and for good reason as the novel only begins to turn into something even more dark and sinister as the story unfolds. Even as I write this, I have not been able to stomach finishing the original text of this story, as the descriptions and innerworkings of Humbert’s mind are far too evil, even for someone who loves and has studied psychology in an academic setting. Even from a scientific standpoint, I could not will myself to do it.
And that is coming from someone who is also well versed in the Lolita sphere, due to the unfiltered access to the internet at the young, prime (I say this ironically) age of 12. I first watched the 1997 version of Lolita at the age of 12 or 13 I believe, which was sad seeing as I was the age of Dolores in the text, but I was romanticizing her and her story to the an unbelievable degree, unable to understand that this was a tale of caution for the little girls like Dolores, like me. Great job little me, missing the whole point.
In fact I really did miss the point. I regularly imagined myself as Dolores, as Lolita, me Lo-lee-ta. I watched the movie with an excitement that concerns me now as an adult. Reflecting on this part of my youth is painful knowing its outcome and how it set me up to be abused and be taken advantage of by older men.
Now I will say, I don’t believe Lolita and things like it are completely at fault, as I can’t erase my own self-destruction streak that I’ve always had; however, I will say that the romanticization of these unhealthy relationships really did lure me into a false sense of power and control over the situations I put myself in. Even at age 18, I felt invincible, like I was a god walking around because I had something older men wanted. I enjoyed becoming and embodying Lolita, because even though I was now legal, I was men’s gateway drug to what the really wanted: me when I was 12.
Now as for the rest of the summarization of the plot of Lolita, Humbert does move in with the Haze family and quickly moves into the typical male role of man of the house. Which is escalated by the fact that Humbert actively pursues Charlotte after realizing that he is infatuated with Dolores, as a way to secure his position in Dolores’ life. He eventually becomes Charlotte’s husband, now a step-father to dear, poor Dolores.
Dolores has many behavioral problems, though it is hard to tell how many of those are from the idea that her mother doesn’t like that she isn’t a quiet mousy girl with a book in her hand, and what is a justified criticism of her character. This characterization of Dolores is important as it is used against her as a justification for the abuse. Her demeanor and nature is framed as almost demonic, a pure intention of a “nymphet”, as Humbert calls her.
Her behavioral problems are not seen as what they truly could be. A reaction to her situation, to her home life and the absence of her father. Dolores is indeed cunning and normally paired with a smirk, however this is very different from the painted picture of her in Humbert’s mind. As he uses this as an excuse to see her as mentally older than she is, which is a justification for his feelings and actions.
His view and perception of her is completely unreliable. As much as the term unreliable narrator has become a meme on TikTok, Humbert is the definition of it. As it is clear the way he values relationships and the world around him is extreme and skewed in his favor.
In the novel, Humbert refers to Charlotte as Haze or the Haze, almost as if she is a personification of a hazy cloud drifting over him instead of a human, keeping him from seeing his dear Dolores. He also refers to her as his landlady, even after becoming romantic with her, as their relationship is just a way to be with Dolores, and her presence grates at his soul. He calls her a number of unflattering things, many of which he keeps in his journal. As if he doesn’t care enough to hide them, which later becomes his downfall.
Dolores is threatened with boarding school due to her bad behavior and poor grades, which is a fate Humbert detests greatly, as it would cut him off from his nymphet immediately. Dolores does not want this outcome either, as she wants to be around Humbert as well. The playful petting and stolen looks would no longer be enough.
Dolores’ intentions are clear at this point, which you could argue are probably not as pronounced in actuality as Humbert perceives it to be. Even with this discrepancy, Dolores’ playfulness, even flirtiness, is present at this time even though there is no way to know how much of it is real due to Humbert’s natural romanticization of their relationship and his delusion. However, we do know that she must be interested due to the fact that she kisses him first.
Through Humbert’s eyes, Dolores is a “nymphet” as he calls her, a word I’ve used throughout this essay but haven’t quite focused on yet. Nymphet (noun) is derived from the mythological term nymph, defined as an alluring feminine sea, woods, land, river, or mountain creature; and most commonly known as a sea siren. Nymph is otherwise simply defined as a beautiful young lady.
The word was coined into nymphet from the French version of the word nymphette, dating back to 1605. Nymphet itself is a newer term and is heavily linked to Lolita as its source of origin. The term has branched off into multiple aesthetics online, including the modern coquette, vintage americana, and yes even the direct interpretation of the Lolita aesthetic.
The term nymphet is defined by Humbert himself as an example of his very own “precocious pet”1 and is more widely known as a sexually precocious girl or young woman. The idea behind this term is that the child is somewhat demonic, or consumed with a lust for older men, a succubus even, designed to manipulate fragile men by bending them to the will of their darkest and unspoken desires.
Now clearly, anyone who isn’t a pedophile can see that young girls that are just exploring their sexuality are in fact not sirens of some sort or demonic, rather just children trying to learn about their bodies and understand the world and relationships around them. It is rather common for children to have crushes on adults, and it is the adults responsibility to keep the child safe, educate them, and make sure they do not act in any inappropriate ways. Sadly, it seems as though those boundaries are crossed more than you would think and the child is taken advantage of.
Contrary to Humbert’s beliefs, children should not be held responsible if an adult chooses to engage in sexual acts with them, seeing as though they are minors and can’t consent. Yes, some states have lower consent ages, however I believe that is bullshit. No one under 18 should be having sex with adults. Education and religious beliefs have set us up for failure in this aspect, as some religions believe age does not matter as much as most people do, and the lack of education coupled with that can make it very hard to make sure children understand the ramifications of sexual acts as a minor.
There is a sick but interesting power play in the Lolita/Humbert dynamic, one that my be unexpected. Humbert gives Lolita a false sense of power, of dominance, as he waits on her hand and foot. However, this is clearly just an acting out of a father/daughter relationship. It is Humbert caring for Lolita in a fatherly way, but in his twisted mind, it is a sick loving power play where he “gives up control” to his dear Lolita, as she manipulates and takes advantage of him. Somehow painting himself the victim of this narrative.
This idea is not a theory or something vague, rather a direct pull from the novel and Humbert’s thoughts and feelings. He truly does seem himself as a victim of his own desires, of his own heartbreak, of Lolita. Due to this line of thinking, Humbert is able to absolve himself from any shame or guilt while being able to achieve exactly what he wants, Dolores, sorry I mean Lolita.
Speaking of that, I find it interesting that Humbert refuses to call Lolita by her real name, as if it would ruin the romanticized version of her in his head. This is done on purpose, and with purpose. He only refers to her as little Haze, Lolita, Lola, Dolly, or any other form of Dolores or Lolita, you can think of, but never directly Dolores. Dolores Haze is her legal name, the name given of her mother, and Lolita is name based in their great love story (I say sarcastically), the only one that truly matters to him.
The fact that her mother is reduced down just her surname Haze while Dolores has a dozen nicknames shows how backwards and twisted this man is. How easily he can use women to get what he wants. Lolita is a demeaning, sexualizing name that can never be seperated from its context. Thanks Nabokov.
This is why I have strictly referred to her as Dolores and only Lolita when talking about Humbert and his skewed perception of her. She deserves autonomy and to be known by her name, not just the one given to her by her predator. She is not reduced down to what happened to her, and should have been given the chance to be Dolores, and grow into that name.
Charlotte finds Humbert’s journal (told you) and threatens to turn him into the police for lusting after her daughter. In a scene of tragic events, Charlotte runs out into the street outside their home, and is hit by a car. Awfully convenient, seeing as though Humbert spent most of the beginning of the book wanting to kill her or trying to will natural disasters to do his bidding for him.
With her mother dead, Dolores is now in the care of Humbert, which is exactly what he wanted. His dark plans has finally been put in place. As now without Charlotte, Humbert the child predator, is the sole provider and protector of Dolores. A scenario that I fear has been too commonplace in our society.
The rest of the story entails Dolores and Humbert’s ever-evolving relationship, which is showcased on a long country wide road trip, starting in New England and zig-zagging all across the east coast.2 (blog)
“Roughly, during that mad year (August 1947 to August 1948), our route began with a series of wiggles and whorls in New England, then meandered south, up and down, east and west; dipped deep into ce qu'on appelle Dixieland, avoided Florida because the Farlows were there, veered west, zigzagged through corn belts and cotton belts; crossed and recrossed the Rockies, straggled through southern deserts where we wintered; reached the Pacific, turned north through the pale lilac fluff of flowering shrubs along forest roads; almost reached the Canadian border; and proceeded east, across good lands and bad lands, back to agriculture on a grand scale, avoiding, despite little Lo's strident remonstrations, little Lo's birthplace, in a corn, coal and hog producing area; and finally returned to the fold of the East, petering out in the college town of Beardsley.”
Vladimir Nabokov
The second footnote has a detailed itinerary of their road trip, going into specifics and littered with quotes from the source material. I find blogs like this strange and intriguing, as I am doing something quite similar by writing an essay about the same material; however, I do believe that it takes a certain kind of person to keep record of a road trip in a novel like this one. It takes a drive (a scary one), an obsession, as the road trip itself is not necessarily the focus of the latter half of the story, rather it is about the road it paves for the dynamics of Humbert and Dolores to change and develop. The road trip is just there to show us in an isolated form what their relationship becomes. As abusers do, Humbert completely isolates her to the point where she does not even have a stable place to rest her head anymore. With things like her mother, her friends, and her schooling out of the way, she changes to live solely for him and his pleasure, which mirrors how he has come to the conclusion of living only for her. A give and take as you will.
I don’t have to tell you, dear reader, why this is inherently awful and to be crass, very fucking disgusting. The infamy of Lolita spreads into niches that seem completely unrelated, as its reach and influence cannot be stopped. But most people haven’t had the experience or connection I have with it, as only the formerly deranged, hopeless romantics would romanticize it (and I mean in the context of children romanticizing it, not adults).
Lolita is one of those pieces of literature that has become widely known for the wrong reasons. Yes, Lolita is a shocking novel/film and is inherently popular for that reason, but I believe a lot of people misunderstand the reason why the material existences. It is supposed to be a cautionary tale for young girls and women, but most of the people who have interacted with its story have not taken the time to fully digest the work.
By no means am I to say that Lolita is something so profound and such a form of literary genius that it has made itself utterly unable to be dissected by the whole of society, rather I mean the writing style and needed reading level of Nabokov’s work and the direction and the nature of the films has created a phenomenon. One where a chunk of the original work is lost.
Unless you have finished the novel completely, consuming any form of Lolita has lost a certain nuance. Now, I’m not here to stroke Nabokov’s ego like some blogs I’ve seen, but I will say, even though it is the hardest and most gut-wrenching way to consume Lolita media, reading the direct source material is the best way to avoid missing the crucial direct access to Humbert’s psyche and perspective, which is imperative to the overall message of the story. Though reading a novel from a predator’s perspective is disgusting and feels morally wrong, understanding it to that level is important to making sure Lolita is not romanticized and boiled down to a cheeky love story between man and “woman”.
As someone who fell into the trap of the romanticization of Lolita, I will say I believe a lot of this was because I hadn’t read or even attempted to read the novel. It felt taboo, (like the movie wasn’t c’mon girl) like a dirty thing to have in your home. Which I suppose is true. Going out with Lolita tucked between my arms and chest has always carried mixed feelings. One beings a feeling of superiority (problematic I know) for being able to read a high level book about a pedophile of all things with a straight face around others, almost as it is a challenge, and the other being shame, as if holding the book near my breasts wound condemn me in someway. Now I will say I don’t really read Lolita at all, much less in public, as I have outgrown my need to feel smart in public. Okay I haven’t, not really. It’s a work-in-progress, but still, reading Lolita around others feels sick and twisted because it is. The aesthetic, the perceived intelligence is not worth it.
The point is, watching the movies and committing to reading the book is perceived as two very different things. Lolita the movie is complete shock-value modern day horror, while the novel is detailed to a scary degree, one where coming to the conclusion that Nabokov is a pedophile is a very common. It takes a different kind of person to read Lolita, and a very different person to analyze it in an essay and put it online for anyone to read. Different doesn’t mean bad, however intentions are what determines that.
My intention, like stated at the beginning, is to do a deep-dive on a piece of media that shaped my early prepubescent and teenage years. It is also an interesting think-piece, connected to psychology and sociology, my favorite fields of study. Hi, psychology degree!
A lot of my interest in this topic is due to the social phenomenon it has caused, one that I was a part of in my early teens. A storm of Lana Del Rey quotes, lollypops and heart-shaped sunglasses, gingham dresses and short, short skirts, and the worst of it all: the lust for older men.
I’m not sure why these aesthetics became so popular at the time, other than the growing cult-like following of none other than Miss Lana Del Rey herself. Now I will say, I was obsessed with Lana for years, up until 21 or so. Almost 10 years of my life I would consider myself a Lana “stan”. I soaked up everything in real time, during the prime time of Lana’s career.
Born to Die (specifically the Paradise Version in this case), was Lana’s very first album under the Lana name. Previously known under the name Lizzy Grant, Lana has always seemed to stick to a true vintage and americana aesthetic. Red lips, cherries, Coca-Cola, hair curlers, cigarettes, trailer parks, gingham, fast cars, bad boys, motorcycles, the 4th of July, sad, sad lyrics, and most importantly: Lolita.
Lolita by Lana Del Rey was on the Paradise Version of Born to Die meaning she had a song about the idea of being like “a” Lolita in her first album. Some cult followers of Lana will defend her to the ends of the Earth, and I will admit I still like her music, but the influence of her song Lolita and her discography as a whole is undoubtable.
Here are some Youtube videos that show a small portion of this and how the song Lolita was directly tied to its namesake and there cannot be removed from it like some fans claim to do.
It was like I was on a tightrope hundreds of feet in the air with no safety net, no rope, and no guide, constantly teetering closer to falling off into the dangerous and ever-persistent pits of hell, aka the abuse of an older man.
It was an interesting time back in 2012, where the internet was truly a lawless land. I was 13 at the time of the Lana Del Rey boom, and was totally and irrevocably enamored. Feelings that I already had, those of wanting to be older, to be hot and desirable, and to be attractive to old men, was actualized in a musical and visual form in front of me. It was like a perfect rain storm and I was dying of thirst.
this is were the TW comes into play: TW CSA, SA, family trauma
I wasn’t the only young girl feeling this way. As Lana’s popularity grew, more eyes were gazing at Lolita in all its forms. More young, naive eyes. Edits of the movies (both the 62’ and 97’ versions, but I will note that the 97’ version is the movie that became a cult classic and was the prime vision for Lana’s Lolita) with Lana’s song erupted across my social media feeds and I would watch them religiously, which just so happens to be another of Lana’s main themes in her music. I dreamed of having the most aesthetically pleasing love story with an older man at the early age of 13. And as someone who comes from a family full of incestual pedophiles (it’s a long story I have a lot of generational trauma), I am really lucky that my mindset did not set me up for that abuse even earlier than it did.
Even with my close proximity to CSA, I was hypersexual and completely in love with the idea of being in love with a older man. This could be seen as me finding a way to cope with this generational trauma, however in hindsight, it brought me closer and closer to it than ever.
Reflecting on this now at a much older age, I feel like that was part of the appeal: the thrill, feeling invincible when nothing bad did happen to me. Though ironically I should’ve just waited a few years and my luck would run out. It was like I was on a tightrope hundreds of feet in the air with no safety net, no rope, and no guide, constantly teetering closer to falling off into the dangerous and ever-persistent pits of hell, aka the abuse of an older man.
It was a symptom of multiple other factors, them being; parental/home life problems, feelings of inadequacy, and society’s obsession with little girls. I feel like a lot of the girls who found refuge in this community were undervalued at home at best, and abused at worse. Wanting to romanticize and picture an unconditional love from an older man that would take care of you while also letting you be your own person in your own right was an addicting daydream to a bunch of girls who felt powerless, abused, and unwanted. The best of both worlds: a man, a father figure that would care for you and would let you be your own person, and to be free. Coupled with hormones and hypersexuality and you have a dangerous, lethal combination.
This cultural movement was monumental, but at least at the time a lot of these online internet communities and ideas stayed on the internet, which is one very key difference from today. The internet was still a niche thing regardless of its growing popularity. Online niches stayed online niches, as it was really hard to find the people out in real life due to the exclusiveness of it and the hush hush feeling you felt due to the controversies related to the Lolita/Lana Del Rey fandom. It felt like a secret club, one we knew was problematic but it was our little secret and it felt good at the time. Very similar to the issue at hand, little girls dreaming of and having secret relationships with adult men. This thick romanticization that was constant and seeping into everything it could touch within these online communities. as well as its original source material.
Now with the way the internet is, every aesthetic (Tiktok’s clean girl, vanilla girl, cinnamon girl, etc.) is a whole personality, not just simply a part of it. I do believe that this is just a natural progression of aestheticism paired with consumerism and overconsumption, which is fueled by the unique biome of Tiktok. With the promise of potentially making money from the app, people are viciously trend hopping and trying to push products in your face, especially those that fit the latest and hottest aesthetic.
This has truly changed the way aestheticism in the modern world works. Before Tiktok there was Tumblr, the king of aesthetics, (rip, though I still use it but it’s not the same). Tumblr was founded in 2007, around the time of the first iPhone, which was the perfect time to build a niche but ever expanding user base, as the internet was more accessible in homes now and people began blogging, sharing ideas, and their work via these websites.
Tumblr became a networking kingdom where a lot of these Lolita/Lana girlies decided to set up their pretty little blogs. Key word for tumblr: visuals. It was all about how your profile looked, how pretty your reblogs were, and how indicative your blog was of who you were, or rather who you wanted to be.
This focus of aesthetics paired really well with our said fandoms as we move up into the 2010’s: the rise of the traumatized little girl and her sad, and sometimes horny, blogs. There was a shift in culture, mostly due to the popular music at the time. A lot of alternative music that was different from the alt music from the early 2000’s began to make an appearance. It was more sad, more polished, more womanly. There were a lot of sad girls at this time, that can be seen through the “sad girl” movement of around 2014, which was paired with this music. Just a few of my favorites (and most girlies), Melanie Martinez, Lana Del Rey, Marina and the Diamonds, and those that were similar to the overall vibe.
Then there was the introduction of Pinterest, my favorite social media app to this day, founded in 2010. Pinterest elaborated on things that Tumblr did best, but they removed text posts and most of the social media aspects, creating a narrow hallway of beauty and hypnotizing aesthetically pleasing pictures. It was a social media site that was very different from a lot of the big sites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram. It was almost solely about organizing pretty pictures into boards and categories, almost like it was a game, and boy was I good at it. I would spend hours a day on this app, creating pretty pictures lists. I will not lie, I still do this to this day. It’s my favorite past-time. (here’s my Pinterest: notmelxo)
My point is, all of these apps and sites focused on aesthetics so much that it really allowed for the Lolita community to grow, seeing as though the biggest draw to it was the aesthetic, as the rest was um, abuse? Not many positives there I don’t think…
This ties into one of the biggest problems of the Lolita community: it’s lack of true critical discussion of the novel and movies. Some people might have been, but as for my side of it and what I gathered from the entire movement as a whole, we were ignoring the glaring and very obvious red, crimson flags that flow and dance around the pages of the main source material.
I believe most of us had never read the novel and had only watched the 1997 movie and listened to Lolita by Lana on repeat. Which I guess is fine, it’s a choice, but it’s fine? Actually no I disagree with that completely, as it was a clear misunderstanding of the true meaning of the plot. We were not meant to romanticize it, and if we read the novel we would have realized that quickly. That there is no romanticizing this man’s thoughts, as they are evil, manipulative, and his abuse is meticulously planned out.
As a person who loves to visualize and have physical visuals for things, movies of my favorite books or things I find interesting are great as they allow me to see what is happening. However, with a novel like Lolita, it seems, not just a step, but a leap over the line. A lot of people felt this way before the first movie was released, as it seemed like Lolita of all novels would be the last to ever be turned into a movie. The movies do not make sense, as they strip away the most damning and intense inner dialogue of Humbert, leaving only a shell of curious intent and confusion on his intent until later in the story. But here we are with two Lolita movies that sexualize a minor and a group of people enjoying it.
After the research I’ve done for this essay, including once again trying to finish reading this novel, I will say if you want to ingest some version of Lolita, I believe it should be the original text, with his disgusting predatory thoughts and all. Try romanticizing that.
The soundtrack of the 1962 film is a great example of the odd romantic nature of the movies. The swell of the music, the dramatics, the mockery of love with its bellows and lulls. Yes, some of the tracks are more action based and dramatic due to the nature of the story, but a lot of the music does in fact play on that romantic part of the film and the natural curiosity experienced while being a teen. It feels wrong that a movie so deeply ingrained in the showcasing of a predator and its prey kind of “romance” is almost bringing in elements to the music that can, and have, been used to romanticize the plot and change the narrative of the plot for it to been seen in a positive light, rather than a negative one. This is not necessarily the issue or fault of the movie itself, seeing as people choose what they care to stay accurate to and what they don’t. I did, and so did you. But it was still an active choice to include those narratives in the musical structure of the movies.
The music for both films are interesting in their own rights, as both are a clear reflection of the misinterpreted meaning of the plot. Now a lot of this should be left to the watchers devices, but that means you are expecting the watcher to be able to think critically and digest a body of work, while also connecting those ideas and themes to the big picture, which is how it is connected to and reflects on our society; its values, culture, and collective perspective of the world as a whole.
The multiple niches that brought this movement to its height are still at play even now. You can see this with the revival of the coquette and vintage americana aesthetics, and now, having an aesthetic be your whole personality is even more rewarded on apps like Tiktok.
It is hard to say whether the need to sexualize ourselves and others in this way is part of the nature of the internet or a deep and twisted part of humanity. Clearly it’s both, as these things were written before the internet even existed, however the internet has worsened these problems. Leaving us in a pool of our own worst parts of humanity.
During the latter part of the story, Dolores is victimized by Humbert multiple times, as he believes it is something she wants along with it clearly being what he wanted and planned on doing in the first place. She has emotional outbursts as she is unaware and unprepared on how to handle this abusive situation. Humbert writes it off as her being the stubborn kid he knows her to be, and a reaction to her mother’s death. That is part of it, but I read the outbursts to be a direct lashing out as a result of the abuse, as I believe most people would.
Without going into detail, Dolores is able to escape from Humbert into the arms of another predator, Clare Quilty, who was the man following them during their road trip. Humbert believed he was paranoid and hallucinating a black car following them around, but it was in fact Quilty. When Dolores has the chance, she escapes with him, leaving Humbert to question his distorted reality and his “romance”.
As you could assume, Humbert panics and tries to find her, unsuccessfully. He begins a cat and mouse chase with Quilty, that ends in Quilty’s death. Now on the run, Humbert is overcome with guilt and sadness at the loss of his Lolita and the mirror the Quilty acted as. Humbert demeaned Quilty for being a pedophile, completely ignoring the fact that he too was one and they were very, very similar. After the killing, Humbert has to face this aspect, that he too is a monster, a villain, a predator and that no amount of delusion could non longer keep him from sobering up.
Later we find out that Dolores escaped Quilty as well, marrying a man at 17 and became pregnant with his child. Humbert receives a letter from her asking for money, not mentioning her husband or baby, and as the desperate man he is, Humbert ran to her aid with a stack of cash in his pocket.
And there she was. His Lolita, pregnant. His eyes gazed her body and he felt sick, as if she was no longer the child he sexualized and worshiped. Even with this realization, at first he longs for her, yearning for her touch, but she acts cold and disgusted towards him. It is clear to the both of them that the money in his pocket was an offering, an ending, perhaps even some twisted form of closure, a inheritance, or simply a payment owed for her trauma and suffering.
That was the last time he saw her. Swollen bellied, resentful, and tired. Dolores Haze, no longer his Lolita, as that would require her continued lust for him. But it was quite the opposite, leaving him with a shattered world view and a final understanding that it was not a mutual love, it was not a great love story at all, rather a tale of abuse and manipulation, with him at the center as the ring master of it all.
Lolita is a terrifying novel and so is its impact on us as a society. Young girls wearing short skirts and biting cherries for the metaphor of popping it and for the red coloring for their cheeks. Sexualizing themselves before grown men do. If that isn’t a trauma response, one of generational proportions, I don’t know what is. Young girls that aren’t even allowed to be children anymore. This only getting worse as our world ages. Children don’t look like children anymore, and this is coming from an older Gen Z. If we were all being sexualized before what makes us think that this will change things for the better? It won’t, though I suppose we have always had Humbert’s, and most likely always will.
It is more of a question of education and making sure teenager understand what these things can do to them and what scars they will carry for the rest of their lives. Because you will carry them forever, though the scars faded they are there, peeling back the mask of your healing and revealing a deep ever-lasting wound that will only ever scab over, just to be picked at again. Over and over again.
So, take this as a cautionary tale. That old man does not love you, he loves your malleability and innocence. He will forget about you in time and you will be stuck with nightmares and horror stories of your abuse. A few moments of power is not worth a lifetime of rumination and pain. Take it from someone who knows, and wishes they had never learned what Lolita was at the age of 12. Because being a Lolita is never a good thing.
Good luck, dear reader,
Mel
Sources:
Pages (Vintage International copy):
pg. 49 “Precocious pet!”, “warm-colored prey”, spider metaphor
pg. 49 of the Vintage International copy of Lolita