For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
USE OF HUMOR IN TWO NOVELS.
Term Paper ID:30009
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Analysis and comparison of Samuel Beckett's WATT and Vladimir Nabokov's LOLITA.... More...
7 Pages / 1575 Words
2 sources, 13 Citations,
MLA Format
$28.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Analysis and comparison of Samuel Beckett's WATT and Vladimir Naboko's LOLITA. Both authors use of comedy and playfulness; their skillful story-telling. Beckett's philosophical ideas on futility to understand the world. Nabokov's use of the power of narrative art. Comic approach as a strategy used by both novelists to convey their ideas. Gives examples from the novels.
Paper Introduction:
If Samuel Beckett's Watt and Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita were not so funny they could not be half as serious as they are about the objects they parody. The points they make--the former about philosophy, the latter about art--are painful enough even when the authors engage in a playful game of taking forms of discourse to 'logical' conclusions that are unwelcome to those who depend on these forms to make sense of the world. Beckett addresses the futility of human philosophical and theological attempts to understand the world with something as paltry as human reason and Watt's sad schizophrenia is the medium in which such attempts are parodied. Nabokov does much the same thing for the power of narrative art by persuading readers, against their will, to be gripped by--and sometimes even sympathetic to--a story told by a lying, self-deceiving, brutal child-molester simply through the
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
was not one year,then it was less than one year, or more than one year" (132). This is followed however by the remark that "In support ofthis monstrous assumption he assembled" certain arguments (132). This is (assuming a reader who knowsnothing in advance about the book) followed by a growing sense ofuneasiness as Humbert describes the object of his passion as a very younggirl. Both writers, however, engage in numerous kinds of humor--fromsimple jokes to parodic presentations of different kinds of discourse--thathave an immense impact on the nature of readers' engagement with the texts. Nothing obliges you, said Mr. Nixon. After thisexplicit parody of a description of God the assumption Watt makes isclearly something like an expression of faith. This useof the word "monstrous" arrests the reader's attention and forces a laughof surprise. But everylaugh is something of a trap by which the authors gain the reader's assent. But the assumption ismade following the discussion of Knott's place as one in which Watt hasgained "the impression, as time passed, that nothing could be added to Mr.Knott's establishment, and from it nothing taken away" (131). . The reader laughs repeatedly throughout the two novels. . Clearly none of the comedy or playfulness is essential to a novelthat comments on the severe limitations of human reason or the falseness offictions. The books would become something like case studies and readerscould take a clinical, disinterested view of Watt or Humbert, saying, "Howsad" and "How cruel" and then moving on. This, in turn, forces the question on the reader, "how canthis assumption be monstrous"? Thus,fully committed to the illogical pursuit of knowledge by means of logicalone, his propositions extend themselves deeper and deeper into pointlessdetail and reiteration. The futility of this exercise is revealed in thefunny opening statement. The reader's choice to'believe' Watt, however, will turn out to be just as arbitrary--a pointemphasized by the delayed discovery that this account is filtered throughSam, the other patient in the mental hospital. Then the readermoves on immediately to the beautiful opening sentences of the narrativewith their ring of genuine passion. the absurdity of theseconstructions" (133). Both Beckett and Nabokov continue to involve the reader through suchbursts of humor. This is especially true of the wayHumbert's elaborate, intoxicating, funny language is constantly turnedagainst the admiring reader whose enjoyment is interrupted by chronicreminders that Humbert, writing in prison after he has lost Lolita, usesthis brilliant language as a form of sexual excitement. Watt. Nabokov does much the same thing for the power of narrative artby persuading readers, against their will, to be gripped by--and sometimeseven sympathetic to--a story told by a lying, self-deceiving, brutal child-molester simply through the power of 'his' command of language andnarration. warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils (5-6).The reader laughs at Ray's language, his dilemma, and his reductive,unsophisticated conception of novels as moral lessons. Watthas no idea how long he has been on the ground floor and any assumptionthat he may make is, in rational terms, groundless. She strikes him, at first, as less attractivethan he remembered. Bycontinuing to read the reader has already, in effect, granted Humbert ahearing on the basis of the beauty of the writing and a certain amount ofguilt over laughing at the joke of a monster. Thus, once the reader iscommitted to this arbitrary choice to believe, Beckett turns the joke,formerly at Hackett's expense, back on her/him. For example, a simple statement is made in Beckett's booksuch as, "Watt's feeling in this matter was that he would serve Mr. Knottfor one year on the ground floor, and then for another year on the firstfloor" (132). And that you are unable to tell me what you do not know I am willing to believe also. If Samuel Beckett's Watt and Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita were not sofunny they could not be half as serious as they are about the objects theyparody. Nabokov uses a strategy resembling earlier fictions in which aprefatory letter would establish the 'genuineness' of the account thereader was about to engage with. . New York: Vintage, 1989. The reader, therefore,actually welcomes the gradual switch to Watt's mind. Thus, even though Watt is immediately besetby voices in his head and the chance of a straightforward account of himseems unlikely, the reader, having already laughed off the traditionalapproach to fiction, has allied her/himself with the radical manner inwhich Watt will be revealed in the novel. But absurdity comes up against necessity and hefeels compelled to go on "labour[ing] at the ancient labour" (136). It is utterly irrationaland groundless, yet it leads to the line of intensive speculation thatfollows and "supports" the assumption. The readerrecognizes, of course, that this is completely logical and is a means offormally stating a logical proposition from which the argument willproceed. Hackett's 'choosing' to believeNixon seems silly because he is told almost nothing and the decision tobelieve is quite arbitrary--just as with any novel. Both writers, for example, employ opening strategies based ontraditional novels to engage the reader's sympathy or sense of being'inside' the text. Curiosity will besatisfied, the reader feels. But it is merely that he sees her clearly at first--alittle girl whose mother has just died--as a child; an experience hedescribes as "a very narrow human interval between two tiger heartbeats"(111). Lolita. The reader cannothelp but enjoy the streams of description with their comic climaxes in suchoutlandish vocabulary. The reader has written Ray off as an idiot, been impressedby the passionate, beautiful prose, and laughed at Humbert's broad joke--even while it is still perfectly plausible to think--as the reader willafter a moment--that the child may, in fact, be the person murdered. This is assent either to the proposition that human reason is wasted inphilosophy or theology that tries to know the unknowable, or to the ideathat art can be a matter of mere surfaces and that readers can be capturedby the shallowest, showiest aspects of this art to the point where they arewilling to repeatedly set aside their intrinsic moral values for the sheer,almost sensual, pleasures of skillful story-telling and gorgeous language. Works CitedBeckett, Samuel. Eventually,"even Watt could not hide from himself . . But the psychologist "John Ray, Jr.,Ph.D." is an idiot. By the time hereaches the "plumbaceous umbrae", to describe the heavy shadows under hereyes, Humbert is once again, as he says, a predator. If readers were simply offered Watt's insanity or HumbertHumbert's depraved obsession--even in the form of humorless parodies ofphilosophy and art--the effect would be to distance readers from thecharacters. Thereader's explosive, surprised laugh signals what is now a triple complicitywith Humbert. . But, even while laughing, it is apparent thatHumbert not only builds sexual excitement for himself in the use of ornatelanguage to describe Lolita--it is also set off by the very things thatshould protect a child from an adult's attentions--her helplessness,dependency, and the specifically childish features of her appearance.Within a sentence or two Humbert is once again in full flow and thedescription of the child's tanned legs "with scratches like tiny dottedlines of coagulated rubies" is repulsively ingenious and is funny only inthe sense that his self-delusion and use of words are the best 'joke' inthe book (111). . AfterNixon has spoken to Watt, Mr. Hackett becomes increasingly upset with hisinability to supply any information about the man he claims to have knownfor much of his life. The anxiety produced by the obsessive, repetitive futility of Watt'sprocedure is, however, communicated to the reader who begins to feeloppressed by the weight of the increasingly nonsensical flood of words.What was amusing is, after a while, frightening. To begin,of course, the assumption is based on no evidence that is available. 1953. "If the period of service . New York: Grove, 1959.Nabokov, Vladimir. It is a common failing (22).The "common failing", of course, is that of realist fiction and the reader,laughing at Hackett's 'logic', has also begun to share his discontent withthe common method of conveying information. But, suddenly, his impassioned, poetic lines are interrupted with,"You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style" (9). Beckett begins his book as a fairly straightforwardrealist account of the meeting between Mr. Hackett and the Nixons. The 'monstrous' nature of the assumption, which makes the readerlaugh and then reflect on its meaning, is revealed fully as the narrativebecomes a parody of the medieval process of reasoning about things that arenot knowable by reason. The humor, however, has theeffect of creating a sense of complicity with the characters and involvesreaders very directly in what they say. But the comic approach establishes a certain amount of distancebetween readers and the horrors of the situations in these novels. His hilarious attempts at a legal, clinical tone and asense of objectivity toward the manuscript he presents quickly melt awayuntil, appalled, all that his psychological training seems to enable him tosay is that, [I]n this poignant personal study there lurks a general lesson; the wayward child, the egotistic mother, the panting maniac . But as he describes the child who momentarily moves him to normalhuman pity, he begins to drop into his allusive, French-spattered, ornatestyle again and it clearly signals danger as he progresses from noting herhollow cheeks to the build-up of the description of Lolita as a "wan-looking though sun-colored little orphan aux yeux battus (and even thoseplumbaceous umbrae under her eyes bore freckles)" (111). I choose to believe you, said Mr. Hackett. A good example of this is the scene in which Humbert picks up hisstep-daughter from her summer camp after her mother is killed--a fact hehas not yet told Lolita. Nabokov also manipulatesthe reader with this type of humor as Humbert develops his poeticdescriptions in artificial but beautiful words that remind the reader oftraditions of love poetry and prose. But it is funny since Watt, not having acquired any informationdespite his personal involvement, has no basis for his argument and merelogical propositions cannot produce knowledge on their own. The writers use humor to draw readers into agreement with their pointsabout the deceptive nature of human efforts and discourse--even thoughreaders will usually not want to admit the truth of the writers' claimsabout philosophy and art. To be a monster means to be some distortedform of a natural being and the reader has to ask, therefore, how such anassumption is a distortion and why Watt is not free to make it. As Hackett almost obsessively sums up the bits ofNixon's knowledge he concludes, with dissatisfaction, I am obliged to believe you. The points they make--the former about philosophy, the latterabout art--are painful enough even when the authors engage in a playfulgame of taking forms of discourse to 'logical' conclusions that areunwelcome to those who depend on these forms to make sense of the world.Beckett addresses the futility of human philosophical and theologicalattempts to understand the world with something as paltry as human reasonand Watt's sad schizophrenia is the medium in which such attempts areparodied. In bothcases the strategy is essential to conveying the full impact of theauthors' ideas. 1955.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject