Are we judging the character, or are we judging the crime? The point is not to jump hastily to conclusions.
Essentially, I got my point about self-control from the line, "years of secret sufferings had taught me superhuman self-control." The way I see it, it takes a lot of self-control to fight the illicit desires a person like Hum has. That doesn't change what he did, but what I got from the story is that the only reason he went so far is because he had found himself faced with such a rare and perfect opportunity.
I mean, it's not like he was going around drugging 14 year old girls left and right. That sequence was the result of a long period of escalation which involved quite a bit of Hum controlling his desires. If he was the sort to act rashly on his impulses, he would have been on Lo - and thus, out of the house - long before having a chance to arouse Mother Haze's affections, and thus create an opportunity to sidle his way into the family.
Furthermore, he may have been misguided, and his judgement may have been clouded, but Humbert had convinced himself that what he intended to do was harmless - that Lo would never even know his true intentions. That still doesn't make it right, but it's a long way from forcing yourself on someone in the heat of a moment.
As for the rest of the relationship, it evolved as a result of Lo drawing Hum in much deeper than he had planned on going. Not to say that it was Lo's fault, but it wasn't Humbert's expectation for things to progress so heavily. And though he may not have accepted it at the time (because he was trying to make the most of the rare situation fate had handed him), he does eventually awaken to the gravity of his crime.
Indeed, in the very end, when he contemplates the charges brought against him, Humbert judges himself guilty of rape, but not murder. You see, he regretted his corruption of Lo, but on the count of murdering Quilty, he figured he must have done the world a favor. Quilty is the one who deserves no remorse. He exploited many more victims, and with much less concern for their wellbeing. He lacked the love and the passion that Humbert possessed, and he also lacked the empathy to acknowledge his crimes.
On the other hand, though tragically flawed, Humbert possessed certain admirable qualities - not least of which, a passionate romanticism and literary wit able to turn such a sordid affair into a rather beautiful tale. He couldn't avoid the unfortunate fate that awaited him, and it may be said that his fate was wholly deserved. But it is indeed true that there are parts of him, and his struggle, that are deserving of our sympathy.
reply
share
jinx_malone
15 years ago
i agree with basically everything you've said here, but my one problem with all of it is that i believe humbert to be an 'unreliable narrator'. the only things i believe to be honestly true in the book are the following:
humbert was in love with lolita, even after she had grown up and was pregnant with another man's child. he remained in love with her even after she told him there could never be anything between them.
humbert killed quilty for what quilty had done both to himself and to lo.
humbert and lo are both dead at the close of the novel.
i think it's a beautifully written book, but i'm never really quite sure what's real and what's not, even after having read it over twenty times.
-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch
reply
share
zharth
15 years ago
Honestly, I hear a lot about how Humbert is supposed to be an "unreliable narrator", but I feel like painting him as such is just too easy. He's a pervert, so clearly his words can't be trusted, right? Well, he does use very poetic language to tell such a sordid tale, but even if he takes some poetic license, does that necessarily mean that he's lying to us about his true deeds and feelings?
From the beginning, it's understood that he's writing for the purpose of defending himself - often he addresses the jury in his narration - so it's not unreasonable to assume that he's making an effort to present himself as best as possible under his circumstances, I'll grant you that. But even that pretext vanishes towards the end of the story, and we learn that, somewhere along the way, Humbert's purpose has transformed from defending himself to expressing his personal perspective on the whole unfortunate business of his relationship with Lo - to confess, as it were, his true feelings, that he was unable to transmit to Lo - and if not to Lo herself, then to the rest of the world. And it is this that I think the real purpose of the story is.
Indeed, it would be silly to suggest that the possibility of deception in Humbert's tale is insubstantial. But I don't think we really get that much out of actively doubting him, except for the moral comfort of being able to render even such an eloquent narrator as he is, as the perverted monster we all want to believe him to be. Contrarily, I think that taking him for his word, and allowing for the possibility that, despite his flaws and his faults, he is, ultimately, not so bad a person, offers a reading with a lot more value to our general cultural landscape, which is so quick to condemn that which it does not understand.
reply
share
jinx_malone
15 years ago
oh, please--don't get me wrong! i don't think humbert is unreliable because he's a pervert, or because he's trying to get out of what he's done, or what have you. i think he's unreliable because nabokov has always been a particularly tricky writer for me, and i still can't tell quite what i think about humbert having read it many, many times.
which i think is part of the beauty of the whole thing.
lolita is one of the most wonderfully penned works in the english language, perhaps in any language, and i hate to see it get a ridiculous and foolish reputation based on the opinions of people who think it's a 'story about a pervert'. it might be--and some days i'm not even sure about THAT--but i do know that it is a brilliant tragedy, and it does deal with real love.
i also think that the lyne version is at least, the most faithful to the book. just to keep it on point.
-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch
reply
share
MysteryReaderReturns
14 years ago
Thanks zharth for your disgusting & shallow defense of one of the most cruel characters in fiction ever written.
If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!
reply
share
butaneggbert
9 years ago
zharth, have you ever read the annotated version of the novel? It is absolutely amazing, and makes it clear that Humbert isn't unreliable because he's a pedophile, but because he's a puppet of the true narrator - Nabokov. And Nabokov relishes playing every possible game with, on, and through Humbert.
There's just no way to get it all by simply reading the book - even reading it 100 times. Nabokov draws on too many sources for any one person to follow his bread crumbs. The joy of the annotated version is that a passionate, slavishly devoted academic tracked down all the goodies and lays them out for the reader.
I'll be honest: I'm pretty smart, and fairly well educated. Even with the notes in the book, some elements still went right through and out of my brain without my fully grasping them. But the book is infinitely deeper and easier to see in all its facets now, even if I don't get it all.
I can't fathom how this could have fully come across in a live-action movie. Irons' narration brings some bits of it in. Maybe as an animation with a proscenium arch and a godlike puppetmaster swooping in and out of the frame ... ;)
Anyway. Get that version of the book. It's a joy, and I get the feeling from your post that you'll enjoy it a lot.
reply
share