MacKenzie Bernard

Honors AP English III (Mr. Jennings)

Honors AP US History (Mr. Esselman)

May 17, 2013

Lolita and the 1950s

A pedophile is disgusting; “happy days” is the perfect way to describe the 1950s. Right?

Or is it possible that there could be more to it? Could a pedophile be a romantic? Could the

1950s have had serious problems? The easy answer would be no. Many people don’t want to

look beyond the surface of these words; it’s easier just to agree to their socially accepted

definitions than to look for something deeper. However, the struggle to see more is exactly what

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita and the 1950s have in common.

It’s nearly impossible to convince people who haven’t read Lolita to look past Humbert

Humbert’s “pedophile” label. You tell people a book is about a middle aged man lusting over a

12-year-old girl and they will generally assume that man is despicable. However, Nabokov

deliberately attempts to force his readers to overlook their likely moral aversions to pedophiles in

order to see Humbert as a literary genius. Through gorgeous prose, Lolita turns pedophilia into

art and develops the idea that love is tragic, yet simultaneously beautiful. To see the beauty and

depth of Lolita, Nabokov forces you to get past the pedophilic surface of Humbert’s love.

Many people also have trouble looking closer at the 1950s. The 1950s are supposed to be

the “good old days,” a time that reflects an image of happy families, a booming economy,

suburbia, cars, and the absence of problems. However, beyond the idyllic surface, the 1950s had

serious economic, social, and political problems such as consumerism, racism, and

McCarthyism. In reality, “the happy days” held little truth beyond the incredibly popular sitcoms

of the decade. To see the actuality of the 1950s, you have to look beyond the apparent “good old

days.”

Lolita and the 1950s are both complicated subjects that people have the tendency to dumb

down. It’s easy to assume Lolita is nothing more than a pedophile or that the 1950s are nothing

more than “happy days.” It’s only when you get beyond the surface that you can fully see either

for the complexities that they really are.

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita is the fictional narrative of Humbert Humbert, a middle aged

hopeless romantic passionately in love with Lolita, a 12-year-old girl. Humbert writes of his

passion for Lolita which, after he becomes her stepfather, turns into a sexual relationship. Lolita

eventually escapes from him with Clare Quilty, another older man with a striking resemblance to

Humbert. Three years after losing Lolita, Humbert murders Quilty and ends up in the prison

where he writes his memoir. Through distinctively beautiful prose, Nabokov turns what might

ordinarily be regarded as the disgusting musings of a sexual psychopath into an engaging

romance where Humbert comes off not as a disturbing pedophile, but as an endearing

protagonist. Through Humbert’s poetic spin on his eccentric love, Lolita develops the idea that

love is inevitably tragic, but at the same time, love (even a pedophile’s love) is beautiful.

Lolita shows that love is a devastating, heartbreaking experience. Humbert comes to

realize his obsessive love led to tragedy not only for himself, but also for Lolita:

Nothing could make my Lolita forget the foul lust I had inflicted upon her. Unless it can

be proven to me – to me as I am now, today, with my heart and my beard, and my

putrefaction – that in the infinite run it does not matter a jot that a North American girl-

child named Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac, unless this

can be proven (and if it can, then life is a joke), I see nothing for the treatment of my

misery but the melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art (249).

It’s reasonable to assume that a relationship between a middle aged man and a 12-year-

old girl is going to result in emotional damage for the child. The pedophilic context of Humbert’s

love was bound to deprive Lolita of her childhood. “What I heard was but the melody of children

at play […] and then I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my

side, but the absence of her voice from that concord (271).” Humbert realizes that his love

robbed Lolita of her innocence and ultimately caused just as much pain in her life as it did in his,

if not more. In “’Lolita’ and the Dangers of Fiction,” noting Humbert’s realization of the harm

he’s done to Lolita, Mathew Winston claims:

He gradually learns that he knew nothing about her thoughts or feelings and, in fact,

carefully avoided any recognition of her personality which might interfere with the

satisfaction of his own physical and psychological needs. He is able to feel for the first

time the full pathos of “her sobs in the night—every night, every night.” He discovers, in

short, that Dolores Haze is a person and not a character (Winston).

Though Humbert is heartbroken, he realizes the damage he caused Lolita: “She groped for

words. I supplied them mentally (“He broke my heart. You merely broke my life”) (245).”

Humbert’s uncontrollable love essentially ruined Lolita’s childhood. The deprivation of Lolita’s

innocence shows just one example of the tragedy that unavoidably results from love.

While Humbert acknowledges the damage his love caused Lolita, the ultimate focus of

his memoir is the tragedy love caused for him. Perhaps the biggest example of the tragedy in

Humbert’s life can be found in his statement “You can always count on a murderer for a fancy

prose style (3).” Humbert’s jealousy-inspired murder of Clare Quilty led him to a life in prison,

or what Humbert refers to as “well-heated, albeit tombal, seclusion (272).” While a prison

sentence and being titled a murderer are great losses, for Humbert the real tragedy is losing

Lolita. Humbert ends his story with “And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my

Lolita (272).” Humbert isn’t concerned with having to deal with a life in prison; his concern is

living a life where his only way to Lolita is through his writing. He’s heartbroken, and a well-

heated prison can’t compare with that. Had Humbert not loved Lolita, or even if he hadn’t been

driven to pedophilia at all, he might have had a happy, relatively normal life. “I grew, a happy,

healthy child in a bright world of illustrated books, clean sand, orange trees, friendly dogs, sea

vistas and smiling faces (4).” Humbert’s happy childhood, and possibly happy life, was

destroyed the minute he met Annabel. From the moment Humbert fell “madly, clumsily,

shamelessly, agonizingly in love (6)” with Annabel, Humbert was predestined to love Lolita “at

first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight (237).” “In point of fact, there might have been no

Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child (3).” Because he was fated to

love Lolita, he was destined to lose her, murder Quilty and ultimately live a miserable life not

just because of his prison sentence, but because of the incurable heartbreak that love rewarded

him. From the loss of Lolita’s childhood, to Humbert’s prison sentence, to every bit of sorrow

underlying Humbert’s “fancy prose style (3)”, the tragedy evoked in Lolita’s and Humbert’s

lives shows the idea that love inevitably leads to agony.

While Lolita shows that love is catastrophic, Nabokov develops the theme that love is

simultaneously beautiful. Upon learning Humbert is a pedophile, it might normally be reasonable

to indict Humbert as nothing more than a disgustingly evil child molester. However, Humbert’s

eloquent narration makes his pedophilic love appear beautiful. “Lolita, light of my life, fire of

my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the

palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta (3).” Humbert’s introductory paragraph, charged

with alliteration, assonance, and metaphor, reads like poetry. In “Lolita: Overview,” Chester E.

Eisinger writes:

The apparent subject of the novel is Humbert Humbert's perverted passion for a

nymphet. But we come closer to the real subject if we perceive that his passion is his

prison and his pain, his ecstasy and his madness. His release from the prison of his

passion and the justification of his perversion is in art, and that is the real subject of the

novel: the pain of remembering, organizing, and telling his story is a surrogate for the

pain of his life and a means of transcending and triumphing over it; art, as it transmutes

the erotic experience, becomes the ultimate experience in passion and madness

(Eisinger).

As Eisinger claims, the “art” Humbert creates through his prose changes Lolita from a story

about pedophilia into a story about love. Because of Humbert’s style, it doesn’t matter that Lolita

is 12 years old. What matters is Humbert’s love, which he articulates in such a way that shows

his love as being as real and painful as any love he would have experienced had he been capable

of loving someone remotely close to his own age. No matter how appalling Humbert’s feelings

may be, he still has the ability to turn his love into something beautiful: “I loved you. I was a

pentapod monster, but I loved you. I was despicable and brutal, and turpid, and everything, mais

je t'aimais, je t'aimais (250-251).” Lolita is not really about how horrible Humbert’s love is, but

about how beautiful Humbert can make that love appear. Eisinger further claims “The problem

Nabokov deliberately sets for himself, however, is to persuade the reader to transcend the erotic

content and eschew moral judgment in order to perceive his novel as an artistic creation and not

as a reflection or interpretation of reality. Lolita is not immoral or didactic, he has said; it has no

moral. It is a work of art (Eisinger).” Lolita is not about what is morally wrong with Humbert

and Lolita’s relationship, but everything that’s artistically right with it. The love story between a

grown man and an adolescent girl should be downright disgusting, but no matter how debauched

Humbert and Lolita’s relationship is, Humbert manages to transform it into something beautiful:

“I looked and looked at her, and knew as clearly as I know I am to die, that I loved her more than

anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth, or hoped for anywhere else (244).” Humbert’s

prose trumps the fact that Lolita is just a child. He can articulate his feelings as being poignant,

even if moral standards would argue that they shouldn’t be. Humbert’s poetic narration shows

that love, even in its most deplorable form, is beautiful.

On the surface, it might appear that Lolita is about little more than the repulsive life of a

pervert. But Nabokov’s prose turns Lolita into so much more. Lolita is a love story, and a tragic

one at that. Nabokov takes a pedophile, someone who should ordinarily be regarded as a

despicable human being, and turns him into a romantic, heartbroken poet. When Nabokov

accomplishes that, the fact that Lolita is only 12 years old isn’t important. What matters is the

idea that love is a paradox, a beautiful disaster. Love ruined the lives of both Humbert and Lolita,

but their love story remains entrancing. Lolita shows love as being an awful, heartbreaking

experience that leads to absolute sorrow (even if that love is the love of a pedophile) and,

simultaneously, love, even pedophilic love, is beautiful (it might just take Vladimir Nabokov to

prove that). According to Lolita, it doesn’t matter the context of love. Whether love is for a 12-

year-old or a 112-year-old, if it’s real love, it will lead to inescapable, beautiful agony.

Many people like to believe that the 1950s are America’s “happy days,” a time when

dysfunctional families were unthinkable, the economy was immaculate, and the biggest problems

were nothing that good morals couldn’t solve in the time it took to air an episode of Leave it to

Beaver. After all, if Leave it to Beaver wasn’t on, there’s a good chance that The Adventures of

Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Make Room for Daddy, or I Love Lucy was. David

Halberstam wrote:

One reason that Americans as a people became nostalgic about the fifties more than

twenty five years later was not so much that life was better in the fifties (though in some

ways it was), but because at the time it had been portrayed so idyllically on television. It

was the television images of the era that remained so remarkably sharp in people’s

memories, often fresher than memories of real life. Television reflected a world of

warm-hearted, sensitive, tolerant Americans, a world devoid of anger and meanness

of spirit and, of course, failure (Halberstam 514)

The sitcoms of the 1950s were constantly broadcasting the idea of happiness to the rapidly

increasing number of American television viewers (by 1954, 50 million people were watching I

Love Lucy alone (Halberstam 199)). Millions of people could plaster their eyes to a TV screen

and become convinced that the decade they were living in was as fun and happy as the smiling

white people on their television screen made it out to be. In real life, the ‘50s just couldn’t meet

the standards “invented by writers, producers, and directors (Halberstam 508).” The 50s were not

invincible, but people didn’t want to accept that. David Wright and Elly Petra Petras claimed:

“When the young men who fought in Europe and the Pacific for four years returned home to

their sweethearts, they wanted to get on with their lives and forget about the death and

destruction overseas. It only makes sense that the focus was on fun and innocence, on “I Love

Lucy,” rock ‘n’ roll, backyard barbecues, and being part of the status quo (Wright & Petra Press

728).” While perhaps the 1950s were not the utter hell Americans had experienced during the

Great Depression and World War II, they were also a long way off from being the “happy days”

nostalgia has claimed them to be.

After World War II, many Americans were determined to move on and live in prosperity.

“A booming postwar economy gave middle-class Americans more money than they ever had

before (Wright and Petra Petras 728).” The 1950s saw a substantially better economy than either

the ‘30s or ‘40s. For instance, during the Great Depression and World War II, housing suffered

more than any other industry, with the number of housing starts falling from around one million

per year to less than 100,000; 50,000 people were living in Army Quonset huts and it’s estimated

over five million new houses were immediately needed for underprivileged families (Halberstam

134). In contrast, by the end of the ‘50s, more than nine million Americans became homeowners

(Wright and Petra Press 729). An estimated 1.7 million houses were built in 1950 (Halberstam

134) and modern, suburban homes sold for as little as $6,000 (Wright and Petra Press 737). In

some respects, the “booming” economy improved the country.

Nonetheless, capitalistic America had its downsides. Americans became relentless

consumers, buying anything advertisers convinced them was necessary to live. Industries such as

the automobile market became wildly successful, with more than twenty-one million cars sold by

the end of the 1950s (Wright and Petra Press 729). Cars traveled 458 billion miles in 1950 and

7.9 million cars sold in 1955 alone. The rapid success of the automobile industry led to the

passing of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956, which created over 40,000 miles of highway

(Wright and Petra Press 736). Americans became obsessed with the fancy new automobiles

taking over suburbia. Harley Earl, the head of General Motors design, remarked to his

employees, “”General Motors […] is in business for only one reason. To make money. In order

to do that we make cars. But if we could make money making garbage cans, we would make

garbage cans (Halberstam 127).”” For many Americans, it became more important to have the

newest, sleekest car than to consider the financial consequences. Fins, the most popular

automotive detail of the 1950s, “represented no technological advance; they were solely a design

element whose purpose was to make the cars seem sleeker, bigger, and more powerful

(Halberstam 127).” “”It gave them [the customers] an extra receipt for their money in the form of

visible prestige marking for an expensive car,” Earl said, summing up the essential thrust of the

industry during the decade (Halberstam 127).”

Americans were gradually forced to realize that even if the economy was better than the

previous two decades, their newfound wealth wasn’t infinite. By the end of the 1950s, consumer

debt more than doubled, from $73 billion to $196 billion (Wright and Petra Press 740). Paul A.

Carter wrote, “In Detroit, a retailer confessed that “after a certain point, there’s nothing you can

do. You tell them to buy, but they haven’t any money.” “There is no use expecting a man to buy

an automobile he does not have to have,” columnist Walter Lippman warned, “if he is worried

about whether he may lose his job (Carter 37).” It’s estimated that 50 million people were living

near or below the poverty line (about $3,000 for a family of four) (Wright and Petra Press 748).

The 50s saw two recessions, the first lasting from July 1953-May 1954 and the second from

August 1957 – April 1958, when the unemployment rate peaked at 7.5% (Labonte). More than

five million lacked jobs by the spring of 1958 and 75,000 workers were unemployed in St. Louis

alone (Carter 35; 39). The economic doldrums of the 1950s can’t compare with that of the 1930s

or ‘40s, but it would be a stretch to say the ‘50s economy, riddled by recessions, unemployment,

and debt all of its own, was a representation of “happy days.”

Although economic welfare improved for many Americans in the 1950s, the financial

status of minorities degenerated. “While the average annual income for middle-class whites

increased quite dramatically through the decade, the average annual income for African-

Americans and other minorities actually decreased (Wright and Petra Petras 730).” Realtors and

bankers often refused to sell houses or lend money to African-Americans and other minorities

(Wright and Petra Petras 748). Bill Levitt, developer of Levittown, New York (the first postwar,

mass-produced suburb) claimed, “I have come to know that if we sell one house to a Negro

family, then 90 or 95 percent of our white customers will not buy into the community. […] As a

company our position is simply this: We can solve a housing problem, or we can try to solve a

racial problem but we cannot combine the two (Halberstam 141).” While the economy may have

been somewhat close to ideal, for minorities nothing could be further from the truth.

For the African-Americans and other minorities that the sitcoms of the decade so rarely

acknowledged, discrimination went beyond the economy. As fifteen-year-old Elizabeth Eckford

attempted to enter the newly integrated Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, white

mobs screamed, “Here she comes! Here comes one of the n-----s!” She believed the National

Guard troopers sent by President Eisenhower would protect her, but instead they used their rifles

and bayonets to block her path while the mob screamed, “Lynch her! Lynch her,” “Go home,

you b-----d of a black b---h,” and “No n----r b---h is going to get in our school (Halberstam 674-

675).” When sitcoms weren’t on TV, broadcasting the carefree lives of their white heroes,

“troops separating black and white students became a familiar site on television sets all across

the country (Wright and Petra Press 749).” Racism was something the popular sitcoms just never

got around to. In 1955, after 14-year-old Emmett Till reportedly flirted with a white woman, he

was beaten, shot, wired to a seventy-four pound gin fan, and tossed in the Tallahatchie River

(Halberstam 433-436). For minorities, “happy days” were a pipe dream. David Wright and Elly

Petra Press claimed that Americans were “more interested in being part of the newly affluent

middle class and enjoying their new prosperity than in protesting social inequality or political

injustice (Wright and Petra Press 726).” For many people that were lucky enough to be a part of

the America that was even somewhat close to the utopia they watched on TV, it was simply more

important to attain the newest cars and suburban homes than it was to remember the daily

discrimination faced by those who weren’t as fortunate.

Minorities were not the only ones facing fear in the 1950s. The Cold War atmosphere

created a paranoid state for Americans of every race. David Wright and Elly Petra Petras called

the Cold War “a war waged in the decades following World War II by any means short of direct

military confrontation – but always in the shadow of the threat of that confrontation (Wright and

Petra Petras 731).” Many people feared the spread of communism and the Soviet Union’s

chances of world dominance. The country’s paranoia led to the rise of McCarthyism. In February

1950, Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy became a key part in the search for communist

elements within the United States. He claimed to have a list of names of State Department

employees who belonged to the American Communist Party (few of whom actually had any ties

to Communism). McCarthy became chairman of the Government Committee on Operations of

the Senate and over the next three years, made accusations against the Overseas Library Program

(which led to the banning of 30,000 books he deemed as procommunist), the Truman

administration (including President Harry S. Truman and George Marshall, the leader behind the

renowned Marshall Plan), several writers, actors, directors, musicians, and eventually, the United

States Army (Hyder). David Halberstam wrote:

McCarthy’s carnival-like four-year spree of accusations, charges, and threats touched

something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own

recklessness, carelessness, and boozing ended his career in shame. McCarthyism

crystallized and politicized the anxieties of a nation living in a dangerous new era. He

took people who were at the worst guilty of political naïveté and accused them of treason.

He set out to do the unthinkable, and it turned out to be surprisingly thinkable

(Halberstam 52).

McCarthy took a nation already rocked by fear and warped it into a state of terror. Speaking

against McCarthy and his supporters, Adlai Stevenson said, ““They are finally the men who

seemingly believe that we can confound the Kremlin by frightening ourselves to death

(Halberstam 236).”” Sitcoms never got around to real fears like McCarthyism. Outside of media

promotion, America was not a carefree paradise, but a nation stuck in a state of fear and

uncertainty.

The 1950s were not America’s “happy days”. As much as Americans wanted to move on

from the hardships of the previous decades, the 1950s couldn’t be perfect. Outside of the TV

world, the 1950s dealt with major economic, social, and political issues. The “booming”

economy was actually leaving Americans unemployed and in debt. The civil rights movement

was getting started, but minorities were constantly discriminated against. The Cold War held

Americans in fear and McCarthyism didn’t help that. Yet these are supposed to be the happiest

times America has ever known.

Time once referred to Beaver Cleaver as “”the symbol of the melted ice-cream sorrows of

an idyllic suburban childhood that never really was (Applebaum 318).”” The “happy days” that

people can be so nostalgic for are more likely to be sitcom images rather than the actuality of the

1950s. People are nostalgic for the Cleavers’ lives: the affluent middle class, the absence of

serious problems, and the happy American setting. People tend to forget that the Cleavers were

actors, their all-American suburb was a Hollywood set, and their resounding morals that could

solve anything were lines off a script. In his Leave it to Beaver guidebook, Irwyn Applebaum

claimed: “The Cleavers’ warm-oatmeal home life was the “holy gruel” which many parents and

kids watching the show would seek all their lives, and never come close to emulating in the

privacy of their own homes. Things just never were that perfect in anybody’s home (Applebaum

7).” The sitcoms of the 1950s set up impossible expectations for the actual times to live up to,

but, as David Halberstam wrote, “It was the television images of the era that remained so

remarkably sharp in people’s memories, often fresher than memories of real life (Halberstam

514).” For the characters of the 50s’ sitcoms, America couldn’t have been happier; but, for the

Americans not created by writers, “happy days” was more false advertising than it was reality.

It might not seem obvious that a book about a pedophile could make accurate

connections to the 1950s. However, if you look closer, Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita accomplishes

just that. In point of fact, Lolita is all about “looking closer.” As the characters in Lolita are

forced to look closer at Humbert Humbert to realize that, in reality, he’s a pedophile rather than

the idyllic man he comes off as, Nabokov attempts to force the reader to look closer at Humbert

to realize that he’s more than just a sexual deviant. Similarly, it might not seem obvious that the

1950s were anything besides America’s “happy days.” Yet, if you look closer, the 1950s had

economic, political, and social problems that went beyond the projected images of fun and

innocence. To see the actuality of either Lolita or the 1950s, you have to get past the surface.

To the other characters, Humbert seems virtually flawless. Lolita and Charlotte are both

attracted to him at first sight. Jean, Charlotte’s best friend, secretly falls in love with Humbert

and kisses him after Charlotte’s death. When Humbert refuses to let Lolita acknowledge boys or

participate in her school’s play, he’s simply taken for a concerned stepfather. When no one looks

beyond the surface, Humbert seems almost perfect.

Most of the characters never come close to figuring out the truth about Humbert, but even

the characters that do eventually deduce Humbert’s pedophilia (primarily Lolita and Charlotte)

initially refuse to acknowledge his inappropriateness. When Humbert licks Lolita’s eyeball, she

thinks he’s just helping her remove a stray eyelash; when he attempts to lick her other, healthy

eye, she merely laughs and brushes him out of the way. When he goes even farther and

“[crushes] out against her left buttock the last throb of the longest ecstasy man or monster had

ever known (49),” she doesn’t even notice. Perhaps Lolita’s gullibility can be attributed to her

age, but Charlotte, a grown woman, is also oblivious to Humbert’s pedophilia. Like Lolita,

Charlotte refuses to see Humbert as anyone besides who she wants him to be. When Charlotte

confesses that she’s in love with him, she tells him that if he were to take advantage of her, he

would be “worse than a kidnapper who rapes a child (56).” Ironically, she sees no indication that

that’s exactly the person Humbert’s on his way to becoming.

It’s only when Charlotte’s curiosity gets the best of her and she reads Humbert’s diary

that she sees the person he really is. Lolita begins to see Humbert for what he is only after she

discovers sex at summer camp. It would seem that Humbert’s lewd behaviors would be obvious

to, if not Lolita, then at least Charlotte. However, both Lolita and Charlotte are more concerned

with seeing Humbert as the dream man they want him to be rather than acknowledging him as a

pedophile. Until the truth about Humbert is basically plastered before their eyes, it’s nicer just to

imagine him as perfect.

Similarly, on the surface, the 1950s appear to be America’s “happy days.” The media

built up the 1950s to be a decade in which all Americans were blissful and prosperous. Families

were depicted as laughing together over I Love Lucy in their modern, suburban homes with a

fancy convertible or two in the driveway. The economy appeared to be better than ever, allowing

Americans to buy anything and everything. It appeared as if political, economic, and social

problems just couldn’t find a place; if you only focus on what the media claimed, the 1950s

couldn’t have been more ideal.

In a nation dominated by television, millions of people were led to believe that the idyllic

depictions of America portrayed on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, I

Love Lucy, Leave it to Beaver, and Make Room for Daddy were accurate representations of ‘50s

reality. It became relatively easy for many Americans, like the sitcoms, to disregard the world’s

problems. Underneath the surface of the media-created bliss, real issues such as McCarthyism,

racism, and dangerous consumerism were affecting America. Yet, as millions of Americans

refused to look past the joyous, fictional world they so desperately wanted to be a part of, the

1950s developed its reputation as being the nation’s supposed “happy days.” In the same way it

was easier for Lolita and Charlotte to see Humbert as perfect rather than as a pedophile, it was

easier for many ‘50s Americans to accept the media’s idyllic depictions of life rather than the

real world.

Many people became more focused on living what were supposed to be happy, affluent

lives than on facing America's problems. Issues such as racism were never acknowledged by the

sitcoms, and many Americans wanted to follow in that example. For instance, many people

didn’t want to deal with integration. Eisenhower had to send the National Guard just to integrate

one high school in Little Rock. Whether they liked it or not, many Americans eventually had to

at least consider changes in their ideas regarding issues such as racial equality. Like Lolita and

Charlotte, many Americans were forced to open their eyes to the problems that they didn’t want

to recognize.

Simultaneously, both 1950s Americans and the readers of Lolita were met with a

challenge to reconsider their morals. For many in the ‘50s, minorities and pedophilia were on the

same level, both being uncomfortable subjects that most people wanted to avoid and write off as

repulsive. As many Americans were compelled to reassess their ideas about issues like racism,

Nabokov attempts to compel his readers to reconsider their ideas on pedophilia. Lolita is

Nabokov’s attempt to make readers overlook their morals in order to see a pedophile as a literary

genius and his pedophilia as something gorgeous. Through Humbert’s prose, Nabokov does his

best to demand that his readers question what beauty really is, even if that means considering

pedophilia to be something that appears attractive. As many people were hesitant to view

minorities as equals, Nabokov’s creation of beauty in something inherently worse than not being

white set up a challenge to such opinions. If Nabokov can make the relationship between a

middle aged man and a 12-year-old girl look beautiful, finding decency in a different race

shouldn’t be too hard of a task. Lolita attempts to challenge readers to expand their minds to find

beauty beyond their morals in the same way the changing social atmosphere of the 1950s

challenged many Americans to consider expanding their minds to redefine their own morals.

To see the actuality behind either Lolita or the 1950s, you have to look beyond the

surface. Similar to the way the characters in Lolita have to overlook their imagined conceptions

of Humbert to see him for who he really is, the reader has to overlook any moral aversions they

might ordinarily hold against a pedophile in order to see Lolita as the work of art it really is.

Likewise, to get a realistic perception of the 1950s, you have to get past the “happy days”

surface. You have to look closer to see that the decade that was supposed to be so fun and

innocent had actual problems. Lolita and the 1950s also both set up a challenge for Americans to

reassess their morals. Similar to the way Nabokov attempts to challenge his readers to eschew

their morals to find beauty in a pedophile, the social changes of the 1950s challenged many

Americans to reevaluate their morals as well. Lolita and the 1950s both require you to overlook

any preconceptions you might have. To see Lolita as more than just a pedophile or to see the

1950s as more than just the “happy days,” you have to look closer.

Annotated Bibliography:

Applebaum, Irwyn. The World According to Beaver. New York: Bantam, 1984. Print.

In this book dedicated to Leave it to Beaver, Irwyn Applebaum discusses the basis of the classic

TV show, each episode, and its impact on the world. The writing isn’t anything remarkable and

the book isn’t meant to be a formal historical criticism (I looked at it because I remember reading

it for fun in the fourth grade); its purpose is simply to pay homage to one of the best remembered

sitcoms of the 1950s. Most of the book wasn’t useful (every minute detail about Leave it to

Beaver just wasn’t very applicable), but Applebaum does include some thought-provoking

quotes comparing the Cleavers’ portrayal of the 1950s with the decade’s actuality. If someone

wants to learn as much as possible about Leave it to Beaver, they should read this book.

However, if someone wants to learn about the 1950s, this book can probably be avoided.

Associated Press, The. "Teen-Ager Seized In the Slaying of 10: Two Are Held in Wyoming in a

Series of Slayings TEEN-AGER SEIZED IN SLAYING OF TEN." New York Times 29

Jan. 1958, Page 1, column 5. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.

<http://0search.proquest.com.iii.slcl.org/docview/

114360108/13D94C5145E26D5F18A/1?accountid=17>.

This 1958 newspaper article recounts the murders committed days earlier by Charles

Starkweather and Caril Fugate. The Associated Press briefly tells of each of Starkweather’s and

Fugate’s killings and of their capture. Although I didn’t end up using it in my paper, this article

served nicely as a primary source and as a reminder that the 1950s had serious problems.

"The Beat Movement." American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, et al. Vol. 6: 1950-1959.

Detroit: Gale, 2001. 34-37. U.S. History In Context. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Judith S. Baughman explains media and literary perceptions of the Beat

Generation. She discusses Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and Neal Cassidy and their effect on

the 1950s as well as the subsequent future. She concludes with the Beat Movement’s Decline.

Although this article lacked much depth, it gave a decent outline of the Beats. I ultimately didn’t

mention the Beat Movement in my paper, but if I had, this probably wouldn’t have been very

helpful.

Carter, Paul A. Another Part of the Fifties. New York: Columbia University, 1983. Print.

Paul A. Carter examines the 1950s through a detailed review of the decade’s politics and

economics. He pulls information from several well-cited primary sources which show “happy

days” as being an inaccurate representation of the 1950s. Carter puts an emphasis on

McCarthyism, the economy, and the numerous faults with Eisenhower’s presidency. This proved

to be a useful source and I would recommend it to anyone researching the politics and economics

of the 1950s.

Daynard, Richard, Robert Kline, and Kristen Daley. "Litigation." Tobacco in History and

Culture: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Jordan Goodman. Vol. 1. Detroit: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 2005. 307-314. U.S. History In Context. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Davies, Kline, and Daley outline the history of tobacco. It discusses the discovery

of cigarettes being linked to increased health risks in 1953 and the litigations that took place

afterwards. The article puts a detailed emphasis on how the extreme tobacco use in the ‘50s

ultimately damaged the health of millions of Americans and how tobacco companies cunningly

avoided legal repercussions. I didn’t end up discussing tobacco in my paper, but this would have

been an excellent source had I done so. Anyone interested in tobacco history, particularly in the

1950s, should give this a read.

Eisinger, Chester E. "Lolita: Overview." Reference Guide to American Literature. Ed. Jim

Kamp. 3rd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Web. 14 Mar.

2013.

In this piece of literary criticism, Chester E. Eisinger focuses on the idea that the essence of

Lolita is its language. He argues that Lolita is not merely a story about pedophilia, but an artistic

creation. His argument is that Nabokov’s deliberate use of decorative language turns a perverted

memoir into not only a love story, but more importantly, a work of art. This was a convincing

argument that I was able to use to support my claim that Lolita shows all love as beautiful.

"'The good old days': Destin Snowbirds relive Sweet Sixteen." Destin Log [Destin, FL] 28 Jan.

2009. U.S. History In Context. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

In this article about a Destin, Florida “Sweet Sixteen Bash” held for senior citizens (many of

whom came in poodle skirts, school sweaters, and white t-shirts with rolled up sleeves) in an

attempt to relive the “happy days.” The event was a success and several people gave quotes

about their memories of “the good old days.” I didn’t end up using this source, but the personal

accounts in the article did serve as a decent counter to the majority of my research.

Halberstam, David. The Fifties. New York: Villard Books, 1993. Print.

This is essentially the Bible on the 1950s. Basically, Halberstam gives a detailed account of

every major event in the 1950s. It’s 800 pages of encyclopedic information which Halberstam

cites with solid primary and secondary sources. He claims that although the 1950s appear

languid, beneath the surface, a social ferment that contrasted “happy days” was beginning. His

detailed index ended up being incredibly beneficial and The Fifties ultimately became one of my

best sources. Anyone studying the 1950s should make this book a priority.

Hyder, Joseph Patterson. "McCarthyism." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security.

Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 251-253.

U.S. History In Context. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Patterson graphically outlines McCarthyism. He recounts how Joseph McCarthy

began his post-war “Red Scare,” the damage he caused, and McCarthy’s eventual demise in

1954. This article gives straightforward facts on McCarthy that were beneficial for writing about

McCarthyism in my paper. I’d recommend this article to someone who wants a solid explanation

of McCarthyism.

Joel, Billy. “We Didn’t Start the Fire.” Storm Front. Columbia, 1989. CD.

This is a rock song with lyrics composed mainly of the headlines of 119 major events that

happened between 1949 through 1989. 65 of the events Joel references occurred between 1950-

1959. This was one of the first sources I turned to in the hope that I could use it to generate ideas

for the history component. Although I did end up researching many of Joel’s references, the song

was ultimately more helpful in procrastinating than serving as a beneficial source.

Labonte, Marc. United States. Congressional Research Service. “U.S. Economy in Recession:

Similarities To and Differences From the Past.” www.crs.gov, 2009. Web.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/133906.pdf

Labonte compares and contrasts each of America’s post-World War II recessions. He looks at

each recession’s length and depth, unemployment rate, consumption and investment rates, etc.

Labonte uses a wealth of statistics to show the effects of recession. His facts are well-cited and I

was ultimately able to use his statistics for the recessions that took place from July 1953-May

1954 and August 1957-April 1958 in my paper.

Leave it to Beaver. 1957-1959. DVD.

This is an iconic sitcom that revolves around the life of All-American boy, Theodore “Beaver”

Cleaver and his happy, middle-class family. The Cleavers exemplify the image of what ‘50s

American families were supposed to look like. As I found myself watching countless episodes, I

realized how ridiculously convincing a purely fictional show could be. The show became my

prime example of everything the media claimed the 1950s were supposed to represent: the

picture-perfect families, the suburbia, the morals, and the overwhelming innocence. I’d

recommend Leave it to Beaver to anyone looking at the culture of the 1950s (or anyone who

appreciates a great TV show).

Make Room for Daddy. 1955. DVD.

Make Room for Daddy (later changed to The Danny Thomas Show) centers on entertainer Danny

Williams (Danny Thomas) and the variety of amusing situations he encounters with his wife and

two children. The show was set apart from other ‘50s sitcoms through Danny’s hostile, yet

loving attitude and each episode’s musical conclusion. I used Make Room for Daddy as an

example of the media created “happy days.” I’d recommend the show to anyone looking at 1950s

culture.

Miller, Neil. Sex-Crime Panic: A Journey to the Paranoid Heart of the 1950s. Los Angeles:

AlysonPublications, 2002. Print.

In this book, Neil Miller tells the untold story of 25 gay men who, after the unsolved, brutal

murders of two children in Sioux City, were sentenced to a mental hospital in order to calm

public hysteria. While I ultimately didn’t use this book directly in my paper, it did serve as a

mental reminder that the 1950s were far from “happy days.” I’d recommend this to someone

interested LGBT issues or journalistic writing, but not to someone interested in the 1950s.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. The United States of America: The Olympia Press, 1955. Print.

This is a ridiculously amazing book that takes a pedophile/murderer and makes him look like a

romantic hero. Through elegant, almost poetic, narration, Humbert Humbert tells of his

passionate, agonizing love for Lolita, a 12-year-old. Nabokov manages to take Humbert’s

pedophilia and turn it into a love that appears beautiful. In brief, it’s a work of genius.

"What Fathers Really Need to Create a Happy Family." Albany Times Union [Albany, NY] 21

June 2009: B2. U.S. History In Context. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

A brief article that challenges people who grew up in the ‘50s to consider whether or not their

dad actually matched up with the popular image of loving, family oriented fathers that seems to

be missing from today’s culture. The article claims the reasons fathers (and families) are

remembered as being so ideal isn’t because they actually were, but because the 1950s were

considerably more optimistic than the current times. While the article didn’t draw from any solid

evidence, it did pose an intriguing query that was helpful in remembering that the “the happy

days” conception isn’t realistic.

Winston, Mathew. "Lolita' and the Dangers of Fiction." Twentieth Century Literature 21.4 (Dec.

1975): 421-427. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Roger Matuz and Cathy

Falk. Vol. 64. Detroit: Gale Research, 1991. Literature Resource Center. Web. 8 Mar.

2013.

In this piece of literary criticism, Mathew Winston summarizes Lolita and argues that Humbert is

a character with a personality comparable to Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. He shows Humbert as being a

pedophile and a murderer, but simultaneously, a literary genius and a linguistic artist. Winston

uses this analysis to expound upon Humbert’s major actions and the key plot points in Lolita.

This was a well-argued criticism that I was ultimately able to use it in supporting my claim that

Lolita shows love as inevitably leading to tragedy.

"Women's Roles in the 1950s." American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, et al. Vol. 6: 1950

1959. Detroit: Gale, 2001. 278-280. U.S. History In Context. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Judith S. Baughman illustrates the changing family dynamic of the 1950s as well

as the discrimination faced by women. She discusses the role of media as well as government

and how they affected 50s women. This article was extremely detailed, covering subjects such as

media perceptions, sexism, and rising divorce rates, just to name a few. I would recommend this

to anyone interested in the actuality of women’s roles in the 1950s.

Wright, David and Petra Press, Elly. America in the 20th Century. 2nd ed. Tarrytown: Marshall

Cavendish Corporation, 2003. Web.

David Wright and Elly Petra Press give a comprehensive analysis of the 1950s. They begin by

showing the “happy days” conception and consequently claiming that, below the surface, a mess

of problems was actually going on. The book then goes on to give the details of consumerism,

the Cold War, racism, television, and several other significant factors of the 1950s. The 1950s

are covered in depth and this became one of my most useful sources. Anyone researching the

1950s should refer to America in the 20th Century.