How Does Nabokov Use Satire In Lolita
Satire and Criticism in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita
It took Vladimir Nabokov nearly five years to finish perhaps one his most famous masterpieces, Lolita. Because of Lolita’s subject matter, many readers during Nabokov’s native mid 20th Century were appalled and disturbed. How could someone write a novel about pedophilia, murder, and the sexual abuse and rape of a child? However, amongst the many offended (and particularly ignorant) readers, there emerged an understanding of Nabokov’s true intent by scholars, critics, and other (perhaps more educated) readers. Nabokov’s intent in writing the controversial Lolita was not to nullify or denounce the true horrors of Humbert Humbert’s crimes (he, in fact, tried to prove the opposite). Through Lolita, …show more content…
Nabokov proves that words can be manipulative and subjective as he takes you on a journey into the mind of one of literature’s most masterly manipulators, Humbert Humbert. Nabokov also uses Lolita as a representative of his own personal views, satires, and criticisms on the American citizen and psychology and psychoanalysis.
Lolita was first published in 1955 in Paris, France. Contrary to Nabokov’s first idea to publish the novel under the anagram “Vivian Darkbloom”, he ultimately published it under his legal name. (“Vivian Darkbloom also makes a small cameo in Lolita as a female author and friend of Clare Quilty). Not soon after in 1956, the novel was banned in all of France. Lolita was then translated into many different languages and sold in different countries (including the United States in 1958). In the same year that Lolita was banned in France, English editor John Gordon denounced the novel as pornographic, calling it “the filthiest book” he’d ever read. Gordon’s opinion is an accurate representation of the many conservative citizens that read Lolita soon after it was published. The novel was the first of it’s kind, and was therefore very shocking to the readers of the mid 20th century. Many came across the novel in a rather narrow minded fashion, knowing only about the novel’s subject matter. However, there were quite a few scholars and readers who dared to dive in deeper, and look for Nabokov’s true purpose for writing Lolita. It is very unlikely that a writer should compose a novel without an idea as to what effect they would like it to have on the reader.
Lolita is as much a satire as it is a masterpiece. As Frank S. Meyer wrote in his 1958 article in The National Review, satire [in the mid 20th century] “...achieves its results by creating so savage a presentation of contemporary evil (exaggerated, caricatured, grotesque, but a true simulacrum of the essence of the social scene) that the bland and habitual surface of actuality is riven apart. But where there are no standards, satire has no ground from which to fight.” Nabokov’s novel is, indeed, successfully satirical because of the assumed “standards” of readers in the mid 20th century. Throughout generations of reading works by William Shakespeare, Ambrose Bierce (The Devil’s Dictionary) and many others, readers became more and more comfortable reading satire. However, the satire they had become accustomed to was the satire of of hierarchy and large institution, as compared to Lolita’s satire of something more personal- themselves. What makes Nabokov an absolute pioneer in Modernism (particularly in Lolita) is his daring idea to satirize the middle class.
Middle class Americans in the mid 20th century were a rather materialistic people. During this time, an obsession with material goods was ever-present. America was experiencing a post-World War II economic growth, which encouraged people to spend money on material goods. Accordingly, the generation was not lacking in conformists- a rather easy target for satire and criticism in literature. While the middle class was obsessing over new technology and the wonders of economic prosperity, Humbert Humbert was obsessing over perhaps the most socially unacceptable thing at his age- young “nymphets”. Nabokov also satirizes and criticizes the way that adults in the 1950s had raised their children- using Dolores “Lolita” Haze as a prime example. Lolita is unruly, rude, manipulative, and sassy, with little respect for people and authority (including her mother, Charlotte). Through Lolita and Charlotte, Nabokov takes a stab at the weakness of middle class American parents [and children]. Nabokov is, perhaps, encouraging parents to give more attention to raising their children rather than focusing primarily on material goods and finances.
Throughout the novel, and through the character of Humbert, Nabokov expresses a sort of dislike for Americans. Humbert views Americans as materialistic and shallow, as compared to the intelligent and cultured people from his native Paris. Humbert also realizes that the physical atmosphere of America is less than magnifíque. When Humbert takes Lolita on a cross-country roadtrip, he closely scrutinizes every dingy motel and tourist trap along the way-
“In these frightening places... flies queued outside at the screenless door and successfully scrambled in, the ashes of our predecessors still lingered in the ashtrays, a womans hair laid on the pillow... and, in crowning insult, the pictures above the twin beds were identical twins.”
The duo continue to travel the country, while Humbert muttles contemptuous comments under his breath.
Humbert sees the greatest manifestation of the stereotypical American in Lolita’s mother, Charlotte Haze. He describes Charlotte as obnoxious and easily amused- she is easily swayed by Humbert’s sly and “cultured” ways because he is an immigrant. He often refers to Charlotte as a “cow” and cringes at the sound of her mispronunciation of numerous French phrases. Humbert even criticises her interior decorating abilities in chapter ten-
“The front hall was graced with door chimes, a white-eyed wooden thingamabob of commercial Mexican origin, and that banal darling of the arty middle class, van Gogh 's ‘Arlesienne.’”
Charlotte writes Humbert an overly-dramatized letter in chapter sixteen, confessing her love for him. Humbert finds the letter hilarious, but decides to humor Charlotte (and more importantly, himself) by staying at the Haze household- “reciprocating” the feelings. Humbert is thoroughly disgusted by Charlotte’s desire for sophistication, and can only laugh at her failed attempts at being romantic.
Humbert is highly disgusted by Charlotte’s stereotypical American ways, and ultimately manipulates, takes advantage of, and practically causes her death. After Charlotte finds Humbert’s beloved journal [where he jots down all of his fantasies and frustrations about Lolita], Charlotte is appalled and hysterical; She then is coincidentally hit by a car in front of the Haze household. (It can be inferred by the reader that Charlotte voluntarily runs into the oncoming traffic). Like many other times in the novel, Humbert is emotionally unaffected by Charlotte’s death. He, however, sees her death as more of an opportunity to take full advantage of Lolita.
Through the character of Charlotte, Nabokov satirizes stereotypical American ignorance and naivety towards immigrants.
In Lolita, Nabokov fully proves the point that the middle class serves as a great base for satire and criticism. Especially in the mid 20th century, conformity, consumerism, and economic materialism were particularly easy targets for Nabokov’s witty pen.
Vladimir Nabokov was a highly opinionated man, with a particularly stubborn nature. Nabokov was especially opinionated when it came to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis. Nabokov rejected nearly any idea that constrained personal expression or freedom- and, to Nabokov, among these was Freud’s psychoanalysis.
Sigmund Freud is known as the Father of Psychoanalysis. Freud dedicated his life to psychology and the development of psychoanalysis. Among his studies, he established psychological rules about dreams, sexuallity, and death. In an interview in September of 1968 for the BBC, Nabokov had much to say about Mr. Freud:
“I 've no intention to dream the drab middle-class dreams of an Austrian crank with a shabby umbrella. I also suggest that the Freudian faith leads to dangerous ethical consequences, such as when a filthy murderer with the brain of a tapeworm is given a lighter sentence because his mother spanked him too much or too little-- it works both ways. The Freudian racket looks to me as much of a farce as the jumbo thingurn of polished wood with a polished hole in the middle which doesn 't represent anything except the gaping face of the Philistine who is told it is a great sculpture produced by the greatest living caveman. “
Specifically in Lolita, Nabokov references and criticises Freudian psychology in multiple ways. In the Foreword of the novel, John Ray Jr., Ph. D., can be seen as a character that Nabokov uses to portray his opinions on psychiatry. Dr. Ray is a stereotypical Psychologist (in the eyes of Nabokov) and his narration can be interpreted as somewhat of a comedic ridicule- Dr. Ray intends to use Lolita as a psychiatric reference.
Nabokov also ridicules psychology in chapter five, when Humbert says that he had lied to and manipulated doctors in a Psychiatric Ward-
“Now and then I took advantage of the acquaintances I had formed among social workers and psychotherapists to visit in their company various institutions, such as orphanages and reform schools, where pale pubescent girls with matted eyelashes could be stared at in perfect impunity remindful of that granted one in dreams.”
Nabokov makes it a point that there is no possible way to generalize the psyche of an entire species, and that psychiatry and psychoanalysis can never be 100% effective; There are simply too many different people in the world for one type of practice to be effective on all. I tend to agree with Mr. Nabokov on this subject. In an interview with the New York Times in 1966, he states that he thinks
“...that the creative artist is an exile in his study, in his bedroom, in the circle of his lamplight. He 's quite alone there; he 's the lone wolf. As soon as he 's together with somebody else he shares his secret, he shares his mystery, he shares his God with somebody else.”
I could not agree more with Nabokov that a person should not be constrained by psychological “rules” or anything of the like. Lolita, because of it’s unreliable narrator, satire, criticism, and language, is by far one of the world’s most revered and respected works of Modernist literature.
In satirising the middle class, Nabokov delivers an effective and realistic message about economic and emotional prosperity, materialism, and conformity. Especially in the case of American society, Nabokov makes his discontentment with these traits very prevalent [through the character of Humbert Humbert]. In criticising the middle class, whilst also writing about subject matter that had never been dealt with before, Nabokov creates an incredibly innovative masterpiece that has paved the way for many other Modernist writers. Lolita has, and will continue to survive through generations to come, and will effect the reader every time it is read; If the reader can look beyond the subject matter, they can find the myriad of messages that Nabokov successfully attempts to portray.
Works Cited
Nabokov, Vladimir V. Lolita, Olympia Press, 1955. Book.
Meyer, Frank S. “A Lance into Cotton Wool”, The National Review. 22 Nov, 1958. Web, 4 April 2013
"Nabokov, Vladimir." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition.Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.
“Freud, Sigmund". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013
“Nabokov’s Interview”. www.Lib.ru, BBC, Nicholas Garnham. 3 September, 1968. Web. 25 Apr. 2013
“Why Nabokov Detests Freud”, Hughes, Robert. The New York Times, 30 Jan 1966. Web, 8 April 2013
“Nabokov, Freud, and Lolita”, Masson, Jeffrey M. 6 feb, 2012. Web, 8 April
2013
It took Vladimir Nabokov nearly five years to finish perhaps one his most famous masterpieces, Lolita. Because of Lolita’s subject matter, many readers during Nabokov’s native mid 20th Century were appalled and disturbed. How could someone write a novel about pedophilia, murder, and the sexual abuse and rape of a child? However, amongst the many offended (and particularly ignorant) readers, there emerged an understanding of Nabokov’s true intent by scholars, critics, and other (perhaps more educated) readers. Nabokov’s intent in writing the controversial Lolita was not to nullify or denounce the true horrors of Humbert Humbert’s crimes (he, in fact, tried to prove the opposite). Through Lolita, …show more content…
Nabokov proves that words can be manipulative and subjective as he takes you on a journey into the mind of one of literature’s most masterly manipulators, Humbert Humbert. Nabokov also uses Lolita as a representative of his own personal views, satires, and criticisms on the American citizen and psychology and psychoanalysis.
Lolita was first published in 1955 in Paris, France. Contrary to Nabokov’s first idea to publish the novel under the anagram “Vivian Darkbloom”, he ultimately published it under his legal name. (“Vivian Darkbloom also makes a small cameo in Lolita as a female author and friend of Clare Quilty). Not soon after in 1956, the novel was banned in all of France. Lolita was then translated into many different languages and sold in different countries (including the United States in 1958). In the same year that Lolita was banned in France, English editor John Gordon denounced the novel as pornographic, calling it “the filthiest book” he’d ever read. Gordon’s opinion is an accurate representation of the many conservative citizens that read Lolita soon after it was published. The novel was the first of it’s kind, and was therefore very shocking to the readers of the mid 20th century. Many came across the novel in a rather narrow minded fashion, knowing only about the novel’s subject matter. However, there were quite a few scholars and readers who dared to dive in deeper, and look for Nabokov’s true purpose for writing Lolita. It is very unlikely that a writer should compose a novel without an idea as to what effect they would like it to have on the reader.
Lolita is as much a satire as it is a masterpiece. As Frank S. Meyer wrote in his 1958 article in The National Review, satire [in the mid 20th century] “...achieves its results by creating so savage a presentation of contemporary evil (exaggerated, caricatured, grotesque, but a true simulacrum of the essence of the social scene) that the bland and habitual surface of actuality is riven apart. But where there are no standards, satire has no ground from which to fight.” Nabokov’s novel is, indeed, successfully satirical because of the assumed “standards” of readers in the mid 20th century. Throughout generations of reading works by William Shakespeare, Ambrose Bierce (The Devil’s Dictionary) and many others, readers became more and more comfortable reading satire. However, the satire they had become accustomed to was the satire of of hierarchy and large institution, as compared to Lolita’s satire of something more personal- themselves. What makes Nabokov an absolute pioneer in Modernism (particularly in Lolita) is his daring idea to satirize the middle class.
Middle class Americans in the mid 20th century were a rather materialistic people. During this time, an obsession with material goods was ever-present. America was experiencing a post-World War II economic growth, which encouraged people to spend money on material goods. Accordingly, the generation was not lacking in conformists- a rather easy target for satire and criticism in literature. While the middle class was obsessing over new technology and the wonders of economic prosperity, Humbert Humbert was obsessing over perhaps the most socially unacceptable thing at his age- young “nymphets”. Nabokov also satirizes and criticizes the way that adults in the 1950s had raised their children- using Dolores “Lolita” Haze as a prime example. Lolita is unruly, rude, manipulative, and sassy, with little respect for people and authority (including her mother, Charlotte). Through Lolita and Charlotte, Nabokov takes a stab at the weakness of middle class American parents [and children]. Nabokov is, perhaps, encouraging parents to give more attention to raising their children rather than focusing primarily on material goods and finances.
Throughout the novel, and through the character of Humbert, Nabokov expresses a sort of dislike for Americans. Humbert views Americans as materialistic and shallow, as compared to the intelligent and cultured people from his native Paris. Humbert also realizes that the physical atmosphere of America is less than magnifíque. When Humbert takes Lolita on a cross-country roadtrip, he closely scrutinizes every dingy motel and tourist trap along the way-
“In these frightening places... flies queued outside at the screenless door and successfully scrambled in, the ashes of our predecessors still lingered in the ashtrays, a womans hair laid on the pillow... and, in crowning insult, the pictures above the twin beds were identical twins.”
The duo continue to travel the country, while Humbert muttles contemptuous comments under his breath.
Humbert sees the greatest manifestation of the stereotypical American in Lolita’s mother, Charlotte Haze. He describes Charlotte as obnoxious and easily amused- she is easily swayed by Humbert’s sly and “cultured” ways because he is an immigrant. He often refers to Charlotte as a “cow” and cringes at the sound of her mispronunciation of numerous French phrases. Humbert even criticises her interior decorating abilities in chapter ten-
“The front hall was graced with door chimes, a white-eyed wooden thingamabob of commercial Mexican origin, and that banal darling of the arty middle class, van Gogh 's ‘Arlesienne.’”
Charlotte writes Humbert an overly-dramatized letter in chapter sixteen, confessing her love for him. Humbert finds the letter hilarious, but decides to humor Charlotte (and more importantly, himself) by staying at the Haze household- “reciprocating” the feelings. Humbert is thoroughly disgusted by Charlotte’s desire for sophistication, and can only laugh at her failed attempts at being romantic.
Humbert is highly disgusted by Charlotte’s stereotypical American ways, and ultimately manipulates, takes advantage of, and practically causes her death. After Charlotte finds Humbert’s beloved journal [where he jots down all of his fantasies and frustrations about Lolita], Charlotte is appalled and hysterical; She then is coincidentally hit by a car in front of the Haze household. (It can be inferred by the reader that Charlotte voluntarily runs into the oncoming traffic). Like many other times in the novel, Humbert is emotionally unaffected by Charlotte’s death. He, however, sees her death as more of an opportunity to take full advantage of Lolita.
Through the character of Charlotte, Nabokov satirizes stereotypical American ignorance and naivety towards immigrants.
In Lolita, Nabokov fully proves the point that the middle class serves as a great base for satire and criticism. Especially in the mid 20th century, conformity, consumerism, and economic materialism were particularly easy targets for Nabokov’s witty pen.
Vladimir Nabokov was a highly opinionated man, with a particularly stubborn nature. Nabokov was especially opinionated when it came to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis. Nabokov rejected nearly any idea that constrained personal expression or freedom- and, to Nabokov, among these was Freud’s psychoanalysis.
Sigmund Freud is known as the Father of Psychoanalysis. Freud dedicated his life to psychology and the development of psychoanalysis. Among his studies, he established psychological rules about dreams, sexuallity, and death. In an interview in September of 1968 for the BBC, Nabokov had much to say about Mr. Freud:
“I 've no intention to dream the drab middle-class dreams of an Austrian crank with a shabby umbrella. I also suggest that the Freudian faith leads to dangerous ethical consequences, such as when a filthy murderer with the brain of a tapeworm is given a lighter sentence because his mother spanked him too much or too little-- it works both ways. The Freudian racket looks to me as much of a farce as the jumbo thingurn of polished wood with a polished hole in the middle which doesn 't represent anything except the gaping face of the Philistine who is told it is a great sculpture produced by the greatest living caveman. “
Specifically in Lolita, Nabokov references and criticises Freudian psychology in multiple ways. In the Foreword of the novel, John Ray Jr., Ph. D., can be seen as a character that Nabokov uses to portray his opinions on psychiatry. Dr. Ray is a stereotypical Psychologist (in the eyes of Nabokov) and his narration can be interpreted as somewhat of a comedic ridicule- Dr. Ray intends to use Lolita as a psychiatric reference.
Nabokov also ridicules psychology in chapter five, when Humbert says that he had lied to and manipulated doctors in a Psychiatric Ward-
“Now and then I took advantage of the acquaintances I had formed among social workers and psychotherapists to visit in their company various institutions, such as orphanages and reform schools, where pale pubescent girls with matted eyelashes could be stared at in perfect impunity remindful of that granted one in dreams.”
Nabokov makes it a point that there is no possible way to generalize the psyche of an entire species, and that psychiatry and psychoanalysis can never be 100% effective; There are simply too many different people in the world for one type of practice to be effective on all. I tend to agree with Mr. Nabokov on this subject. In an interview with the New York Times in 1966, he states that he thinks
“...that the creative artist is an exile in his study, in his bedroom, in the circle of his lamplight. He 's quite alone there; he 's the lone wolf. As soon as he 's together with somebody else he shares his secret, he shares his mystery, he shares his God with somebody else.”
I could not agree more with Nabokov that a person should not be constrained by psychological “rules” or anything of the like. Lolita, because of it’s unreliable narrator, satire, criticism, and language, is by far one of the world’s most revered and respected works of Modernist literature.
In satirising the middle class, Nabokov delivers an effective and realistic message about economic and emotional prosperity, materialism, and conformity. Especially in the case of American society, Nabokov makes his discontentment with these traits very prevalent [through the character of Humbert Humbert]. In criticising the middle class, whilst also writing about subject matter that had never been dealt with before, Nabokov creates an incredibly innovative masterpiece that has paved the way for many other Modernist writers. Lolita has, and will continue to survive through generations to come, and will effect the reader every time it is read; If the reader can look beyond the subject matter, they can find the myriad of messages that Nabokov successfully attempts to portray.
Works Cited
Nabokov, Vladimir V. Lolita, Olympia Press, 1955. Book.
Meyer, Frank S. “A Lance into Cotton Wool”, The National Review. 22 Nov, 1958. Web, 4 April 2013
"Nabokov, Vladimir." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition.Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.
“Freud, Sigmund". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013
“Nabokov’s Interview”. www.Lib.ru, BBC, Nicholas Garnham. 3 September, 1968. Web. 25 Apr. 2013
“Why Nabokov Detests Freud”, Hughes, Robert. The New York Times, 30 Jan 1966. Web, 8 April 2013
“Nabokov, Freud, and Lolita”, Masson, Jeffrey M. 6 feb, 2012. Web, 8 April
2013