While plot is obviously deeply connected to the settings of the novel, this only becomes important within Lolita at the point at which the writer creates a situation in which the lack of spatial description gives insight to Humbert’s inner dialogue. For example, once Lolita has left Humbert “night had eliminated most of the landscape” and the landscape slips out of his sight. Manolescu-Oancea states, however, that ‘visions of the mountains that surround Humbert are conflated with delirious visions of multiple Lolitas – an effect which is typical of the pathetic fallacy’. This becomes the most important when aestheticism enriches the ‘hazy’ America and ‘it gradually dissolves, just like Humbert’s hallucinatory Lolitas (whose model will soon leave him)’: it shows Humbert to project his own feelings onto the setting in order to romanticise the depraved actions which he undertakes. This illustrates the power that sexualized place names have on Humbert, that they have such an impact on him; that he would choose one, Briceland, over others on the basis of its erotic setting. However, the impact of the narrative being told from his––unreliable–– perspective is that much of the eroticization is actually the product of his creativity. This complicates any reading of Lolita insofar as Humbert’s admission that he has re-named everyone and every place in the novel in order to protect the identities of those involved, seen when he proclaims ‘I have camouflaged everything, my love’, creates ambiguity over the extent of the settings’ role. Under this metric, either Humbert is projecting sexual significance onto places during the subsequent writing of his memoir, or he names places sexually in order to reflect their role in the narrative. Brand is correct to assert that in ‘separating names from their referents, Humbert attaches his own imaginative >