between narrators within a single narrative. For example, when Faulkner jux-
taposes Anse’s and Darl’s narrations in As I Lay Dying, Anse’s deficiencies on
the axis of ethics make Darl’s occasional deficiencies on that axis and on the
axis of perception almost endearing. As this example indicates, the flip side of
bonding through optimistic comparison is estranging through negative com-
parison. The juxtaposition between Darl and Anse works not only to enhance
our bonding with Darl but also to increase our estrangement from Anse.
ESTRANGING AND BONDING UNRELIABILITY AND THE
ETHICS OF LOLITA
How, then, can the distinction between estranging and bonding unreliability
illuminate the twin phenomena of one set of readers being too easily taken in
by Humbert and another set of readers thoroughly resisting him? My hypoth-
esis is that in part 1, Nabokov frequently employs bonding reliability, bonding
unreliability, and a “complex coding” of some of Humbert’s other narration, a
coding in which he gives the narration many marks of bonding unreliability
but ultimately marks it as estranging unreliability. For the complex coding to
work, its marks of bonding unreliability must be sufficiently persuasive that
the authorial audience seriously considers moving closer to Humbert before
estranging themselves from him. This combination of bonding reliability,
bonding unreliability, and this complicated coding almost guarantees that
many actual readers will be taken in by Humbert—and not just because they
will miss the marks of the estranging unreliability. Actual readers will also
be taken in because once any unreliability is detected, it is easy to conclude
that one is wise to the narrator’s tricks and therefore will not be taken in by
them. Such readers, in effect, stop too soon. They respond to Humbert by say-
ing, “Yes, but,” while the implied Nabokov is asking his authorial audience to
make one more move, to “You almost got me to say ‘Yes, but,’ but ultimately
I can’t say ‘yes’ at all.” Furthermore, the technique of complex coding, with
estranging unreliability ultimately privileged, almost guarantees that another
set of readers will build up their defenses against all of Humbert’s appeals and
therefore decide that all his narration, even in part 2, where he appears to be
making partial progress toward the authorial norms, is ultimately estranging.
Unlike Chief Bromden, Huck Finn, Stevens, or Frederic Henry, Humbert
is a highly self-conscious narrator, though one with limited aesthetic con-
trol—as his estranging unreliability indicates. Humbert is very much aware of
his agency and purpose as a writer, yet he has a limited ability to achieve the
effects and purposes he seeks, since those purposes are ultimately quite differ-
110 • CHAPTER 5