American Consumerism At Its Finest


Hello again bloggers! I've decided to day that I'm going to focus my blog post on one key allegory within Nabokov's novel Lolita. 

One of the major aspects of Lolita that I have noticed within this second section of reading is all the consumerism, mostly by Dolores herself. What's important to note is that Vladimir Nabokov was initially born in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1899. He spent the beginning of his life in Europe, and only traveled to the United States in 1940. This is key in the beginning plot of Lolita, and how his upbringing really influenced Dolores Haze as a character, and his perspective on the consumerism culture of America. 

In the beginning of the novel, Humbert Humbert is living in Europe, until his marriage to Valeria fails. Then, on the quest of new work, and because his "life needed a shake-up" (27) Humbert traveled to America where he finally met Charlotte and Dolores Haze. This is an obvious parallel between Nabokov's life, and the life he created for Humbert Humbert. 

From the way Humbert speaks of Charlotte and Dolores' "American" characteristics, such as all the nick-nacks from gift shops that Lolita requested, and the materialistic junk that was in Charolette's home, Nabokov wasn't a fan of all the consumerism that America had to offer. "The front hall was graced with door chimes, a white-eyed wooden thingamabob of commercial Mexican origin, and that banal darling of the artsy middle class, van Gogh's "Aresienne." A door ajar to the right afforded a glimpse of a living room, with some more Mexican trash in a corner cabinet and a striped sofa along the wall." (36) The Mexican trash in the Haze's household was their attempt at seeming "cultured", while Humbert saw it as a sad attempt at decorating the house. Obviously, Nabokov wasn't keen on cheap American tourist novelties some middle class family picked up while on vacation. 

This is also seen multiple times when Humbert is with Lolita in the car as they are traveling around the United States for a year. "In the gay town of Lepingville I bought her four books of comics, a box of candy, a box of sanitary pads, two cokes, a manicure set, a travel clock with a luminous dial, a ring with a real topaz, a tennis racket, roller-skates with white high shoes, field glasses, a portable radio set, chewing gum, a transparent raincoat, sunglasses, some more garments- swoons, shorts and summer frocks." (142) This amount of stuff seems like so much, but Humbert buys Lolita whatever she wants whenever she wants it, in an effort to control her behavior and keep her quiet through their travels. What's not shocking at all is that once Lolita has read her books or played with her toys a couple times, they are often discarded, to easily be replaced by something new Humbert will buy for her in the next couple of days.

The sheer amount of stuff that Nabokov discusses in these expansive lists is tremendous. Obviously, no parent would actually buy their kid all that stuff at once. (You would hope.) But, Nabokov is using these lists to show the amount of consumerism America has. The comparison between the simplistic life of old England, and the fast pasted and easily replaced culture of new America is shown within Nabokov's novel. The extensive lists are his commentary on American culture, and how focused American's are on materialistic objects. 



Comments

  1. Hi Biz! I like that you chose to discuss consumerism in Lolita because it's not one of the most obvious themes of the book, but it has been woven into Humbert's confession several times. I thought it was really interesting that while Lolita and Humbert were on their road trip, Lolita would get mad at Humbert for trying to point out the natural beauty of the landscape. Also, on page 153, Humbert says, "my unfastidious Lo would be charmed by toilet signs - Guys-Guys, John-Jane, Jack-Jill, and even Buck's-Doe's; while lost in an artist's dream, I would stare at the honest brightness of the gasoline paraphernalia against the splendid green of oaks, or at a distant hill scrambling out - scarred but still untamed - from the wilderness of agriculture that was trying to swallow it." It seems to me that in this quote, the manmade, ugly things like the gas station and signs represent society and the wilderness represents natural things (like love). Do you think Humbert's attempt to emphasize his appreciation for natural beauty and juxtapose it with Lo's materialism is a suggestion to the audience that society does not always value the naturally beautiful parts of life that it should? I think Humbert believes that society should recognize his love for Lolita as a beautiful thing rather than holding the societally standardized idea that all pedophilic love is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Som!

      To answer your question, I definitely think it's a comment on the differences in the appreciation for natural beauty versus materialistic items. I think this is extremely concrete in the fact that Europeans are typically less materialistic and focus more on their natural environment. However, I think you are right when you say that it could be a comment to the reader that we don't appreciate the natural beauty of the world enough.
      We see Humbert justifying his relationship to Lolita when he talks about other civilizations in the past, or other countries around the world today who have marriage laws where the bride can be extremely young. I think his efforts could be justified considering other circumstances around the globe, but what isn't accounted for by Humbert is that most of those girls don't want to be in a relationship with such an older man.
      I think the lack of consent between them is what makes our modern day American see that these types of young marriages and relationships are wrong in a lot of ways.

      I hope that helps answer your question!

      Delete
  2. Hey Amanda!

    Great job! My favorite line was "Obviously, Nabokov wasn't keen on cheap American tourist novelties some middle class family picked up while on vacation. " :)

    This post was fascinating- I was not aware of the biographical similarities between Nabokov and Humbert Humbert's character. I wonder if there are any other similarities between Nabokov and Humbert Humbert... It has crossed my mind that it would be difficult to write a novel from the point of view of a pedophile without actually being one. Have you given this any thought? I'd be interested to hear what you think.
    - Caitie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Caitie! I’m so happy you enjoyed my post!
      I’ve given it a ton of thought throughout my reading. How can someone write like this without experiencing it? Now, I haven’t done any research to see if he was a pedophile or suspected pedophile. But I think that would be an interesting topic to discuss in a final blog post!
      As for my personal speculations, I think he might have been? Or, he’s just an extremely convincing author. I feel as though only a true pedophile who has read Lolita will be the only one who can answer that question for us. Unfortunately, I think it’s extremely unlikely we will encounter such an individual.
      I’ll do some research and let you know what I find!

      Delete
  3. Hey Bizzy bea,
    This is great! I really do love the point of "consumerism" that you bring up in this, but I was wondering if you have realized any other themes that have been a prominent part to this point?
    I know Somer brought up the idea of Humber being persuasive in his writing and I was wondering if you agreed with this idea? I felt like he was persuasive while reading the novel too because he convinces the reader that he is much more innocent than he is, and if I were to be more gullible, I may have felt even more strongly about this. If a rapist can convince an audience that he isn't completely at fault can that be considered persuasive? Let me know what you think!
    Again, I totally loved it! Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amanda, do you think that the consumer aspect of America, and Humbert's disgust with it, is another way that he is trying to place himself above his audience? That they like this kind of stuff and he is above it, so his taste must be better than theirs? I also feel like his purchasing of all of the stuff for Lolita is just a way to assuage his guilt about what he's doing. Do you get a sense that he feels guilty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mrs. LaClair!

      Thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog.
      I didn't occur to me that Humbert could have been using that angle as a way to be above his audience. However, it definitely makes sense, and I totally agree that it contributes to his aloofness and overall appearance to the reader.

      I can see how this would be true with his relationship to Charlotte, because once he moved in, she started redecorating the house, and we never really understood why. I assumed it was because he just found it dirty and old, but maybe because he didn't like all of her mismatch decor, she frantically started redecorating. It makes sense as to why she may have scrambled to rearrange and redecorate the house to suit his likes, and to make him like her more.

      I also agree that he may be buying the items to assuage his guilt. But, although we know he can feel guilty at times, he definitely doesn't feel guilty other times. For example; the time he denied Lolita morning coffee until she had sex with him. I think he uses the materialistic objects as a way to help distract Lolita with what he is doing. I can see her train of though being, "Well, if he buys me all these gifts then he must really be a loving dad." I also think he buys her the gifts in an effort to make her life feel as normal as possible. Since they are in America, and she is interacting with all these different people, he probably wants her to fit in with all her materialistic items and to not feel deprived, or give anything away??? I don't know, it's just a thought!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts