Are you having difficulty reading an article due its font size? In order to make the content on PEP-Web larger (zoom in), press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the plus sign (+). Press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the minus sign (-) to make the content smaller (zoom out). To go back to 100% size (normal size), press Ctrl (⌘Command on the Mac) + 0 (the number 0).
Another way on Windows: Hold the Ctrl key and scroll the mouse wheel up or down to zoom in and out (respectively) of the webpage. Laptop users may use two fingers and separate them or bring them together while pressing the mouse track pad.
Safari users: You can also improve the readability of you browser when using Safari, with the Reader Mode: Go to PEP-Web. Right-click the URL box and select Settings for This Website, or go to Safari > Settings for This Website. A large pop-up will appear underneath the URL box. Look for the header that reads, “When visiting this website.” If you want Reader mode to always work on this site, check the box for “Use Reader when available.”
For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.
Sokol, B.J. (1986). Lolita and Kleinian psychoanalysis. Free Associations, 1(4):7-21.
(1986). Free Associations, 1(4):7-21
Lolita and Kleinian psychoanalysis
B. J. Sokol, Ph.D.
Vladimir Nabokov was a strenuous critic of psychoanalysis in his fiction, his criticism, and his autobiography, which seems a mixture of both.1 He was also always a scornful and diligent student of those who falsely pretend to knowledge. It would be fascinating to learn how much Nabokov really knew of the complexsubject-matter of Freudian and post-Freudian thought. Lolita seems to hold a key to the surprising conclusion that his knowledge was detailed and extensive.
The narrator of Lolita, Humbert Humbert, confides in, laments with, thrusts himself at, and even croons to his audience in the most unreliable manner imaginable. But first a parody ‘objective’ preface by one John Ray Jr, PhD provides an induction, by contrast, to the tones of the novel. John Ray blandly presents a reductive, statistical, ‘suave’2 view of Humbert, placing him in a broad category of deviation. According to Dr Ray, who cites his colleague Dr Blanche Schwarzmann, each year a ‘conservative’ 12% of ‘adult American males’ like Humbert enjoy paedophile delights (6).
Not the content but the tone of John Ray's pronouncement reveals at the outset the main source of Humbert's besetting fear. Due to Humbert's cherished self-image, that of a sophisticated European aesthete, he recoils against a certain kind of ‘openness’ about sexuality. America is a consumer society and Ray discusses libido as a commodity with its own economics. This perspective leaves Humbert terrified that he will be viewed not as a tragic figure, nor even as moral leper, but as a common sensual consumer. Above all, Humbert wants to be special.
This fear explains Humbert's notorious unreliability.
[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]