Blog Post #3- Critical Lens Expert

In the article titled "Vladimir Novakov and Sigmund Freud, Or a Particular Problem" written by Leland De La Durantaye, it is conveyed almost immediately that the author of the classic book Lolita was not a fan of the well known father of psychology. It is true that many of Freud's claims have been debunked, and Novakov was often justified in calling some of what Freud stated as merely pseudoscience, but it is of note that the man who denounced the person who stated that young boys are attracted to their mothers and daughters with fathers would be the same man who wrote a book in which a young girl was sexually attracted to a man who would one day become her father in law, and would eventually have sex with said father in law. It would make sense, then, that the book itself does at several points point out its own freudian nature. Humbert does wonder about his own mind and if he truly did conform to the beliefs that Sigmund Freud held about the human animal, but often dismisses these notions. Truthfully, I believe that both Novakov and H. Humbert did not give the psychoanalyst the credit he deserves. He did have some claims that were not truthful, and others which have given a backbone to the psychological community, but above all he seemed to have a way of understanding people and what they desired. Much of the time, the root of these peoples' desires was sexual, and this is something that Humbert shares. He craves the passion that Annabelle left in him, and it is the most basic of needs to him, as simple as water, food, or air. He finds an outlet for this lust and passion within Dolores, and he eventually gives into his id, his baser needs, despite knowing that it goes against societal standards and even the law. It does not matter that Novakov does not agree with Freud, because his character in Lolita very clearly demonstrate one of Freud's many theories to be at least partially true.