In the following essay on tyranny, I will analyze how Vladimir Nabokov exercises his authoritative power in his book "Bend Sinister", playing the role of a tyrant. I will connect this with Aristotle's teachings on tyranny and poetry or other forms of storytelling, in order to evaluate and justify Nabokov's use of tyranny. I hope to demonstrate that Nabokov's goal was different from the stories based on "ideas" like Orwell's "1984" that were popular at the time, not meant to lead a person to a subhuman state, or make grand speeches about morality or philosophical theories . Nabokov wants, through a simulated police state, to explore the dignity of citizens, and in particular of the protagonist, Krug, in the face of such tyranny. Firstly, I will look at Aristotle's theory of 'tyranny', ethics and morality in fiction, and how these compare to Nabokov, which will be reflected throughout the essay. Second, focusing primarily on the introduction and final chapter of the book, I will examine the connection between an author and an authority, how the metafictional factors of Nabokov's writings show his need for control and his purpose. Through examples I will show how Nabokov exerts this power over his characters. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First I want to see how Aristotle's theories come into play when analyzing Nabokov's works. The phrase "Tyranny can also turn into tyranny" was written by the Greek philosopher in his book "Politics" and is considered one of the 6 forms of government. Although Aristotle does not dwell too much on Tyranny compared to the other five forms, we can grasp the concept he was proposing. He defined it as "the arbitrary power of an individual responsible to no one, and ruling all alike, equal or better, aiming for his own advantage, not that of his subjects, and therefore against their will." No free man, if he can escape it, will endure such a government." We can see how Nabokov, in his exploration of tyranny and its effects on individuals, manages to simulate that environment with Tyranny. The last sentence of the quote is also interesting, since the protagonist, Krug, cannot escape Paduk's tyranny, here the meanings can be deduced, firstly that he is not a "free man", because he is strongly emotionally attached to his son. Secondly, it can also be concluded that the real escape occurs from Nabokov's grip, and he is therefore unable to escape. Bend Sinister is very special, as it contains two serape worlds, which I will refer to throughout the essay, one is the nation of Paduk, who lives within the lines of the book, and the other is Nabokov's creation. This duality requires further analysis. in Nabokov's intentions, which I will relate to Aristotle's theory on the relationship between ethics and poetry. Nabokov's novel follows the Aristotelian rules for a tragedy and one can also observe how the former's approach to writing is very much in line with Aristotelian theory. Bend Sinister is harsh, full of cruelty and unjust scenarios, in which the reader can imagine themselves as a participant in the Milgram experiment, testing our limits and making us complicit in its iniquity. The reason is that Nabokov wants to highlight the sins of lethargy and how one's silence can lead to a tyrannical government. This is also seen in the novel, represented by the character of Krug, whose rejection of Paduk's rise, as well as his inability to see him as an adversary given his past history, gives way to the victory of the dictators. This theme is also present throughout the book.This follows Aristotle's approach to poetry, contradicting that of Plato, the former arguing: "Through pity and fear the proper purgation (or catharsis) of these emotions is achieved." The philosopher emphasized the need to experience these extreme emotions through fiction, just as Nabokov does by experiencing and watching the human response to tyranny through his own works. Although the author claims to overlook the influence of the politics of the time on his literature, he admits to using "infamous models", but does much more than simply imitate the discourse surrounding the political state of the world at the time, but it also vindicates and satirizes tyranny while pushing a classical liberal framework. This is why the second world appears and is present everywhere, and this is where Nabokov exercises his tyranny, through language, metanarrative features, and performance. We must first identify this "second" world or the breaking of the "fourth wall" by the narrator or creator of the situations in which the characters find themselves. In the introduction, Nabokov explains this presence, “an anthropomorphic deity personified by me [who] feels a pang of pity for his creature and is quick to take command.” Nabokov manages to stay one foot in and one foot out of the novel, which gives him a "God"-like status. The author was inclined to control his narrative, his goal of narrowing the field of possible interpretations, in this book in particular, this is taken to the extreme. This can easily be seen from the length of the introduction, its need to explain how apolitical this book is, and the rejection of an interpretation as such. These interpretations would take away the timeless narrative with no didactic value that Nabokov seemed to propose, even in Lolita, a much criticized book, the author wrote a relatively short introduction, which tells us how important the perception of Bend Sinister was. Even in translations he appears tyrannical, in a letter to Wilson he writes "I will no longer do any rhyming translations - their dictatorship is absurd and impossible to reconcile with accuracy", this also highlights the importance he placed on the construction of his story , perhaps more than the plot itself. Therefore the metafictional level of this novel should give us a real idea of ​​how Nabokov exercised his tyranny and for what purpose. By showing his inner turmoil over what artistic ethic was popular at the time, it allowed him to inflict pain on his already hapless characters. Perhaps the most extreme example in the book is Krug's death, or lack thereof. At the end of the book, the voice tries to save Krug by driving him crazy, then the protagonist charges Paduk but the dictator's soldiers manage to shoot him before Krug can even get close. It is highly anticlimactic, especially if we take into account its placement at the end of the novel. The narrator says, "he had been shown that death was nothing more than a matter of style." This execution, which leaves us readers dissatisfied by reducing the meaning of Krug's death to a stylistic trait, may appear formalistic and evokes the conditions of a concentration camp or a torture chamber. The stripping of someone's identity, their individuality and political value, leaves them to be a "homo sacer" or a man who can be killed with impunity. While in Nazi Germany this concerned minority groups, such as the Jews, in the Paduk police district everyone is reduced to the state of being of "homo sacer". We see this as Paduk is able to kidnap and execute those closest to Krug to use them as leverage. The circular structure and recurring images are also key elements of Nabokov's writing and reflect the meaning behind thehis tyranny. This circular pattern found in Paduk's police state, imitates a self-fulfilling prophecy, with which Nabokov draws a connection between the political tyrant and the writer himself, which makes the reader question its legitimacy. Thus, redefining the death of the characters, as a form of existential protest, pushing the individual forward even after his death, somehow surviving the tyranny. Therefore, this further supports the point that, although the lack of narration of Krug's death is disappointing, its value lies in the choice of words and the structure of the narrative, which gives it back its meaning. Foucault argued that “the production of discourse is intimately linked to the distribution of political power, in writing fiction, writers have the ability to change their environment, distorting it to suit their narrative.” Nabokov's inspiration came from Lenin, as he studied how the latter's political speech influenced his revolutionary authority. Figures like Marx or Hitler used literature to position themselves as authors of their regimes, as citizens were left in the state of “homo sacer” and became their puppets. This is what critics perceive as a great contradiction in Bend Sinister, whether Nabokov is really able to depoliticize his works. Portraying himself as a 'Swiss-style' writer, due to the neutrality of his works, 'Politics and economics, atomic bombs, primitive and abstract art forms, the whole East, symptoms of the 'thaw in Soviet Russia, the future of Humanity, and so on, leave me supremely indifferent." However, some of the authors admired by Nabokov, such as Shakespeare or Milton, were fascinated by the power of the monarchy and based their works on the sadness that came from that position and the hierarchical system. The use he then made of "Lenin's speeches, a piece of the Soviet Constitution and fragments of Nazi pseudo-efficiency" betrays his factionalism. Regardless, the use of such historical writings is quite light, especially compared to other political novels or "Idea" based novels. When you look at the relationship between authors and dictators, you feel a sense of disgust towards the former, but also of envy. The authors assume the identity of the political figure for their exploration, yet there is a certain admiration that comes from the dictator's control over their state. Especially with authors like Nabokov, who wants his readers, critics or any other type of commentator, to have the same interpretation of his works that he had when he wrote them. At the risk of becoming what they set out to destroy. However, Nabokov can also be seen as a "hawk"-like figure, perhaps due to his constant movement given the political state of the countries in which he resided. Nabokov's narrator also leads the reader to want to blame Nabokov for what is happening to him. the characters in the story. While in other texts, also full of torture, this conclusion is not reached, the appearance of the divinity who watches over everyone provokes this thought. The voice's self-consciousness is present throughout the novel, just as its apparent inattention to the characters' lives makes it complicit in their immorality. This kicks off the Milgram comparison mentioned earlier, going further, the narrator not only makes himself complicit, but also the reader. By making the reader aware of the fictional genocide, the act of turning the page becomes powerful. Achieving more than just a shared feeling of guilt from the readers, Nabokov also takes control and uses satire of the political era and turns the act of reading into the conditioning of a liberal conscience. This still supports one.