Anthology #2
Studies in Censorship
Close readings by
Ryan Richards
Renata Christen
John Bean
Evelyn Crawford
Doug Adams
Chris Franz
Chris Odegard
Chris Kwiat
Brooke Berndston
Lenny Bruce Was a Nigger
Ryan Richards
Studies in Censorship
Brian Mooney
February 23, 2007
Lenny Bruce had no problem pointing out the societal ills of his time with
use of the most explicit language. In the 1950's, when racism was still widely accepted, he saw
problems with how the population was treating racial issues, even those fighting for racial
equality. He questioned religious beliefs and pointed to fundamental contradictions of religious
organizations, such as the tension between Christians and Jews. Bruce directly challenged the
government during a time when it still questioned the average person's ability to handle sexual
material.
Many believe that Bruce used explicit language to get his point across more effectively,
and that he raised awareness of the contradictions and wrongs of society. Many ask if his
profanity should have been embraced by a society that needed to learn a few things, or if it was
wrong and unnecessary for Bruce to be so shocking. These questions have been debated for
almost half a century now and still remain pertinent questions in our society. These questions,
however, are not the most important questions to be asking. Regardless of whether or not Bruce
effectively pointed out hypocrisy and promoted general consciousness in the society, one must
question the sincerity of Bruce's words and of Bruce's audience. Bruce's comedy made him
money. Bruce's audience provided that money because they wanted to laugh and enjoy
themselves. If these issues that Bruce spoke of were so important and had such great social
value, why would they be the source of enjoyment and laughter for an audience who supposedly
cared so much about them? Would Bruce himself make light of such issues if he truly felt they
were so disgusting and harmful? Were his acts self-serving and was he looking towards personal
wealth as the ends for means which seem justifiable? These are the questions to be asking of
Lenny Bruce, what he said and what he stood for.
Let's first examine the way in which Bruce presented his critique of society and all its
contradictions and wrongdoings. He had to present it in such a way that reached out to a lot of
people to be effective on a larger social level. His use of comedy and especially his use of
vulgarity were effective methods in gaining a large audience. We mustn't forget, however,
another important consequence of gaining a large audience: Bruce was able to make a lot of
money from gaining such a large audience, which makes me question the sincerity of what Bruce
said. Bruce used his "Dirty Lenny" title as an extremely effective way to gain publicity and make
money. Lenny himself was pretty straightforward with this method, as he told Studs Terkel in an
interview, "'sick' is just a commercial thing." This was his job and he had no problem using
vulgar words to raise his income.
Although Bruce was money hungry, we cannot reduce him to be a filthy comedian who
was only in it for the money. Bruce recognized many important flaws and wrongs in a society
that pretended to be flawless. There is no doubt that he felt a need to explore these flaws and
present them to an ignorant America. Bruce criticized the use of the word "nigger" in one of his
most famous routines that starts with, "Are there any niggers here tonight?" He continues to use
and abuse the term and other racial slurs such as kike, spic and honky. Interestingly enough, the
audience only starts laughing when he "sees a nigger couple there, between those two niggers are
three kikes." They may laugh at kike because of his delivery and the way he introduces the word,
but the audience seems to be taking nigger seriously, either because it's a serious issue or
because they think it's a term used casually to describe a black person in the 50's, as they were
looked down upon. Kike seems to be more socially acceptable and not a serious word. He
concludes this routine by saying that if nigger was used as commonly as any other word, if the
President were to introduce the "niggers of his cabinet", it would mean as much as "I swear to
tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God" (which makes a point about the
validity of our oath). The important point Bruce makes in his routine is that all these words are
meaningless in and of themselves, so nigger is equal to any other slang. What he overlooks is the
social impact of words. Without recognizing this impact as something we need to understand to
change how we use words, he may get his audience to use these terms casually and view them as
any other words, but he loses any social impact.
The social impact of nigger is still extremely evident today. I used the word in the title of
this paper to illustrate the effect it still has. I'm being hypocritical by calling Bruce a nigger, but
that is my intent. I don't actually think Bruce was a nigger (nor do I think that that word should
be used to describe anyone- hopefully that comes across in this paper), just as Bruce didn't intend
to mean anything racist by using the word nigger except that it becomes racist when people
decide it's racist. He understands "nigger" as a loaded term that must be desensitized by overuse.
The problem with this is that interpretation must be accounted for. My title could have meant a
number of things, and could have had a number of significances. These different meanings may
be much different then what this phrase could have meant in the 50's, but the meaning of a word
changes because of a societies understanding of that word. We first had to reform our view of
racial diversity before words mean something else. Words provide a way to express one's
thoughts. Thoughts come first, then we form the words that enable us to express our thoughts.
Bruce saw this process in reverse, where meaning comes only after words have been uttered.
However, context and intent are much more important . Everyone in the world could be using
"nigger" as any other word, in a non-derogatory way, but one will always be able to express the
same racial views as a loaded "nigger" would allow them to do. Bruce failed to realize that words
reflect the consciousness of individuals and of society, that consciousness doesn't in fact reflect
the meaning of words.
A backward understanding of the relationship between words and meaning questions the
art form of comedy all together. Is comedy an appropriate form of expression to raise awareness
and elevate social consciousness?
Comedy itself is a form of art that intends on making people laugh. When we feel good,
we laugh and when we laugh, we feel good. We are to use this expression in most every
situation. In situations of happiness and joy the laugh affirms what we are doing and adds to the
joy. In situations of great despair, a laugh may offer optimism and balance a deep pain. It may
allow people to feel more at ease in a serious situation. A laugh provides many benefits in just
about every situation.
Lenny Bruce used comedy in a satirical way, that is, to make criticisms. His criticism
came in forms of irony, humor and exaggeration. The purpose of satire is to use these forms to
elevate social consciousness, to raise awareness. This adds depth to what's being addressed.
Bruce used satire to show how the obscenity law– anything that appeals to the prurient interest–
is absurd: "That's why strippers get arrested for being obscene. They come out and do a horny
dance, the viewer gets horny and rapes somebody who didn't see the show. That's why we have
the law." He made a situation in which the blame is being put on someone who shouldn't
rationally be blamed. Points such as this one are extremely important for greater social and
political change, but he can't seem to get the audience to truly understand the severity of these
flaws. If I'm listening to him speak, however, I'm having a great time laughing the night away in
an elitist bliss. Do I leave wanting to change the wrongs of society and have a positive influence
on the people enabling these wrongs? It's doubtful, but I might. Am I able to after having
laughed and scoffed at them for a few hours? Even more doubtful.
I liken the satire of Bruce to another form of criticism. Say someone is vehemently
opposed to pornography. He may show pornography to a large audience and point out all the
silly things that people could then laugh at so that they may see the ridiculousness of it. He is still
exploiting the problem, just as Bruce exploits the problems he explores, and he offers no
sympathy for these problems. How would anyone change if you just laughed at her and criticized
her ruthlessly? You'd feel better, she'd feel worse. Such criticism is violent and offensive and
rather than created a stronger whole it creates a weaker split. Criticism must be constructive and
the one criticizing must understand the people he criticizes so as to be effective.
Bruce is also like someone who opposes drinking alcohol, yet they go to a party and have
the best time by watching all the drunk people act silly and irresponsible. He uses his victims of
criticism as a source of enjoyment. His audience leaves the hall feeling happy and satisfied. The
same thing happens when he uses "nigger" and other racial slurs. He forgets about a deep history
of discrimination and hate and what these people and their family had to endure. It's easy for him
to take this social impact out of the equation and treat these words just as any other words, but
ultimately he uses the victims history to make light of it and get people happy enough to give
him plenty of money.
Bruce is very open about his need for such destruction and despair. He once said "all my
humor is based on destruction and despair. If the whole world were tranquil, I'd be standing in
the breadline, right in back of J. Edgar Hoover." He was exploiting these issues and ultimately
living off of these issues. He wants these issues to continue so that he is able to continue his
criticisms of these issues. Bruce's comedy reflects his insincere concerns of the problems of a
society. He was able to recognize many disgusting flaws but was unable to take them seriously
and have a positive affect on them, setting his desires aside. Bruce had a great mind to
understand many of the problems of the 50's and 60's, but ultimately wasn't able to put aside his
agenda and his money-making act to enlighten society.
Renata Christen
3/2/07
Professor Mooney
Censorship
Christen 1
Dadaism and Insanity in Howl
Allen Ginsberg’s Howl critically examines American society’s views on insanity.
Howl is, for many, a defining symbol of Beat Culture and represents a shift that took place in
social understanding during the mid-fifties. By analyzing insanity and the activist art form
Dadaism in Howl, I will reveal the dangers in a prescribed American “way of life,” and show
how Ginsberg’s poem challenges the collective American determinism in maintaining a
subservient status quo.
Drawing from William Blake’s poetry, Ginsberg shows throughout Howl how he
embodies America, and that his poetic work embodies the creative awareness of societal ills and
joys. Ginsberg writes about the truth he experiences in American society, so that those who only
see one side of America - the side representing pristine government authority - can take
advantage of a different view. In the forward for Howl, William Carlos Williams says to, “Hold
back the edges of your gowns, Ladies, we are going through hell”1 In one way, we’re shown the
American ideal of untouched femininity in woman’s apparel. But, through Howl, America’s
desired passivity for its women will be forced to experience the “hells” of actual reality. The
symbolic duality of a feigned “proper society” and hellish realities of urban living prepare us for
Ginsberg’s poem. Howl is representative of Ginsberg’s life as an American citizen, and his
unique experiences help expose people to the many issues surrounding insanity - the insane
cannot be categorized by who fits a societal “norm” and who does not.
There is a particular “way of life” in America that is heavily guarded and revered. In
America, insanity is a taboo subject, rarely discussed in polite society and not linked to
Christen 2
America’s desired “way of life.” Ginsberg and his mother were both institutionalized (he passes
reference to his mother’s institutionalization in Howl stating, “Holy my mother in the insane
1
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 8
asylum!”2) which says something about the American life he experienced as an outcast from
society. Ginsberg’s experience helped him question how people are treated when they don’t fit in
with societal norms: people are exiled and sent to rehab when they become addicted to drugs or
have mental imbalances. People with severe depression or melancholy can receive electro-shock
therapy for mental correction, or prescribed drugs to help “normalize” their behavior. The
American obsession with normalized and perfected reality is what Ginsberg’s Howl sets out to
damage, if not destroy.
Ginsberg’s ironic quip about someone throwing, “potato salad at CCNY lecturers on
Dadaism”3 describes Ginsberg’s purpose in writing Howl and analyzes one misconstrued aspect
of insanity. Dadaism, or Dada, is an art movement that rejects traditional culture and attempts to
destroy it.4 The thrust of Ginsberg’s poetry, similar to the Dada, is to oppose social norms and
disintegrate tradition’s stagnant hold on society. Ginsberg’s insertion of Dadaist expression into
Howl - throwing the potato salad at a lecturer on Dadaism - explicitly reveals the hypocrisy of
government institutions like City College of New York (CCNY). The individual who is living
Dadaism by throwing potato salad is subjected to a correctional institution, whereas the academic
lecturer, a worker of the American government, is left unscathed. It’s easy to generalize that
someone is insane because he or she throws potato salad at a lecturer. However, the inherently
rebellious actions undertaken by activist art (throwing potato salad at lecturers of Dadaism - an
art form about anti-establishment) is censored and deemed “insane” by rigid governmental
Christen 3
authority.
Ginsberg’s use of Dadaism to show how average Americans and governmental entities
2
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 27
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 18
4
“Dadaism” – www.Wikipedia.org
3
consider abstract creativity one tell-tale sign of insanity also shows us that insanity is multifaceted and can’t be categorized by what is or isn’t “normal.” Issues surrounding normality are
raised in Howl through the context of creative individuals “with shaved heads and harlequin
speeches of suicide.”5 The word harlequin is defined as a “clown or buffoon,”6 and Dadaists
with “harlequin speeches of suicide” are ironically witty in their clownish act of desiring suicide
and demanding “instantaneous lobotomy” for throwing food at lecturers on Dadaism. The
Dadaists in Howl know they’re being stereotyped as insane for their actions, and sarcastically
mock the stereotype by demanding to be institutionalized. Again, we see Ginsberg’s use of Dada
as a means through which average Americans and governmental entities can examine their lack
of understanding for creative output. He shows how creative individuals are unwilling to fit in
with pre-conceived standards of capitalist living (instead of lecturing on Dadaism, they choose to
live the art), and are punished with asylum (William’s “Hell”) when they refuse to conform.
Ginsberg also points to a larger societal disgust with people who don’t fit into the
American “way of life” in his lengthy description of the methods involved in “fixing” people.
The, “concrete void of insulin Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational
therapy pingpong & amnesia,”7 all relay back to the pretend Dadaists and their initial expression
of art. Instead of taking the time to explore a new art form (a different way of viewing the
world), society would rather institutionalize and destroy the creativity of individuals than
cultivate awareness: Ironic, in light of America’s continual efforts to maintain the status quo of
Christen 4
normality. In an anticlimactic description of the Dadaists with “harlequin speeches,” we’re
shown them as defeated individuals, “who in humorless protest overturned only one symbolic
5
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 18
“Harlequin” – www.Hyperdictionary.com
7
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 18
6
pingpong table, resting briefly in catatonia.”8 No longer are they able to defend their art through
Dadaist “speeches of suicide,” – instead, they’re being normalized to fit in with America’s silent
majority.
Repressed urges are another aspect of American society that Ginsberg forces people to
confront in Howl. In repressing individual passions, we are sacrificing the creative vision, and
subsequent value of people within society. The Dadaists are shown “returning years later truly
bald except for a wig of blood, tears and fingers, to the visible madman doom of the wards of the
madtowns of the East,”9 because they were institutionalized and “corrected” for their creativity.
Ginsberg portrays the Dadaists as broken individuals no longer capable of being active members
of society. They are only able to reflect on the horrors of their lost livelihoods in “the wards of
madtowns.” In another ironic twist, Ginsberg shows us how America takes flourishing, creative
people and turns them “truly bald” through institutionalized reprogramming and torture.
Individuals, who once had the potential to share with the world their unique point of view, are
destroyed beyond usefulness to society.
I view insanity as an issue with few advocates. Although most people directly or
indirectly have had experience with varying forms of insanity, they rarely want to acknowledge
its existence. The mentally ill view the world through a completely different lens than anyone in
“normal” society. Some of the most brilliant minds in history have suffered severe depression
(once treated alongside schizophrenia), and have utilized their mindset for the greater good of
Christen 5
humanity. The fact that Dadaism straddles a fine line between acting within societal norms, and
bizarrely lashing out against it, is worthy of introspection. Instead of locking, silencing, and
8
9
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 18
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and other poems (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2006), 19
drugging up people who do not think or act like the general populace, we should embrace their
unique voice in whatever shape it takes hold.
Howl shows us exactly how multi-faceted insanity can be. Insanity in America is not
merely about mental disorder - it represents the oppression of all individuals, creative or not,
who happen to act outside complacent social normalcy. When individuals deviate, like Howl’s
creative Dadaists, they’re punished through institutional therapy. Instead of accepting the natural
progression of human art and creativity, of Dadaists and the insane, denying the issues presented
by Ginsberg’s Howl will only worsen the societal ills of which it speaks. By talking about the
varying issues surrounding insanity, a forum is created for possible healing and change. Art is
the ultimate expression of the human soul, and Howl stands up for continual change and the
process of collective self-understanding.
Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” and Buddhism
By John Bean
February 23, 2007
Studies on Censorship
Allen Ginsberg, like many of the Beat poets, was heavily influenced buy Buddhism, both
in life and poetry. “Howl,” one of Ginsberg’s most controversial works, is most often read as a
revolutionary poem that is dangerously critical of the United States though “Howl” is more likely
a personal story describing one man’s journey to Buddhist enlightenment. The Buddha taught
that there were four truths about all life, often called the Four Noble Truths, which one must
follow to reach enlightenment. “Howl” consists of four parts, including the “Footnote to Howl”
Each section corresponds to each of the Four Noble Truths in the same order that they are taught
in Buddhist schools.
The First Noble Truth that Buddha taught is that life means suffering. In stories about the
Buddha’s journey to enlightenment as a child he lived in a palace protected by the wealth of his
father. Yet one day he wanted to see the rest of the world and when he snuck out of the palace he
saw that everyone suffered. The Buddha did not presume to say that life is completely miserable
and did not ignore the parts of life that are joyful and rewarding. The essence of the first Noble
truth is that everything is temporary and when we lose something that is valuable it creates
suffering. The Buddha understood that no one was safe from the temporary nature of the
universe and in the first section of “Howl” Ginsberg reiterates this discovery but also places it
into a modern context so that contemporary Americans would be able to understand the
sometimes confusing sentiments of Asian philosophy.
Contemporary American is a place where intelligent minds are often hailed over spiritual
ones and ethical values are being traded in for more profits is many times rewarded. Society
often thinks that people with high intelligence or wealth will be removed from the cycles of
suffering that they see in the world. The first section of “Howl” delivers the sentiments of
Buddha that no one is safe from suffering, even those who have the “greatest mind of [Ginsber’s]
generation” are subject to madness and pain.
It is not surprising that when it was published “Howl” was seen as very dangerous. It is
an eye opener to things that many Americans, especially in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, did
not want to hear about or confront. In many regards the 50’s were a time to live in a protected
bubble, much like the Buddha did when he was young. Yet the Buddha had to leave the
protection of the city to reach his final liberation and so do all others on the quest for
enlightenment.
The second Noble Truth is an explanation as to why there is suffering in the world.
Ginsberg translates the Buddha’s wise words into English and places it in a modern context. It is
because we have given up our imaginations to Moloch, the ever-hungry machine from
Metropolis, that we sacrifice ourselves to just to be blasted with more steam. This is wear our
suffering comes from, the desire for more and the ignorance how to stop Moloch from
devouring our children, and our children’s children just as it has gobbled up our own
imaginations and brains. So, if Moloch, who’s “blood is running money,” keeps on watching us
with his eyes of “black windows”, and who is the prison in which every American wakes to find
himself locked in does the machine never cease to feed on our dreams? In the visions of both the
Buddha and Ginsburg the answer is no. There is an end and its face is compassion.
In “Howl,” Ginsberg describes the Buddha’s third Noble truth in the third section of the
poem. In the third Noble Truth, the Buddha taught that there was an end to suffering and that it
was attainable. The Buddha knew this from personal experience after sitting under a tree and not
moving until he reached enlightenment. In this section of “Howl,” Ginsberg speaks directly to
Carl Solomon. The words are compassionate in response to the madness; saying that we are all
stages on the journey through the stages there is an end somewhere. The end is of absolute bliss
of walking “dripping from a sea-journey on the highway across America in tears to my cottage in
the Western night.” In the west is where the sunsets and the cool night bring relief from the
suffering of a hot day. And in the cottage we reach liberation.
Once the Buddha had reached enlightenment he set out to help others do the same. The
ending section, the “Footnote to Howl,” captures the essence of the forth Noble Truth, the
eightfold path. The Eightfold Path has three main parts divided into subsections. They are
wisdom (right view and right intention), Ethical Conduct (right speech, right action, right
livelihood), and mental development (right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration). The
“Footnote to Howl” does not describe these guidelines in the same words or form as the Buddha
but Ginsberg, like with the other truths, captures the essence in saying that everything is Holy.
Things that are holy must be treated with respect, pure thoughts, and drive to better one and
others. Those things that are holy deserve to be treated with everything described in the Eightfold
Path.
Allen Ginsberg was not trying to disintegrate American culture or its people instead he
was trying to enlighten them and to make them better. In pointing out there is suffering in the
United States he does break down the walls of the protected city but in the end, Ginsberg’s only
goal is to guide us to that cottage in the West.
Ginsberg’s America
Evelyn Crawford
Studies on Censorship
Brian Mooney
March 5, 2007
On February 14, 2007 the class “studies on censorship” put on a mock trial deciding the
fate of Allen Ginsberg’s book of poems entitled Howl. In both this trial, and in many of the
recorded trials in the past, the decision of whether or not to censor a piece of literature, both the
prosecution and defense based there arguments on a different set of American values and
different ideal Americas. What was not considered, however, were the practical implications of
the ideals presented by the defense, prosecution, and even Ginsberg. In this particular trial, the
prosecution decided to go against ideals and dealt with the reality of Howl’s threat, the defense
however stuck to ideals much like those presented in Ginsberg’s book of poems. Although the
defense won in the trial, whether or not to censor a work such as Howl should be based upon the
practical implications of the ideal and not the ideal itself. In examining the cases presented by the
prosecution and the defense, the defense and Ginsberg’s ideals are not practical will become
clear.
The defense in the mock trial focused their argument on the right of an individual to read
any work that they choose. The defense presented that parents can protect their children and
people can protect themselves, and in that is the right of person to choose what sort of life they
want to lead and the right of a person to rebel against society. In fact, the defense put particular
value on the fact that Ginsberg’s book was a revolutionary piece. In the defense’s ideal America
all different ways of life are valued, and revolutionary ideas should be treasured. This ideal is in
accordance with the ideal that Ginsberg presents in his work, that everything, including every
way of life, is holy.
Ginsberg’s intentions in Howl are to make a declaration that everything and everyway of
life is holy. Ginsberg and his friends did not find refuge in American life or institutionalization
and so they retreated into back alleyways. Ginsberg wants to claim where he found salvation
holy with everything already considered holy, even though he found salvation in the gutter.
Ginsberg, in recounting his and his friends’ journey through America, claims that both
everything is holy and everything is evil, thus eliminating good and evil and accepting all. In the
first part the journey moves from higher education into tales of drugs, sex and illegal acts. In this
section, Ginsberg recounts how he and his friends did not fit in American institutionalized life
and they experimented with sex and drugs. Ginsberg then claims in the second part that
everything is part of “Moloch;” both “trees” and “unobtainable dollars” are Moloch.10 The label
“Moloch” makes everything feel as though it were its own entity and not encompassing. Moloch
is a word used for different aspects of a variety of religions, but is well know in Christianity and
Judaism as the name of a demon. Since Ginsberg references Heaven in his second section, he
seems to be aiming towards a Christian theme. Ginsberg uses the word “Moloch” to encompass
those things that make him and others suffer. The demon in Ginsberg’s poem is everything, and
so everything is evil. However, in the footnote of the poem Howl, Ginsberg claims that
everything is Holy, both bums and charity are holy, and so everything is good. From Ginsberg’s
claim that both everything is holy and that everything is part of evil, he eradicates good and bad.
In third section Ginsberg is talking to not just to his friend Carl, to whom he dedicated the
poem, but all the people who are still stuck in a place where they cannot experience or recognize
the absence of good and bad, such as the public. The third part of the poem Howl is much like a
letter to Carl. In this section Ginsberg is talking directly to his friend Carl, who is in Rockland
and telling, him that he is with him in all his activities. I believe what Ginsberg means in
communicating with Carl, that he is with Carl even though Carl may not be in the same place as
10
Allen Ginsberg, Howl and Other Poems (City Lights Books, 1959), 21-22
him in recognizing that there is not good and evil. Ginsberg references several times in this
section that Carl is in a mental hospital receiving shock treatment for insanity, something that
Ginsberg talks about earlier in the first section but in the past tense. However, here Carl’s
experiences are spoken about in present tense and so Ginsberg is reaching out to those currently
struggling.11
Ginsberg’s idea that “everything is holy” extends to his other poems, such as one entitled
“America” in Ginsberg’s book Howl, Ginsberg says: “it occurs to me that I am America,”12
meaning that America is a homosexual communist who does drugs and is promiscuous.
Ginsberg’s ideal America seems to be one where people are free regardless of protection because
there is no good and no bad, Ginsberg sees his ideal America as himself because he represents
many of the things that America defines itself as not being, while in fact he sees America as
being everything.
Ginsberg’s ideal, however, is complemented by practical implications, just like all other
ideals. Perhaps his practical intentions were to undermine institutionalization and the
government, but what that does in reality is pull the country apart. The “big deal” with howl is
that it pulls the bottom out from under America. Middle class America is much like a cartoon
that has walked off a cliff, but because it has not looked down it hasn’t fallen. Howl makes
people look down by exposing just how close they are to Ginsberg’s way of life and what looks
like misery.
The ideal that everything is holy cannot exist in a society that relies on right and wrong.
So, although Ginsberg may see everything as holy what that really means for the nation is chaos.
The practical implication of Ginsberg’s ideals is chaos. Releasing the book of poems Howl only
11
12
Ginsberg, Howl and Other Poems, 24-26
Ginsberg, Howl and Other Poems, 41
damages the system we have in place by allowing these poems to influence even a few people in
our society of structures and rules.
Ginsberg damages our current system by revealing that there is no safety net for middle
class America. Just as when consumers are pessimistic the economy suffers, so too does the
country when the people do not feel safe. Although institutionalization may only give the
illusion that people are safe and taken care of, the illusion is more important then the actual act.
It is less important that people feel protected then it is for them to actually be protected.
These are in fact the practical implications of our current system and although our ideals
drape illusions in front of us, this is the system that maximizes utility. In the prosecutions
argument America revolves around uniformity. America is a place where people have given up
certain rights in order to be protected. The government holds the responsibility in protecting
them. Howl presents a serious threat to national security because it threatens the current system
that is based on conformity.
The prosecution in the mock trial countered many of these arguments with their practical
realities. For instance, In America we like revolutionaries because we fought a revolution, but
this does not mean that all revolutions are good. We have the ideal that revolutions are good
because it was once us who were the backlashers, but the practical implications of a revolution
are dangerous. In my American ideal – we pin up revolutionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr.
as good people but at the same time we label revolutionaries such as Adolph Hitler as evil. The
reality is that often Americans do not accept all ways of life.
From the prosecutions standpoint presenting Ginsberg’s book of poem Howl to the public
is an issue of national security. Not just because Ginsberg is a communist who could be plotting
against America, but also because his work has the capacity to damage the unity of America.
Ginsberg’s work has the potential to help people discard their knowing of right and wrong, and
because of this a disregard for the law and for order. The potential for chaotic behavior is also
potential for the serious weakening of America.
Howl’s ideal is not practical so the presentation of Ginsberg’s model does is damage the
current system, which works. We are sold on ideals because we do not consider the practical and
real implications of them, even in advocating certain values. Based on the practical reality of
ideals Howl should be censored. Censorship in this case would yield the most benefit towards
society and therefore towards utility.
Every ideal has a practical reality and Ginsberg presents in his poem an ideal America
where there is not good or bad. However, without the concepts of good and bad or right and
wrong concepts America would be in chaos, considering that almost every time we make a law
we establish a right way and a wrong way. Ginsberg’s poem only damages a system that works.
The damage and the reality of the poem should be the bases of decisions regarding censorship.
Doug Adams
Howl
In “HOWL” Allen Ginsberg says that: “the best minds of [his] generation have been
destroyed by / madness, starving hysterical naked.” On my first reading of the poem I, and other
people that I discussed the poem with, thought that the use of drugs, homosexuality, sex, and
adversarial political ideals destroyed “the best minds” (9). However, on close inspection I have
found substantial evidence suggesting that “the best minds” (9) are actually thriving because of
the use of drugs, homosexuality, sex and political rebellion. “The best minds“ (9) can be defined
by three reoccurring themes, a poetic representation of life, a search for spiritual enlightenment
and a rejection of and from society. These three themes are a result of “the best minds’ ” (9)
societal vices.
The first stanza on page 20 begins with: “who dreamt and made incarnate gaps in Time &
Space / through images juxtaposed,” (20). In prose, “the best minds” (9) have discovered a way
to manipulate time and space by setting images next to each other. I read this to mean that they
are allowed to act as Gods (but are not Gods as their gaps are “incarnate”) in their own
understanding of the world (in dreams) by setting images against each other. I also point out that
“juxtaposing images” has poetic connotations.
The next thought is that: “the best minds . . . trapped the / archangel of soul between 2
visual images,” (9, 20). If you will agree that an archangel is a symbol for divinity, and that
divinity is an ultimately positive force in life, then the notion of “soul,” in a groovy jazz sense
and as a mechanism for defining self, is apparently very important to Ginsberg. He reiterates in
this thought that “the best minds” (9) have captured a powerful, spiritually significant idea in
juxtaposing two images. His repetition emphasizes the importance of being able to capture
divinity with poetry.
Ginsberg must be talking about poetry, the next thought is that “the best minds… joined
the elemental verbs / and set the noun and dash of consciousness together.” (20) With language
like “elemental verbs” and “set the noun” and “dash of consciousness” Ginsberg must be
referring to poetry. My attention to the fact that Ginsberg discusses poetry here may seem
extraneous, but it is important to have established when Ginsberg’s language becomes vaguer in
the next stanzas I can make a convincing connection.
At the end of the stanza a solid connection to the theme of divinity is made. The poetic
notions that Ginsberg has described are, “jumping with sensation of Pater Omnipotens Aeterna
Deus,” (20). Translated from Latin that says that “the best minds’ ” (9) poetry has a “sensation
of a paternal, omnipotent, and eternal God. By now I should be abundantly clear that this first of
five stanzas are about achieving divinity with poetry.
The next stanza begins with a thought that appears, out of context, to contradict the
significance of poetry that I just demonstrated. The stanza begins by saying that “the best minds:
(9) are connecting divinity and poetry, “to recreate the syntax and measure of poor human /
prose,” (20). In a literal reading, Ginsberg is saying that what had appeared to be a great creation
is actually a demonstration of “poor human prose,” certainly something that would not be as
close to the notion of God as he had previously established. However, this apparent
inconsistency can be explained. The literary mechanism that Ginsberg was referring to poetry,
not prose. Of course a good poem would make for poor prose, words are often out of order or
left out and implied for dramatic effect in poetry. Therefore, this particular quote is actually
supporting our previous conclusions that “the best minds,” (9) are creating something of the
highest value. It is specifically not prose, but poetry.
Next is the thought that these poets, “stand before you speechless and intel- / ligent and
shaking with shame,” (20). I wonder first why these poets who are supposed to have everything
figured out stand shaking with shame, speechless but intelligent. This quote seems to be a
comment that Ginsberg is making about the status of the enlightened poets in his society. He is
saying that although “the best minds” (9) have ways of thinking about life that could reveal
cosmic secrets to us, they are objectified and ridiculed. Shame is not an emotion that is normally
felt in a social vacuum; normally it is in front of an audience. In this case the audience is the
reader, Ginsberg addresses the reader by saying “you.” He is asking his readers to look at
themselves and see that they are the people objectifying the actions of “the best minds” (9).
Furthermore, and more explicitly, “the best minds… [are] rejected yet con- / fessing out
the soul to conform to the rhythm / of thought,” (9, 20). The theme of rejection is quite clear in
this quotation. More important than that however, is the reason for rejection. “The best minds,”
(9) in spite of being rejected, continue to confess out “soul” in order to assimilate with “the
rhythm of thought.” Later, I will take the connection between rejection and poetic thought, and
the connection between rejection and spiritual enlightenment even further. For now, the point is
that they are connected.
The next quote spills over the end of this stanza and into the next. It reads: “in his naked
and endless head, / the madman bum and angel beat in Time, unknown” (20). There are three
points to notice here. First, the poet that I have already established has revealed himself to the
world as a person with an infinite capacity for thought, but is still unknown. By completely
opening himself up to his audience and presenting complicated thoughts he exists only in
obscurity. Second, the poet is a madman bum and angel. This quote goes back to the connection
between rejection and spiritual enlightenment. Ginsberg is saying that the people that society
sees as having wasted their lives, the bums, are actually our angels. Third, the drug use,
homosexuality, and spiritual soul seeking can be related to this quote. Throughout the poem
Ginsberg talks about people that could easily fit the profile of “the madman bum,” and since
each stanza is elaborating on the characteristics of “the best minds” (9) it is important to realize
that they are all the same person (or people). Furthermore, Ginsberg has shown us in earlier
sections of “HOWL” that “the best minds” (9) are madman bums because of what society would
call vices. Without drugs, sex, homosexuality, and political rebellion there would be no madman
bums.
Moving on, the next quote reads: “yet putting down here what might be left to say / in
time come after death,” (20). Ginsberg is suggesting that the madman bum and angel, our
rejected poet with “endless head” (20) has the ability to foresee the afterlife. The madman’s
juxtaposed images are telling no one (for no one pays attention) about what can only be known
to an average man “in time come after death.” With this quote the three themes have finally been
tied together.
There is a complex relationship between these three themes: rejection from society,
affinity with divinity, and poetic ability. It would seem that to Ginsberg the rejection from
society is a result of “the best minds” (9) striving for spiritual enlightenment and their poetic
interpretation of their situation. However, it is concurrently apparent that the rejection from
society allows “the best minds” (9) a sort of freedom to search for spiritual enlightenment and
take their lives in through a poetic lens. The poetic interpretation of life would also seem as
necessary for spiritual enlightenment, just as spiritual enlightenment is necessary for a poetic
interpretation of life. Ginsberg has constructed a triad of sorts in which each principle and
defining characteristic of “the best minds” (9) is dependant on the other two and also equally
affects the other two.
Furthermore, all of these themes of characteristics of “HOWL” are caused by the use of
drugs, homosexuality, sex, and political rebellion. What I had original thought was killing “the
best minds” (9) was actually saving them as spiritual beings, individuals, and poetic thinkers.
“Manipulations of Monstrosity in Lolita”
Chris Franz
Studies in Censorship
Brian Mooney
February 28, 2007
When a writer creates a main character who is thoroughly and genuinely repulsive, and actually
expects the reader to follow this individual through the course of an entire novel, they are, in
most cases, setting themselves up for failure. However, there are rare occasions in which a
writer’s mastery of language is so thorough that they can immerse their readers completely in
their writing, that they even make the reader forget the repugnance of the character leading them
through the story. Such is the case in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, in which the character of
Humbert Humbert, a literature professor and excellent writer, relates the tale to the reader
through his captivating prose. He is a charismatic, narcissistic, intelligent, deceptive, well
spoken, abusive pedophile. It is only through Nabokov’s masterful writing, careful construction
of key events, and his vast understanding of the written word’s effects on human emotion and
perception that he is able to make this truly terrible individual bearable, and perhaps even
sympathetic.
Humbert and Lolita’s story begins with Humbert traveling to America to write a book .
He intends to live with the McCoo family during his stay, but their house unexpectedly burns
down and he is left to live with a friend of theirs, Charlotte Haze. When he is first touring her
house, he is dead set against living there, until he comes across Charlotte’s twelve year old
daughter, Lolita. Humbert has a sexual obsession with young girls he calls nymphets, and has
ever since his first love, Annabel, died when he was thirteen years old. After a few short weeks,
Charlotte falls in love with Humbert, and they are soon married. Humbert, apart from genuinely
disliking Charlotte personally, seems to find her disgustingly unattractive, but agrees to the
marriage regardless. Unbeknownst to Charlotte, however, are Humbert’s flirtations with her
daughter, or his plan to use their marriage in order to stay close to Lolita. When she discovers
this in his diary, she runs frantically into the street and is hit by a car and killed, leaving Lolita in
the sole care of Humbert Humbert. They begin an abusive sexual relationship that lasts three
years, until she finally manages to escape from him, into the arms of another such pedophile,
playwright Claire Quilty. Years later, Humbert tracks down Quilty and kills him. At this point,
Humbert realizes the terrible effect he has had on Lolita’s life, and he believes that his
redemption lies in killing Quilty, who, in a way, represents the worst part of Humbert’s own self.
Telling the tale entirely through the words and perspective of Humbert Humbert,
Nabokov manages to bring his reader so completely into Humbert’s personal world that it almost
becomes easy to ignore the fact that he effectively ruins Lolita’s life. By the time Humbert (and
the reader) encounter Lolita, we have experienced, through Humbert’s eyes, his years of
suffering over the loss of his first love, Annabel, and his intense longing to find some
reincarnation of her in the form of a nymphet. Humbert’s longing and desperation have been so
fully established by the time Lolita enters the story, that though his desires are certainly
inappropriate for a man of his age, the reader has become so enchanted by Humbert’s
(Nabokov’s) writing that his longing becomes somewhat understandable. Nabokov does not
portray Humbert as a predatory creature, he is not so much a malicious sadist or victimizer as he
is deeply wounded individual who just can not function normally. In the opening lines of the
book, Humbert describes Lolita saying “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul
(page 9)” 1. These hardly seem to be the words one would expect from a sexual predator.
Nabokov does not have Humbert going out and hunting down and abducting Lolita. Coincidence
places her in his custody. Even his obsession with nymphets is dealt to him by his fate as a child.
It is as if his life has been heading inevitably to this destination ever since Annabel’s untimely
death, of which he says, “In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved,
one summer, a certain initial girl-child”. Humbert was not able to live out his relationship with
this girl-child at a time in his life when it was appropriate. He has never gotten over being
deprived of that first love experience, the desire for which he has carried with him all the way
into his adult life.
It is as if Humbert sees no way for himself to be happy other than establishing these
inappropriate, abusive relationships with nymphets. Even the rather insignificant, short lived
ones which are described in the early chapters of the book, before Lolita’s appearance, seem to
be the only times Humbert is truly happy. These relationships, however genuinely wrong and
harmful even Humbert himself knows them to be, are the only thing that give him any sort of
happiness. Although this does not excuse his actions with Lolita, it is hard for the reader to
expect much else from him. It is human nature to do whatever must be done in the pursuit of
happiness, which is a trait that, while not an excuse for Humbert’s behavior, does at least explain
it. Humbert ends up coming off as more of a tragic figure than a truly villainous one, because
although his actions certainly do qualify as such, his demeanor is not truly that of a villain. The
reader is more likely to feel sorry for Humbert and pity him than they are to really, truly hate
him.
Nabokov also carefully designs his tale to include several very important instances of fate
and coincidence throughout the novel, in order to unburden Humbert of some of the massive
amount of disfavor he is sure to procure from the audience. It is easy to make the argument that
Humbert truly has no redeeming aspects and is an all around horrible person. However, Nabokov
does seek to raise questions about his actions, and does, to an extent, raise a limited amount of
doubt as to just how much of his situation with Lolita he is truly responsible for. There is no
doubt that Humbert does terrible things throughout the course of the novel, but these terrible
deeds are presented in such a way that the reader must wonder how much of the situation that
allows for these deeds comes about purely through Humbert’s own fault, and how much is fate.
While Humbert is the ultimate decision maker (and therefore, wrongdoer) in virtually all cases,
there are many key events in the novel that lead to him being in the situation he finds himself in
with Lolita that are well beyond Humbert’s control. While his situation with Lolita is no doubt
one that he desires to be in, and has in fact desired for all of his adult life, the circumstances that
eventually lead him to it appear to be more a product of fate than of Humbert’s own will. It is
uncertain how much influence he has really had on the course of events in his life, versus how
much of it he was destined for to begin with.
There are many examples of significant chance occurrences throughout the novel, but
perhaps the most important one, the one that leads to Humbert being Lolita’s sole guardian and
parent, is the death of his wife and Lolita’s mother, Charlotte Haze. While Humbert is not
entirely without blame in her death, he does not kill her, although he does give it quite a lot of
consideration. It is, however, Humbert’s diary, in which he confesses his intense dislike of “the
Haze woman” and his intense lust for Lolita, that leads to Charlotte’s death. The discovery of
this information proves quite traumatic for Charlotte, who becomes frantic and runs out into the
street, where she is hit by a car and killed. The description in the book goes even further to
alleviate anyone of guilt in the matter of Charlotte’s death, although the reader knows of course
that Humbert, and for that matter, the driver, contributed quite significantly.
With his hummingbird pencil deftly and delicately flying from one point to another,
Frederick demonstrated his absolute innocence and the recklessness of my wife: while he
was in the act of avoiding the dog, she had slipped on the freshly watered asphalt and
plunged forward whereas she should have flung herself not forward but backward (Fred
showed how by a jerk of his padded shoulder). I said it was certainly not his fault, and the
inquest upheld my view (page 102).
This description of the accident is the only description of Charlotte’s death given in the book,
and is thus the only impression the readers are left with of the event. Although this particular
version of events may certainly have been contrived by Frederick in order to relieve himself of
any guilt, it is not really portrayed that way, and there is no conflicting version of the story
within the book for the reader to favor. Relying on this interpretation of events alone, it would
not occur to the reader that Charlotte’s death was anyone’s fault other than, possibly, her own
recklessness. It could easily have been written with the emphasis on the idea that if Humbert had
never written such terrible things in his diary, none of it would have happened, but it is not.
While Humbert is very responsible for what happens (indirectly), it is not written that way by
Nabokov whatsoever.
Fate also plays an interesting role in the events surrounding Charlotte’s death. If not for
the simple coincidence of the dog running out into the street, or the street being wet, or Charlotte
falling forward instead of backwards, she does not die. Humbert never becomes Lolita’sole
parent, or lover for that matter. If not for the intervening of nature, through both the rain and the
dog, none of it ever happens. Nabokov seems to invoke some sort of divine intervention, acting
specifically through the dog (an obvious anagram for God), as well as the weather conditions and
the basic laws of physics. What happens to Charlotte is willed by the natural order and
unavoidable, and subsequently, so is Humbert gaining custody of Lolita. Nabokov carefully sets
up this event so that Humbert’s custody of Lolita seems as though it were inevitable, and not
willed into existence through Humbert’s own actions.
For all his faults and terrible deeds, Humbert is not completely responsible for what
happens. He was placed in the situation by fate, and the events of his life had molded him in such
a way that he could react no differently than the way he did. Nabokov carefully designs every
event in Humbert’s life to show how hopeless he truly was, and that leads him to his situation
with Lolita. Ultimately, every choice is made by Humbert himself, and he is entirely responsible
for his actions, but not for the situations and events that lead him and allow him to take those
actions. Even when Humbert and Lolita first have sex, although he chooses to do it, he also
makes the point that it was not initiated by him, saying “I am going to tell you something very
strange: it was she who seduced me (page 132)”. Of course, he still chooses to comply, and he,
being the adult and her stepfather, should certainly not have done so, but, according to the text, it
was she who was the aggressor. Of course, it is expected by society that people will forego their
basest impulses for the common good and not exploit another human being for personal pleasure,
but this is, unfortunately, not always, or even often, the case. Many people are inherently selfish,
like Humbert, and will do whatever they need to do to be happy, it is simply human nature.
It is important to understand the way Nabokov portrays these key events and manipulates
the reader throughout the novel in order to understand how the book interacts with the reader. It
is not just telling a story, it is playing with emotions and twisting perception throughout the
course of the story. By treating every detail with the utmost care, Nabokov succeeds in
immersing the audience in his world so completely that he can toy with their minds. He enchants
his readers so thoroughly that he can manipulate them, often without them even realizing it.
Lolita, aside from being an excellent novel, is also an exercise in manipulation at the highest
level. Through his use of language and carefully planned events, Nabokov manages to make
even an abusive child molester seem deserving of pity, and perhaps even sympathetic. That is the
ultimate testament of Nabokov’s mastery as a writer, and the power of the written word.
Obscenely Beautiful: Howl Versus Obscenity Law
Chris Odegard
Studies in Censorship
Brian Mooney
March 2, 2007
Allen Ginsberg's Howl, by proxy of the owner of the bookstore that published and
attempted to sell the poem, was brought to trial for obscenity in 1957 and subsequently found not
to be obscene. Wrote presiding judge Clayton Horn, "I do not believe that Howl is without even
‘the slightest redeeming social importance,’" referring to the standard set in United States v. Roth
earlier that year. In doing so, he exonerated the poem completely, and it still sells in bookstores
today. In this essay, I intend to mimic Judge Horn and prove that Howl is not obscene on any of
the four most prominent bases by which American censors have gone since the mid-nineteenth
century. Furthermore, I will explain why I believe Howl is a significant literary accomplishment,
one undeserving of censure. I write this because, although Howl long ago stopped being illegal,
its case gives an object lesson on the principle behind free speech in America.
Obscenity law in the United States has existed since before independence, and still exists
now, although the definition of what exactly obscenity means has grown less draconian over the
centuries. The first of these laws were ratified by individual colonies, and targeted publications
depicting sex or ridiculing the clergy. Generally speaking, their language cited the need to
protect the morality of young people as the reason for their existence. In 1842, the first federal
censorship law came into being, with rather vague language but the same intention of protecting
the innocents. To this law and its immediate successor in 1865, Howl does not much pertain. The
target of these early legislations was not clearly defined, since no standard had yet been set by
which to judge materials as unacceptable. The de facto standard, however, was still one meant to
shield the innocent. As a result, censors could stop materials from being published fairly
arbitrarily. With the advent of the "Hicklin Test," stemming from a case in England (Regina. v.
Hicklin, in 1868) that established obscenity as being something meant "to deprave and corrupt
those whose minds are open to such immoral influences," the standard became more specific. Let
us now see how Howl fares against it.
According to the Hicklin Test, a work must lead to the corruption of youth in order to
qualify as obscene. Howl could not corrupt anyone, and thus is not obscene. First of all, the
notion that adult themes can have a degrading effect on the mental health and morality of young
people is junk science, a product of early psychology, which was much more dubious than its
modern counterpart. In the 1840's, there was no solid evidence to support the notion that children
must be protected lest they become amoral, and presently there is ample evidence to the contrary.
Modern psychology suggests that the young do sometimes emulate the vulgarity they come
across in popular media, but they also tend not to do so; neither tendency is predominant. In
either case, Howl would have very little damaging effect on a child's psyche. It contains many
instances of profanity and several references to sexual acts, but the words are scattered
throughout the long poem and mostly are euphemisms. And while it is impossible to say exactly
how dangerous Howl is to children, as a generalization, I do not believe the danger is greater
than that of the confusion resulting from exposing them to concepts they are as yet unable to
comprehend fully. Certainly, the formation of an adult personality relies on an incalculable
number of events; simply reading a dirty magazine or novel (or two or three of them, even)
cannot turn an otherwise normal minor into a raving pervert immediately; to say a poem like
Howl has the power to "corrupt" is untenable. The most dangerous aspect of the poem, I believe,
is the ideology it professes, one of extreme liberalism, with which some parents may not wish
their children to come into contact. However, were a child to procure a copy of Howl and
manage to read it, I doubt he would glean much from it except a few giggles at the swearing and
vague sexuality. Far from a sex manual or an incendiary anarchist pamphlet, Howl is just an
innocuous poem, and the vulgarity Ginsberg uses in it has an artistic function. In other words,
Howl is not obscene because the intent behind it was not to corrupt the youth, and the youth
could not find corruption in it anyway: it defies the Hicklin Test.
The next standard for obscenity adopted by the Supreme Court was the Brennan
Doctrine, established in Roth v. United States (1957), stating that obscene material must appeal
the prurient interest. This definition, much narrower than the Hicklin Test, means that a work
only violates the law if it portrays sexual acts in a "shameful or morbid" way. That is, the work is
more than erotic; it shows people engaging in uncouth sex acts of which no child should be
aware. Under this standard, Howl easily passes as inoffensive. As stated before, the sexual
references in the poem are few in number and mostly euphemistic. Some examples are as
follows: "with cock and endless balls;" "who blew and were blown;" "who sweetened the
snatches of a million girls;" and "who let themselves be fucked in the ass". (The last of these is
the most explicit, and whether or not anal sex is "shameful or morbid" is debatable. I say it is not.
I believe the point is moot, however, since this is only one line out of a rather long poem; it does
not tinge the whole document with sexuality.) Within the poem, each of these phrases is fairly
isolated, and the reader would be hard pressed to construe them as sexually arousing, absent
additional details concerning the nature, duration, and sensation of the acts in question.
Furthermore, the structure of Howl- a long series of loosely connected sentences- does not allow
that the focus of the reader be drawn to a particular idea for any significant period of time. In
some sections, allusions to sex occur more frequently than others, but even when three or four
verses in a row contain them, they are separated by myriad platonic concepts. In short, Howl
contains sexuality but is not therefore pornographic. That being the case, it does not violate the
Brennan Doctrine.
The third case through which the Supreme Court changed the definition of obscenity was
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), which stipulated that an "obscene" work must have no redeeming
social value. This precedent effectively limited the range of what could qualify as too-vulgar-topublish to hardcore pornography. Nothing else could be so useless to society. Considering the
preceding paragraph, I feel confident saying that Howl does not qualify as porn since it lacks any
erotic appeal whatsoever. As well, since the theme seems to be to express the emotions attached
to a wide range of human experiences, it must have some redeeming value. I believe that Howl,
being an artistic work, by its nature has social value, and I shall explain why in a paragraph
further down. For now, suffice to say that Howl is not at all hardcore pornography, and so evades
the Jacobellis standard.
Finally, the current standard for obscenity in use by the Supreme court is the three-tiered
Miller test (established by Miller v. California in 1973), which defines obscenity as work that
appeals to the prurient interest, "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
or excretory functions," and lacks redeeming social value. Since the Miller test is more or less a
combination of the Roth and Jacobellis standards with an added stipulation about offensive
sexual conduct and excretion, Howl remains completely legal today. I reiterate that the sexual
references in Ginsberg's most famous poem are not at all explicit and could not be construed as
arousing; moreover, it has great artistic worth. Thus, I submit, Howl is not now, nor has it ever
been, an obscene poem, according to the laws of the United States.
In the preceding paragraphs, I established that Howl is not obscene. As a tangential
complement, I will add some of my thoughts on the poem as per its worth as art, which is
analogous to its value to society. Howl is a thoroughly modern poem, whose eloquence and
significance place it well outside the bounds of obscenity, in my opinion. Considering its merit, I
cannot understand why anyone would try to censor it.
First, consider the opening stanza from Howl: "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." This independent clause begins the long,
meandering sentence that constitues the first section of the poem. The subject of this sentence is
the noun phrase "best minds," and each successive stanza, with a few exceptions, is an adjective
phrase beginning with the relative pronoun who. (Those that do not begin with who are
appositives or hyphenated breaks, but they do not upset the established pattern.) In this way,
Howl loosely follows the structure of a complete sentence, replete with manifold parallel
structure. Within each stanza, the rules of grammar and punctuation break down somewhat:
instead of complete sentences, Ginsberg gives the reader a series of evocative words and phrases
only tacitly linked. Take, for example, these stanzas from part I:
"…who sank all night in submarine light of Bickford's
floated out and sat through the stale beer afternoon in desolate
Fugazzi's, listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox,/
who talked continuously seventy hours from park to pad to bar to
Bellevue to museum to the Brooklyn Bridge…"
Helpful linguistic features like commas and conjunctions occur arbitrarily, and the reader often
must rely on parallelism to understand what would otherwise be a chaotic series of words. This
the the beauty in Howl, that it follows a recognizable pattern without being stiffly grammatical;
the effect is one much more visceral than it might have been otherwise. Had Ginsberg written
Howl as an essay, for example, he would use parallel structure as a matter of course, but the
words would lose their emotional impact. (Case in point, the phrase "who lit cigarettes in boxcars
boxcars boxcars racketing through snow towards lonesome farms in grandfather night" has no
equivalent in prose.) In writing this way, Ginsberg tried to escape what he saw as the arbitrary,
limited bounds of rational thought and to transcribe instead the literal workings of his mind. As
he wrote in one of his many journals, "The only pattern of value or interest in poetry [is that
which is] discovered in the moment… at the time of composition." Because Allen Ginsberg was
able to utilize an experimental style successfully, I confer upon Howl the title of "significant
literary achievement." Howl is an innovative poem on par with James Joyce's Ulysses or William
Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury.
Howl also is significant with regard to its content, which was its saving grace when it
came to trial for obscenity. Unfortunately, as I am not a scholar of the Beat movement, I cannot
fully explain nor appreciate the value of Ginsberg's defining poem in relation to the original
context it appeared. Suffice to say it was great, as the theme of Howl is the beat generation itself:
Ginsberg's own experiences and anxieties, in which many of his fellows shared, during the
cultural shift of the fifties. The first section is somewhat autobiographical, in that all of the
stanzas refer to something that happened to him or his friends. The second section is an
indictment of the American industrial machine, the "sphinx of cement and aluminum" that
"bashed open [the beats'] skulls and ate up their brains and imagination." The third section
directly addresses Carl Solomon, a patently insane friend of Ginsberg, and indicates him as being
more trustworthy than the "Moloch" that controls the country. Finally, the Footnote is a
bombastic declaration that everything is holy, meant to convey that really nothing is holy at all.
A drastic abbreviation of Howl could read, "Here are the beats, whom the System destroyed. If
that's what they call sanity, I'd rather be in the asylum with Carl; the world is a strange and
backwards place." These ideas are fairly powerful, since through them, Ginsberg resolutely sets
himself up against the then-popular notion that everything in America is just fine. The poem is
an emotionally charged plea for change that exemplifies the beats. For that, I think Howl was and
still is rather interesting and important.
In conclusion, Howl is a great poem, one that deserves the fame and respect given to it.
This statement, combined with my earlier proof that Howl is not and never has been obscene
according to the law, means that it is both a great and non-obscene work. Many, many people
would agree with my assessment, and indeed I have never heard anyone contradict it. I believe
the matter was settled, once and for all, long before I ever came into contact with Howl. Thus,
everything I've written here is fairly extraneous. But I write it not to prove for the first time that
Allen Ginsberg is high-quality reading, but to reiterate that fact. Howl got its vindication years
ago, as well it should have. The United States is a country that lends much-celebrated artistic
freedom to its citizens, even though they may use their freedom to mock or decry their own
country and its government. This leniency is superb, as it allows people to express themselves
without fear of government reprisal, leading to a more harmonious and perfect union. As well,
the trial of Howl, being speedy as it was, positively affirms the existence of this leniency. It goes
to show that political dissent and vulgarity are more than acceptable here, as well they ought to
be.
Chris Kwiat
Lolita
When we read the first book of Nabokov’s Lolita, we encounter many examples of pedophiliac
nature. Humbert constantly lusts after numerous nymphets, as he tries to sate his sexual desires.
We read the book keeping in mind that Nabokov has apathetic views on the ideas of Sigmund
Freud, and dismissing all sorts of examples of psychoanalysis that Sigmund Freud would make
about Humber Humbert. However, rather than read the book ignoring potential Freudian mental
sicknesses, the reader should apply these thoughts to the book. Using Freudian thinking, we
develop a better understanding of Humbert, and realize better how Humbert uses Freudian
defense mechanisms in everyday life. In this essay, I will show how and why Humbert develops
these defense mechanisms, how the defense mechanisms affect Humbert’s life, and how we can
understand Humbert better by first understanding Freudian defense mechanisms.
Humbert develops his defense mechanisms at a young age. His young lover Annabel’s
death acted as a catalyst towards his mental sickness. The relationship between the two consisted
of more than carnal pleasures, to being in love with one another. Annabel and Humbert shared
many interests and morals. “[Our] interest in the plurality of inhabited worlds, competitive
tennis, infinity, solipsism... The softness and fragility of baby animals caused us the same intense
pain.” Although the relationship between the two young lovers centered on lust for one another,
the relationship consisted beyond that, to the point of love. Humbert was obsessed with his
Annabel, as much as Annabel was obsessed with Humbert. We can examine the depth of this
love only after Annabel died.
After Annabel died of typhus in Corfu, Humbert remained under the spell of love. “Long
after her death, I felt her thoughts floating through mine.” (14) Humbert feels mentally attached
to his deceased love Annabel, and refuses to let her go. Humbert remembers everything about
Annabel, down to the distinct smell of her perfume. The effects of this early childhood traumatic
experience set in motion the entire story of Humbert’s love with Lolita. If Annabel had lived,
Humbert would have attached himself so much, that he never would have been able to detach
himself from her.
In fact, Humbert failed to release himself from Annabel, even in her death. Humbert lived
his life in constant sexual dissatisfaction, through a first marriage and divorce. As Humbert says:
“[T]he poison was in the wound, and the wound remained ever open.”(18) The wound caused by
the death of his Annabel haunted Humbert forever, and he never recovered.
After these events in Humbert’s life, he subconsciously uses defense mechanisms to
compensate for this void in his life. Humbert uses displacement as his compensation for this loss.
In Freudian psychology, a person uses displacement to transfer feelings from one vessel into
another. Humbert transfers his feelings of love towards Annabel into other nymphets, and
eventually, into Lolita. Throughout Humbert’s adulthood, he “was consumed by a hell furnace of
localized lust for every passing nymphet.” (18) However, Humber never feels love for these
children that he lusts after. Instead, he pursues what he sees as the physical being of his Annabel.
Humbert loved Annabel at a time when he felt he “was her equal,” (17-18) not some pedophile
abusing a young woman. Humbert preserved the spirit of Annabel at the time when both of them
were the same age. However, as Humbert aged, his spirit of Annabel did not age with him.
Humbert pursued these young nymphets, and became a pedophile, even if all Humbert saw was
his Annabel, his equal in his mind.
The reader who reads Lolita and disregards such obvious Freudian disorders may dismiss
Humber calling Annabel his equal as a feeble justification for his actions. However, if we read
this passage with Freud in mind, we achieve another understanding of Humbert. By
understanding Freudian defense mechanisms, we can identify how Humbert transfers Annabel
into the nymphets that he has sexual desires towards. Using Freud helps us as readers to gain
another perspective of the story. If we, of the so-called jury, judge Humbert, we must understand
all aspects of his memoir.
After living many years in many different places, Humbert arrives at the Haze residence
and meets the person where he will place the spirit of Annabel for the rest of his life: Lolita.
From the first time that Humbert lays his eyes on her, it seems as if he sees through
displacement, and sees a physical incarnation of Annabel, as Lolita. Humbert admits this himself
to us, as he says, “[I] broke [Annabel’s] spell by incarnating her in another.” (14) As Humbert
acted all throughout his adulthood pursuing young females, Humbert’s mind found the newest
vessel to carry the spirit of Annabel.
Again, by looking at this memoir through the eyes of Sigmund Freud, we as readers can
take more out of the novel. On the surface, as readers we could interpret this passage and think
that just because of a striking resemblance between Lolita and Annabel, Humbert decides to
pursue her. However, by again using Freudian thinking, we gain deeper insight to the novel. We
see through Humbert’s eyes looking at Lolita, and we understand that rather than see Lolita,
Humbert sees a personification of Annabel. This new view on the text allows us to understand
the true motives of Humbert, and how he strives to be with Annabel, in no matter what form he
places her.
In Lolita, Freudian displacement stands out among the other Freudian defense
mechanisms. However, Freud appears in other aspects of part one. Freudian thinking presents
itself in the form of Psychological Projection. Psychological projection occurs when Humbert
forces his feelings on Lolita. Humbert transfers the feelings of lust onto Lolita, and expects them
returned to him.
Humbert starts to project his feelings onto Lolita from very early in their relationship;
Before Lolita travels to summer camp. The feelings of lust from Humbert originate from his
relationship with Annabel. Humbert remembers his relationship with Annabel when he and
Lolita spent time together. Around Lolita, Humbert reverts to when he spent time with Annabel
on the beach where they would “take advantage of every blessed quirk in space and time to touch
each other.”(12) The carnal obsession between both lovers took control over the two, and they
would find any way to enter in contact with one another. The same lustful obsession that
Humbert engaged in with Annabel renewed itself as Humbert took these feelings of lust and
desire, and projected them onto Lolita. While Humbert and Lolita sit down next to Mrs. Haze,
Humbert’s desires drive him to touch Lolita at every possible moment. While recounting a story,
Humbert “took advantage of those invisible gestures of [his] to touch her hand, her shoulder…
[he] dared stroke her bare leg.” (45) Humbert touches, strokes and feels Lolita, his Annabel,
throughout the night, exactly as Humbert treated his Annabel. In his mind, Humbert felt feelings
of lust and desire towards Annabel.
At this point in the story, we as readers use both defense mechanisms of displacement
and projection to understand Humber better in this scene. A reader disregarding Freud may
consider this scene as Humber coming on to Lolita, and making his first advances on the child.
However, when read in the context of Freud, we see that Humbert already expects Lolita to
return these feelings. Humbert gave these feelings to Annabel in the past, and Annabel felt
equally about him. As Humbert considers Annabel to be Lolita by displacing his feelings for
Annabel in Lolita, the scene with Humbert, Mrs. Haze, and Lolita does not represent the first
advance by Humbert, but the continuation.
Readers interpret Lolita in many different ways. Some may read the book cover to cover,
word for word, and take out of the book whatever they may get. Some other readers may try to
read the book by first understanding the author Nabokov, and realize certain unique parts of the
writing such as doubles or butterflies, and more notably his distaste for the ideas of Sigmund
Freud. However, readers can, and will see the Freudian characteristics of Humbert’s psyche,
because Freudian psychology enables the reader to come to a deeper understanding of what
Humbert thinks and sees throughout the novel. The reader comprehends the significance of
Humbert’s first sexual relationship with Annabel. The entire story, Humbert’s thoughts, actions,
even perception of reality, all link back to Annabel.
Brooke Berndston
Lolita
A man as intelligent as Vladimir Nabokov understood that a pebble like Lolita is likely to
cause a ripple in the pond of obscenity law. Furthermore, Nabokov wrote Lolita with caution and
attention to detail, responding both to his own distaste for vulgarity and pressure from a morally
conscious public. In fact, Nabokov’s keen awareness of the difficulties Lolita would face in press
manifests itself in a legal defense argument masked as a foreword. In this preface to the book,
Nabokov cleverly devises a way to explain his own work, protect his name and bring insight into
the character of Humbert Humbert. Although the content of Lolita may border on obscene, the
actual language of the novel is anything but offensive. Nabokov uses the foreword provided by
Humbert Humbert’s lawyer John Ray Jr. as both a fictional and non-fictional explanation in
defense of the publication of Lolita and Vladimir Nabokov himself.
John Ray Jr. introduces the memoir of the late Humbert Humbert as a manuscript devoid
of obscene terminology. Humbert Humbert (the author of Lolita the memoir) takes the same
necessary precautions as Nabokov (the author of Lolita the novel) in avoiding the use of obscene
text. John Ray Jr. states that Humbert Humbert will refer to the obscene in a way that is
intangible to a public that could be easily influenced by the material. This is Nabokov’s way of
setting up his defense that Lolita does not contain objectionable material or substance that can be
understood as obscene by the general public.
The difficulty Nabokov encounters while seeking a publisher for his novel causes him to
seek a defense early on in the novel. Nabokov feared that his audience, publishers, and
prosecutors would not read to the end of his novel due to its content—and his fears were proven
true given the responses he received from prospective publishers. Even though “Nabokov
considered Lolita by far [his] best English work….the manuscript was promptly turned down by
the first American publishers to whom the author showed it, in early 1954.”13 The nature of the
novel was far too daunting to be published in America at a time when pressure was high in
regards to obscenity law.
The threat of legal prosecution intimidated Vladimir Nabokov (who feared that he could
lose his job over the content in the novel) as well as the possible publishers of Lolita. Nabokov
adapted an extremely secretive attitude about his novel while searching for a publisher that would
not only read Lolita but feel confident enough in its merit to publish it as well. The looming
presence of legal warfare and anxieties over losing his tenure at Cornell University prompted
Nabokov to hide behind a penname. His wife Vera spoke briefly of Nabokov’s worries in her
letter to The New Yorker.
I shall try to explain about the book. Its subject is such that V., as a college
teacher, cannot very well publish it under his real name. Especially, since the
book is written in the first person, and the “general” reader has the unfortunate
inclination to identify the invented “I” of the story with its author… Accordingly,
V. has decided to publish the book under an assumed name (provided he can find
a publisher) and wait for the reviews before divulging his identity.14
The idea of publishing Lolita under a pseudonym made potential publishers even more wary
about printing this novel, since the author himself hesitated to put his own name on what he
himself deemed his “most extraordinary novel.” One publisher, Robert Straus had at one time
agreed to publish Lolita before he was informed of Nabokov’s wish to remain anonymous. Mr.
Straus “felt there was no way that [he] should publish the book unless Nabokov signed it. [He]
was confident that the book would be challenged and [they] would have to defend its publication
13
14
de Grazie, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere.( New York: Random House Inc, 1992), 244
Ibid,.; 244
legally. It was for this reason that [he] did not publish Lolita.15
Publishers had little incentive to publish the book given its supposed obscenity mixed
with the author’s own hesitation to put his name on his work of art. For without an author, the
publishing company would have to claim full legal responsibility for the novel. The editor and
chief of Doubleday, Ken McCormick, was told by his lawyers: “Look, normally you could
publish it without any fuss. But if you have been found guilty of bank robbery and you are on a
corner and you don’t have a gun, but there’s a bank there and the bank is being robbed: you
would be the first person arrested.”16 This speaks directly to the fact that Nabokov’s need to
protect himself would put any publishing company at risk, therefore, making the publishing of
Lolita an impossible risk for most publishers.
After countless requests that he acknowledge his work, Nabokov realized that to have his
prized novel published, he would have to disclose his true identity, and decided to sign with
Olympia Press out of France in 1954, rather than work with an American company. Nabokov
took this step hoping that the novel would be received well enough to lead into its eventual
distribution in the United States. Although the promise of an outside publisher was exciting to
Nabokov, he also realized that releasing Lolita could still prove dangerous to his name and
career. His perception of this potential threat explains why he felt he had to address the criticisms
and charges of obscenity which he felt certain would follow publication, perhaps most
determinedly from those who had not fully examined the text. This is where John Ray Jr. makes
his appearance to defend the memoir of the character Humbert Humbert and the author Nabokov
and the book that is Lolita. Vladimir Nabokov via John Ray Jr. states on page four of the Vintage
International publication of Lolita:
15
16
Ibid,; 247
Ibid., 248
Viewed simply as a novel, “Lolita” deals with situations and emotions that would
remain exasperatingly vague to the reader had their expression been etiolated by
means of platitudinous evasions. True not a single obscene term is to be found in
the whole work; indeed the robust philistine who is conditioned by modern
conventions into accepting without qualms a lavish array of four-letter words in a
banal novel, will be quite shocked by their absence here.17
In this passage, Nabokov is telling his readers that they should not pick up this novel if
they are expecting crude and pornographic, sexually stimulating material. Instead, Nabokov as
Humbert Humbert has omitted these bluntly arousing terms for language of a higher taste and
quality. There will be no four-letter lexis used in this novel; it will be made especially hard for
anyone of limited intelligence such as a child to comprehend information that could be construed
as problematic and polluting.
In fact, the absence of obscenity is the most shocking aspect of the novel. Nabokov is
making the point that he can surprise and even appall his readers without the use of obscenity; he
shows us how we can experience shock through sophisticated, esoteric, and poetic writing,
completely devoid of the crudeness of barbaric language. Obscenity is not needed to convey the
tragic tale of Lolita. The novel’s controversial content is void of simple-minded obscenities and
crass language. Nowhere in the text is base language used to define the infamously “obscene”
moments in the novel, just as it is stated in the foreword. There are few scattered scenes in which
Humbert Humbert commits despicable, sexually motivated acts against Lolita. In these scenes,
the language implies the fruition of Humbert Humbert’s desires but does not describe them in a
way that serves prurient interests. Without this prurient interest, there is no case against the
publication of Lolita. Furthermore, an examination of the debatably obscene passages makes
obvious that the content is not meant to arouse its audience. Also, these passages are worded and
phrased in a manner that makes it inaccessible to anyone easily swayed due to insufficient
17
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita.(New York: Vintage International Edition, 1997), 4
education or malleable mind. Humbert Humber refers to his sexual deviance in terms such as “—
and every movement she made, every shuffle and ripple, helped me to conceal and improve the
secret system of tactile correspondence between beast and beauty”18. Here Humbert Hubert is
describing his use of Lolita to satisfy himself sexually but this reference is not made clear
through obvious and blunt language. Again, Nabokov uses sophisticated language to describe the
fulfillment of Humbert Humbert’s ecstasy. The moment preceding Humbert Humbert’s climax
is explained as:
…the implied sun pulsated in the supplied poplars; we were fantastically and
divinely alone; I watched her, rosy, gold-dusted, beyond the veil of my controlled
delight, unaware of it, alien to it, and the sun was on her lips and her lips were
apparently still forming the words of the Carmen-barmen ditty that no longer
reached my consciousness. Everything was now ready. The nerves of pleasure
had been laid bare. The corpuscles of Krause were entering the phase of frenzy.
The least pressure would suffice to set all paradise loose.19
The actions behind the language might be inappropriate but the language itself is not obscene, if
obscenity is to be defined as language causing uncontrolled sexual desires or words that are
genuinely repulsive. There is no pornographic explanation of the last twinge and twitches before
Humbert Humbert’s orgasm. The description of his masturbation takes place under terms such as
“magic friction” and “deliberately modulated enjoyment”20.There is nothing coarse in these
descriptions and there is nothing overtly obscene about the phases used to describe Humbert
Humbert’s actions. Nabokov’s intention is no to arouse sexual desire in his readers, opposing
the assumption that his novel is filled with obscenity. The foreword to Lolita explains that
despite Humbert Humbert’s depravity, the words used to communicate his immorality are not the
assailant.
18
de Grazie, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere.( New York: Random House Inc, 1992), 58
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita.(New York: Vintage International Edition, 1997), 60
20
Ibid., 59
19
In 21defense of Lolita (as both a memoir and a novel) being published without omission
of certain “offensive” passages, the foreword insists that the snipping of text is more detrimental
that its inclusion. As John Ray Jr. explains:
If, however, for this paradoxical prude’s comfort, an editor attempted to dilute or
omit scenes that a certain type of mind might call “aphrodisiac”…one would
have to forego the publication of “Lolita” altogether, since those very scenes that
one might ineptly accuse of a sensuous existence of their own, are the most
strictly functional ones in the development of a tragic tale tending unswervingly
to nothing less than a moral apotheosis.22
This statement suggests that the omission of Humbert Humbert’s deplorable sex scenes would
essentially cancel his memoirs in complete. The same is true for the Vladimir Nabokov’s novel
Lolita for without Humbert Humbert’s confessions of lustful perversion Lolita does not exist.
Nabokov is communicating through John Ray Jr. the importance of these horrific moments in the
telling of a tragic tale. Vladimir Nabokov argues that his novel cannot be obscene because
“pornography is not an image plucked out of context. Pornography is an attitude and an intuition.
The tragic and the obscene exclude one another.” These scenes are the most necessary when
demonstrating the monstrous nature of Humbert Humbert undergoing a moral transformation by
time of his memoirs’ publication.
The transformation that Humbert Humbert undergoes is as important as the
acknowledgement of the disease that afflicts him. This memoir opens the doors to a discussion of
pedophilia, and uses the voice of John Ray Jr. in the forward as an initial conduit for examining
this perversion. In other words, through the voice of John Jay Jr., we are forced to acknowledge
the existence of this disorder, and we hear Nabokov’s position clearly: failing to publish the
memoir of a pedophile would to deny that such a disorder exists at all. In fact, John Jay Jr.
argues that sometimes what is obscene is often mistaken for what is unusual or uncommon.
21
22
de Grazie, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere.( New York: Random House Inc, 1992), 255
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita.(New York: Vintage International Edition, 1997), 5
Nabokov makes clear that the unusual can make for a great story because these uncommon
situations cause powerful restrictions from the reader. John Ray Jr. makes this point in the
following passage from the foreword of Lolita.
The commentator may be excused for repeating what he has stressed in his own
books and lectures, namely that “offensive” is frequently but a synonym for
“unusual”; and a great work of art is of course always original, and thus by its
very nature should come as more or less shocking surprise. I have no intention to
glorify “H.H.” No doubt he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of
moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery…
23
Here Nabokov is arguing that even though a work of art may be unusual, its atypical nature does
not negate it being of social importance. Lolita will inevitably cause an intense reaction from
people because they are not used to confronting the perversion the character of Humbert Humbert
discloses in his memoir. People cannot help but be offended by the confessions of a man who has
the audacity to rape a child under the pretenses of love, and that was exactly Nabokov’s intent.
He does not condone the behaviors of a pedophile, but rather he wants to expose these issues,
which most wish to leave buried underneath a heap of other unspeakable crimes against children.
John Ray Jr. states that this memoir does not alleviate the responsibilities of a rapist but shows
how even the most despicable of men are still capable of telling a good story.
He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can
conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the
book while abhorring its author.24
John Ray Jr. and Nabokov make the defense that even though Humbert Humbert is despicable he
tells a good story. The memoir of Lolita (and the novel) is a riveting and interesting story through
the eyes of a man demented by his love for prepubescent girls. The audience is captivated as well
as appalled by the story but the repulsion of the reader does not imply that the purpose of the
23
24
Ibid., 6
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita.(New York: Vintage International Edition, 1997), 5
memoir/novel is to advocate immorality. In reality it is the divulging of Humbert Humberts
immorality that produces a moral message and exceeds Humbert Humbert’s perversion. Vladimir
Nabokov makes this exact claim in a letter to Maurice Girodias (the owner of Olympia Press). He
state as follows. “My moral defense of the book is the book itself.”25
This final statement that the novel Lolita defends its own morality without a need for
protection from an outside party is present in the foreword. Nabokov has no need to defend his
book legally as he has already done so within the text itself. The foreword to Lolita does the job
of providing adequate information regarding the true meaning and value of the Nabokov’s book
and Humbert Humbert’s memoir. While John Ray Jr. explains the background of the text to
follow he speaks for Nabokov, protecting his name as well as exposing the intentions of
Humbert Humbert. The foreword clarifies the terms of obscenity and adamantly declares that
what is usually defined as obscene cannot be found within the pages of Lolita. The fact that
Lolita is now widely published and considered to be among the greatest novels of the twentieth
century is a testament to its gracious language and decency.
25
de Grazie, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere.( New York: Random House Inc, 1992), 262