Throughout the course of the novel Lolita, readers have regarded Humbert Humbert’s heinous actions towards Lolita with condemnation and loathing disgust. However, even as he is notoriously known for his sickening crimes, at one point readers will unknowingly come to the realization they have started to empathize with Humbert’s actions. Lionel Trilling once asserted that, “We find ourselves the more shocked when we realize that, in the course of reading the novel, we have come virtually to condone the violation it presents – we have been seduced into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting.” As we accepted Humbert Humbert’s repulsive actions with leniency we have permitted his actions and we have taken his side which bounds us to condoning his immoral crimes.
Nabokov’s adept ability to manipulate the audience into making the reader offer consolation with even the most flagrant crime of Humbert Humbert evoked a sympathy which virtually connived his transgression. In a sense, we have accepted his wrongdoings towards Lolita even though unsubtly, Humbert Humbert’s monstrosity is prevalent throughout the novel. In order to approach Dolores, he toyed with Charlotte’s feelings and after Charlotte died, he claimed it to be “the miracle I hankered for” (117). At the point where Humbert Humbert brought Lolita to the “Enchanted Hunters” hotel following her mother’s death, it is evident that Humbert Humbert is a delirious rapist and one who doesn’t deserve even the slightest of compassion. The audience will sympathize Dolores Haze, “who has been deprived of her childhood by a maniac” (283). However, we also learn that Lolita was not as innocent as she is portrayed...
... middle of paper ...
...not Lolita’s absence..but the absence of her voice” (308). By this point, Humbert is stricken with guilt recognizing his impact on Lolita’s life. We were aware of Humbert’s crime since the beginning, but he never succeeds in capturing Lolita’s heart willingly, which makes us forgive his violations even after his full acknowledgement of his crime.
Without a doubt, Humbert is a villain, but by empathizing with him, we have subconsciously forgiven him in his wrongdoings. All along, Humbert had deeply loved and long for Lolita and all throughout his time with her, he acknowledges the depth of his immorality. What had triggered our sympathy was his persistency to obtain what he loved most and the disclosure of his guilt, which he claims could never be forgiven. However, we as readers, seeing the he sincerely feels guilty and castigates himself, makes us accept him
Lastly, I would like to discuss the issue of Libertinism. Libertinism was a movement that started in the eighteenth century; about the time Dangerous Liaisons was written. It was a movement of questioning religion and God and of scandalous affairs. The people of this movement no longer thought the world is controlled by God, but by your own actions. The characters of Valmont and Merteuil were prominent Libertines. The book is definitely an example of this movement. It completely represents the values that come from Libertinism.
Her family life is depicted with contradictions of order and chaos, love and animosity, conventionality and avant-garde. Although the underlying story of her father’s dark secret was troubling, it lends itself to a better understanding of the family dynamics and what was normal for her family. The author doesn’t seem to suggest that her father’s behavior was acceptable or even tolerable. However, the ending of this excerpt leaves the reader with an undeniable sense that the author felt a connection to her father even if it wasn’t one that was desirable. This is best understood with her reaction to his suicide when she states, “But his absence resonated retroactively, echoing back through all the time I knew him. Maybe it was the converse of the way amputees feel pain in a missing limb.” (pg. 399)
In Aldous Huxley’s novel, “Brave New World,” published in 1932, two idiosyncratic, female characters, Lenina and Linda, are revealed. Both personalities, presented in a Freudian relationship (Linda being John’s mother and Lenina being his soon to be lover), depict one another in different stages of life and divulge ‘a character foil’. Lenina and Linda are both ‘Betas,’ who hold a strong relationship with the men in their lives, especially John. It can be stated that John may partially feel attracted towards Lenina, because she is a miniature version of Linda, in her youth. They both support the term of ‘conditioning,’ yet also question it in their own circumstances. Nonetheless, they both are still sexually overactive and criticized for such immoral decisions. Linda espouses it from her heart, while Lenina supports the process partially due to peer pressure and society’s expectations. Both female characters visit the Reservation with Alpha – Plus males, and both find a common feeling of revulsion towards it. Linda and Lenina are similar in many ways, yet they hold their diverse views on the different aspects of life.
The story of Lolita was written in the United States during the 1950’s. Authors in the fifties were considered the Beat Generation and the movements were sexual liberation and disregard for traditional values in writing. Narratives seemed more liberated and open like Lolita because it is far from conservative and
Justine, too, is an ‘idealised figure’, described during the trial as having a countenance which, ‘always engaging, was rendered, by the solemnity of her feelings, exquisitely beautiful.’ She is the archetypal innocent, being beautiful, weak and entirely accepting of her fate to the point of martyrdom.
Lolita, by Vladamir Nabokov is a controversial book that elaborately represents and forces the reader to deal with a pedophiles obsession with his 12-year-old stepdaughter. As the reader finishes reading Lolita, he must establish a meaning for the novel which hinges heavily upon whether or not he should forgive Humbert for his rape of Lolita and for stealing her childhood away from her. This rape is legally referred to as a statutory rape because Humbert is having sex with Lolita who is under the age of consent. Humbert also figuratively rapes Lolita of her childhood and a normal teenage life. This decision to forgive Humbert will rely upon Humbert's words as he realizes what he has done to Lolita. In order for the reader to be able to forgive Humbert he must determine if Humbert is truly sorry for his actions.
This essay will describe whether or not Blanches’ unfortunate eventual mental collapse was due to her being a victim of the society she went to seek comfort in, or if she was solely or at least partly responsible. The factors and issues that will be discussed include, Blanches’ deceitful behaviour and romantic delusions which may have lead to her eventual downfall, the role Stanley ended up playing with his relentless investigations of her past and the continuous revelations of it, the part society and ‘new America’ played in stifling her desires and throwing her into a world she could not relate to or abide by.
Devising the perfect murder is a craft that has been manipulated and in practice dating back to the time of the biblical reference of Cain and Abel. In the play, “Trifles” exploration is focused on the empathy one has for a murderer who feels they have no alternative from their abuser. As a multifaceted approach, the author Glaspell gives her audience a moral conflict as to whether murder should be condemned based on the circumstances rather than the crime. Presenting Mrs. Wright as the true victim of the crime of domestic abuse rather than a murderer gives Glaspell a stage which shows her audience the power of empathy.
“Said he, ‘I beg of you, for my sake and for our child’s sake,as well as for your own, that you will never for one instant let that idea enter your mind!’”(Gilman, 774) shows John begging her to withhold all feelings to save herself, him, and their child from any further pain. This suppression of feeling caused the mental confinement that the narrator felt. He hadn’t known in asking her to do so, it would cause such a reaction. While, Brently Mallard’s consistent pressure of being a perfect wife on Mrs. Mallard caused her conflicting ideas on his death as her being set free. “And yet she had loved him-sometimes. Often she had not.” (Chopin, 785) shows Mrs. Mallard's rethinking of her feelings towards her husband. The release of pressure caused by her husband death caused her to rethink and find her true feelings towards him. Mr. Mallard had unknowingly applied this pressure upon his wife because it was simply what he had always thought a woman should be which is learned from society. Meanwhile, Henry Allen consistently ridicules and rejects Elisa’s ideas of breaking free of the set standards of what a woman should be not knowing the effects it had on her. “Oh, sure, some. What’s the matter, Elisa? Do you want to
With his 1955 novel Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov invents a narrator by the name of Humbert Humbert who is both an exquisite wordsmith and an obsessive pedophile. The novel serves as the canvas upon which Humbert Humbert will paint a story of love, lust, and death for the reader. His confession is beautiful and worthy of artistic appreciation, so the fact that it centers on the subject of pedophilia leaves the reader conflicted by the close of the novel. Humbert Humbert frequently identifies himself as an artist and with his confession he hopes “to fix once for all the perilous magic of nymphets” (Nabokov, Lolita 134). Immortalizing the fleeting beauty and enchanting qualities of these preteen girls is Humbert Humbert’s artistic mission
The Marquis de Sade led a lifestyle that disgusted some but influenced others. “This was a life, then, of swashbuckling adventure, narrow escapes, wild abandon, and bloody crime” (Lever, introduction on front flap). He is famous for coining the term “sadism” from his known love for sexual violence in his own life and literature. The Marquis’ own libertine values, which allowed for him to escape the moral restraints of law and religion, allowed for his life and works of literature to challenge censorship.
The interpretation of Lolita still consisted on the ideas of sex and the book as well as the character became a scandal. Nabokov has rebuffed sex themes since the beginning of the book’s publishing. In his famous interview with Playboy, Nabokov rejects the interviewer bringing up America’s sexual mores with “Sex as an institution, sex as a general notion, sex as a problem, sex as a platitude—all this is something I find too tedious for words. Let us skip sex.” (Toffler). His refusal to even talk sex proved how little his tolerance was when it came to humoring the audience about sex themes and sex related questions. In an interview with CBC during the early 1960s, Nabokov is quoted agreeing with an interviewer that believes “sex has become such a cliche, so that people can’t recognize anything else.” (...) which further shows how 1960’s mentalities could see nothing else outside of the realm of sex. In the same CBC interview, Nabokov disputes sex themes more openly and admits that his writing of the book has more to do with Humbert’s artistic nature and how that alienates him and creates unattainable love (...). While Nabokov wrongly uses a young girl’s abuse as a tool of illustrating a man’s “misfortunes” of being an artist, the novel is more than what the 1960’s audience perceived it to be. Nabokov did not intend to write a book about a fetish, nor did he, according to Playboy, wish to satirize American culture. The text included more substinance than what people perceived it to be and as did the character Lolita herself, who was more than a teen temptress. His writing of the book has nothing to do about sex, although his initial theme is flawed and an important example of men’s inability to write books featuring authentic female characters, unless they are being used as tools or over sexualized. And much like Humbert Humbert, no matter how hard Nabokov tried to manipulate the text, feelings of empathy still is evoked
Leave it up to the main character of Lolita to sum up Nabokov's purpose for writing the novel.
In actuality, she was defiant, and ate macaroons secretly when her husband had forbidden her to do so. She was quite wise and resourceful. While her husband was gravely ill she forged her father’s signature and borrowed money without her father or husband’s permission to do so and then boastfully related the story of doing so to her friend, Mrs. Linde. She was proud of the sacrifices she made for her husband, but her perceptions of what her husband truly thought of her would become clear. She had realized that the childlike and submissive role she was playing for her husband was no longer a role she wanted to play. She defied the normal roles of the nineteenth century and chose to find her true self, leaving her husband and children
It is expected of woman to shatter into crisis as news of her husband’s death is exposed. In this reading, the author presents a widow named Louise Mallard, who against all odds dares to expose her desired dream. Mrs. Mallard subdues an unexpected reaction as she was notified of Mr. Mallard’s death. With sense of relief, she disgracefully mourns his absence. Yet, despite the horrendous news, Louise was powerless as a transparent feeling of joy approached her heart. Freedom was gifted. She “opened and spread her arms out…”