Exploring the complex legacy of Vladimir Nabokov’s classic novel, ‘Lolita’
In 1955, Russian author Vladimir Nabokov released a book that would soon become one of the most controversial novels ever written. Lolita immediately divided readers, with some labelling it repulsive and others romantic.
Nabokov’s story tells the tragic tale of the young Dolores Haze (otherwise known as Lolita), who becomes the object of Humbert Humbert’s affection, a middle-aged academic. Humbert narrates the novel with cunning wit, detailing his intense desire for the 12-year-old with sickening prose in an attempt to justify his gross behaviour. Nabokov’s use of language is incredibly clever, satirising the way Humbert believes himself to be a sophisticated, well-meaning man and not an outright monster.
The author makes it abundantly clear that Humbert is a vile human being, yet that hasn’t stopped some readers from completely misreading the text. In some editions of the novel, a Vanity Fair quote is printed on the cover, reading, “The only convincing love story of our century”. How anyone could consider Lolita a “love story” is bewildering, yet, the romanticisation of Nabokov’s damning tale has endured for decades since its publication.
Stanley Kubrick made his first foray into comedy with his 1962 adaptation of Lolita, which omits much of the repulsiveness that makes the novel such an uncomfortable – yet vital – read. Of course, censorship laws meant that many of the explicit events from the book couldn’t be depicted – in this case, a good thing. However, as a result, Kubrick’s adaptation veers far away from the source material, begging the question: should the book have ever been adapted in the first place? Although Nabokov penned the screenplay, it was heavily edited by Kubrick, with the author finding some of the director’s casting choices – such as Lolita – disagreeable. This is not to say that Kubrick’s Lolita isn’t an enjoyable film in its own right – rather, it is something entirely different to the novel.
While Nabokov’s novel is a condemnation of paedophilia, Kubrick’s film often plays into the inappropriate imagery that is otherwise safely contained inside the book’s pages. When adapting such a sensitive topic for the big screen, it’s of vital importance not to use visuals that only perpetuate the widespread cultural fascination with ‘precocious’ young girls that Nabokov’s book sets out to criticise.
Yet, the poster of Kubrick’s film features the 14-year-old actor Sue Lyon peering over a pair of red heart-shaped sunglasses, sucking on a lollipop through red-painted lips. The image is clearly sexualised, as demonstrated by her gaze staring directly at the viewer. Yet, in the book, Dolores is meant to look much more infantile – that’s what attracts Humbert to her in the first place – and this poster, where Lyon is styled to look visibly older than a pre-teen, only lessens the impact of Nabokov’s story. Kubrick gave us the first image of Lolita, yet it singlehandedly ruined cultural perceptions of her, painting her as flirty and seductive rather than a scruffy child, as she is described in the novel.
Upon the film’s release, Nabokov wrote: “A very good film. But not what I wrote”. Indeed, Kubrick’s movie is funny, beautifully shot, and well-acted. Still, it doesn’t contain the strict condemnation of its content achieved by Nabokov through carefully written prose from Humbert’s unreliable perspective. Nabokov’s story is so complex that it only truly works as a novel, with Humbert’s narration guiding the reader through a torturous yet insightful journey into the mind of a psychopath.
The cultural misunderstanding of Lolita was only emphasised by Adrian Lyne’s 1997 adaptation, starring Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain. The young actor was 17 during filming, yet her character frequently kisses the middle-aged Irons. What’s more, Swain is often filmed in overtly sexual situations, such as longingly sucking on a banana while wearing red lipstick, puckering her lips on a steaming shower screen, or writhing around half-naked on the bed. Lyne’s adaptation, although more faithful to the horrors of Nabokov’s novel, completely misses the mark by sexualising Lolita and framing her from Humbert’s paedophilic perspective.
Through these two troubling adaptations – one giving too much humour to the story, the other using too many overtly sexual visuals – Lolita has found an uneasy place in our cultural lexicon; Nabokov’s novel has been betrayed. The word ‘Lolita’ now connotates a young girl who wields her budding sexuality with intent or flirts with older men. Rather than being understood as the child victim of a paedophilic narcissist, Lolita has been transformed into a symbol of coquettishness – aware of her charms and not afraid to use them. Neither film adaptations posit Lolita as that childlike, and, in turn, the weight of Nabokov’s novel has been watered down.
Alongside this twisted mode of thought came the ‘Lolita aesthetic’ – one of the most fascinating online phenomenons to emerge from a single work of literature. During the early 2010s, you only had to take a quick scroll through your Tumblr dashboard to see screenshots from both film adaptations, often scenes where Humbert and Lolita look more like lovers rather than abusers and victims. Soon, young girls, many the same age as Lolita, were buying heart-shaped sunglasses and posing with lollipops before posting images of themselves to the platform. Even worse, many young people began romanticising the ‘relationship’ (if you can call it that) between Humbert and Lolita, going beyond simply admiring Lolita’s vintage Americana outfits and accessories.
Around this time, Lana Del Rey brought further popularity to Lolita through her music by frequently referencing the novel as part of ‘Off to the Races’, as she sings the lines “Light of my life/Fire of my loins” to ‘Lolita’. Her homemade music videos, soon imitated by fans, often featured scenes from the films, such as Humbert painting Lolita’s toenails. With lyrics about older, abusive men and young, vulnerable girls, Del Rey used her music to communicate heavy themes, many of which stemmed from personal experience. Yet, Del Rey’s references to the novel inadvertently boosted the popularity of the ‘Lolita aesthetic’, which she has now become synonymous with.
As Tumblr has gained less relevance, this phenomenon, even dubbed ‘nymphet-core’ back in the day, has now found a place on TikTok, more commonly discoverable under the ‘coquette’ hashtag and soundtracked by snippets of Del Rey’s songs. While the issue doesn’t appear to be as bad as it was on Tumblr, it’s fascinating to examine why people are still so obsessed with Lolita. Why has this happened, and who is to blame? The most straightforward reason for the ever-present fascination with Lolita is hard to pin down, but both movies are undoubtedly responsible for twisting the story of Lolita into a symbol of the very thing Nabokov was writing against.
While Nabokov examined male violence and manipulation with terrific skill, both Kubrick and Lyne failed to truly translate this for the big screen. The beautiful, often romantic imagery both directors used was quickly embraced by image-based social media platforms. Yet, unanchored from their source material, these images have taken on whole new meanings. Whether Lolita would still be as popular without these film adaptations is debatable. There would be no pretty images to attach to the novel, aiding its misinterpretation and romanticisation. The story’s sanitised transformation for Hollywood has meant that the meaning of Nabokov’s novel has been lost in a web of aesthetically-pleasing imagery, catering to a cultural fascination with young girls.
You only have to analyse popular fashion spreads, music videos, and cinema to see that burgeoning female sexuality, which blurs the lines between childhood and adulthood, has always been incredibly popular. Thus, it’s sadly no surprise that in our patriarchal culture, Lolita has been transformed into a symbol of seductiveness instead of being recognised as an abuse victim. Society’s obsession with corrupted innocence has allowed Lolita to exist through the eyes of Humbert, with popular culture ironically lapping Lolita up in the same way Nabokov’s novel sets out to criticise.
