Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Peter]

In response to the title of this thread:
The pope is catholic.

[Emma]

Fatin wrote: "Yes, I completely agree. And of course the book is about so much more than just paedophilia. But my problem is that I've read a lot of reviews and discussion threads where people are defending him ..."

This happens in real life all the time. Too much make-up, not enough education, drug using parents, no religion, had an abortion at 13... people come up with ways to justify abuse and rape on a daily basis. It's one of mankind’s most disgusting characteristics.

I found this book so hard to read because I kept becoming a bit fond of Humbert and then he'd say something that reminds you that his love-interest was a child, which bought me back to the reality of the book with a sickening thump. Obviously this was followed by revulsion and I felt that I had been groomed almost as much as Lolita! As other's have pointed out, this is the genius of Nabokov ... he reminds us in gut rendering ways that people are complex and our tendencies to judge and forgive are rarely based solely on facts.

The thought of this book still makes me shudder.

[Scott]

Emma wrote: "This happens in real life all the time. Too much make-up, not enough education, drug using parents, no religion, had an abortion at 13... people come up with ways to justify abuse and rape on a daily basis. It's one of mankind’s most disgusting characteristics."

Religion, yes, that's sure to prevent abuse. LOL

[Sam]

Humbert is the classic case of an unreliable narrator, but even he will let his guard down and seems occasionally to have moments of clarity.
I have just finished rereading the novel . It has many arresting moments but the following passage stopped me dead, it is one of Humberts more tormented reflections...
-
And I have still other smothered memories, now unfolding themselves into limbless monsters of pain. Once, in a sunset-ending street of Beardsley, she turned to little Eva Rosen (I was taking both nymphets to a concert and walking behind them so close as almost to touch them with my person), she turned to Eva, and so very serenely and seriously, in answer to something the other had said about its being better to die than hear Milton Pinski, some local schoolboy she knew, talk about music, my Lolita remarked: "You know, what's so dreadful about dying is that you are completely on your own"; and it struck me, as my automaton knees went up and down, that I simply did not know a thing about my darling's mind and that quite possibly, behind the awful juvenile clichès, there was in her a garden and a twilight, and a palace gate--dim and adorable regions which happened to be lucidly and absolutely forbidden to me, in my polluted rags and miserable convulsions; for I often noticed that living as we did, she and I, in a world of total evil, we would become strangely embarrassed whenever I tried to discuss something she and an older friend, she and a parent, she and a real healthy sweetheart, I and Annabel, Lolita and a sublime, purified, analyzed, deified Harold Haze, might have discussed--an abstract idea, a painting, stippled Hopkins or shorn Baudelaire, God or Shakespeare, anything of genuine kind.
-
For a brief moment he sees that Lolita has her own mind and an existence beyond his own desire for her, but it comes too late and is somewhat brushed aside as he quickly assimilates this into his own selfish outlook when wondering what he himself could have gained from better knowing Lolita. I find that this passage reveals a great deal about the narrator but, rather than exonorating him as some may think, serves only to condemn him further.
The moral problems written into this book and the disturbing nature of the subject matter are not reasons to dislike it but are virtues to be celebrated. If we choose always to dismiss or turn away from those things we dislike about our own species then how can we ever hope to understand ourselves?

[Dr. Vipin Behari]

This kind of love has different dimension.Be it My melancholy whores (Marquez),or The Seducer's Diary(Soren Kierkegaard).Lolita is superficial compared to them on same subject....

[Victoria]

Fatin wrote: "Yes, I completely agree. And of course the book is about so much more than just paedophilia. But my problem is that I've read a lot of reviews and discussion threads where people are defending him ..."

I think that shows the genius of the writer, because of course HH was trying to convince the reader of his blamelessness, and trying to project blame onto Lo.

[Fatin]

I don't know if I can understand how people fall into Humbert's trap. I thought he was a sick, disturbing monster right from the start. Forget the paedophilia for a bit. The way he treated his wives, and the way he expected them to behave around him. I don't think anybody could have had an equal relationship with him. Also, the way all the sex scenes are described in the novel make Lo's disinterest and reluctance quite obvious:
"I would lead my reluctant pet to our small home for a quick connection before dinner"
"How sweet it was to bring coffee to her, and then deny it until she had done her morning duty."
At another point he calls it "operation", at yet another, "basic obligations."
Also, his selfish nature really shows through when they're in the car and Lo says something about traffic and her mother, and Humbert thinks:
"It was the first time, I think, she spoke of her pre-Humbertian childhood; perhaps the theatre had taught her that trick."
I think I covered most of my feelings for both of them in my review:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Victoria]

Wafa wrote: "Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she..."

I don't think he was obviously in love with Lolita. He was in love with the idea of her that he had created, and the idea of controlling and owning her, but I felt he knew very little of what actually went on inside her head, her hopes and dreams and ideas. He was very obviously in lust with Lolita, but I don't think he really saw her as a person, just a thing that he wanted to have, all to himself and not share. And that is not love.

[[deleted user]]

Humbert may not be a paedophile. I think he actually loves Lolita,may be not for who she is but because she very much reminds him of his first love,Annabel,who died prematurely and with whom he had his first brief sexual encounter.Everyone regrets their first experience that went good but was unfulfilled or should have been good but turned out bad instead. It is something that the person has to live with,all his life. And he always tries to redeem the moment with every chance that he gets. So may be,Lolita is Humbert's redemption. In lolita, he finds his lost love and a way to fulfilling his unfulfilled desires. He breaks the rule of society and goes way down below his own morality to finding that. And he chooses to believe that he is right. As for the readers,Humbert is what they think,he is...and any opinion doesn't make the book any less readable.It is indeed a good read.
But yes, Humbert,surely,is a pervert.

[Victoria]

Still disagree - lust and love are often confused with each other. To love someone you have to really know them, want them to grow and develop and be happy. Even were she 25 I would still say he loved his projected idea of her, not her herself.

[David]

Writing in the Sunday Times (Sept 30th), Alan Murdoch considered the paedophile Malcolm Little in my recent novel 'The Judas Kiss' (influenced of course by Nabokov) to be 'among the more outlandishly repulsive creations of recent Irish fiction.' Despite his criminal sexuality, many readers find themselves empathising with him (or with the melodramatic mask by which he justifies himself). My question is, given the recent Jimmy Savile scandal, should the author deliver a harder moral punch?

[Olivia]

Pft. Lolita seduces Humbert then leaves him heartbroken. He's the real victim in this story.

[Erin]

I don't think Humbert loved Lolita. It has been about 5 or 6 years since I read the book but from what I remember Humbert never knew anything about Lolita as a real person. He made up a person in his head of who he thought Lolita was. Relationships like the one portrayed in the book are not based on love, they are based on power and control. According to our social norms, having sex with a child is pedophilia, and for a good reason. Hurting people, children especially, is not love. I also think that real love requires you to not be selfish at times to help the other person and Humbert fails that one completely.

[Feliks]

"..every civilized culture..."

o_0!

Do people really know this little about world civilizations and foreign cultures?

[Feliks]

We should all agree that there is no consensus.

:\

[Brendan]

Read the end, when Humbert wrestles with the pornographer. The language is used to show that they can't be told apart and are both equally vile.

"I rolled over him, he rolled over me, we rolled over us." (or something along those lines)

[Thomas]

it feels constantly throughout the book like he Humbert himself is aware of his problem, and constantly tries to convince himself and the reader that he isn't, he suffers moments of clarity which show him for what he is and those moments make him appear the victim for suffering from his lack of control over his nature. i do not feel he is the victim of the story but he is aware of it and dislikes his predator

[Fatin]

Brendan wrote: "Read the end, when Humbert wrestles with the pornographer. The language is used to show that they can't be told apart and are both equally vile.

"I rolled over him, he rolled over me, we rolled ov..."

That's an interesting part you picked up! I missed it. Good find.

[Replicant Rachel]

i think it was easier for all of us to forgive Grenouille because he killed himself in the end, and because his victims never had to live the consequences personally.
as for Humbert, he had an obsession: he wanted a Lolita and he found her in Dolores Haze, yes it was rape and pedophilia.But, if you ever committed a horrible crime, let it be rape or murder, on purpose or accidentally, won't you try to defend yourselves?? or put the blame on others? or construct an insanity defense??: you will,because it's the human thing to do,that's what Humbert did, he even admits he is a madman,and that's why people defend him, because (in my opinion) Nabokov, being the genius that he is, wanted us to hope that he, and Lolita,can get out of the situation they are in and to find an ending that suits them both so we can hope to find a way out too, because he wants us to see that we're not so different from Humbert. Some people see that and that's why they defend him,even when they're putting the blame on Lo, it's because they're not very different from him.

that's why Lolita it's one of my favorite novels, because it forces us to examine ourselves,our initial reaction to the book tells us what kind Of person we are, and then by the end we discover other things , it's deep and emotional,but i think that Lo should be held accountable for her actions because even when she's 12 yrs-old, she's also a 'nymphet", a seductress who knows exactly what she's doing and i think she had been using Humbert as a meaning of escape,and she did eventually escape him, and btw even when Humbert loved her, in his own twisted, f***ed up way, she never loved him back, she was using him so she's just as bad as he is, they were perfect for each other!!!

[Bu]

Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she's compared hi..."

Do you know anything at all about LITERATURE?
Deep breath... Now think of all the other appalling themes on all those classics, from Homer to our day. Are you going to write all shocked about the rapes and injustice depicted in all of them? Really? Have you just arrived from Mars or what? ;) Take it easy...

[Fatin]

María of Spain wrote: "Do you know anything at all about LITERATURE?
Deep breath... Now think of all the other appalling themes on all those classics, from Homer to our day. Are you going to write all shocked about the rapes and injustice depicted in all of them? Really? Have you just arrived from Mars or what? ;) Take it easy..."

I see you didn't really understand what I was trying to say at all.


Theb0mb, Lo was a 12 year old girl who had a crush on Humbert because he was a handsome man and gave her attention. She didn't use him. And she was under no obligation to love him back IF he did love her. I can't believe you think that makes her as bad as him.

[Replicant Rachel]

María of Spain wrote: "Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she..."

Lolita is not the first literature work that have rape and injustice in it, but it is the most outrageous because of Lo's age, and as far as i know Fatin has the right to question the novel and the readers who supported Humbert Humbert ,because this is Goodreads, a place to express thoughts and to question them thank you very much <.<

[Replicant Rachel]

Fatin, she did use him, she wanted money and freedom to do whatever she wants,she was antagonizing him when he was being the authority figure,the father and the mother, yes she wasn't obligated to love him back but she also wasn't obligated to stay with him after her mother's death, she could've reported to the police that he killed her mother or that he abused her, she never did.YES.SHE'S AS BAD HE IS. she's not as innocent as you think she is even if she is 12.age is just a number,her crush died later after she's had what she wanted of him.

[Fatin]

Thebomb, she's 12. Can you imagine how scary it would be to on your own at that age? The only person she knows who's around is Humbert. She's not an independent kid. She has no money, and little idea about where she is. And, Humbert scares her into believing that if she goes to the police about him abusing her, she would get into as much trouble as he.
And I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the crush?

[Simon]

For all of you who commented with your very fine arguments I would like to recommend the book "In Praise of The Stepmother" by Vargas Llosa it is avail in English. So you can see what authors do incite our emotions about controversial subject. His story is about a stepmother trying to fit in with her stepson, she goes a little too far. You actually feel sorry for her and not the boy, after all he was getting an education...right??? And there begins the argument all over again.

[Nuran]

Steven wrote: "Was anyone arguing this matter? It's pretty obvious that he's a pedophile and a rapist."

Some people think this is a love story and not rape or pedophilla. They are seduced by his charms and believe his side of the story, thus failing the test of the book. The test of can you see through neutral eyes, can you keep your morality and conviction or will you be swayed by charm and intelligence and forget a devious crime was committed?

[Gavin]

Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator and his version of Lolita's story is an attempt to win the sympathy of the reader. By his own admission, Humbert has harbored a long-time obsession with young girls, or "nymphets". He suggests that this was caused by the premature death of a childhood sweetheart, Annabel Leigh.

Nearly every pedophile will weave a tale of his own his own tragic childhood to explain his predatory behavior...but it's not possible for a middle aged college professor to be the sexual victim of a 12 year old girl, no matter how sexually precocious she is.

When Humbert has his first opportunity to be alone with Lolita, he picks her up from summer camp, takes her to a hotel, doses her with sedatives and makes an unsuccessful attempt to molest her because the sedatives don't knock her completely out.

Are we to believe that Humbert is engaging in appropriate sexual behavior with a 12 year old girl whose mother has just died? Only a monster would commit such a horrific act.

Lolita quickly becomes a willing sexual partner of Humbert but like any sexual predator, Humbert has systematically nurtured Lolita into becoming his child mistress with a carefully calculated campaign of deceit and manipulation.

Lolita wasn't even her real name... it was Delores Haze and it was Humbert who privately calls her Lolita as an affectionate nickname. In the end, Lolita isn't even a real person but perverse creation of Humbert's sexual imagination.

Nabokov leaves the reader to draw his own conclusion about morality of Humbert's behavior, but anybody with common sense can figure out that Humbert as the narrator is presenting his own self serving, duplicitous version of the story.

[Replicant Rachel]

Gavin wrote: "Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator and his version of Lolita's story is an attempt to win the sympathy of the reader. By his own admission, Humbert has harbored a long-time obsession with yo..."
I AGREE!!!!

[Sheila]

Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she's compared hi..."

I totally agree with your take on this. Thanks for posting. Humbert is definitely a pedophile. He justifies his actions the way pedophiles do, by blaming the child. Reminds me of the old movie M, with Peter Lorre, where you come to sympathize with the abuser, while condemning his actions. At least, that's the best response I think we can have to either Humbert or M.

[Replicant Rachel]

Fatin wrote: "Thebomb, she's 12. Can you imagine how scary it would be to on your own at that age? The only person she knows who's around is Humbert. She's not an independent kid. She has no money, and little id..."

she likes trouble, and anyway i don't think she was afraid of going to the police..she could have done that..i mean wouldn't she have felt that being with anybody is better than staying with Humbert?? he is a monster after all, and she is the victim, but my point is she is willing victim,and i can't symppathize with her much, if i were a part of the jury i would've condemned Humbert Guilty, absolutely!, but she doesn't strike me as an innocent..because she is willing victim.

[Victoria]

There is never any such thing as a willing victim of child sex abuse.

[Nuran]

Thebomb wrote: "she likes trouble, and anyway i don’t think she was afraid of going to the police..she could have done that..i mean wouldn’t she have felt that being with anybody is better than staying with Humbert?? he is a monster after all, and she is the victim, but my point is she is willing victim,and i can’t symppathize with her much, if i were a part of the jury i would’ve condemned Humbert Guilty, absolutely!, but she doesn’t strike me as an innocent..because she is willing victim. "

I agree with Victoria.

Plus, kids who are abused often imagine worse situations if they end up going to the police. They imagine their molester finding them and killing them. They imagine the police not caring or not believing them or not doing anything and then the kid will get a beating as punishment for going to the police. They imagine a lot more terrible things could happen then what they go through. It’s why so many children are abused every freaking day, because they’re too scared the consequences of getting help will be even worse.

There’s a phrase “better the devil you know” that can really apply to this situation. They have no faith in humanity so they just resign themselves to their fate.

[Erin]

Nuran wrote: "Thebomb wrote: "she likes trouble, and anyway i don’t think she was afraid of going to the police..she could have done that..i mean wouldn’t she have felt that being with anybody is better than sta..."

I very much agree with you. I don't understand how anyone could blame such a thing on a child. I actually find our societies need to blame the victim very disturbing. That was very well said :)

[W]

There is no way to justify what Humbert did, no matter how you put it, i read it, and was revolted. Although the writing and plot is excellent, i cannot agree with this man's actions. There is no excuse, but it is a disease. This is a sensitive subject for me, so i know how these sickos think. Unfortunately, today it is so much easier for pedophiles to get to innocent children. They should all be jailed for life, and worse. I tried reading this with a different view, i can't, absolutely not.

I can't go into details, but this is just to close to home for me, so no, NO EXCUSE!!!

[Replicant Rachel]

Victoria wrote: "There is never any such thing as a willing victim of child sex abuse."

i wasn't trying to defend humbert, he is a pedophile and a monster and what he did is , indeed,horrible and inexcusable,I actually AGREE with you..and I wasn't trying to blame lo ..she is a victim and i agree with you that she is not a willing victim of child sex abuse..

[Jack]

Me and my friend were talking about this book, and we thought that it would be an awful situation if someone realized they were a paedophile. Where would you go? It's it a mental illness isn't it? The social stigma associated with it is more than understandable, but does the demonization element mean that it becomes impossible for them to move forwards? I'm don't think there's a way to cure it, I just think Lolita points out how awful the entire situation is. People use the term disease, then treat them like they're inherently evil. Even if they're weak, and succumb to the problems they have, they're still people underneath it all.

[Olivia]

Jack, the act is inherently wrong. None of this "oh but they're still people" feeling sorry for them nonsense. Perhaps they can't help what they feel - fine, a degree of sympathy is understandable - but they damn well can choose whether or not to act on it.

[Cateline]

Gavin wrote: "Humbert Humbert is an unreliable narrator and his version of Lolita's story is an attempt to win the sympathy of the reader. By his own admission, Humbert has harbored a long-time obsession with yo..."

You make many great points Gavin, especially the unreliable narrator bit. Very true. He does allow the truth to seep through occasionally though. For example he mentions her crying, I believe twice.
However, HH was not the only one that called her Lolita. Her mother referred to her as "my Lo" in the very beginning.

To those referencing Lolita's so called complicity in her abuse I would say that her behavior was partially (superficially) complicit, but only through her inexperience of life, natural at her age. I wonder too, if Stockholm Syndrome could have played a part in her not going to the police.

It's been a few years since I read Lolita, but it seems to me that her mother somehow threatened her with a "home", so HH could have been playing on her fears when he made that threat.

This entire discussion speaks to the huge talent of Nabokov. That he could even engender such feelings of reluctant sympathy for someone such as HH is amazing.

[Jack]

it's not so much sympathy as just thinking trying to stop them from acting on it, somehow

[Replicant Rachel]

yeh i don't think HH ever acted out of sympathy, even if felt it, he was always demanding what he wants, wanting Lo all for himself, even when she didn't want him at all...that's what makes him guilty, i don't think of him as a man with a disease, because there is no cure for pedophilia, he is merely a man obssessed...

[Jack]

fair point actually; obviously he commits rape and paedophilia but is he actually a paedophile? he doesnt like any other children of her age...

[Scott]

He does admire other "nymphets" but it's Lo that reminds him of his lost love. If it hadn't been for the series of opportunities chronicled in the story it's likely he would have led an uneventful, unremarkable life, untouched by young females.

And as I'm sure has been mentioned earlier, "paedophile" is not the correct term.

[Replicant Rachel]

Scott wrote: "He does admire other "nymphets" but it's Lo that reminds him of his lost love. If it hadn't been for the series of opportunities chronicled in the story it's likely he would have led an uneventful..."

remind me what was the correct term?

[Jack]

I think Scott means what you said, he's a man obsessed. he commits paedophilia because of it. the paedophilia isn't a simple sexual drive for him, thought the point is debatable.

[Scott]

Thebomb wrote: "remind me what was the correct term?"

"Ephebophile" would be the term for someone attracted to those who have reached puberty.

[Replicant Rachel]

aaah ok but terminology doesn't really matters, i mean it's all bad when you think about it..

[Mickey]

If you look at the examples in the book, he was attracted to prepubescent children as well.

[Jack]

that its bad doesn't change anything. Nabokov was showing us that and a load of other things.

[Ketil]

You may like or dislike the story. Anyway, it's very well written

[Scott]

Excellent points, JW. We should not condemn HH for his desires, but for his deceitfulness and manipulation.