Anders Peterson

Honors 212

Hidden in the Haze and the Shade: Charlotte, Sybil, and their narrators

When it comes to supporting characters in Lolita and Pale Fire, two are often left
underdeveloped, Charlotte Haze and Sybil Shade. Charlotte is presented solely by an
unsympathetic narrator while Sybil is presented in two majors ways the loving sketch provided
by her husband, and Kinbotes vindictive commentary. Through these depictions and the
relationships between the narrators and Charlotte and Sybil, they are shown in a mostly negative
light. The portrayals of the women leave much of their characters unexplored hiding or
intentionally leaving their past traumas untouched. This disregard often stems form the narrators
anger about the women blocking them from their ultimate goals, Lolita for Humbert and Shade
for Kinbote. The nature of the narrators themselves creates a contrasting impact on readers.
Charlottes unfavorable depiction is taken mostly on its face, while Sybil is likely to be read in a
more sympathetic light, as the presence of Shades portrayal of Sybil, along with Kinbotes
obvious unreliability and unlikeable nature, allow her to be a more fully fleshed out and
understood, while Charlotte is at the mercy of the more likeable and believable Humbert
Humbert, who largely succeeds in hiding potentially crucial elements of her person from the
reader and therefore casting Charlotte as the egoistic mother Ross in his forward points to in
the general lesson of the story (Lolita 3-4).
Immediately upon arrival at the Haze home, Humbert Humbert begins creating the
caricature of Charlotte as the middling housewife, representative of the middle-class poshlust

Nabokov loathes. Humbert begins his description of her by calling Charlotte the poor lady, a
condescending and paternalistic first impression for readers (Lolita 39). Much of Humberts
initial disgust with Charlotte stems from the culture clash between them. The conflict between,
as Humbert calls her, Bland American Charlotte and the Old World embedded in Humbert
Humbert is exacerbated through Charlottes actions (Lolita 93, Clippinger 129). Charlottes
continual attempts to portray herself as cosmopolitan her Van Gough print, her use of French
push Humbert away and heighten the contrast he draws between them. Humbert, to himself and
in the picture of himself he attempts to convey to readers, is authentically Old World while
Charlotte, and Lolita are the representations of the New World identified by its desperate
attempts to impress and emulate the Old World. This contrast is not the only area where
Charlotte disgusts Humbert.
Charlotte could be classified as desperately in love with Humbert through most of his
time living in the Haze home. She is attracted to the Old World part of Humbert, and this
attraction is most of what readers see of Charlotte, who goes so far as to beg him in her letter to
find her attractive in his dark romantic European way (Lolita 75). Even prior to the letter
declaring her love, Humbert makes Charlotte out to be a simpering predator, his indefatigable
landlady who corners him between the porch and the car to thrust herself upon him (Lolita 50).
Charlotte, in an ironic twist, is the predator in the home, even as Humbert plots daily to get
Lolita into his clutches. Charlotte works to impress Humbert, setting the table with more
elegance than usual for a dinner alone, yet Humbert swats this away by describing what
Charlotte surely thought to be romantic as a mawkish aura (Lolita 69). Charlotte pines
desperately for Humbert who mocks her every attempt to the reader. Yet Charlotte and Humbert
do get married, even if Humbert merely proposes as a step to get to Lolita.

After their marriage, Humbert, despite his obsession with Lolita, changes in how he
describes Charlotte. Even though he did not get married to benefit Charlotte in any way, the
marriage does benefit her in how sympathetically she may be interpreted. Humbert identifies the
time when he decides to marry Charlotte as the point where he can cease insulting poor
Charlotte for the sake of retrospective verisimilitude (Lolita 79). It is the opportunity this
marriage provides for Humbert to gain access to Lolita, that shifts his descriptions of Charlotte.
Becoming more or less my [Humberts] mistress allows for Charlotte to receive some positive
descriptions for basically the first time in the novel as, despite her poshlust, she becomes a
woman of principle and very genteel (Lolita 83). Humberts switch in the portrayal of
Charlotte after their marriage demonstrates how quickly his presentations can change, and how
related this is to his own goals. These positive descriptions begin largely due to her use to
Humbert, yet they are still tinged with disdain. Humbert continues to present Charlotte in a
mostly unflattering light to the reader, as his descriptions are often backhanded, for instance,
calling Charlotte both rather ridiculous and rather handsome in the same sentence (Lolita 84)
While Charlottes presentation changes upon her marriage, the overall representation of her is
consistent.
While Charlotte gets two slightly different presentations that mostly have the same effect,
Sybil in Pale Fire is shown in drastically different lights, the first, her husbands poem makes her
out to be a caring mother and loving wife, while Kinbotes commentary version of Sybil casts
her as an aggressive, nagging partner to Shade. In his poem, Shade showcases this loving sketch
of Sybil by connecting her to minute, everyday actions that demonstrate her beauty in
unexpected ways and by putting himself down in order to show Sybil in the most positive light

possible. Kinbote, on the other hand, actively dislikes Sybil and takes every chance he has to put
her down and make her seem to be the opposite of how Shade portrays her.
Shade fell in love with Sybil on a field trip their senior year of high school, a moment he
describes in detail in his poem. Shade forgoes a grand romantic moment, focusing on the
movements of Sybils hand, One palm with fingers spread, / Between a star of trillium and a
stone, / A little phalange bone / Kept twitching (Pale Fire 256-59, pg. 42). Shades focus on
the small details he observes with Sybil not only serves to elevate the poem, as this is one of the
most lyrical and beautiful sections of the poem, but also demonstrates the deep connection they
have. While Charlotte is shown almost entirely on a surface level, with over the top actions,
Shade shows the minutiae of Sybil, showing her in a flattering and closely observed light. Shade
uses images of everyday life in more than just showing the moment that he fell in love with Sybil
as everyday occurrences become representative of their long lasting love, from the number of
times they have slept in the same bed, to the number of clock chimes over the course of their
marriage. One image particularly contrasts Shade with Humbert as Shade asks How many
more / Free calendars shall grace the kitchen door? (Pale Fire 279-80, pg. 43) A free calendar is
representative of the longevity of Shade and Sybils relationship, yet to Humbert would embody
the droll American middle class that he hates in Charlotte. It is not just looking at minute details
that set Shade and Humbert apart, but their opinions of everyday life in suburbia, which is a
somewhat oppressive and unfulfilling environment for Humbert, but is rich with detail and love
for Shade.
Shade also differs from Humbert in the dynamics of his relationship with Sybil in
comparison to that of Charlotte and Humbert. While Charlotte is the one who is deeply in love
with Humbert, Shade is the one who loves Sybil to such extremes. While Charlotte puts herself

down in her letter to Humbert asking him to leave, stating that she is nothing to you [Humbert].
Right? Right. Nothing to you whatever. (Lolita 75) Charlotte sees herself as below Humbert,
that he is not worthy of her love, while Shade feels the same way about Sybil. Shade wonders
how Sybil could Have let uncouth, hysterical John Shade / Blubber your face, and ear, and
shoulder blade? (Pale Fire 273-74, pg. 43) Shade portrays himself as not worthy of Sybils love,
contrasting his blubbering to her role as his Admirable butterfly who is a stable force in his life
(Pale Fire 271, pg. 43). Shades relationship with Sybil is somewhat of an inverse of Charlotte
and Humberts, wherein the husband idolizes the wife, versus Charlottes desperation for
Humbert.
While Shades presentation of Sybil is largely the opposite of Humberts of Charlotte,
Kinbotes descriptions of Sybil are much closer to Humberts in their vindictiveness. Kinbote
sees Sybil as a controlling force on Shade, hampering Kinbotes attempts to be close to Shade,
saying that he had been well coached by his lady when Shade refuses to share his poetry with
Kinbote (Pale Fire 87). For Kinbote, Sybils normal manner of speaking was a brisk offhand
fashion, unlike the tender mocking bird that Shade uses to describe Sybils call, Kinbotes
portrayal of Sybils speaking voice is representative of how he presents her overall (Pale Fire
182, 421-22 pg. 48). The differences in these descriptions is not merely due to the characters
themselves, but the context and Sybils relationship with each. Sybil calls to Shade while they
are watching television and he is mentioned; this is in a domestic setting and on an evening
where the two of them are alone together. While they may be somewhat anxious waiting for
Hazel, Sybil and Shade are in a comfortable environment, and one that much of their love is
connected to; the pillows they rest their heads together, the clock that chimes, and the free

calendars are all in their home, the place of their love. Sybils voice is both in and coming from a
loving place, which is not the case when she is talking to Kinbote.
When Sybil is brusque to Kinbote he is prying into the Shades vacation plans and in this
specific moment, Sybil is stopping Shade from answering Kinbote, proceeding to lie to him
saying that her and Shade are not sure where they will go on vacation. Kinbote learns that Sybil
lied to him when talking to Dr. A who discloses to Kinbote that the Shades are planning on going
to their friends ranch. Kinbote immediately sets out to the travel agent, gets information on the
ranch the Shades are going to, and rents a cabin in the same area for the time they will be there.
At this moment it is obvious to the reader why Sybil did not wish to share the location of her
vacation with Kinbote as she likely guessed he would attempt something like this and if he
succeeded, ruin her vacation. To the reader, this is an aggressive, inappropriate move by Kinbote,
who himself is already discussing our summer address, that demonstrates his lack of
boundaries and persistent attempts to integrate himself into Shades life (Pale Fire 183).
It is partially this lack of boundaries and obsessive behavior that make Kinbote
unlikeable and untrustworthy to the reader; and it is in these characteristics that his presentation
of Sybil loses its validity. This is an area where Kinbote and Humbert differ. While Humbert is
also obsessed with Lolita, he comes across as more likeable to the reader and funny as opposed
to Kinbotes strange personality. These differences are one of the reasons that a readers
interpretations of Charlotte and Sybil differ, despite similar presentations by Kinbote and
Humbert. Kinbote, from the forward of his commentary, displays his obsession with Shade.
Mentioning how he grabbed the manuscript of the poem even before his [Shades] body had
reached the grave Kinbote blatantly exposes himself as lacking empathy by taking abnormal
action when it comes to Shades death. Kinbote, throughout the forward, demonstrates his

conflicts with his colleagues, his posturing in presenting his relationship with Shade, and his
spying operation on the Shades. These trends all continue throughout the book, but his
relationship with Shade, and the differences between Kinbotes presentation of it and the
evidence shown in the events Kinbote recounts demonstrate Kinbotes unreliability as a narrator
and how unlikeable he is to his compatriots which then extends to readers as well.
Kinbote defines his relationship with Shade from a defensive position, opening with
And he was a very dear friend indeed! The calendar says I had only know him for a few
months (Pale Fire 18). Kinbote is already defending his relationship with Shade, having to
qualify the deepness of their relationship in in regards to the length of time they spent together.
This claim, however, is not facially preposterous. As Kinbote argues, deep friendships can
develop over a short period of time, yet as Kinbote himself reveals, likely unintentionally, his
relationship with Shade was not as deep as he supposes. Kinbote prides himself on being so close
to Shade that they discuss Shades work and Kinbote expects this relationship to develop into
Pale Fire being a poem about Zembla and the story that Kinbote had told Shade over the course
of their friendship. When the poem is not about Zembla, Kinbote takes it upon himself to insert
his theme into Shades work through his commentary. It is not just this lack of influence when
Kinbote had expected to be a guiding force that demonstrates that his relationship with Shade is
not what Kinbote portrays it as.
Kinbote attempts to get Shade to share his work with him, despite Sybil plainly telling
Kinbote that Shade never shows unfinished work to anyone. When Kinbote fails to glean any
information from Shade, and later sees him and Sybil crying in the living room, he goes to their
house to investigate. Upon arrival, Kinbote discovers Shade in the act of reading to her
something that I guessed to be a part of his poem. (Pale Fire 91) Kinbote feels a stunned

betrayal upon discovering that he is clearly not as close to Shade as Sybil is and for all of his
posturing about his relationship with Shade, he cannot get Shade to share the most intimate part
of him his writing (Boyd 45). The difference between Kinbotes relationship with Shade and
how he aggrandizes it when writing his forward and commentary makes Kinbote unreliable to
the reader, pushing readers to question his depiction of Sybil.
Kinbotes personality, the other main facet that makes readers question his validity as a
narrator through showing his unlikeability, is demonstrated largely by his interactions with
others. While he attempts to present himself as morally superior in these interactions, he often
undermines these efforts through his actions. His activities and others thoughts about him serve a
twofold purpose in regards to Sybil. They make Kinbote less reliable to readers and corroborate
Sybils opinions and actions in regards to Kinbote. This impacts how readers interpret Sybil as
Shades presentation of her is more likely to be believed as Kinbote is discredited. After being
mocked by a man who he calls Gerald Emerald at a party, Kinbote, when he exited contented
myself with pulling Gerald Emearlds bowtie loose (Pale Fire 24). Kinbotes childish
revenge, which he presents almost with pride, begins to show his nature to the readers early in
the forward. Again, in the forward he mentions that there were many such incidents including
one wherein a woman confronts him at the grocery store saying I fail to see how John and
Sybil can stand you (Pale Fire 25). This womans ideas are corroborated time and time again by
Kinbotes actions, many of which he presents proudly be it spying on the Shades, attempting to
crash their vacation, or sending a vindictive birthday message. Kinbotes personality, along with
his exaggeration of his relationship with Shade show him as unlikeable and untrustworthy to the
reader and make his portrayal of Sybil not to be trusted. Her brusque tone to him seems justified
by his actions, and the ferocious lady at the grocery store would certainly agree (Pale Fire 25).

Humbert Humbert on the other hand is able to get readers on his side. He is a strong
writer who is specifically writing to make a case to a jury and in his active attempts to garner
sympathy, he often succeeds. Charlottes infatuation with Humbert also plays into making
readers like him. Sybil plays a role in defining Kinbote through her actions toward him, as her
dislike of him is evident and is agreed upon by other characters and eventually by the reader as
well. Humbert lacks this presence, a character to at times read into him the readers views, as
Sybil does for Kinbote. These factors make Humbert more liked by the readers and more
trustworthy, ensuring his portrayal of Charlotte is more accepted than Kinbotes of Sybil.
Linda Kauffman warns in her piece Framing Lolita that sophisticated readers of
Lolita, avid to align themselves with aesthetic bliss fall into the trap of ignoring the pathos
of Lolitas predicament (Quoted in Connolly 152). This aesthetic bliss is provided largely by
Humberts writing. Humberts droll observations pepper the novel and his wit, through
statements such as Being a murderer with a sensational but incomplete and unorthodox
memory lighten the content of them, like here, where Humbert works to neutralize the impact of
declaring being a murderer with a comment on his memory that when placed in tandem have a
comedic effect (Lolita 247). While Kauffman mentions the aesthetic bliss in relation to
readers reactions to Lolita, the statement can also be applied to readers thoughts on Charlotte.
Charlotte, who never gets away from Humbert, sees the pathos of her character lost as well.
Taken on its face, the characterization of Charlotte is a static, suburban woman, whose polished
words Humbert says never reflect her soul (Lolita 39). Humberts words also do not reflect
Charlottes soul as he hides deeper elements of her person in part through exclusion, but also
through the aesthetic bliss that aides readers in taking Humberts presentation at face value.

Readers are also subject to Humberts continual pleas to them. These often arise in
moments where his actions may be met with disdain by readers, such as when he attempts to get
near Lolita on their first night in a hotel. Portraying himself as, as Connolly describes helpless
or pitiable, Humbert tries to disarm the readers by pleading no matter your exasperation with
the tenderhearted, morbidly sensitive, infinitely circumspect hero my book, do not skip these
essential pages (Connolly 100, Lolita 146). Humbert continues in this same scene to plea
directly to the frigid gentlewomen of the jury arguing now that it was Lolita who seduced him.
(Lolita 149) This interpretation of events plays directly into the hands of the aesthetic bliss
mentioned by Kauffman. Both the pleas to the jury and the aesthetics of Humberts writing serve
to deflect focus and potential blame from him and often do, in both the cases of Lolita and
Charlotte. Humbert also addresses the Gentlemen of the jury when he first mentions his plan to
marry Charlotte (Lolita 77). At this point he is appealing to the men, as opposed to the women,
and in doing so, ensures that all readers will be appealed to by their proxies on the jury. In his
targeted appeal to the men he describes Charlotte physically in the most attractive way Humbert
can muster, specifically tailoring his appeal from how he appealed to the gentlewomen of the
jury. Humbert works to endear himself and present his case to the jury and by extension all
readers of the novel. These appeals at time are effective and are more plausible than many of
Kinbotes claims, making Humbert a more believable narrator for readers.
Despite their differences in how readers perceive them, Humbert and Kinbotes
presentations of the two women are influenced in large part by the effect that each has on
blocking the narrators from their ultimate goals Lolita for Humbert and Shade, as well as the
inclusion of Zembla in the poem, for Kinbote. The shift in Humberts narration when he decides
to marry Charlotte is very representative of this effect. When Humbert is still relatively new at

10

the Haze house, Charlotte would block him from his voyeurism of Lolita, prompting him to enter
into his journal my L. was sun-bathing on the so-called piazza, but her mother and some other
woman were around all the time. (Lolita 45) Humbert not only mocks Charlotte calling the yard
a piazza but is angry with Charlotte for her mere presence disrupting his attempts to watch
Lolita. Charlottes continual rescheduling of the lake day, largely due to Lolitas behavior, also
festers anger from Humbert who was greatly anticipating the trip for presenting another
opportunity to get near Lolita. While Charlotte at the start of Humberts stay is an obstacle for
Humberts ultimate goal, once she becomes a tool in his quest, Humbert changes his ideas about
Charlotte. The marriage is thought of mainly as a tool for Humberts goal, but Charlotte now
being useful to him causes him to describe her in a more positive light, and at the lake describe
them as The Humberts and Charlotte as Lady Hum demonstrating his greater acceptance of
her even though it is almost all for an ulterior motive (Lolita 92).
Kinbotes spiteful picture of Sybil is largely influenced by her blocking him from Shade.
Kinbote complains of Sybil not letting Shade know he calls my messages were never
transmitted and exerting control over letting Shade talk he had been well coached by his
lady (Pale Fire 259, 87). Kinbote sees Sybil as the person who is responsible for blocking him
from Shade, despite Sybil being the first to invite Kinbote to their house, directly contradicting
both Kinbotes statement that from the very first she [Sybil] disliked and distrusted me and his
idea of her responsibility for blocking him from Shade (Pale Fire 171). A major way this anger is
demonstrated is through Kinbotes attempts to put himself in Sybils position when it comes to
Shade. Jean Walton contends that Sybil represents a rival in the pursuit of male sexual objects
in the novel, as Kinbote attempts to move into her relationship with Shade (Walton 153). Kinbote
describes his interactions with the Shades as the five month period of my intercourse with the

11

Shades placing a sexual undertone on their relationship, an undertone wherein he attempts to

replace Sybil (Pale Fire 229). Kinbote also makes their relationships with Shade into a
competition. Upon finding Shade reading portions of the poem to Sybil and Sybil then offering
Kinbote coffee, he comments victors are generous framing whoever is closer to Shade and
therefore gets to hear his work as the winner of an unspoken competition (Pale Fire 91). In his
notes on the portion of the poem about Sybil, Kinbote comments I, too, was wont to draw my
poets attention to the idyllic beauty of airplanes in the evening sky. (Pale Fire 174) Shade
identifies Sybils observation of planes as something he loves about her, and through his
commentary, Kinbote attempts to be included in Shades love. While Kinbote may disapprove
of the tenderness Shade shows toward Sybil in the poem and therefore mark the section as
merely working as a transition to Hazel, he still attempts to insert himself into this section of the
poem (Boyd 69). In his commentary on the line, Kinbote begins with his posturing attempt to
enter Sybils role in her relationship with Shade before transitioning into writing about Gradus.
While Sybil does not influence Kinbote writing about Gradus, his anger with her stems from
another perceived slight in Shades poem.
Kinbote blames Sybil for blocking the Zemblan elements from the poem and as Boyd
states, he manufactures the Zemblan variants as proof (Boyd 119). Kinbote flatly states that
she made him tone down or remove from his Fair Copy everything connected with the
magnificent Zemablan theme directly blaming Sybil for the lack of inclusion of Zembla in the
poem, despite the poem being obviously about other topics that a censorship of certain elements
of Zembla is unlikely as any inclusion of Zembla would be an obvious break from the thematic
work that Shade was doing (Pale Fire 91). Kinbote argues that this occurred just as regularly as
Shade would read his work to Sybil. Shades readings seem to be a rather regular occurrence, so

12

even here Kinbote is assuming that Zembla was curtailed in near every reading, while every
Canto has a major theme aside from Zembla, and the themes all work to create a cohesive work.
Kinbote then fails in his attempts to counteract this supposed censorship by inserting lines to the
poem, ironically likely altering the poem more than Sybil ever did herself.
While the presentations of Charlotte and Sybil are greatly impacted by what the narrators
choose to include, they are also shaped by what is intentionally left out, or barely mentioned. For
both women the main issue not mentioned in their past traumas. Shade deeply discusses the
death of Hazel and its effects on both himself and Sybil in the poem, yet Kinbote downplays
these elements in his commentary. For Charlotte, the death of her son is scantly mentioned, yet at
each brief inclusion seems to be a major moment in her life that drives her decision making at the
time of Humberts occupancy. The exclusion or inclusion of these traumas greatly factor into
how readers interpret these two characters.
For Sybil and Shade the death of their daughter Hazel was a life changing moment with
lasting effects. They had often struggled while raising Hazel in hoping she would be happy due
to her appearance, efforts that as presented by Shade erased Hazels accomplishments in favor of
playing into traditional gender expectations, the two loved her deeply. The deepness of this
trauma is best represented by Sybils thoughts on the wind. The night that Hazel died, Shade and
Sybil while at home heard the wind. We heard it rush and throw / Twigs at the windowpane.
Phone ringing? No. (Pale Fire 479-80, pg. 50) The expectancy and anxiousness of waiting for a
phone call is mentioned in relation to the wind and a certain violence is present in the wind
throwing twigs. This violence and the connection of the wind make Sybils reaction to Kinbotes
failed spying attempt creating a ruckus outside while Shade is reading Canto 2 to Sybil more
moving. Already reliving the grief of the death and on a hot, black, blustery night Sybil and

13

Shades openness is disrupted in what would be another somewhat traumatic event (Pale Fire
90). Sybil does not just have a painful connection to the wind, but is also easily startled by
sounds like those Kinbotes falling create. Sybil, perhaps still grasping onto hopes of spiritualism
must be calmed by Shade for a long section of the poem as she startles at every new sound, be it
the creaking of the stairs or snow falling from the roof. Kinbotes inability or active refusal to
piece together this trauma leaves it up to the reader and Shade to understand Sybils pain.
Luckily for Sybil she has Shades poem to present a deeper picture of her grief, wherein the full
emotions felt by both are discussed with vulnerability that is hugely lacking from Kinbote falling
into a box hedge.
Charlotte does not have the benefit of a insightful poem to deepen the readers
understanding of her trauma. Charlotte had a son with her first husband who died when he was
two, yet her son is only mentioned twice in the novel, and in each instance is quickly skipped
over by Humbert. The first mention of Charlottes dead son is in the letter she wrote to Humbert
asking him to leave, yet it is not in the portion of the letter Humbert includes, it is briefly
mentioned in Humberts discussion of the rest of the letter he left out. Humbert admits that what
is present here is what I remember of the letter and despite claiming that what he remembers he
remembers verbatim; he quickly contradicts himself by later saying there is a chance that
vortex of the toilet is my own matter-of-fact conclusion (Lolita 76). Humbert assures the
reader that he is presenting them with an accurate account of the letter, yet also admits to maybe
creating a portion of the letter himself. Not only does this section demonstrate that Humbert is an
inconsistent narrator, despite his many pleas to the jury, but also that this letter especially and by
extension, much of his depiction of Charlotte cannot be fully trusted. In mentioning what he
excluded from the letter, Humbert first mentions Lolitas brother, as he left out a lyrical passage

14

which I more of less skipped, concerning Lolitas brother who died at 2 when she was 4, and
how much I would have liked him. (Lolita 76) This is a large revelation that is first not included
in the letter Humbert shares with the reader and then is glossed over in summary, much like how
Humbert approached this portion of the letter himself. This revelation alters Charlottes character
in several ways, it reinforces her love for Humbert as sharing about the death of her son is
defined by how her son would have interacted with Humbert, it, and the letter in general, clearly
demonstrate that until this point the portrayal for Charlotte by Humbert was not accurate, and
thirdly it offers clues into her mindset, especially when it comes to parenting. Charlottes
harshness toward Lolita can somewhat be attributed to this trauma, as losing one child likely
makes her more protective of another, a factor that can be seen in her immediate reaction upon
discovering Humberts true feelings about her and Lolita.
Charlottes son comes up once more while Lolita is away at camp and Humbert is
describing his life with Charlotte. Humbert complains of how Charlotte mentions the son more
than Lolita and that the only photograph in their bedroom is of her son. Charlotte also believes
that the dead infants soul would return to earth in the form of the child she would bear in her
present wedlock. (Lolita 90) Charlottes son is clearly one of, if not the most important, person
in her life. At the exclusion of Lolita, Humbert, and her first husband, Charlotte choses to solely
include her son in her room where he serves as a constant reminder of her loss. She also holds
onto spiritual beliefs about her son, somewhat like Sybils thoughts on the sounds after Hazels
death. While her thought that the soul of her son may return may be farfetched, it partially
explains her infatuation with Humbert. She is not just deeply invested in Humbert for his Old
World charms, but also has an interest in their relationship as a way to return her son to her. By
glossing over these mentions of her trauma, and doing so flippantly, Humbert does not allow a

15

reader to easily understand the potential depths of Charlottes personality, keeping her portrayal
mainly to the surface level poshlust Humbert sees everywhere. Charlottes true personality and
reasoning is hardly explored and without a vehicle like Shades poem provides for Sybil,
Charlottes trauma along with her character as a whole is left mostly unexplored.
Both Charlotte and Sybil saw their children die and this unifying trauma remains
unexplored by two malicious narrators who foster anger against these women for blocking them
from their goals. A deeper exploration of Charlottes trauma could lend clues into her deep
infatuation with Humbert and her parenting with Lolita, but as Humbert works to present his
case, these considerations that would undermine some of his arguments would are left
untouched. Sybil is able to see her trauma discussed in a loving fashion by her husband, yet left
near unmentioned by a narrator who seeks to erase her from her husbands work and from her
position as wife. Both characters remain somewhat undeveloped and underexplored as Humbert
and Kinbote focus on their ultimate goals and these presentations cause these women to often be
interpreted on a surface level, with few outlets for them to develop.

16

Works Cited
Boyd, Brian. Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP,
1999. Print.

Clippinger, David. Lolita and 1950s American Culture. Approaches to Teaching Lolita. Ed.
Zoran Kuzmanovich, Galya Diment. New York: Modern Language Association of America,
2008. 128-33. Print.

Connolly, Julian W. A Reader's Guide to Nabokov's Lolita Boston: Academic Studies, 2009.
Print.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. London: Penguin, 2006. Print.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Pale Fire. New York: Vintage International Edition, 1989. Print.

Walton, Jean. Dissenting in an Age of Frenzied Heterosexualism: Kinbotes Transparent Closet

in Nabokovs Pale Fire College Literature. June 1994.

17