How does Nabokov use narrative techniques in Lolita Essays

How does Nabokov use narrative techniques in Lolita Essays How does Nabokov use narrative techniques in Lolita Paper How does Nabokov use narrative techniques in Lolita Paper novel pretending to be a memoir. 1 Humbert is writing from his prison cell awaiting trial and there is an implied reader as if Humbert is writing an apology to the courtroom, addressing the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The third paragraph in section one is written in conversational form, answering implied questions from an unspecified interlocutor, in the manner of a dramatic monologue. 2 Humbert asks the question, Did she have a precursor, and then answers the reader, as of course they can not, She did, indeed she did. Humbert indicates to us that he is in prison and is constantly being watched, I am writing under observation, and by his method of speaking directly to the reader he tells us to, tells us to look out for codes and clues and beware of the literal. 3 Ironically this immediately convinces us of his undeniable guilt. The narration begins in the present tense in the first line. Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. However, in the next section we are thrust back into the past tense, and throughout the extract Nabokov uses a clever narrative technique, when, amidst the descriptions of Humberts encounters with Annabel and his subsequent career, we are constantly reminded of his nagging sense of longing for Lolita by his method of bringing us back to the present tense. .. and this is how I see Lolita The extract is seen through the eyes of Humbert Humbert and his is the narrative voice through which we are told the story therefore the extract exhibits mimesis in that t he narrator is telling us the story. However, there is an omnicient narrator in Nabokovs own authorial comment and the narration switches from the third person authorial commentary in the past tense diagesis to the first person in the present tense: Humberts own point of view, which is mimesis, but this only happens once in the extract. But let us be prim and civilised. Humbert Humbert tried hard to be good. Really and truly, he did. He had the utmost respect for ordinary children, with their purity and vulnerability, and under no circumstances would he have interfered with the innocence of a child, if there was the least risk of a row So life went, Humbert was perfectly capable of intercourse with Eve, but it was Lilith he longed for. The bud stage of breast development appears early (10. 7 years) in the sequence of somatic changes accompanying pubescence. And the next maturational item available is the first appearance of pigmented pubic hair (11. 2 years). My little cup brims with tiddles. The underlined section indicates where there is a change from the authorial commentary to free direct speech as Humbert takes over the narration and it moves into the present tense letting us into Humberts stream of consciousness. Finally, in the last sentence we are fully aware that Humbert has taken over the narration, as we move into the final sentence, my little cup brims with tiddles, and the narration moves into the first person. Perhaps this sudden change from the authorial commentary to free direct speech is contrasted so dramatically to illustrate Humberts sexual preoccupation with children and to show us in this dramatic style that he is constantly thinking about it. However, Humbert is an unreliable narrator as we are never completely sure of his sanity and that what we are being told is the truth. One indication of this is his desperate attempt to convince us that the affection he holds for Lolita is completely normal and should not be judged as unwholesome in modern society. Marriage and cohabitation before the age of puberty are still not uncommon in certain East Indian provinces. Lepcha old men of eighty copulate with girls of eight, and nobody minds. This is an extremely clever technique as it makes the reader begin to question the actual sanity behind a culture which does not allow these practises as we are drawn into his madness, until we remind ourselves that he is, in fact, insane. Another feature of the extract which illustrates Humbert as an unreliable narrator is the fact that we are immediately thrust into oppositions at the beginning if the passage. My sin / My soul Light of my Life / Fire in my loins Humbert tries to make his obsession with Lolita seem respectable but the contradictions in his speech let the reader know that his intentions are not honourable. The language of Lolita is also worthy of comment in that Nabokov exhibits a style of writing known as fancy prose, and this can be explained as being that works of fiction generally have no rules, therefore the author can be as flamboyant and as decorative as he pleases. Nabokov uses excessive alliteration in the first paragraph, indeed David Lodge calls it, a veritable firework display of alliteration. Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. The use of repetition is also employed, that is, repetition of particular sounds, similar to that which is used in poetry. The metaphor of the tongue indicates a double meaning, and is an extremely apt use of imagery, suggesting both his verbosity in this eloquent appraisal of Lolita and also indicating his animalistic lust for her. This illustrates the style in which Nabokov writes, and he mockingly acknowledges this fact with the line, can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. To conclude, the narrative techniques employed in the extract all cleverly illustrate Humberts obsession with Lolita. From the extract it can be assumed that the majority of the novel is written in the narration of Humbert himself with very little authorial comment. However, from the small amount that there is the construction of the text is very misleading in the figure of the narrator, as it jumps from authorial commentary to Humberts narrative without any clear indication other than the change in tense. However, we can deduce that the authors point of view and the narrators are extremely similar as though he is sympathising with the plight of the principle character. We are also aware that Humbert is an unreliable narrator and cannot be relied upon for an honest account of the story and, as a result, this also further implicates his madness. The imagery of the courtroom also suggests to us at the beginning of the extract to deliver a guilty verdict before hearing his plea.