Unmasking the Unreliable Narrator; a study of Vladimir Nabokov and Ralph Ellison

Vladimir Nabokov and Ralph Ellison’s, Lolita and Invisible Man, subvert our traditional understanding of genre, through their retrospective, first person narrators, and manipulation of conventional genre tropes. These adaptations of classic literary genres, manipulate the author-reader relationship, ultimately allocating a greater sense of agency to the literary narrators in these works. However, Nabokov and Ellison’s narrators differ in that the Lolita narrator’s meta-manipulation of the literary medium results in an incredibly unreliable narration whereas the Invisible Man narrator’s self-referential anecdotes develop a trustworthy relationship with the reader, built on revered ethos.

From the onset of the novel, Lolita, both Nabokov’s use of a retrospective narrator, and manipulation of traditional genre tropes are evident through the narrator’s initial introduction to Lolita. Lolita reads: “Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child, in a princedom by the sea” (9). By asking and promptly answering his own question, Humbert Humbert, Nabokov’s narrator, defines the yet unnamed, “initial girl-child,” as the precursor to Lolita. In this way, Humbert Humbert, as a narrator, creates a cause and effect relationship between his current, retrospective, love for Lolita, and his past, adolescent, love-loss. Given the context of the novel’s Forward, which states, “this remarkable memoir is presented intact” (3), Humbert Humbert’s assertion of a causational relationship between past events in his life represents a conventional use of this genre. Traditionally, memoirs are categorized as memories regarding one’s life; these events are assumed to be factual, and are told via a retrospective, first person narrator, given the context of retelling past events. Nabokov’s manipulation of genre through an introduction by the fictitious character, John Ray Jr., initiates an implied authorial-reader relationship based on trust due to Ray Jr.’s classification of Humbert Humbert’s story being that of a memoir. However, Humbert’s initial introduction to Lolita, doubles as an allusion to Edgar Allen Poe’s poem, Annabel Lee, consequently subverting conventional genre tropes through the hybridization of memoir and tragic love story.

Humbert’s assertion, “In a princedom by the sea” (9), as well as his later description’s of envious “noble-winged seraphs,” are direct references to Poe’s Annabel Lee. Such direct references to Poe’s diction, as well as the phonetic similarities between Poe’s “Annabel Lee,” and Humbert’s “Annabel Leigh,” suggest an inspirational connection between the real author, Edgar Allen Poe, and the fictitious narrator, Humbert Humbert. Furthermore, Humbert’s declaration, “I am convinced, however, that in a certain magic and fateful way Lolita began with Annabel” (14), suggests a meta-manipulative, retrospective awareness for the medium connecting narrator and reader. This self-referential awareness derives from the parallel between the literal structure of the novel, and the actual creation of the story; both beginning with Annabel, whether it be “Leigh,” or “Lee.” In this way, Nabokov’s use of a manipulative retrospective narrator results in an overwhelmingly unreliable narrative structure.

This notion regarding Humbert’s trustworthiness, or lack thereof, continues as he states, “You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style” (9). Given the previous prose style leading up to this assertion, it is not far-fetched to conclude that the memoir to come may entail a murder. Furthermore, Humbert’s declaration, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury…” (9), directed towards the reader, suggests a trial, or confessional platform for his story, adding to the unreliable sentiment surrounding Humbert’s narrative since the participants in trials are advocates seeking to convict or acquit and not necessarily the truth. Nabokov’s retrospective, first person narrator’s story telling under the false guise of a memoir allows for a manipulation of genre tropes. Ultimately this results in an unreliable narrator as Humbert Humbert’s narrative purpose is flawed.

Whereas Nabokov’s retrospective, first person, narration is riddled with overt attempts to gain the reader’s allegiance, ultimately resulting in an unreliable narrator, Ralph Ellison’s retrospective first-person narrator in Invisible Man, is more covert in its attempts to appeal to the audience’s empathy, resulting in a far more reliable sense of narration.

From the onset of the novel, Invisible Man, Ellison’s manipulation of conventional genre tropes via his retrospective first person narrator is evident. Invisible Man reads: “Now, aware of my invisibility, I live rent-free in a building rented strictly to whites, in a section of the basement that was shut off and forgotten during the nineteenth century, which I discovered when I was trying to escape in the night from Ras the Destroyer. But that’s getting too far ahead of the story, almost to the end, although the end is in the beginning and lies far ahead” (5). Such a sentiment is particularly revealing in that by asserting, “Now, aware of my invisibility” (5), suggests that a drastic, physical or emotional, change took place in the life of the narrator allowing him to reminisce in a more aware mindset.

In this way, the Invisible Man’s retrospective, first person narration initially causes the reader to infer that the novel follows traditional Bildungsroman genre tropes. Bildungsroman novels deal with individuals’ formative years, and their spiritual education. However, Ellison’s retrospective first person narrator subverts conventional genre identities in that the structural arch of the novel is opposite to that of traditional Bildungsroman novels. Ellison’s narrator begins the Prologue declaring, “I am an invisible man” (3). This revelation, stated in the present tense, suggests that, in the narrator’s present, authorial, mindset, he feels invisible. Such a sentiment subverts traditional genre tropes in that bildungsroman tales generally begin with the protagonist feeling lost, alone, disenfranchised, or invisible, and ultimately ends following specific events that lead to individual growth and enlightenment. In fact, Ellison’s narrator is aware of this genre manipulation as he regresses, “But that’s getting too far ahead of the story, almost to the end, although the end is in the beginning and lies far ahead” (6), suggesting an authorial meta-awareness. Ellison’s narrator further reveals a self-referential understanding of this genre manipulation through his allegorical references to the philosophic discussion regarding the Allegory of the Cave. Such references to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave are illustrated through Ellison’s preoccupation with light and dark imagery, and his consequent association of light and knowledge, or “truth.” Additionally, the Invisible Man narrator’s inhabitance in “a hole in the ground” (6), allows for a more literal reading of the parallel between the narrator’s experience and the Allegory of the Cave.

As a self-aware narrator, announcing his invisibility as a given as “the end is the beginning,” the reader is drawn into the psyche of the narrator and is intrigued as to how and why the narrator is who he is. In this way, the retrospective first person narration of Invisible Man results in a more reliable narration than that of Nabokov’s Lolita as Ralph Ellison’s manipulation of the bildungsroman genre creates a mentorship relationship between reader and narrator as opposed to the manipulative experience felt in Lolita.