Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and the Merited-Response Argument
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In attempting to answer whether Nabokov’s Lolita can be described as an unethical novel, the author ponders on what basis one could make such a determination. At (1) the author analyzes the merited-response argument offered by Gaut (and previously Hume and Carroll), which provides a conceptual framework for the resolution of the controversy surrounding Lolita. Based on this analysis, (2) the author decides what constitutes the novel’s ethical foundation and what (3) prescriptions and (4) responses can follow from it.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
References
Appel A. (1967), “Lolita: The Springboard of Parody,” Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature 8 (Spring): 204–224.
Appel A. (1991a), “Notes,” [in:] The Annotated Lolita. Revised and Updated, A. Appel (ed.), Vintage Books, New York: 388–548.
Appel A. (1991b), “Preface,” [in:] The Annotated Lolita. Revised and Updated, A. Appel (ed.), Vintage Books, New York: 3–8.
Booth W.C. (1961), The Rhetoric of Fiction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Booth W.C. (1988), The Company We Keep. An Ethics of Fiction, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
Boyd B. (1991), Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Carroll N. (2000), “Arts and Ethical Criticism: An Overview of Recent Directions of Research,” Ethics 110: 350–387.
de la Durantaye L. (2007), The Style is Matter. The Moral Art of Vladimir Nabokov, Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London.
Edel L. (1955), The Psychological Novel: 1900–1950, Hart-Davis, London.
Edelstein M. (2008), “Teaching Lolita in a Course on Ethics and Literature,” [in:] Approaches to Teaching Nabokov’s Lolita, Z. Kuzmanovich, G. Diment (eds.), Modern Language Association of America, New York: 43–48.
Gaut B. (2007), Art, Emotion and Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gaut B. (1998), “The Ethical Criticism of Art,” [in:] Aesthetics and Ethics. Essays at the Intersection, J. Levinson (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York: 182–200.
Grygiel M. (2016), Gra w wartości – aksjologiczna strategia prozy Vladimira Nabokova, Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin.
Harold J. (2006), “On Judging the Moral Value of Narrative Artworks,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (2): 259–270.
Hume D. (2004), “Of the Standard of Taste,” [in:] Critical Theory since Plato, H. Adams, L. Searle (eds.), third edition, Wadsworth Publishing, Boston: 323–332.
Levine P. (1995), “Lolita and Aristotle’s Ethics,” Philosophy and Literature 19 (1): 32–47.
McGinn C. (1999), “The Meaning and Morality of Lolita,” The Philosophical Forum 30 (March): 31–41.
Nabokov V. (1991a), The Annotated Lolita. Revised and Updated, edited with preface, introduction and notes by A. Appel, Vintage Books, New York.
Nabokov V. (1973), Strong Opinions, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nabokov V. (1991b), “On a Book Entitled Lolita,” [in:] The Annotated Lolita. Revised and Updated, A. Appel (ed.), Vintage Books, New York: 380–386.
Nabokov V. (1980), “Good Readers and Good Writers,” [in:] V. Nabokov, Lectures on Literature, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York: 1–6.
Nussbaum M. (1990a), “'Finely Aware and Richly Responsible’: Literature and the Moral Imagination,” [in:] M. Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge. Essays on Philosophy and Literature, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York: 148–167.
Nussbaum M. (1990b), “Introduction: Form and Content, Philosophy and Literature,” [in:] M. Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge. Essays on Philosophy and Literature, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York: 3–53.
Nussbaum M. (1990c), “Reading for Life,” [in:] M. Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge. Essays on Philosophy and Literature, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York: 230–244.
Phelan J. (2005), The Implied Author, Unreliability, and Ethical Positioning. “The Remains of the Day”, [in:] J. Phelan, A Living to Tell About It. A Rhetoric and Ethics of Character Narration, Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London: 31–65.
Pifer E. (1980), Nabokov and the Novel, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Rampton D. (1984), Vladimir Nabokov: A Critical Study of the Novels, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Rorty R. (1989), Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York.
Stear N.-H. (2019), Seductive Artworks, URL = https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2019/01/17/seductive-artworks/ [Accessed 21.06.2021].
Tokarczuk O. (2019), Nobel Lecture, URL = https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2018/tokarczuk/lecture/ [Accessed 16.03.2021].
Trilling L. (1982), “The Last Lover – Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita,” [in:] Nabokov: The Critical Heritage, N. Page (ed.), Routledge, Kegan & Paul, London: 92–102.
Watt I. (1957), The Rise of the Novel, University of California Press, Berkeley (CA).