Separated by more than a century Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955) and Matthew Lewis’s The Monk (1796) belong to very different literary traditions—modern prose versus Gothic sensationalism—yet both are about the human heart, albeit deviant and troubled hearts.
According to Dante the opposite of moderation is incontinence. The protagonists of the novels, Ambrosio and Humbert are incontinent, incapable of controlling their urges. That’s their nature. Sin is in their DNA. While Ambrosio, a revered monk, succumbs to lust and deception in a slow transformative process, Humbert Humbert of Lolita is an unapologetic sinner. Self-righteous and arrogant, Nabokov’s protagonist pursues an illicit affair with a twelve-year-old. In both cases, desire is ultimately a destabilizing and eroding force but it also seems inevitable. Both works explore taboo sexuality and its ‘destructive’ consequences. In Lolita Nabokov turns the novel into a rhetorical performance in which Humbert attempts to seduce not only Lolita but also the reader, and we let him, as he keeps us dangling between aesthetic pleasure and moral revulsion.
Lewis’s apparent message—like Nabokov’s—that Ambrosio’s downfall is inevitable and should be, therefore, avoided, is a facade. You see, you and I are seduced by Ambrosio’s weaknesses, as we are with Humbert’s humanity. We feel their passions. We embrace their weaknesses—to our chagrin—because we understand them.
Ambrosio and Humbert are incontinent. Yes. But they’re also human. And they are not so different from us. Any one of us, given the right circumstances, may dance with the devil, or at least think about it.
— Photo. Fuji XH2. Fujifilm 35mm f1.4