“At the time, I had the impression of losing contact with reality” – How far can we believe and trust the narrator of “Lolita”?Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The reality of "Lolita" may differ from Humbert Humbert's account, simply because there is no alternative or neutral version of events from which to refute such a conclusion. Lolita has no voice in the novel so it is difficult to judge whether she is a victim or a lover. As narrator, Humbert has carte blanche to select as much or as little from real information, perhaps based on how it describes him. Additionally, as a murderer, pedophile, and asylum frequenter, there is arguably a basic human principle not to trust such a person. Especially since he is someone who is not realistic, who longs to enter his world of sexual fantasies and who becomes creative and intellectually alive when he is in prison, cut off from reality. Through Humbert's prose are born an intelligence, a knowledge of literature, a linguistic virtuosity and a love for Lolita, which combine to characterize a most atypical villain. He is sympathetic and humorous to the extent that, at times, there seems to be very little reason not to believe our narrator. Through the powerful and ornate text produced while awaiting trial, the possibility that the narrator is untrustworthy can seem either highly unlikely or simply poorly disguised. It may also be that assessing our trust in the narrator results in questioning our trust in Nabokov. Humbert's language can be at once strange, ornate, virtuoso and even persuasive. “Light of my life, fire of my loins” is perhaps the most quoted line from “Lolita.” Its poetic balance of four syllables on either side of the comma, and "life" being a Humbertian pseudonym for penis, mean that the two quartets are identical, despite a superficial difference. This phrase sums up the constant tensions between perverse lust and eloquence, reality versus appearance. Likewise, "The tip of the tongue takes a three-step journey into the palate to tap, three-way, on the teeth" continues the coronal alliteration with "t" instead of "l" as well as "f", attracting attention to an organ used for kissing (devotion) as well as for speaking (eloquence). Humbert's style has a brilliance that is both seductive and disturbing. As the narrator states: “You can always count on a murderer for sophisticated prose.” » In fact, literary prowess is probably not a common trait among murderers. Nabokov suggests: “Style, structure, imagery (sic) should never distract the reader from his lukewarm desire. » Humbert is an obsessive pedophile with a talent for writing. But when a morally dubious topic like pedophilia is approached with dazzling verbal pyrotechnics, Humbert can appear both trustworthy and credible. Humbert's story continues to destabilize the reader. The explanation for Humbert's love for young girls is that his childhood sweetheart died before they could have sex. Alluding intertextually to Poe's poem "Annabel Lee," it is as if Humbert is merely augmenting ideas already present in literature. Elsewhere he refers to Danté's nine-year-old Beatrice and Petrarch's twelve-year-old "nymphet" Laureen. By associating pedophilia with the perpetrators who underlie Western culture, we should perhaps remove doubt about our“humble” ideas of morality and normality, while showing how ethical systems simply depend on context. There is even more defamiliarization and more poetic fantasy in the description of his own thoughts: "I think of aurochs and angels, of the secret of lasting pigments, of prophetic sonnets, of the refuge of art." As with Poe or Danté, paradise, prophecy and art are generally not associated with pedophiles. The overall effect, however, is a series of rather anxious justifications on Humbert's part, trying in vain to romanticize and defamiliarize pedophilia. Humbert's references to literature persist, with particular attention to French. “We knew, to use a Flaubertian interpretation… We knew (it’s a royal pleasure).” There are references to Flaubert and Proust throughout the novel, the latter being famous for "In Search of Lost Time", a story of love and art. It may be that by referring to Flaubert, Humbert is simply seeking to further enhance the romantic veneer surrounding his pedophilia. Like his protagonist, Nabokov was an expert on French literature and an émigré writer living in America. Other works are autobiographical like “Look at the Harlequins!” (1974) and "Pnin" (1957), which reflects Navokov's life in the same way as "Lolita". It is significant that Pnin is a stupid and ridiculous character who fails to adapt to Western culture, unlike the intellectual and seductive and eloquent image of Vladimir Nabokov, delivered via Humbert Humbert. Thus, not only do the quotations from French writings create a romantic and academic appearance of Humbert, but they also give substance to an autobiographical reading where the author has created a veneer in order to mislead the reader. If “Lolita” can be interpreted autobiographically, Nabokov says, “It is childish to study a work of fiction to obtain information about…its author.” It can therefore be disputed that autobiographical readings cannot be definitive or help us determine Humbert's credibility. The narrator's use of the French language can also be misleading. In addition to the presence of many French phraseologies used in English, such as “darling”¸ Humbert includes many rare ones, “Well, not at all! and “what a word!” among them. And when we talk about love, his "romantic soul becomes all moist and shivering at the idea of ​​encountering some horrible and indecent unpleasantness... 'But go ahead, go ahead!' » First, the unpleasantness is a sexual unpleasantness and completely bypasses the much more important moral unpleasantness, evoking an unpleasant image of our narrator. Second, it is further evidence that Nabokov defamiliarizes the pedophile, through anomalous associations: the clichéd connotations of romance through French are meant to paint a passionate rather than perverted picture of Humbert, especially since he slips instinctively into the language when he is describing his passionate struggle. Furthermore, Humbert criticizes the fact that Charlotte uses "that horrible French"; Meanwhile, Lolita asks, “Would you really mind cutting out French?” The irony of Humbert's hypocrisy here presents someone incapable of self-criticism and facing reality, and therefore cannot be fully trusted. Beneath the appearances, there is undoubtedly misogyny. Humbert views women-girls-Lolita as objects of sexual desire, and he is therefore not the kind of paternal, caring narrator he might appear on the surface. “Lo-lee-ta.” The fragmentation of the word here mimics the way Humbert broke/destroyed his daughter-in-law. Elsewhere, he describes her as a “waif”, a “child slave”and “wagging his little tail, his whole bottom in fact like little female dogs do”. Suggestions of a non-mutual, non-loving relationship form a structure that begins with “love” – “the light of my life” – and ends with realization – “what have I done with your life?” The reader's confidence gradually diminishes. Annabel, the prototype of Lolita, has "honey-colored skin" because she is an object for Humbert, something sweet that he can consume. His “thin arms”, “large shiny mouth”, “long eyelashes”, “cut brown hair” show Humbert as a lover of the young female physique; a feminist critic would say that he views women, especially "nymphets", as mere servants of his libido, and worse, he blames his crimes on Annabel, and therefore on women. Likewise, he describes Lolita "rising up on the pedals to operate them vigorously" and "plunging her hand into the lower anatomy of a table lamp." By characterizing non-sexual activities in a sexual light, Humbert seems unable to escape the narrow-mindedness of his pedophile, often misogynistic, obsessions. There is also phallic imagery: “…mountains; bluish beauties never accessible... colossi of gray stone veined with snow piercing the sky", and even in the murder scene, "I took out my automatic..." Moreover, this plethora of sexual connotations which unconsciously infiltrates into through language reveals Humbert's true misogynist. intentions; the trust between reader and narrator deteriorates quickly. Virginia Woolf once said, “The sound of her own voice was dearer to her than the voice of humanity in her anguish.” " (Although this is a comment on Joseph Conrad, it also applies to Humbert, and arguably to Nabokov.) Humbert cherishes fanciful prose and sexual innuendo more than Lolita's well-being. He is morally corrupt, and the reader should not believe the poetic veneer applied to cover this up. In contrast, Humbert can be seen as a pawn in the game of Lolita's sexual desires, therefore a victim of female manipulation; Lolita is empowered by her stepfather's obsessions and desires. He admits: “(I) forget all my male pride – and I literally crawl on my knees to your chair, my Lolita!” » And so perhaps the pedophile is as innocent as he claims; Lolita mischievously plays mind games with an easy target, driving him crazy: "Don't think I can continue..." Additionally, the narrative is devoid of strong language that would suggest that rape has been committed, e.g. : “I gave her to hold in her clumsy fist the scepter of my passion. Lolita should not be considered entirely innocent, in fact she had a voluntary sexual experience at Camp Q; Freud argued that children are in fact "polymorphous and perverse." Therefore, "riding the pedals to work them vigorously" is not Humbert's sexual narrow-mindedness, but Lolita's flirtatious provocation; she is his mistress. Humbert's story can therefore be interpreted as realistic. Humbert's attempt to justify his pedophilia with a kind of artistic philosophy is much less realistic. He says: “Passionately, I hoped to find the portrait of the artist in the form of a younger brute. » This allusion to James Joyce reinforces the idea that Humbert feels the need to transform his actions and his life into a work of art. He would have found “Ulysses” obscene and it is for this reason that he abstains from any pornographic explicitness. Humbert tries to present himself as nothing more than an appreciator of the female form and youthful beauty, which is simply an unconventional aesthetic. His intentions are neither erotic norsexual, but aesthetic. So this is arguably a character we can trust, and just a mysoginistic child molester by circumstance. According to Humbert, “sex is only the accessory of art”. Given these arguments, the narrative may not be a reliable reflection of reality, especially in the absence of an alternative narrative. Humbert can be considered disconnected from reality, obsessive and crazy. As the novel progresses, it seems that Humbert's breakdown and the coherence of his narrative, which can only be realized by analyzing a longer passage, seem to become more pronounced: "A blue view and misty beyond the gates of a mountain pass, and the back of a family enjoying it. (with Lo in a warm, happy, wild, intense, hopeful, desperate whisper – “Listen, the McCrystals, please, let’s talk to them please?” – let’s talk to them, reader! – “please! I’ll do whatever you want, oh, please…”). “Indian ceremonial dances, strictly commercial. ART: American Refrigerator Transport Company. The obvious Arizona, the pueblo dwellings, the aboriginal pictographs, a dinosaur track in a desert canyon, printed there thirty-nine million years ago, when I was a child. A pale, lanky boy, six feet tall, with an active Adam's apple, eyeing Lo and her bare orange-brown belly, who I kissed five minutes later, Jack. ; his “blurred vision” is shared by the reader. It's unlikely, but it could be that Nabokov is parodying such psychological ideas about mental breakdown and awareness, especially with "ART", nothing more than a refrigerator company. Indeed, there are other witty moments, such as when Miss Cormorant calls her six different names – variations of Humbert – during a single meeting, and the school Lolita attends is called with St. Algebra humor. Additionally, the aforementioned "Pnin" is a parody of a Russian academic's struggle to adapt to American culture, making gaffes like: "In greenhouses, don't kill two birds with one stone." But the parody is probably not a good interpretation, as Humbert admits: “I felt like I was just losing touch with reality. " And as I "psychoanalyze this poem, I notice that it is truly a manic masterpiece," he says of "Wanted, Wanted: Dolores Haze." Additionally, three years pass in a few chapters, so the narrator is clearly disconnected from time. He also admits: “I don’t think I can continue. Heart, head – everything. Lolita…” repeating her name eight times. Overall, we get the feeling that Humbert is disconnected from the real world. The distrust of Humbert may simply come from the fact that he is a criminal, and that he sometimes represents something of a madman. It is difficult to believe in the innocence of a man who is a murderer, a pedophile and a frequenter of asylums, and who writes "Confession of a White Widower". The paranoia of losing Lolita torments Humbert. “I know all the names in your group…I have a complete list of students with me…I also have the Beardsley yearbook with me.” He comes off as an obsessive-compulsive lunatic, but perhaps that neuroticism is justified by the revelation that Quilty stalked and then took Lolita. Humbert's guilt is made clear by the fact that he "died in lawful captivity" and his use of courtroom terms such as "ladies and gentlemen of the jury" and "exhibit number one …”. However, this confessional style is completely overwhelmed by fantasy. of his prose. Alex's confessional style in "A Clockwork Orange" is reminiscent of the intertextual style, which is also overwhelmed by Nadsat's language. In prison, Humbert is free;.