In Nabokov's Lolita, the effective strength of individuality converges with the strength of society in a prolific battle between what is morally justified by a community and what is justified by an individual, revealing the essential choice everyone faces: the isolation of individuality or incorporation into the social sense of “belonging”. This conflict is played out by two main themes, pedophilia and murder, and represents the crux of the novel. Through various literary techniques of interpretation, formalist, neo-historicist and feminist, Lolita begins its journey as a modern classic of literature, its ambiguity in morality masterfully promoted by Nabokov and its main character Humbert Humbert. Applying a formalist lens, we see Nabokov's vision of an inherently suffering man and his attempt to alter society, if not escape from it, in order to solve his problems. Using characterization, irony, and point of view, Nabokov presents the reader with a psychological case study of an incestuous murderer, who implores the reader for redemption and understanding. From a neo-historicist perspective, we question the intent of the written novel: why Nabokov chose to write Lolita in the 1950s, a time of mechanization and unbridled conformation. Through his utter disgust with the socialization of the popular masses, we begin to see Humbert not only as an ideologue defending what he perceives to be the right way to act, but also as a critic of pop culture and the pseudo-intelligentsia. Finally, the final critical lens through which we will view Lolita is that of the feminist perspective. We will see Dolores Haze, or Lolita, as the vulnerable and naive child and Humbert as the stereotypical male who is all too in touch with his sexual desires. As the story develops we begin to see a reversal of roles; the empowerment of women through their sexual control over men. We see the overlapping roles of women in Lolita, from the vessel of lust and desire, to the pragmatic, to the representation of an idea that Humbert takes too far. Using these literary lenses, the reader should draw three markedly different conclusions about the same Nabokov book; a comic tragedy about a lustful man, the call to be different in a compliant society, and the responsibility of women in a Freudian society. A contemporary reader will find that a feminist reading of the book is the most relevant to today's society. Social changes have allowed pop culture to showcase youth icons to make them attractive; instead of protecting a child's innocence, America is using the powerful shades of the same obsessiveness that Humbert so desperately tries to escape to achieve a marketable and profitable product, going beyond its own moral code of "right and wrong" and rewriting the rules. .Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It was with meticulous precision that Nabokov created Humbert Humbert, a man mentally unstable due to all conventional ways. As if simply creating the character wasn't enough to actually "understand" the character, Nabokov uses the power of narrative to shape the meticulously detailed, almost stream-of-consciousness testimony that drives the plot of the story. From the beginning Humbert addresses the readers as "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury..." (Nabokov 9) as if he is presenting a case full of evidence that relates to "exhibit number one..." (9). It is with this presumption that the reader understands his intentions to write his memoirs in such a way that thesubsequent generations can judge the morality of his actions. He will try with great effort to convince us of the justifications for his actions. Humbert rose from the aristocracy by attending school in Paris and educated with all the necessities of Old World Europe. His teaching is reflected in his lofty prose writing, "I discussed Soviet films with expatriates. I sat with Uranians at the Deux Magots. I published meandering essays in obscure magazines. I composed pastiches..." (16) he digresses Humbert, attributing his erudition to his ability to access a wide range of cultures. Throughout the novel, Humbert inserts bits of French into his thoughts to promote the image of the completeness of his thinking. education."... far from being an indolent partie de plaisir, our tour was a hard and twisted teleological growth..." (154). presents the reader with an implicit respect and trust towards him. Perhaps Colin McGinn best describes Humbert as "old-fashioned...professional in manner, quietly studious, fussy, impractical, shy, wearily erudite, intellectually snobbish, long-winded and. much given to pseudo-erudite defenses of his pedophilia" ( 31). His background becomes the foundation with which we view Humbert, the observations he recounts in the readers' minds are acute and accurate, a deception with which Nabokov plays on his readers. Now I wish to introduce the following idea. Between the ages of nine and fourteen there are girls who, to certain bewitched travellers, two or many times older than them, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymph (i.e. demonic); and I propose to designate these chosen creatures as "nymphets." (Nabokov 16)Told as a true professor on the subject, Humbert launches the reader into the inner depths of his psyche. Readers learn of Humbert's singular temptation of "nymphets" who become his lifelong obsession and the driving force of his motivation. The fact that Humbert sets "limits" to the existence of creatures tells readers that he is very specific in defining the parameters. He is also a self-admitted solipsist; a person who knows only his present state and thinks he is the only thing in existence (336). This explains Humbert's incredible selfishness as he is only attentive to his own feelings and never to those of Lolita or any other person in the novel. This driving force further polarizes Humbert from his place in society as his source of pleasure is perceived by the public as perverse2E He needs to hide this "atrocity" to be extremely cautious in not letting the public discover his pedophilia, his individuality. Perhaps that's why some less than sentimental expressions reassure his feelings about his mother's death. "My mother, very photogenic, died in a strange accident (picnic, lightning)..." (10). His feelings do not extend beyond what is pleasant or painful to him, but only as far as his reality. The other deaths that occur in the story no longer evoke emotion in Humbert, as he sees it as a conduit to gain his own pleasure. For example, Charlotte Haze's unfortunate accident was met with joy, if not a wish that she would leave sooner so she could be alone with her daughter Lolita. "The numbness of my soul was lifted for a moment. And no wonder! I had indeed seen the agent of destiny... and here was the instrument... hurried housewife, drooling sidewalk, a pest dog, slope steep, big car, baboon at the wheel..." (103). Nabokov, through his use of narrative and the reader's familiarity with the workings of the novel, poses a moral dilemma, just one of many. Should the death of Humbert's wife evoke a sense of guilt within him, or even in the reader? From all thatwe know about Charlotte, she is a kitschy, people-minded woman who treated her daughter with contempt, an innocent child, believing her to be a burden, while Humbert was only trying to protect his Lolita. In his own words, a departure from his regular prose, “The Haze woman, the big bitch, the old cat, the hateful mother…” (95). In recounting the events of Charlotte's death, Nabokov manages to weave some irony into the story.2 And a dog that Humbert had swerved to avoid had caused the accident that killed his wife. The reader is given the task of choosing the morality of Humbert's actions, in his death as well as in his obsession. Death therefore becomes a parallel theme to pedophilia: how can we readers judge oppositely on both issues? Through the deconstruction of the characters, the reader begins to see not only the double sides of the moral story that Nabokov offers him as the previous one did? question, but also the dual nature of all the characters within this story. Even Humbert Humbert, a repetitive echo of the main character's name, seems to represent a secondary nature for man. This remains true of his story and his opinions on Lolita. While he is a strict conservative by his political standards, he is less likely to believe he is committing a heinous crime like pedophilia if he distorts the actions to be justified with his solipsism. Indeed, McGinn suggests that "his circumlocutions and tiresome euphemisms actually enable him to keep the immorality of his actions at some distance from his conscience; and moral enlightenment tends to be accompanied by simpler discourse" (32) , essentially stating that because Humbert chose to coexist with his two selves, formal, sophisticated, and educated Humbert, he needed an outlet for his "human" side, his lust for Lolita. To cover up and justify his wild side, Humbert resorts to using "demanding" language. This battle between the restrictions of the Old World versus the unlimited freedoms of the New World, represented by Humbert's journey to America, is faced by Humbert both internally and externally. His choice to passively live his life within this society which explicitly prevents him from believing him to be society's ogre if he reveals his other side - shows that Humbert is trying to make his choice to appreciate beauty aesthetics in girls, an individualistic option. Interestingly, there was no revelation of Humbert's aberrant association with Lolita until the confessions he wrote in a mock play that Charlotte conveniently discovered right before his death. We see society blind to Humbert's perversity, or perhaps it is the result of his extremely capable ability to hide it. The concealment was further illustrated by the two journeys undertaken by Humbert and Lolita in the novel. These journeys, the "first circles of paradise..." (283) are symbolic of an escape from a constant source of danger, the discovery of Humbert's pedophilia, or perhaps a greater fear for him, Lolita learns of the illegality of their actions. It was a means by which Humbert could maintain a mobile and nomadic life. Never staying more than one night in a hotel, Humbert does not allow society to peek into his personal life. It becomes sterile compared to the phase of "belonging" to a community. Through this choice, he seeks to isolate himself, and his perversion (Lolita), from any community commitment to doing "the right thing." This is his individuality at its peak, his morals prevent him from seeing what is deemed "wrong" by society and by placing himself physically away from criticism, Humbert avoidssociety. What is peculiar to the Nabokovian novel is the portrayal of the authority that Nabokov is supposed to hang in the balance. One might believe that his struggles with the law involve pedophilia and that his actions in that area led to his incarceration. However, this was not the case, as all the times Humbert got into trouble with the law, it was for something other than his incestuous relationship with Lolita. The reader should keep in mind that his memoirs are written from prison and not from a mental institution. The warrant of law he violated was not his affair with Lolita, but rather the murder of Quilty. Therefore, we must believe that the constraints of his moral dilemma were not killing or murder; his plea to "ladies and gentlemen of the jury..." (9) was not to justify his murder, although he does a fantastic job of fabricating a motive, but rather to justify his love for Lolita, which leads him to kill Quilt. This distinction should be made clear as we once again see society's conflict; Humbert manages to avoid the persecution of pedophilia, but he cannot escape murder, a product of his mental disorder (if we were to classify pedophilia as a psychological disease and not as a condition for appreciating one's vision of "true" beauty" ( 34) as argued by Humbert)2E Quilty's murder poses the ultimate moment of duality through which Humbert is essentially killing a form of himself. He observes that there are many "nymphoettes" (32) who fall under the spell of girls like Lolita, who lose control of their mind in the chase. Quilty, the secondary character that Humbert searches for in the second part of the book, represents the alternative parallel that follows Humbert's every move. The last fight scene before Quilty's death between Humbert and Quilty (301) could be interpreted as a struggle between Humbert and himself. The only difference between Quilty and Humbert is Humbert's assumptions of solipsism and his thoughts on Lolita's exclusive "ownership". The fight over the gun, a phallic symbol in Freudian psychoanalysis, is representative of the power struggle between Quilty and Humbert, as both their respective masculinities are threatened by the other's existence. As Humbert shoots and kills Quilty (302), a formidable task but accomplished to great comic effect, he absolves the morality of his actions, and yet reaffirms them at the same time by pulling the trigger. The duality of Humbert's character emerges again, Nabokov tries to ask the reader, why would he kill someone seemingly so similar to himself? Quilty only shares Humbert's appreciation of beauty, but nevertheless falls in love with Lolita in much the same way as Humbert. Why doesn't he understand Quilty's emotions since they are perfectly identical to his "individuality"? Since it is an attack on his own individuality, his identification with Lolita, the connection he has found with her beauty, in Humbert's mind is unique in itself. While society can parade its course, Humbert stands aside, as the saying goes, "slow down to smell the roses." When another comes to violate his "property", his only action is the elimination of that threat. James Tweedie agrees when he states: "Humbert's solipsism aims at almost complete isolation, and the world beyond his insular existence is always approached as a threat, as the intrusion of an incipient end into the precarious history of his time with Lolita" (161). ). The question is referred to Humbert's solipsism and his indifference to the interactions of the external world. To continue the development of Humbert's understanding, we turn to a single moment in his life, which he strives forreliving, the epitome of the repetitive actions he tried to duplicate. You might say that he has experienced a moment of his life, one that he wants to relive again and again, immortalizing it in the image not only of Lolita, but of countless girls he has lusted after. This experience dates back to his first love with Annabel. She was seen in "general terms such as: 'honey-colored skin,' 'thin arms,' 'bobbed brown hair,'...a little ghost in natural colors" (11) quotes Humbert, "and that's how I see Lolita ." There is no doubt that his relationship with Lolita is based on the desire for Annabel's memory. Nabokov makes a literary allusion to Edgar Allen Poe's "Annabel Lee", which explains the tragedy of Annabel in Nabokov's Lolita; the loss of a loved one due to an illness that could not be prevented. (Several clues to Humbert's allusion, and thus consequently to Nabokov's allusion to "Annabel Lee", include Humbert's recorded name as "Dr. EdgarHumbert" (118)) Humbert tries to emulate in every single relationship the ideal image of his lost Annabel, and so, the image of the young and innocent child in Lolita fits this role. It was a unique experience that he is trying to recreate. ; he believes that society would not understand this suffering. This becomes the purpose of the entire memoir: to convince his readers of his personal morality. In a final position, Humbert pleads with readers to understand his suffering, as in his opinion. he is just trying to reconnect with his nature: "I have done nothing but follow nature. I am nature's faithful hound" (135). This presents the paradox in the characterization of Humbert, as we know him as. On the one hand, Humbert was the calculating and omnipresent fellow educated in Europe's most elite universities, and on the other hand we must see him from the other, a wild man indulging in his natural desires. Even with elegant prose, Humbert is unable to hide this side of him, and this is exactly what Dr. John Ray, Jr. concludes about Humbert. .I have no intention of glorifying "HH" Without a doubt, it is horrible, it is abject, it is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and playfulness that perhaps betrays supreme misery, but does not favor attractiveness... It is abnormal . He's not a gentleman. But how magically her violin sings can evoke a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us enraptured by the book while detesting its author (5) Thus through characterization, irony, use From the point of view of the point of view , Nabokov creates the character of Humbert: an incessantly calculating individual, who makes a choice between his adaptations to society and the pursuit of personal pleasure in a self-proclaimed philosophy of solipsism, of which he chooses the latter. After putting himself in prison, he chose to finally share his obsession with the rest of the world in the form of a testimony in which he constantly begs the reader for his redemption. The reader is given the task of evaluating Humbert's arguments, do we agree with him? Maybe even sympathize with him? What exactly does Nabokov want us to conclude about the whole story? Should we consider Humbert's position of choosing individuality over society as a model for our lives or should we do exactly the opposite? Nabokov does not make a definitive conclusion in the text, that is, he does not suggest either one or the other direction. This book does not answer its own questions, but rather poses them for the reader to ponder. Dr. John Ray, Jr. best defines it as a “case report…a classic in psychiatric circles” (4) by which we must evaluate future patients. As for Humbert, we see his pain, we feel his pain, but we don't judge him one way or the other. His pleas remained as they weredying observations of a man who believed so strongly in his individuality, in his pursuit of aesthetic perfection, that he would kill for it. Humbert will then die, Nabokov being a master of metaphors, of "coronary thrombosis" (3), otherwise known as a broken heart, for the loss of his Lolita, for the loss of his individuality. With formalist analysis, we are able to decipher the characters, interpret their hidden meanings, and perhaps even draw some sort of conclusion about the novel, the basis of the book. The reader feels the polarization of the two forces, the individual versus society, as we see the battle fought by Humbert. His struggle illuminates the question of individuals and their freedom of choice. However, to begin a deeper understanding of Nabokov's intentions in writing the book, we must also use the technique of New Historicism and see how his Lolita was a reflection of the events of that time period. We resort to the use of material outside the confines of the novel and look at what was happening between the criticism Nabokov received, censorship, post-war social conformism and the popularization of the mass media to induce the conformity of individuals. Lolita was published in 1955 , the central year of a decade characterized by the post-war economic boom. America was, as Ehrenhalt says, “…a world of limited choices” (4). Through the mass industrial production of the 1940s, in the aftermath of the war, America had developed a mass institutionalized system in which government standards, industrial competition, and economic factors rivaled the decadence of the Gilded Age, when monopolistic entities of a few controlled opinions. , options and decisions of the population. Ehrenhalt exemplifies this for the entire socioeconomic and political aura by stating, “this was as true for commerce as it was for sports and politics, and it was almost as true for the smallest transactions as it was for the large ones” (4). He also relates this to shopping at a grocery store, “everyday commerce was based on relationships based on habit, not choice” (5). This lack of choice contributes to the conformation of a society in which only one set of values ​​can be fixed and recognized as the "correct" one. Even when it comes to teenagers' clothing, society has a set of rules that evidently cannot be broken. The dress code was described as “…almost a uniform: jeans, letter sweaters, and loafers” (Tefertillar 1). These values ​​extend its reach to personal morality. Using the institution of the Church as an example of central authority figures, we see that adultery is a sin in the Bible, and therefore morally wrong for us, for our neighbors, and consequently for society as a whole. No one questions this authority; no one places themselves outside not only social conformism, but also moral conformism. Nabokov's Humbert is one such figure, who in his own way advances his rationalizations about the morality of his actions. He conflicts with the social norms of that time period by lusting after prepubescent girls, the onset of which is not considered by any authority figure in the book, as it is interpreted as too taboo even for Law, the ultimate authoritarian, to touch. Nabokov therefore provides a double front against this mechanization and conformation. First, by publishing this book of questionable "poerotic" material (Couturier 1), he is pushing the limits of free speech in society, going against all other material published during this period. Secondly, the subject of his novel becomes his own response to criticism from his colleagues and society, having a fictitious certified doctorplaced before the text Lolita, Nabokov is committed to creating this book as a work of art to be studied. , which is not abused, just as Humbert studies Lolita as a work of art. The pure aesthetic value of the book becomes the central theme, not the topics it deals with. Nabokov received countless criticisms for his Lolita, some of which began before he even managed to get it published. In his response to the expected criticism of an explanatory article he adds to the end of Lolita titled "On the Book Called Lolita," he explains his complications with numerous publishers who reread the book and thought it was too risky for their tastes. to publish, or not pornographic enough. Certain techniques early on in Lolita (Humbert's Journal, for example) misled some of my early readers into assuming that this would be a smutty book. They expected the growing succession of erotic scenes; when these ended, the readers also stopped and felt bored and disappointed. This, I suspect, is one reason why not all four companies read the typescript to the end. (313)Nabokov did not fit the mold of either a writer of great merit with a book of artistic merit, nor of a dispenser of sinful words portraying the indecencies of a man and a child, serving the underground. He was unable to conform to either the best of society or the worst, the same dilemma faced by Humbert in Lolita. Nabokov in this sense joins the ranks of other craftsmen, writers, poets, actors, in reforming the 1950s who inspired a cultural revolution in the next ten years. "The 1950s suffered, like many things in history (and in life), from uncomfortable neighborhoods. This decade maintained an aura of domesticity that compared poorly with the emotional chaos caused by the previous years of war or the subsequent civil unrest counterculture and civil civilization. Rights" (Alves 25). Alves goes on to describe a pair of playwrights who "...have cinematically found the right angle to highlight the assaulted self...a victim of a ruthless and corrupt society...an art committed to unmasking the self-indulgent nostalgia and consensus that had closed American eyes to McCarthy's hysteria" (28). Nabokov joins these playwrights in criticizing the American public's blind faith in their own moral system, and so publishes a controversial novel that through its subject matter is able to expand the thinking process outside the box, going beyond the set of rules . .Even within the novel, Nabokov criticizes American society. The setting of the story corresponds to the contemporary era of its author, the 1950s. The roles of women in the novel are a representation of the kind of conformity that Humbert desperately despises and that Nabokov despises. The best example is the role of Charlotte Haze and her decline into materialism and dedication to social climbing. "In the fifty days of our coexistence Carlotta filled the activities of as many years. The poor woman took care of a series of things that she had given up on long ago..." (Nabokov 77). These activities included what was “traditional” to do in the life of a married couple. She is unable to see beyond these traditions which are merely social restrictions, but rather becomes a slave, an operator within the system. Just like in the movie The Matrix, she is blinded by the truth, which has become obsolete, trusting in the dishonest system of the rat race to get a piece of the American crown (wealth, family, religion) and, in the process, enslaved by its enormous reach. Humbert, being a deviant of that system and its traditions, despises her as well as her motivations foroperate. One gets the sense that the only reason Charlotte married Humbert was a matter of practicality, once again fitting the social mold, and to further her social position as a widow to a more emboldened "family". Nabokov's "successful attempt to capture the elusive nature" of the 1950s..." (Alves 38) in his Lolita, as already described, works on two levels: the reaction to it, and the novel itself. Both promulgated the "Looking back at the 1950s, we realize that behind the façade of conformity, vital declarations of independence were being made" (36), and Nabokov's writing of Lolita becomes his message to reader to be aware of the social constraints imposed on him or her. Lawrence Kohlberg, a philosopher from Harvard University, describes the system of authority in his stage model"Conventional reasoning" is oriented towards the norms of group or group expectations. authority of the law. Phase 3 is an interpersonal orientation in which moral reasoning is congruent with conformity to the behavior of the majority. Phase 4, the orientation is towards law and social order... "post-conventional reasoning ” is characterized by efforts to define moral values ​​and principles personally, independently of the external authority of peers or the law. (Robinson 2) Nabokov would agree with stage 4 of Kohlberg's authority model and reject stage 3. Humbert does not base his actions on the behavior of the majority, but rather defines his moral values ​​personally "independently of external authority of colleagues." As per the last words of Kohlberg's statement, "the law", Humbert cannot escape. His morality, why he is with Lolita, are justified in his mind; however his act of murder is not overlooked by the law. In writing Lolita, Nabokov poses a critique of his period, to beware of "overprotection" by the authorities, to adjust our civil liberties and to separate ourselves from the majority by believing we are doing what is right, justified in our own minds, rather than the ideals in the minds of others. This becomes relevant today as we still need to heed Nabokov's warning. Many artists, who we will obviously consider Nabokov as a literary artist, spoke out against conformity well after Nabokov published Lolita. One of these people, an R&B and hip-hop musician, accurately portrays the stigma of American life as she sees it today in her song "Mystery of Iniquity," "What are we working for? Empty tradition? Achieving social standing? Teaching ambition to support the family superstition?" The same problems that became the reason Nabokov wrote the book are still faced by our society today. Contemporary artists produce material, even if in a different medium such as a song or a poetry reading, that carries the same message of individualism and pushes the boundaries of conformity in their works. Using new historicism, we focus not only on the effects of that conformity and those who spoke out against it in that period, but also on how it relates to our sense of individualism. Nabokov's intentions in writing the book are therefore relevant to the story of Lolita and are relevant to our society today. New Historicism focuses on a time frame in which social forces, in one way or another, lead an author to write a particular work. Feminist criticism instead focuses on the representation of women in the workplace and how they are represented as figures of power. In Nabokov's Lolita, as in the portrayal of the character of Humbert and the social forces of