In Nabokov's Lolita, an effective force of individuality converges with a force 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 must face: isolation of individuality or incorporation into the social sense of “belonging”. This conflict is relayed by two major themes, pedophilia and murder, and represents the crux of the novel. Through the various literary techniques of interpretation, formalist, new historicist and feminist, Lolita begins its journey as a modern classic of literature, its moral ambiguity being masterfully propelled by Nabokov and its main character Humbert Humbert. Applying a formalist lens, we see Nabokov's view of an inherently suffering man and his attempt to alter society, or even escape 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 intention of the written novel: why Nabokov chose to write Lolita in the 1950s, a time of rampant mechanization and conformation. Through his total distaste for the socialization of the popular masses, we begin to see Humbert not only as an ideologue defending what he perceives as the right way to act, but also as a critic of pop culture and pseudo- intelligentsia. Finally, the final critical lens through which we will examine 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 too in touch with his sexual desires. As the story develops, we begin to notice a reversal of roles; the empowerment of women through their sexual control over men. We see the layered roles of women in Lolita, from capsules of lust and desire to pragmatic to representing an idea that Humbert takes too far. Using these literary lenses, the reader should draw three distinctly different conclusions about the same Nabokov book; a comic tragedy about a lecherous man, the call for difference in a conformist society and the responsibility of women in a Freudian society. A contemporary reader will find that a feminist reading of the book is most relevant to today's society. Social changes have allowed pop culture to display youthful icons to be appealing; instead of protecting the innocence of a child, America uses powerful undertones of the same obsession that Humbert is so desperately trying to escape to achieve a marketable, 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 Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay It was with painstaking precision that Nabokov created Humbert Humbert, a mentally unstable man in all conventional ways. As if simply creating the character wasn't enough to truly "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. Early on, Humbert addresses the readers as "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury..." (Nabokov 9), as if presenting a case full of evidence referring to "exhibit number one... ." (9). It is with thispresumption that the reader understands his intentions in writing his memoirs in such a way that future generations can judge the morality of his actions. He will try with great effort to convince us of the justifications for his actions. Humbert came from the aristocracy, attending school in Paris and educated with all the necessities of the old European world. His teaching is reflected in his writings in elevated prose: “I discussed Soviet films with expatriates. I sat down with Uranists at Deux Magots. I published tortuous essays in obscure journals. I composed pastiches..." (16), Humbert rambles, attributing his erudition to his ability to access a wide range of cultures. Throughout the novel, Humbert inserts pieces of French into his thinking in order to reinforce the image of the rigor of his education. "... far from being a leisurely party, our tour was a harsh and twisted teleological growth..." (154). Bookish language and phrases coupled with Humbert's exceptional education presents the reader with an implicit respect and trust in him Perhaps Colin McGinn describes Humbert best as "old-fashioned...professionally, quietly studious, fastidious." , impractical, shy, boring and erudite, intellectually snobbish, verbose and verbose' very given to pseudo-scholarly defenses of his pedophilia" (31). His past becomes the foundation with which we view Humbert, the observations he recounts in the readers' minds are acute and precise, a deception by which Nabokov plays on his readers. .Now I want to present the following idea. Between nine and fourteen years young girls appear who, to certain bewitched travelers, two or more times older than them, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is to say demonic); and I propose to designate these chosen creatures under the name of “nymphets”. (Nabokov 16)Spoken as a true professor on the subject, Humbert launches the reader into the depths of his psyche. Readers discover Humbert's singular temptation for "nymphets" who become his lifelong obsession and the driving force of his motivation. The fact that Humbert sets “limits” to the existence of creatures indicates to readers that he is very precise in defining the parameters. He is also a self-proclaimed solipsist; a person who only knows his present state and thinks that he is the only thing in existence (336). This explains the incredible selfishness of Humbert, who only takes into account his own feelings and never those of Lolita or any other person in the novel. This driving force further polarizes Humbert in relation to his place in society because his source of pleasure is perceived as perverse by the public2E. He must hide this “atrocity” to be extremely careful not to let the public discover his pedophilia, his individuality. this is why some unsentimental remarks confirm his feelings for the death of his own mother. “My mother, very photogenic, died in a freak accident (picnic, lightning)…” (10). His feelings do not extend beyond what is pleasant or painful to him, but only to his own reality. The other deaths that occur in the story no longer evoke emotions in Humbert, because he sees them as a means to obtain his own pleasure. For example, Charlotte Haze's unfortunate accident was met with joy, even a wish that she had died sooner so that he could be alone with his daughter, Lolita. "The numbness of my soul was for an instant resolved. And no wonder! I had indeed seen the agent of destiny... and here was the instrument... a housewife in a hurry, a sloppy sidewalk , a nuisance dog, a steep slope, big car, baboonits steering wheel..." (103). Nabokov, through his use of the narrative as well as the reader's knowledge of how the novel works, poses a moral dilemma, one dilemma among many others. The Death of the Woman of Humbert should it arouse a feeling of guilt in himself, or even in the reader? According to everything we know about Charlotte, she is a kitsch and popular woman who treated her daughter with contempt? innocent child, considering her a burden, while Humbert only sought to protect his Lolita In his own words, a departure from his usual prose, "The Haze woman, the big female dog, the old cat, the odious mother. ..." (95). By relaying the events of Charlotte's death, Nabokov manages to weave a little irony into the story.2E A dog that Humbert had avoided was the cause of the accident who had killed his wife The reader has the task of choosing the morality of Humbert's actions, in death as in his obsession. Death thus becomes a parallel theme to pedophilia. How can we, as readers, judge oppositely on the two questions? Through the deconstruction of the characters, the reader begins to see not only the two sides of the moral story that Nabokov offers him as he did the previous one. question, but also the dual nature of all the characters in this story. Even Humbert Humbert, a repetitive echo of the main character's name, seems to represent a secondary nature in man. This remains true of his story and his vision of Lolita. Although he is a strict conservative by his political standards, he is less likely to believe that he has committed an atrocious crime such as pedophilia if he distorts the actions justified by his solipsism. In fact, McGinn suggests that “his tedious circumlocutions and euphemisms effectively enable him to keep the immorality of his actions at some distance from his conscience; and moral enlightenment tends to be accompanied by clearer speech” (32), essentially arguing that because Humbert chose formal, sophisticated, well-educated Humbert to coexist within himself, he needed to an outlet for his “human” side, his desire for Lolita. To hide his wild side and justify this wild side, Humbert resorts to “tedious” speech. This battle between the constraints of the Old World and the unlimited freedoms of the New World, as 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 doing so - considers him the ogre of society if he reveals his other side - shows that Humbert is trying to make his choice to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of young 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 rightly discovered just before her death . We see society blind to Humbert's evil, or perhaps it's a result of his extremely capable ability to hide it. The concealment was further illustrated by the two road trips 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 revelation of Humbert's pedophilia, or perhaps a greater fear for him, Lolita discovering 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 a peek into his personal life. It becomes sterile at the stage of “belonging” to a community. By this choice, he seeks to isolate himself, as well as his perversion (Lolita),of any community commitment to doing “the right thing.” This is his individuality at its peak, his morality prevents him from seeing what is deemed “wrong” by society and by placing himself physically away from criticism, Humbert avoids society. What is particular about the Nabokovian novel is the representation of the authority that Nabokov would be willing to oppose. One might believe that his troubles with the law concern pedophilia and that his actions in this area led to his incarceration. However, this was not the case since each time Humbert was in trouble with the law, it was for something other than his incestuous affair with Lolita. The reader should keep in mind that his memoir is written in prison and not in a mental institution. The legal mandate he violated was not his relationship with Lolita, but rather the murder of Quilty. Thus, we must believe that the strictures of his moral dilemma were not about killing or killing; his plea to the "ladies and gentlemen of the jury..." (9) was not to justify his murder, although he does a fantastic job of inventing a motive, but rather to justify his love for Lolita, who pushes Quilté to kill. This distinction needs to be clarified as we once again see society's conflict; Humbert is able to avoid the persecution of pedophilia, but he has not been able to escape the murder, a product of his mental disorder (that is, if we classified pedophilia as a psychological illness and not as a condition for appreciating his vision of "true" beauty" (34) as Humbert argues)2E Quilty's murder poses the ultimate moment of duality by which Humbert essentially murders a form of himself. He observes that there are numerous “nympholepts” (32) who fall under the spell of girls like Lolita, who lose control of their minds in the chase, Quilty, the secondary character sought by Humbert throughout the second part of the book, represents the parallel. alternative that follows Humbert's every move The last scene of struggle 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 lies in the own assumptions. of Humbert's solipsism and in his conception of the exclusive "property" of Lolita. The struggle for the weapon, a phallic symbol in Freudian psychoanalysis, is representative of the struggle for power between Quilty and Humbert, their respective masculinities being threatened by the existence of the other. As Humbert shoots and kills Quilty (302), a formidable task but done with great comic effect, he absolves the morality of his actions, while at the same time reaffirming them by pulling the trigger. The duality of Humbert's character resurfaces, Nabokov seeks to ask the reader why would he kill someone who seems so similar to himself? Quilty only shares Humbert's appreciation for beauty, yet he falls in love with Lolita in the same way Humbert does. Why doesn't he understand Quilty's emotions because they are perfectly identical to his own "individuality"? Because it is an attack on his own individuality, his identification with Lolita, the connection he has found with her beauty, is in Humbert's mind unique in itself. While society can move on, Humbert stands aside, as the saying goes, “slowing down to smell the roses.” When another comes to violate his “property,” his only action is to eliminate this threat. James Tweedie agrees when he states: "Humbert's solipsism aims at almost complete isolation, and the world beyond his insular existence is always confronted as a threat, as the intrusion of a dawning end into the world." precarious history of his timewith Lolita” (161). ).The question is referred to Humbert's solipsism and his unconsciousness of the interactions of the external world. To continue the development of Humbert's understanding, we refer to a single moment in his life, which he strives to relive, which is the epitome of the repetitive actions he attempted to reproduce. You could say he experienced a moment in his life that he wants to relive again and again, through immortalization in the image of not only Lolita, but countless girls he has lusted after. This experience dates back to his first love with Annabel. She was seen "in general terms like: 'honey-colored skin', 'thin arms', 'brown hair cut squarely',... a little ghost with natural colors" (11) quotes Humbert, "and that's how that I see her." Lolita." There is no doubt that his relationship with Lolita is based on the burning desire to remember Annabel. Nabokov makes a literary allusion to Edgar Allen Poe's "Annabel Lee", which describes the tragedy of Annabel in Nabokov's own Lolita; the loss of a young loved one to an illness that could not be avoided (Several clues to Humbert, and thus Nabokov's allusion to "Annabel Lee", include the name. recording of Humbert as "Dr. Edgar." Humbert" (118)) Humbert tries to imitate in every relationship the ideal image of his lost Annabel, and thus, the image of Lolita's young and innocent child corresponds to this role. It was a unique experience that he is trying to recreate. he believes that society would not understand this suffering. This is the point of the entire memoir: to convince its readers of its personal morality. In a final position, Humbert begs readers to understand his suffering, because according to him, he is only trying to connect with his nature: “I only followed nature. I am nature's faithful dog" (135). This presents the paradox of Humbert's characterization, from which we know him as. On the one hand, Humbert was the calculating and omnipresent man trained in the most elite universities in Europe, and as we must see from the other side, a wild man giving in to his natural desires, Humbert is not able to hide this side of him, and. this is precisely what Dr. John Ray, Jr. concludes about Humbert. I do not intend to glorify "HH". No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is brilliant. example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jest which perhaps betrays supreme misery, but does not promote attractiveness. He is not a gentleman But with what magic his singing violin can. evoke a tenderness, a compassion for Lolita which makes us fascinated by the book while abhorring its author (5) Thus by the characterization, the irony, the usage. Point of view, Nabokov creates the character of Humbert: an incessantly calculating man, making a choice between his adaptations of 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's task is to evaluate Humbert's arguments, should we agree with him? Maybe even sympathize with him? What exactly does Nabokov want us to conclude about this whole ordeal? Should we consider Humbert's position of choosing individuality over society as a model for our own lives or should we do just the opposite? Nabokov does not draw a definitive conclusion in the text, that is, he does not suggest one way or the other. This book does not answer its own questions, but rather poses them for the reader's reflection. Dr. John Ray, Jr.best describes it as a “case history…a classic in psychiatric circles” (4) on which we must evaluate future patients. As for Humbert, we see his pain, we feel his sorrow, but we do not judge him one way or the other. His pleas remain the final remarks of a man who believed so strongly in his individuality, in his quest for aesthetic perfection, that he would kill for it. Humbert later dies, as Nabokov is a master of metaphors, of “coronary thrombosis” (3), in other words of a broken heart for the loss of his Lolita, for the loss of his individuality. With formalist analysis, we can decipher the characters, interpret the 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 his battle fought by Humbert. His fight sheds light on this question of individuals and their freedom of choice. However, to begin to understand more deeply Nabokov's intentions in writing this book, we must also use the technique of New Historicism and see how his Lolita was a reflection of the events of that period. We resort to the use of material outside the confines of the novel and examine what was happening, the criticism Nabokov received, censorship, post-war social conformism and the popularization of mass media to induce conformity deindividuals.Lolita was published in 1955, in the middle of a decade characterized by a post-war economic boom. America was, as Ehrenhalt says, “…a world of limited choices” (4). Through the industrial mass 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 competed with age-old decadence. however, when monopolistic entities of a few controlled opinions. , the options and decisions of the population. Ehrenhalt characterizes it in the entire socio-economic and political aura by stating: “This was true of commerce as well as of sport and politics, and it was almost true of the smallest transactions as well as the large ones” (4) . He further relates this to shopping in a grocery store, "daily commerce was based on relationships based on habit and 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 clothing for teenagers, society has a set of rules that clearly cannot be broken. The dress code was described as "...almost a uniform: jeans, letter sweaters, and loafers" (Tefertillar 1). These values ​​extend their scope 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, our neighbors and, therefore, society as a whole . No one questions this authority; no one stands up outside not only social conformism, but also moral conformism. Nabokov's Humbert is one such character, who, in his own way, develops his rationalizations about the morality of his actions. He conflicts with the social norms of this period by lusting after prepubescent girls, whose creation is not considered by any authority figure in the book, as it is interpreted as too taboo for even Law, the ultimate authoritarian , can touch it. Nabokov thus constitutes a double front against this mechanization and this conformation. First, by publishing this book with “poerotic” material (Couturier 1)dubious, it pushes the limits of freedom of expression in society, going against the grain of all other works published at that time. Second, the subject of his novel becomes his response to criticism from his peers and society. By prefacing the text of Lolita with a fictional certified doctor, Nabokov makes a point of creating this book as a work of art to be studied. , not to be abused, just as Humbert studies Lolita as a work of art. The sheer aesthetic value of the book becomes the central theme, not the subjects it covers. Nabokov received countless criticisms for his Lolita, some of which began before he could even get it published. In his own response to expected criticism of an explanatory article he adds to the end of Lolita titled "On the Book Called Lolita", he explains his complications with many editors who re-read the book and found it either too risky to their taste to publish, or not pornographic enough. Some of the techniques used early on in Lolita (Humbert's Journal, for example) misled some of my early readers into thinking it would be an obscene book. They expected an increasing succession of erotic scenes; when these stopped, the readers stopped too and felt bored and disappointed. This, I suspect, is one of the reasons why not all four companies read the typescript all the way through. (313) Nabokov fit the mold neither of a writer of great merit with a book of artistic merit, nor of a dispenser of sinful words describing the indecencies of a man and a child, addressing clandestinity. He was unable to conform to either the best of society or the worst, the same dilemma Humbert faced in Lolita. In this sense, Nabokov joins dozens of other artisans, writers, poets, actors, in the reform of the 1950s who inspired a cultural revolution in the next ten years. "The fifties suffered, like many things in history (and in life), from an uncomfortable neighborhood. That decade retained an aura of domesticity that hardly compares to the emotional devastation wrought by the years previous wars or subsequent disruptions of counterculture and civil society rights” (Alves 25). Alves goes on to describe two playwrights who "...found cinematically the right angle to highlight the assaulted self...a victim of a ruthless and corrupt society...an art committed to the exhibition of a longing complacent and consensus that had turned a blind eye to McCarthy's hysteria" (28). Nabokov joined these playwrights in criticizing the American public's blind trust in its own moral system and thus published a controversial novel which, through his subject, is able to expand the thinking process outside the box, beyond the set of rules Even within the novel, Nabokov criticizes American society The setting of the story corresponds. the contemporary era of its author, the 1950s. The roles of women in the novel are a representation of the type of conformism that Humbert desperately despises and that Nabokov despises. The best example is the role of Charlotte Haze and her decadence in the novel. materialism and his dedication to climbing the social ladder. "During our fifty days of cohabitation, Charlotte accumulated the activities of as many years. The poor woman took care of a certain number of things which she had given up for a long time..." (Nabokov 77) . These activities included what was “traditional” to do in the life of a married couple. She is not able to see beyond these traditions as mere social constraints, but instead becomes a slave, an operator within the system.Much like the movie Matrix, she is blinded by the truth, which has become obsolete, trusting the crooked system of the rat race to obtain a share of the American crown (wealth, family, religion), and is, in doing so, enslaved by her massive reach. Humbert, being a deviant from this system and its traditions, despises her and her motivations for operation. One is left with the feeling that the only reason Charlotte married Humbert was for practicality, to once again fit the social mold and to promote her social position as a widow to a more encouraged "family". Nabokov's "successful attempt to capture the elusive nature of the 1950s..." (Alves 38) in his Lolita, as previously described, functions on two levels: the reaction to it and the novel itself. two promulgated the idea of ​​rejection of the institution "Looking back on the fifties, we realize that behind the facade of conformism, vital declarations of independence were being made" (36), and the. Nabokov's writing on Lolita becomes his message to the reader to be aware of the social constraints on him or her Lawrence Kohlberg, a philosopher at Harvard University, describes the system of authority in his scene model: “Conventional reasoning” is oriented toward the norms of group expectations or the authority of the law. Stage 3 is an interpersonal orientation in which moral reasoning is consistent with conformity to the behavior of the majority. the orientation is towards law and social order. “Postconventional reasoning” is characterized by efforts to personally define moral values ​​and principles, independent of the external authority of peers or the law. (Robinson 2) Nabokov would agree with step 4 of Kohlberg's authority model and reject step 3. Humbert does not base his actions on the behavior of the majority, but rather defines his moral values ​​personally "by outside the external authority of the majority. peers." As with the final words of Kohlberg's statement, "the law," Humbert is not able to escape it. His morality, his reasons for being with Lolita, are justified in his mind; but his act of murder is not ignored by the law. In Lolita, Nabokov criticizes his time, for being wary of the "overprotection" of authority, because the adjustment of our civil liberties and for separating us from the majority by believing to do so. what is right, justified in one's own mind, rather than by ideals in the minds of others. This becomes relevant today because we still need to heed Nabokov's warning Many artists, which we will consider well. Of course Nabokov as a literary artist, spoke out against conformity long after Nabokov's publication of Lolita. One of these people, an R&B and hip-hop musician, accurately describes the stigmatization of American life as it is. she sees it today in her song “Mystery of Iniquity”, “Why do we work? An empty tradition? Reach social positions? Teaching ambition to support family superstition? The same problems that prompted Nabokov to write this book still face our society today. Contemporary artists produce material, albeit in a different medium, such as a song or a poetry reading, that conveys the same message of individualism and breaks free from the confines of conformity in their works. Using New Historicism, we focus not only on the effects of this conformity and those who opposed it in this era, but also on how it relates to our sense of individualism. Nabokov's intentions in writing this book are therefore relevant to the story of Lolita and are relevant