Compare to what extent and to what effect do the narrators of The Great Gatsby and Lolita
attempt to manipulate their readers
THESIS - Both novels attempt to manipulate the reader via unreliable narrators. Nabokov is
more successful. Fitzgerald’s purpose is didactic, Nabokov’s is ludic and satirical. Both distrust
& criticize the seduction + materialism of the American Dream. Strangely we sympathize more
with Humbert.
Discussing the issue of Nick’s unreliability in 1996, Gary Scrigemeour asserts that,” the key issue is
undoubtedly Nick’s honesty because that provides the basis of the reader’s reaction to the novel.” This
assertion clearly applies to the narrator of any novel, and perhaps above all to the wildly solipsistic
and unreliable narrator of Lolita. The narratives of the novels The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald and
Lolita by Nabokov are retold powerfully and retrospectively from the perspectives of their erratic
narrators, seducing the reader into sympathy with their criminal protagonists. Whilst Fitzgerald's
interest in the modernist experimentation of the Wasteland by TS Eliot leads him to experiment with a
kind of magical realism in certain sections of the novel (in the sections on the Valley of Ashes for
example) in general The Great Gatsby is more rooted in a rather serious realism which, by the end of
the novel, prompts the reader to reflect on the unattainability of The American Dream. Lolita, on the
other hand, is a postmodernist invention employing parody, puns, multi-lingual expressions,
word-patterns, and allusions to other texts in an attempt, one might argue, to playfully entertain,
engage and provoke the reader into questioning their own complicity in the actions recounted. By
examining these texts in more detail, it will be argued both Fitzgerald and Nabokov use unreliable
narrators to romanticise the behaviour of their protagonists and to implicate the reader in these
characters’ narcissistic dreams and desires. Whilst Fitzgerald’s purpose appears to be primarily
didactic: The American Dream is a cruel, exploitative illusion, not a reality; Nabokov’s purpose is
ludic, he engages the reader in a sophisticated, salacious comical game whilst simultaneously
satirizing the vulgarity and philistinism of American culture in the 1950s.. Bizarrely, due to the
differences in narrative technique and despite Humbert’s nefarious behaviour, his snobbishness and
, his cruelty, by the end of Lolita, we sympathize more with Humbert’s self-inflicted plight than the
bewildered and beguiled Nick or even the terminally disappointed Gatsby..
Structurally, the point at which one becomes aware of the unreliability of the narrators in these
two texts is very different. Whilst Nabokov’s novel begins with a preface introducing Humbert’s
guilt and very early on in the text Humbert refers to himself as a ‘madman’ and a ‘murderer’, the
Great Gatsby begins by establishing Nick’s truthfulness and objectivity with his avowal that, ‘I am
one of the few honest people I have ever known’ As the retrospective narration progresses, it becomes
clear that Nick is captivated by Gatsby, causing Nick to recall both Gatsby and the events retold in the
novel in a highly romanticised manner. Consequently, Nick’s narration positions the reader to perceive
Jay Gatsby as a romantic hero and perhaps even as a tragic object of pity. In Chapter 3, upon meeting
Jay Gatsby, Carraway paints him as considerate and solicitous, ‘[he had] one of those rare smiles with
a quality of eternal reassurance’. Here, the extravagant hyperbolic language directs the reader to
admire Gatsby with the adjective ‘rare’ conveying the notion that Gatsby is set apart from others and
the absurdly overstated adjective, ‘eternal’ portrays Gatsby as somehow immortal or god-like.
However, it is Nick Carraway’s interpretation of Gatsby’s smile rather than the smile itself which
positions the reader to perceive Gatsby in an idealised fashion. This romanticisation of Gatsby is
typical of Carraway’s manipulation of the reader and his unreliability. Despite Nick’s claims to
objectivity, however, the reader gradually comes to question his perspective on Gatsby as the events
recounted reveal Gatsby to be a solipsistic egoist who is obsessed with wealth to the extent that he
confesses his attraction to Daisy’s ‘voice full of money’, engages in criminal pursuits, participates in a
fatal hit and run accident and seduces another man’s wife. The reader may, however, resist this
positioning and wonder whether or not s/he agrees with Nick’s assessment that Gatsby is ‘worth the
whole damn bunch put together’ and may well conclude that Gatsby’s greed and amorality is hard to
distinguish from the hedonism and venality of Tom, Daisy and Jordan and the myriad other unethical
representatives of the Lost Generation who attend Gatsby’s parties. Similarly, In Lolita, despite
Humbert’s reprehensible behaviour and despite Nabokov’s constant reiteration of Humbert’s
unreliability, Nabokov’s use of alluring linguistic tricks and patterns is designed to manipulate the
attempt to manipulate their readers
THESIS - Both novels attempt to manipulate the reader via unreliable narrators. Nabokov is
more successful. Fitzgerald’s purpose is didactic, Nabokov’s is ludic and satirical. Both distrust
& criticize the seduction + materialism of the American Dream. Strangely we sympathize more
with Humbert.
Discussing the issue of Nick’s unreliability in 1996, Gary Scrigemeour asserts that,” the key issue is
undoubtedly Nick’s honesty because that provides the basis of the reader’s reaction to the novel.” This
assertion clearly applies to the narrator of any novel, and perhaps above all to the wildly solipsistic
and unreliable narrator of Lolita. The narratives of the novels The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald and
Lolita by Nabokov are retold powerfully and retrospectively from the perspectives of their erratic
narrators, seducing the reader into sympathy with their criminal protagonists. Whilst Fitzgerald's
interest in the modernist experimentation of the Wasteland by TS Eliot leads him to experiment with a
kind of magical realism in certain sections of the novel (in the sections on the Valley of Ashes for
example) in general The Great Gatsby is more rooted in a rather serious realism which, by the end of
the novel, prompts the reader to reflect on the unattainability of The American Dream. Lolita, on the
other hand, is a postmodernist invention employing parody, puns, multi-lingual expressions,
word-patterns, and allusions to other texts in an attempt, one might argue, to playfully entertain,
engage and provoke the reader into questioning their own complicity in the actions recounted. By
examining these texts in more detail, it will be argued both Fitzgerald and Nabokov use unreliable
narrators to romanticise the behaviour of their protagonists and to implicate the reader in these
characters’ narcissistic dreams and desires. Whilst Fitzgerald’s purpose appears to be primarily
didactic: The American Dream is a cruel, exploitative illusion, not a reality; Nabokov’s purpose is
ludic, he engages the reader in a sophisticated, salacious comical game whilst simultaneously
satirizing the vulgarity and philistinism of American culture in the 1950s.. Bizarrely, due to the
differences in narrative technique and despite Humbert’s nefarious behaviour, his snobbishness and
, his cruelty, by the end of Lolita, we sympathize more with Humbert’s self-inflicted plight than the
bewildered and beguiled Nick or even the terminally disappointed Gatsby..
Structurally, the point at which one becomes aware of the unreliability of the narrators in these
two texts is very different. Whilst Nabokov’s novel begins with a preface introducing Humbert’s
guilt and very early on in the text Humbert refers to himself as a ‘madman’ and a ‘murderer’, the
Great Gatsby begins by establishing Nick’s truthfulness and objectivity with his avowal that, ‘I am
one of the few honest people I have ever known’ As the retrospective narration progresses, it becomes
clear that Nick is captivated by Gatsby, causing Nick to recall both Gatsby and the events retold in the
novel in a highly romanticised manner. Consequently, Nick’s narration positions the reader to perceive
Jay Gatsby as a romantic hero and perhaps even as a tragic object of pity. In Chapter 3, upon meeting
Jay Gatsby, Carraway paints him as considerate and solicitous, ‘[he had] one of those rare smiles with
a quality of eternal reassurance’. Here, the extravagant hyperbolic language directs the reader to
admire Gatsby with the adjective ‘rare’ conveying the notion that Gatsby is set apart from others and
the absurdly overstated adjective, ‘eternal’ portrays Gatsby as somehow immortal or god-like.
However, it is Nick Carraway’s interpretation of Gatsby’s smile rather than the smile itself which
positions the reader to perceive Gatsby in an idealised fashion. This romanticisation of Gatsby is
typical of Carraway’s manipulation of the reader and his unreliability. Despite Nick’s claims to
objectivity, however, the reader gradually comes to question his perspective on Gatsby as the events
recounted reveal Gatsby to be a solipsistic egoist who is obsessed with wealth to the extent that he
confesses his attraction to Daisy’s ‘voice full of money’, engages in criminal pursuits, participates in a
fatal hit and run accident and seduces another man’s wife. The reader may, however, resist this
positioning and wonder whether or not s/he agrees with Nick’s assessment that Gatsby is ‘worth the
whole damn bunch put together’ and may well conclude that Gatsby’s greed and amorality is hard to
distinguish from the hedonism and venality of Tom, Daisy and Jordan and the myriad other unethical
representatives of the Lost Generation who attend Gatsby’s parties. Similarly, In Lolita, despite
Humbert’s reprehensible behaviour and despite Nabokov’s constant reiteration of Humbert’s
unreliability, Nabokov’s use of alluring linguistic tricks and patterns is designed to manipulate the
