Extended Essay in
English A1
Points: 36/36
Grade: A
Note: This extended essay serves as an example essay that is meant to inspire you in you work
with your own extended essay. We hope that it is used for identifying elements that are good to
include in order to obtain the grade you strive for. Any plagarism is strictly forbidden.
BE YOUR VERY BEST
Name:
Subject:
English A1
Title:
How do Oscar Wilde in The Picture of Dorian
Gray and Vladimir Nabokov in The Eye use the
motif of mirrors, and to what effect?
Word Count:
3998
Candidate Number:
1
Abstract
This essay investigates the different ways in which Oscar Wilde in “The Picture
of Dorian Gray” and Vladimir Nabokov in “The Eye” use the motif of mirrors. It first
examines Wildeʼs use of mirrors to explore the separation of Dorianʼs body and
soul, as well as to contrast idealised versions of Dorian. It then discusses
Nabokovʼs use of mirrors to show the search for an elusive sense of authenticity,
and to create two antithetical Smurovs who are then merged in a series of
symmetries. This involves an examination of the ludic quality of Nabokovʼs
narrative style, as opposed to Wildeʼs more moralistic tone.
The essay then compares the nature of the protagonistsʼ physical duality and
contrasts that duality with the notion of the fragmented self, evaluating the use of
mirrors to explore different perceptions of human identity. Although the scope of
the essay will be limited to a close analysis of the two texts, it has been informed
by an awareness of the rich tradition of of the Doppelganger within literature,
ranging from Dostoevsky and Poe to Borges and Saramago.
Both authors use the motif of mirrors to explore the theme of duality and the
search for identity. Wilde uses mirrors to create a fable, in which the inability to
reconcile the socially acceptable and unacceptable elements within a person leads
to a loss of identity. However, Nabokov suggests there is no single authentic self,
rather an individualʼs personality is fragmented into a multiplicity of identities. Both
novels accept a conflict within human nature, suggesting that attempted division of
these results in a loss of authenticity. Both novels can thus be seen to be using
mirrors in order to comment on the inner confusion which results from an effort to
construct an authentic identity in a complex world.
Word Count : 297
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
p.4
Main Body
p.5
Conclusion
p.17
Bibliography
p.18
3
Introduction
Both Wildeʼs The Picture of Dorian Gray and Nabokovʼs The Eye can be identified as
Doppelganger novels by their themes of duality and the struggle for identity. However, it is
the motif of mirrors and their reflections which is used to contrast disparate aspects of the
protagonistsʼ characters, underlining their internal conflicts. Wilde uses dichotomous
mirrors; the portrait of Dorian painted by Basil Hayward which reflects Dorianʼs
conscience, and the physical mirror which simultaneously reflects his appearance.
Nabokov uses “thousands of mirrors” to explore the idea of a fragmented identity. Smurov
is shown using a series of mirrors in his search for an elusive sense of authenticity.
Nabokovʼs use of the mirror as the agent of both Smurovʼs self-alienation and
reconciliation also suggests a psychological motif which implicates Smurov as a
manipulative narrator.
This essay will first examine how Wilde uses an opposing set of mirrors to explore the
separation of Dorianʼs body and soul and his detachment from his conscience, before
going on to discuss Nabokovʼs use of mirrors to create two antithetical Smurovs who are
then merged in a series of symmetries. This will involve an examination of the ludic quality
of Nabokovʼs narrative style and the extent to which he plays with the reader in
manipulating perceptions of Smurov, as opposed to Wildeʼs more moralistic fable. The
essay will then compare the nature of the protagonistsʼ physical duality and contrast that
duality with the notion of the fragmented self, evaluating the differing comments on human
identity given by this nineteenth and this twentieth century novel.
4
Main Body
In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Wilde uses dual mirrors: the physical mirror given to
Dorian by Lord Henry and the “most magical of mirrors”1 that is his portrait. These
juxtapose beauty and conscience, exploring the duality of Dorianʼs life and the decline into
insanity that results from the separation of his body and soul. Wilde describes Dorian as
standing before the portrait whilst simultaneously looking in the mirror, and his pleasure in
the “sharpness of the contrast”2 between the two. The public, physical Dorian continues to
be beautiful, whilst the visible emblem of his consciousness deteriorates into monstrosity.
Wilde seems to adopt Borgesʼ notion that “The pleasures of this world would be the
torments of Hell, seen backwards in a mirror” 3. The unblemished beauty with which
Dorian initially enjoys the pleasures of life are reflected back to him in his portrait as the
“leprosies of sin”4 which destroy it. The physical mirror is symbolically given to Dorian by
Lord Henry, who represents the arrogance and shallowness of high nineteenth century
society. The act of Dorian looking into this mirror presages his slow metamorphosis into a
reflection of Lord Henry, which is shown in his diminishing morality and his philosophy.
Also, the notion of this society acting as a mirror which reflects the aesthetic ideal,
unaffected by sin or conscience, is an indictment of a society in which “manners are of
more importance than morals”.
The physical mirror is used to emphasise Dorianʼs detachment from his conscience. It
is later described as a “shield”. This metaphor of protection is expanded when Dorian
smashes the mirror, thus destroying his means of detachment. This abrupt synthesis of his
conscience and physicality instigates his death. During this fusion, Dorian becomes
1
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Group, London, 1985 p. 136
2
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Group, London, 1985 p.159
3
Borges, Jorge Luis. The Mirror of Enigmas
4
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Group, London, 1985 p. 191
5
“withered, wrinkled and loathsome of visage”. The final consummation reveals the true
image of Dorian, in which his soul and body finally become reflections of one another.
In the Preface, Wilde states that “The nineteenth-century dislike of Realism is the
rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass. The nineteenth century dislike of
Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in the glass.”5 This statement
incorporates the basis of Dorianʼs dilemma. He is unable to cope with the Realism of
seeing his true conscience, and his face as it should be, reflected back to him in the
portrait. Thus his hatred of the portrait is that of Caliban on seeing his own face. However,
he is also unable to bear his physical perfection reflected back to him in Lord Henryʼs
mirror, knowing that his guilt and shame are simply hidden. His hatred of the physical
mirror is therefore that of Caliban not seeing his own face in the mirror. The parallels
drawn between Dorian and Caliban have other implications for his search for identity.
Caliban was, according to Prospero 6, half devil, half human. Thus Dorianʼs rage at
Realism occurs when he sees the demonic part of his reflection, an image reiterated by
Basil on seeing the changed portrait, “It has the eyes of a devil” 7. By the time he realises
that the ugliness of the portrait, which “had once been hateful to him because it made
things real”8 , was in fact his “one reality” 9, he has committed too many sins, and his
physical life and his conscience have diverged too far for him to be able to reconcile them
into a living identity.
Realism and Romanticism are also contrasted by Basil and Lord Henryʼs idealised
versions of Dorian. The two mirrors are used to explore these ideals and their degradation
5
Wilde, Oscar. Preface to A Picture of Dorian Gray, Penguin Group, London, 1985
6
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest
7
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Group, London, 1985 p. 190
8
Ibid p. 222
9
Ibid p. 222
6
because of their unrealistic perceptions. The portrait was created by Basil to mirror his
idolatry of Dorian as “such an ideal as I shall never meet again” 10. It reflects not only his
perception of Dorianʼs physical beauty, but also encompasses his perception of Dorianʼs
character, “The moral life of man forms part of the subject matter of the artist”11. Basil
created from Dorian the image of perfection, quickened by a potentially homo-erotic
fascination, likening him to Antinous12 . The degradation of the portrait demonstrates
Basilʼs unrealistic perception of Dorian, but also the unrealistic hopes which he had for
their relationship, constrained as it was by both society and Dorianʼs own disinterest. The
mirror thereby slowly comes to reflect realism, as opposed to romanticism, and this realism
destroys Basilʼs ideal, for when he sees the realism he says of his ideal, “there was
nothing evil in it. Nothing shameful”13. Dorian then points out that “Each of us has Heaven
and Hell in him”14 . This religious reference emphasises the extent to which Basil glorified
the “Heaven” of Dorian, and rejected all that was “Hell”, resulting in an incomplete idealistic
perception, which proved too perfect and too fragile to endure.
The physical mirror reflects Lord Henryʼs ideal of Dorian. This too is influenced by
sentiment. Here, Lord Henryʼs narcissistic attitudes towards his own wit and personality
lead him to create a duplicate of himself in Dorian. Lord Henry is able to ignore his
conscience and disregard the emotions of others. He effectively poaches Dorian from Basil
without guilt. Henry tries to instil this ability into Dorian, thus creating the image of perfect
beauty and youth, untouched by remorse. However, Dorian cannot ultimately disregard his
10
Ibid p. 190
11
Ibid, Preface
12
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray p. 32 Penguin Group, London, 1985
Antinous was the rumoured lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who was famed for his beauty, and who,
having been deified after his death, has thus become a symbol of virtue.
13
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Group, London, 1985 p. 190
14
Wilde, Oscar. A Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Group, London, 1985 p. 190
7
guilt. By the time he learns to reject Lord Henryʼs ideal, culminating in the smashing of the
mirror, the more virtuous ideal has been marred by his sins, and it is too late to merge
these two ideals successfully into a reality which Dorian can survive.
Whilst Wilde uses two dichotomous mirrors to present two different ideals and
perceptions of the man, representing separately his body and his soul, The Eye depicts
Smurov using a series of mirrors in order to attempt to create an identity which he can
accept. Smurov disassociates himself from his own personality, and creates a mirror
image for himself, whom he speaks of as if he were simply another acquaintance within his
circle. He then attempts to uncover the true identity and personality of this acquaintance,
using the perceptions of others as mirrors to reflect different parts or interpretations of his
character.
Smurovʼs self-hatred and his alienation from himself to form two parallel Smurovs
begins with a reflection of himself in a physical mirror. As a single individual, Smurov is
oppressed by a constant feeling of self-awareness, “even in sleep I did not cease to watch
over myself...growing crazy at the thought of not being able to stop being aware of
myself”15. He recognised his loneliness and lack of confidence, and ultimately his inability
to defend himself, “not being versed in the manly arts”16. It is viewing himself in the mirror
of his bedroom as “a wretched, shivering, vulgar little man”17 that quickly leads to his
ʻsuicideʼ.
Nabokov states that each character is simply a mirror reflecting Smurov. Therefore,
when Smurov says, ʻThat is the glimpse I caught of myself in the mirrorʼ18, this mirror
15
Nabokov, Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 17
16
Ibid p. 23
17
Ibid p. 26
18
Ibid p. 26
8
serves as an insight into Smurovʼs perception of himself as a single individual. Here we
see Smurovʼs true view of himself, and comprehend his need to create another, using
reflections of himself through the eyes of others. It is possible to view this creation of two
Smurovs, one in reality and one in the mirror, as the first step towards his division. It is the
first time we see Smurov physically viewing himself. It is at this point, where he separates
himself into two images and he sees the extent of his wretchedness, that he decides to
continue this severance and create for himself the antithesis of what he sees in the mirror.
This division liberates him from the previous constraints of his personality, specifically his
inability to stop his self-observance and self-criticism. Thus the “I” which was so self-aware
now becomes the “eye”, which spies upon himself, absorbing the impressions of others
about himself.
It is important that both Smurovʼs alienation and final coalescence with his double are
connected to the mirror. Whilst a mirror heightens his self-loathing and prompts his
attempted suicide, it is also in a mirror that Smurov and his double reconcile, “that
reflection and I merged into one.” As the mirror is the trigger for both division and
synthesis, it reveals how Smurov perceives both himself and his ideal. Despite the fact that
it was his self-realisation that caused him to diverge into two, it is also only the acceptance
that the double is just a mirror image of himself that causes Smurov to reject the duality
and submit to his former self. This is reinforced by the image of both men wearing bowler
hats and carrying bouquets. It is this unification that also sparks Smurov to accept his fate
of lack of identity, or at least the lack of an identity which he can accept.
Nabokov uses the initial stark contrast between the two images of Smurov and the
deterioration of this contrast to emphasise the falsity of the idealised Smurov. Initially, the
double is the complete reverse of Smurovʼs perceptions of himself. He is “well
proportioned and dapper...intelligent”, contrasting to the “vulgar little man” he was
9
previously. His perception of the idealised Smurov takes on a romantic tone, as he
compliments every aspect of his perfected double. The potentially homosexual nature of
the relationship between Smurov and his double is reinforced by Bogdanovichʼs
description of Smurov as a “sexual lefty”, as well as a kleptomaniac. Smurov vigourously
denies being a thief. However, he cannot face the “sexual lefty” charge, as this lies at the
centre of his dilemma, namely the narcissism and homo-eroticism of the doppelganger.
Having set up these contrasting doubles, Nabokov uses a series of symmetries to
merge Smurov and his ideal. Nabokov takes events known to have happened in Smurovʼs
real life before his ʻsuicideʼ, and projects these experiences onto the new Smurov, this time
transforming them into heroic episodes. Nabokov includes mention of violence with
Kashmarin in a conversation between Smurov and Bogdanovich. The new Smurov
responds in a way which causes the on-looking Smurov to comment that “he was
doubtless capable...of slashing a chap into bits”, the completely opposite reaction to that
which he had during his actual confrontation with Kashmarin. Nabokov here creates a link
to Smurovʼs old life, thus drawing parallels between the two doubles, establishing a direct
comparison between their reactions. Likewise, Smurovʼs bungled suicide attempt is
transformed into a wound received during military combat19 . However, this heroic
interpretation is proven false when Mukhin comments that “Yalta does not have a railroad
station”. At this point, the ideal of Smurov begins to be destroyed, “The marvellous soap
bubble...with the curved reflection...on its glossy side, grows, expands, and suddenly is no
longer there”. This metaphor highlights the fragility of the idealised Smurov, likening it to
something man-made and transient. The words ʻcurvedʼ and ʻglossyʼ stress the unrealistic
nature of the romanticised Smurov, emphasising that the real image has been shaped and
polished by the narrator. The “bubble” describes perfectly the false safety which Smurov
had created by making such an ideal. The reflection of Smurov curved into a more perfect
19Nabokov,
Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 53
10
model is burst, and so the ideal is revealed as, “but a commonplace blabber, by now
unmasked”.
Nabokov suggests that the fragmentation of Smurovʼs character into the “thousands
of mirrors20” results in thousands of identities which are too different to be reconciled to
give a full image of Smurov. He introduces the idea that in order to accurately define even
one image of Smurov, one would need to be familiar with “all the secondary associations
that came alive inside [her] when she looked at Smurov - other reminiscences, other
chance impressions and all those lighting effects that vary from soul to soul”21. The use of
the metaphor ʻlighting effectsʼ in the third part of this emphatic tricolon connotes Smurov as
a character in a play. This visual image acts as a reminder of the falsity of the idealised
character of Smurov, and explores the existential idea that Smurov does not have an
authentic identity, but is constantly measuring the responses of different audiences in
order to discover one.
These ʻlighting effectsʼ prevent the mirrors from reflecting a complete image of Smurov
in two ways. Firstly, it would be impossible for Smurov to know all of the experiences
influencing the way in which Marianna, or any of the other “mirrors” views him. Secondly,
even were this possible, the “lighting effects” dictate that each of these images would be
different, and therefore Smurov would be unable to synthesise them into one true
reflection. Smurovʼs character is therefore fragmented into many different parts, which he
cannot merge into one identity, or at least into one identity which can be correctly
interpreted by society as a whole. Thus he is forced to conclude, “I alone do not exist”.
Smurov narrates as an onlooker to his own life, conveying the views of others about
himself. This could allow him to manipulate these views. The narrator sees those around
20
Nabokov, Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 105
21
Nabokov, Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 61
11
him as “not live beings but only chance mirrors for Smurov”, each revealing something
new about Smurovʼs true character. It is these reflections that Smurov says make up his
being, suggesting that the character is simply made up of other peopleʼs perceptions of
him, “I do not exist: there exist but the thousands of mirrors that reflect me.” 22
Andrew Field notes that as the narrator, ʻSmurov himself, controlling the mirrors, also
effectively controls the confusing picture of himself that emerges from themʼ 23. Thus ʻthe
most unflattering views then belong to him fully as much as do the naively flattering
onesʼ24. This idea questions the extent to which each of these views is actually a reflection
of the perceptions of other characters. The alternative is that they are manipulated by
Smurov with the intention of creating a confusing image of himself in order to detract from
the fact that authentic identity constantly eludes him.
Nabokov, who was ʻexposed since tender boyhood to Anna Kareninʼ25, includes a
similar pattern of symmetry and coincidence regarding Smurovʼs cycle of disassociation as
Tolstoy uses to explore the cycle of Annaʼs love affair with Vronsky. If it is accepted that
Smurov is the controller of the information passed to the reader, and therefore that
patterns within the narrative are psychological as opposed to novelistic, then the recurrent
motifs in the novel suggest that the character of Smurov constructs his life story in a
consciously poetic fashion, using a series of motifs and patterns. The mirror is an example
of these patterns. Just as Tolstoy employs the motif of the train to both initiate and end
Annaʼs love for Vronsky, so Nabokov uses the motif of the mirror to signal both Smurovʼs
sense of alienation and ultimately of reconciliation with himself. This is corroborated when
Evgenia Khrushchov reveals that the maidʼs lover, who the reader knows to be Smurov,
22
Nabokov, Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 105
23
Field, Andrew Nabokov : His life in Art, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1967
24
Field, Andrew Nabokov : His life in Art, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1967
25
Nabokov, Vladimir: Preface to ʻKing, Queen, Knaveʼ Oxford University Press, Guernsey 1988
12
was ʻa foreign poet26 ʼ. This seems to prove Smurov as the conscious architect of the
readerʼs perceptions of him, which is further evidence that he deliberately controls the
ʻmirrorsʼ.
Considering Nabokovʼs other experiments with unreliable narration, most obviously in
Despair and Lolita, it is likely that Smurov manipulates the ʻthousands of mirrorsʼ for his
own purposes. As Field concludes, ʻthe point of the novella may be precisely the creation
of a multiplicity and disparity of impressions and images, each of which becomes a “little
Smurov” with an artistic life of its own”27 . This contrivance highlights Nabokovʼs ludic
narrative style. Nabokov playfully experiments with the narrative in order to sabotage the
expectations of the reader. He thereby creates a self-conscious narrative style which
comments on the craft of writing and its power to manipulate the readerʼs perceptions.
Both Wilde and Nabokov use the image of mirrors to explore the theme of duality and
the search for identity, with different conclusions. Whilst it is evident by the end of Dorian
Gray that the living Dorian can have no real identity, the question as to whether Smurov is
left as such by the end of The Eye is complicated by Nabokovʼs use of mirrors to explore
duality and fragmentation.
One differing aspect of each protagonistʼs sense of duality is the extent to which they
physically divide to form two characters. Unlike Dorian, Smurov is able to synthesise back
into a single person at will. Dorianʼs duality becomes steadily more polarised throughout
the novel, as his two mirrors reflect increasingly contrasting images. By contrast, the two
Smurovs progressively merge. This diversity is emphasised in the final synthesis of each
of the protagonists. Whereas Dorianʼs two ʻmirrorsʼ can only unite through destruction, pain
26
Nabokov, Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 80
27
Field, Andrew Nabokov : His life in Art, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1967
13
and death, the two Smurovʼs merge effortlessly: “That reflection and I merged into one. I
walked out into the street.” The disparity between the two outcomes can be traced to the
origins of their separations. Although Dorian says that he would “give his soul” if the
portrait could grow old instead of him, his duality is more truly created for him by Lord
Henry and Basil. The former initiated Dorianʼs vanity by declaring that there is “absolutely
nothing in the world but youth”. By contrast, Smurovʼs duality is self-created, if not selfimagined. It is by his own ʻsuicideʼ that he becomes a double, and it is only internally that
he is ever seen as two people. To the outside world, he is still one individual, shown
explicitly when the narrator adopts the body of Smurov in order to intercept Bogdanovichʼs
letter.
Dorianʼs duality comprises a division between his body and his soul, and exists
between a human and an inanimate object, the portrait. There is therefore a physical
barrier between his two selves. Smurovʼs duality, however, does not remove any part of
him into another body or object. Smurov becomes an onlooker on his own life, and
therefore his duality can be seen as development of the metaphor that he is simply an
“unblinking eye”, watching both himself and others. If this is accepted, Smurovʼs identity is
never truly divided. Therefore in terms of duality he enjoys a more complete identity by the
end of the novel.
However, Smurovʼs suggestion that all that exists are phantoms of himself created by
each new acquaintance implies a continuing lack of selfhood. Nabokov fragments
Smurovʼs character into reflections through the eyes of many people, in order to show that
they all have different perceptions of him. Perhaps influenced by life as an exile, Nabokov
comments that the image of a character is “influenced by the climatic conditions prevailing
in various souls - that within a cold soul he assumed one aspect but in a glowing one had
14
a different colouration”28. Smurov is thus fragmented into the different identities, which are
impossible to synthesise. Nabokovʼs point here is, perhaps, that such a thing as one
authentic identity does not exist.
The essential difference between the novels is that whilst Wilde uses duality to
explore the struggle of the individual to find his identity, Nabokov complicates this by also
exploring the perception of a personʼs identity multiplied by the external world. Dorianʼs
identity has been split into a hidden terror and an outward perfection. This is achieved by
the creation of a wicked alter ego. In this respect, Dorian Gray can be seen as
representative of late nineteenth century Doppelganger fiction. Works such as The
Double29 and William Wilson 30 also explore the concept of a secondary personality onto
which all of the bad characteristics of the original person are projected. These seem to
explore divisions within the individual, anticipating Freudʼs notion of the ʻIdʼ and
ʻSuperegoʼ 31. The evil ʻdoubleʼ in these novels embodies the ʻIdʼ, which carries out
impulses unchecked by conscience. Wildeʼs contemporary, R. L. Stevenson explores the
same idea in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 32. In attempting to divide the “Heaven” and “Hell”
within him, Jekyll unleashes the monster Hyde which ultimately leads to his own
destruction. The inability to reconcile that which is good and that which is evil in both of
these novels leads to the confusion and eventual destruction of the characterʼs identity.
This use of mirrors to explore what is essentially a moral fable contrasts with Nabokovʼs
manipulation of the motif to create a ludic voice. It is therefore possible to conclude that
28
Nabokov, Vladimir. ʻThe Eyeʼ. Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 p. 60
29
Dostoevsky, Fyodor The Double Hesperus Press Ltd, Great Britain 2004
30
Poe, Edgar Allan William Wilson. From Selected Tales, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998
31
Freudʼs Theory of Psychoanalysis described the Superego as the part of the personʼs psyche which acts
as a self-critical conscience reflecting social standards. The Id is described as the part of the mind which
hosts the innate instinctive impulses. The Ego is the mediator between the conscious and unconscious,
responsible for a sense of personal identity.
32
Stevenson, R. L. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Wordsworth Editions Ltd, Great Britain, 1993
15
Wilde is more concerned with using mirrors to convey a moral dilemma, whereas Nabokov
uses them in conjunction with the notion of an elusive authentic identity in order to
experiment with the manipulation of narrative style.
16
Conclusion
Both Wilde and Nabokov use the motif of mirrors to explore the theme of duality and
the search for identity. In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Wilde uses dual mirrors to juxtapose
Dorianʼs beauty and conscience, and the detachment of Dorian from the latter. He also
uses mirrors to contrast Basil and Lord Henryʼs idealised versions of Dorian. These
highlight Dorianʼs sense of duality and his failed attempt to separate the physical and
spiritual aspects of his life. Nabokov uses the mirror as a symbol to indicate Smurovʼs
alienation and eventual reconciliation. He seems to suggest that the fragmentation of
Smurovʼs character into the “thousands of mirrors” results in thousands of identities which
are too different to be reconciled. The mirror is also used as a motif which suggests
psychological patterns and unreliable narration.
The novels differ in that whilst Wilde uses duality to explore the struggle of the
individual to find his identity, Nabokov complicates this by also exploring the perception of
a personʼs identity multiplied by the external world. Nabokov encapsulates the twentieth
century idea that there is no single authentic self, rather an individualʼs personality is
fragmented into a multiplicity of identities. The motifʼs suggestion of psychological patterns
and unreliable narration highlights Nabokovʼs ludic interest in the construction of the novel.
Wildeʼs use of mirrors creates a moralistic fable, in which the inability to reconcile the
socially acceptable and unacceptable elements within a person leads to a loss of identity.
He seems to conclude that an authentic identity is achievable if these two forces are
reconciled. Both novels accept a conflict between dual aspects of human nature, each
suggesting that an attempt at the division of these, in an effort to create an idealised
character, results in a loss of authenticity. Both novels can thus be seen as commentaries
on the inner confusion which results from an effort to construct an authentic identity in a
complex world.
17
Bibliography
Novels:
Author
Title
Publication details
Dostoevsky, Fyodor
The Double
Hesperus Press Ltd, Great Britain 2004
Nabokov, Vladimir
The Eye
Panther Books, Great Britain 1968 Trans. Dimitri Nabokov
Nabokov, Vladimir
King, Queen, Knave
Oxford University Press, Guernsey 1988
Nabokov, Vladimir
Despair
Vintage Entertainment, USA 1989
Nabokov, Vladimir
Lolita
Penguin Classics, Great Britain 2000
Poe, Edgar Allan
William Wilson
Selected Tales Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998
Stevenson, R. L.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Wordsworth Editions Ltd, Great Britain, 1993
Wilde, Oscar
A Picture of Dorian Gray
Penguin Group, London, 1985
Plays:
Shakespeare, William
The Tempest
Essays:
Borges, Jorge Luis
The Mirror of Enigmas
Labyrinth, Penguin, Great Britain 2000
Nabokov : His life in Art
Hodder & Stoughton, London 1967
Biographies:
Field, Andrew
18