Nabokov's Chess Problems

I opted to to look at his chess problems, rather than do a creative writing piece, because I fancy my self a chess player just slightly more then I do a creative writer. I was initially struck by the way that the problems varied from actual game's of chess. The construction is far more intricate, and the discovered checks are by far the most valuable tactical strategy. Like Nabokov's fiction his problem often have red herrings, bishops sitting blocked off in the corner, that need not be touched to solve the problem. 

The first problem in the collection "The Irresistible try" plays with it's player like Nabokov does his reader. There is the compulsion as a chess player to promote a pawn when given the chance which in this case he is able to do, and check the king. However the problem is beautifully composed so that the Pawn is forced to move, thereby checking your king and guaranteeing you will not succeed.

Some other themes I found to be consistent in Nabokov's chess problems were points when a king would be forced to move into a place he would be checkmated the next turn, not because he is in check but because in chess the the player is forced to move. This, I think, could be a reflection of  fate, the idea that the game continues, and that even if it's toward a loss, a player must move.

A final thought: I completely saw how Nabokov enjoyed creating chess problem, he created the world on the board, by specific unmoving pieces which formed the boundaries of the game.  The problem then worked as story which he made for the characters to act it out.

The Two Humberts

The first idea that comes to mind, is trying understand Humbert Humbert; the problem of the unreliable narrator. There is of course two Humberts  in Lolita , Humbert the writer and the Humbert the character ( it is not by chance that our protagonist wears his name twice). This is problematic, because the only way in which ones learns about  Humbert the writer is through his own narration (i.e the way he portrays himself in the novel).  He is the hermeneutic circle of characters; one can only understand him ( the writer) from what he writes, but one can only understand that writing through our conception of the writer.  I suppose it is in the incongruities that we must understand Humbert, when the reader must ask him or herself why something doesn’t sound right, or perhaps sounds too right. Though even then there is still the question of whether the incongruities are part of the constructions. 

Now in a related vain, though not exactly the same, there is an observable discrepancy between the external Humbert, and internal Humbert, i.e the way Humbert the character portrays himself to other characters in the novel. I guess the question I’m trying to ask is what is the relationship between the way something is and the way that something appears, and how are these discrepancies telling of the people in the novel.This also is the perhaps the problem of Charlotte Haze who spends her whole life trying to appear in such a way that is incongruous with her actual situation. This something which Humbert hates about her that, if I were to psychologize the character, I might speculate is a result of his own in troubled relationship between how he appears and how he is. This theme is also likely to relate to the 1950’s  which is a time notorious for it’s idyllic facade.