In the following essay on tyranny, I will analyze how Vladimir Nabokov exercises his power of authority in his book "Bend Sinister", playing the role of a tyrant. I will relate this to Aristotle's teachings on tyranny and to poetry or other forms of storytelling, in order to evaluate and justify Nabokov's use of tyranny. I hope to show that Nabokov's aim differed from stories based on "ideas" such as Orwell's "1984" that were popular at the time; he does not want to lead a person to a subhuman state, nor make great speeches on 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. First, I will examine 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 authority, how the metafictional factors of Nabokov's writings show his need for control and purpose. Through examples, I will show how Nabokov exercises this power over his characters. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay First, I want to examine 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. Even if Aristotle does not focus too much on tyranny in relation to the other five forms, we can understand the concept he was putting forward. He defines it as "the arbitrary power of an individual responsible to no one, and who governs all in the same way, whether they are equal or better, with a view to 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, uses tyranny to simulate this environment. The last sentence of the quote is also interesting, because the protagonist, Krug, is not able to escape Paduk's tyranny, here meanings can be deduced, firstly that he is not a "free man ", because he is strongly emotionally attached to his son. Second, one can also conclude that true escape eludes Nabokov and therefore he is incapable of escape. Bend Sinister is very special, as it contains two serape worlds, which I will refer to throughout the essay, one being the nation of Paduk, which lives within the lines of the book, and the other being the creation of Nabokov. This duality calls for more in-depth 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 of a tragedy and one can also observe how the former's approach to writing is entirely consistent with Aristotelian theory. Bend Sinister is harsh, full of cruelty and unfair scenarios, in which the reader can imagine themselves as a participant in the Milgram experiment, testing our limits and making us complicit in its injustice. The reason is that Nabokov wants to highlight the sins of lethargy and how silence can lead to tyrannical government. This is also seen in the novel, represented by the character Krug, whose rejection of the rise of Paduk, as well ashis 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 asserting that "through pity and fear the proper purgation (or catharsis) of these emotions is effected." The philosopher emphasized the need to experience these extreme emotions through fiction, in the manner of Nabokov, experiencing and observing the human response to tyranny through his own works. Although the author claims to neglect the influence of the politics of the time on his literature, he admits to having used "infamous models", but he does much more than simply imitate the discourse surrounding the political state of the world at the time. At the time, he claimed and satirized tyranny while pushing a classical liberal framework. This is why the second world appears and is present everywhere, and it is here that Nabokov exercises his tyranny, through language and metafictional characteristics, and performance. We must first identify this “second” world or the breaking of the “fourth wall” by the narrator or the creator of the situations in which the characters find themselves. In the introduction, Nabokov explains this presence, "an anthropomorphic divinity embodied by me [who] feels a pang of pity for his creature and hastens to take over." Nabokov manages to remain both inside and outside the novel, giving him a “God”-like status. The author was inclined to control his own narrative, his goal of restricting possible interpretations, and in this book in particular this is taken to the extreme. This is easily seen in the length of the introduction, its need to over-explain how apolitical this book is, and the rejection of interpretation as such. These interpretations would take away from the timeless fiction without didactic value that Nabokov seemed to put forward, even in Lolita, a much criticized book, the author wrote a relatively short introduction, which tells us the importance of the perception of Bend Sinister. Even in translations he appears tyrannical, in a letter to Wilson he writes "will not make any more rhyming translations - their dictatorship is absurd and impossible to reconcile with accuracy", this also underlines the importance he placed on the construction of its story, perhaps more than the plot itself. Thus, the metafictional level of this novel should give us a real sense of how Nabokov executed his tyranny and for what purpose. By showing his inner turmoil regarding the artistic philosophy popular at the time, it allowed him to inflict pain on his already unhappy characters. Perhaps the most extreme example in the book is Krug's death, or rather lack thereof. At the end of the book, the voice tries to save Krug by driving him crazy, then the protagonist charges at Paduk, but the dictator's soldiers are able to shoot him before Krug can even get close. It's very anti-climactic, especially considering its location at the end of the novel. The narrator says, “it had been proven to him that death was only a matter of style.” This execution, which leaves the reader dissatisfied, reduces the meaning of Krug's death to a stylistic feature, can appear formalistic and evokes the conditions of a concentration camp or a torture chamber. The loss of a person's identity, individuality and political value turns him into a "homo sacer" or a man who can be killed with impunity. While in Nazi Germany this concerned minority groups, such as Jews, in the Padouk police station, everyone is reduced to the state of being “homo sacer”. We see this when Paduk is able tokidnap and execute the people 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 sense of his tyranny. This circular pattern found in Paduk's Police State imitates a self-satisfying prophecy, through which Nabokov establishes a connection between the political tyrant and the writer himself, causing the reader to question his legitimacy. Thus, redefining the death of the characters, as a form of existential protest, pushing the individual forward even after their death, somehow surviving tyranny. Therefore, this supports the idea that, although the lack of narration of Krug's death is anticlimactic, its value lies in the choice of words and structure of the narration, which restores its meaning. Foucault maintained that “the production of discourse is intimately linked to the distribution of political power, by writing fiction, the writer has the capacity to change his environment, by distorting it”. to fit their narrative.” Nabokov's inspiration came from Lenin, as he studied how the latter's political speech affected his revolutionary authority. Figures like Marx or Hitler used literature to present themselves as the authors of their regimes, with citizens being abandoned to the “homo sacer” state and becoming puppets. Here is what critics see as a major contradiction in Bend Sinister, namely whether Nabokov is truly capable of depoliticizing his works. Describing himself as a "Swiss-style" writer, due to the neutrality of his works, "Politics and economics, atomic bombs, primitive and abstract art forms, the entire Orient, the symptoms of “thaw of Soviet Russia, the future of Russia”. Humanity, etc., leaves me supremely indifferent. However, some of the authors Nabokov admired, such as Shakespeare and Milton, were captivated by the power of the monarchy and based their plays on the sadness of the anxieties that arise from this position and hierarchical system. His use of "Lenin's speeches, a piece of the Soviet Constitution and Nazi pseudo-effectiveness" betrays his partisanship. Regardless, the use of such historical writings is quite light, especially in comparison to other political novels or novels based on "ideas". When we look at the relationship between authors and dictators, there is a feeling of disgust from the former towards the latter, but also of envy. The authors appropriate the identity of the political figure for their own exploration, but a certain admiration arises from the control exercised by the dictator 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 as he did when writing them. Risk becoming what they want 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 makes the reader want to blame Nabokov for what happens to him. the characters of the story. While in other texts which are also filled with torture, we do not draw this conclusion, the appearance of the divinity watching over everyone provokes this thought. The voice's self-awareness is present throughout the novel, as well as its apparent carelessness for the characters' lives making it complicit in its immorality. This gives rise to the Milgram comparison mentioned previously; by going further, the narrator makes himself not only an accomplice, but also a reader. By raising awareness of.