Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Fatin]

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 him to a bloody actor! A twelve year old cannot be held responsible for her actions. Not to mention, Humbert doesn't quite hide his feelings for her and to a twelve year old girl, an older man's (who is very attractive) attention is paradise. Especially when she has a very difficult relationship with her mother, and she's aware her mother is attracted to the man.
As the girls from Chicago would put it: He took a flower in its prime. And then he used it and he abused it.
I am horrified, appalled, disgusted and scared that people seem to be on his side. I understand some of them sympathizing with Humbert, that's Nabokov's genius. But while you try to understand him, you can't justify him. He destroys a little girl's childhood.
And please, please do not forget that he's an unreliable narrator! You can't believe everything he says, he's twisting it to suit himself, he needs the jury on his side! This is a letter to the JURY!

God. How can people blame a child, perhaps not one so innocent, but a child nonetheless. It makes me think of something I just read a few days ago:
Rape predates miniskirts!

[Vicky]

I think in every civilized Country in the world having sex with a twelve years old is rape, by law. And consent is not relevant, because a twelve years old is not considered capable of any consent in adult matters, as sex is.

Said that, Humbert is certanly fascinating with his distorted thoughts, but basically that' s Nabokov' s play (or as you said, genius), giving humanity to a monster. We' re not used to it: horrible people in literature stay horrible people, no matter how well caratherized, stay somehow out of our range and compassion. Nabokov write superbly, but another author who did a similar thing was Patrick Suskind in his novel "Perfume": the reader couldn' t really hate poor Grenouille, even if he is a cold blooded serial killer. The trick in my opinion is having keep those characters humans, close to everyone of us in a lot of little things, creating empathy, even if we' re talking about a rapist and a murderer.

[Fatin]

Vittoria wrote: "I think in every civilized Country in the world having sex with a twelve years old is rape, by law. And consent is not relevant, because a twelve years old is not considered capable of any consent ..."
Ah Perfume, that was another beautiful novel. But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder. I mean, one is taking a person's life, the other is destroying it. They're both awful. But yes, Grenouille. I did sympathize with him at some points. Humbert? NEVER. I think because not only was he a paedophile, but he was also sexist. And that just killed me. I couldn't take it.

[Xdyj]

Humbert is supposed to be a horrible person & IIRC I don't think it's Nabokov's intention that readers would sympathize w/ him at all.

[Jennifer]

This book is about rape and abduction.

Humbert is an unreliable narrator and as I recall, towards the end of the novel, he begins questioning his interpretation of events. Particularly, he starts questioning whether he really knew or undertood his beloved Lolita at all. He admits the obvious, that he is an unreliable narrator.

Humbert himself understood that his sexual compulsions made him a monster. Unfortunately, like most pedophiles who seem to have something drastically wrong in their hard wiring, he couldn't seem to help himself.

I am in agreement with XDYJ. I don't think Nabakov ever intended for readers to sympathize with Humbert.

[Fatin]

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 and blaming Lolita. They're making him into the victim, which is driving me insane.

[[deleted user]]

Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."

This is a ridiculous statement to make.

[Fatin]

macgregor wrote: "Fatin wrote: "But for me rape is a more serious offence than murder."

This is a ridiculous statement to make."

What I mean by that is, I would rather be murdered than raped. Of course, no doubt, both are awful, horrible things. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd chose death.

[[deleted user]]

Fatin wrote: "What I mean by that is, I would rather be murdered than raped."

The problem with this line of thinking is that murder is an irrevocable change in state and that rape, while admittedly awful, is something that can be overcome. Rape survivors have a long road of recovery ahead of themselves, but at least they still have their lives.

Your statement implies that survivors of rape could never heal or move on or change after the rape. Which is totally unfair to any survivor of rape.

You're not saying that rape is the death of the self, you're saying it's WORSE than the death of the self.

You're implying that Delores would have been better off being murdered by Humbert than having sex with him. Which is patently ridiculous.

[Fatin]

I was talking about just myself, not anyone else. But...I suppose it would be awful and hard but I may find a way out of it. Rape, that is.
Thing is, I found it easier to almost forgive Grenouille than Humbert. So that's why I said murder>rape. I suppose it was a quick and wrong judgement. My bad.

[Mickey]

I think many women blame Lolita because they like to think that there are ways to avoid being raped. It's difficult to think that one is entirely powerless, so they develop "rules" that, if followed, have a talismanic power to protect. If you don't show any skin or don't get drunk, then you're safe. I think it's disturbing for many women to face that avoiding such a thing is the luck of the draw and so they tend to blame Lolita.

[Cateline]

Yes, it was rape on HH's part, of course, no question about it. I think the whole blaming Lolita thing comes in because of her overtime flirting with him. Of course if she'd done that with the usual variety of male his age, they'd have run for the hills, pronto.

Lo was not old enough to judge the man, to know that she was playing with fire. Her immaturity is not her fault. It was heady stuff, here a man, handsome and suave paying all this attention to her, flattering her, making much of every little thing she did.

To my mind, the heaviest blame lies with Charlotte, her mother. It was Charlotte's responsibility to care for and protect Lolita. She failed miserably on account of her own insecurity, and lets be frank, her horniness.

Charlotte really hated Lolita, was so jealous of her that she could not see past it. I felt that the real reason Charlotte was going to get the authorities onto HH was not because he'd been indecent with her daughter, but because she was jealous that he was. What a mess.

Humbert couldn't help what he was, that die was cast with Annabel.......but Charlotte failed every test of motherhood.

[Mickey]

Cateline wrote: "To my mind, the heaviest blame lies with Charlotte, her mother. It was Charlotte's responsibility to care for and protect Lolita. She failed miserably on account of her own insecurity, and lets be frank, her horniness....Humbert couldn't help what he was, that die was cast with Annabel.......but Charlotte failed every test of motherhood."

See, I think Humbert's story of origin for his pedophilia is also suspect. Who hasn't experimented as a child with other children around the same age? This doesn't make someone trapped for life into an endless cycle of pedophilic longings just because their first experiences are with other children.

As far as Charlotte is concerned, I found her treatment of Lolita to be very hostile, but I think it's a mistake to think that she would not have protected Lolita. Humbert recognizes this himself, talking about how he wished she were a weaker and less moral person (like his former wife). He knew that she would not give consent for him having Lolita, and being the predator that he is, I think he'd have good instincts about how far he could push someone.

Personally, I don't think the heaviest blame lies on Charlotte, but still rests squarely with Humbert.

[Victoria]

Cateline wrote: "Yes, it was rape on HH's part, of course, no question about it. I think the whole blaming Lolita thing comes in because of her overtime flirting with him. Of course if she'd done that with the us..."

I think you are right that Charlotte was sexually jealous of Lo, I think it is something that lots of insecure mothers ay feel when their daughters are starting to blossom at a time their personal attractiveness ws starting to fade.
I can't agree that the die was cast with HH, that he couldn't change. Surely all young teens will find another young teen of a similar age attractive at some point, but they don't all go on to become peadophiles.
Lo reacts like any 12 year old grl would, flirting and practising the wiles of her emerging sexuality in what is supposed to be a safe context, and in most situations would have been perfectly safe to do so. It is because HH was the monster he was, self justifying and outright predatory, that Lo ends up losing her childhood. Charlotte may have been a really crappy selfish mother, but the blame for rape always lies squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.
Interesting that you feel he couldn't help himself though. I think that is exactly what the character (though not the author) wanted you to think.

[Mickey]

Victoria wrote: "Lo reacts like any 12 year old grl would, flirting and practising the wiles of her emerging sexuality in what is supposed to be a safe context, and in most situations would have been perfectly safe to do so. It is because HH was the monster he was, self justifying and outright predatory, that Lo ends up losing her childhood."

I think a lot of people tend to forget what it was like to be twelve. I think it's perfectly normal for a child (even a child who is years younger than Lo) to have crushes on adults. These can be adults that they see on TV or adults they interact with in real life. (When I was ten, I was "in love with" my fifth grade teacher, Mr. Santos, even before that, I had a crush on my uncle.) The difference between Lo and others is that most girls are lucky to not have crushes on adults who will take advantage of them.

[Pessoa]

'I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita.' Everybody sees it is a rape. The author's intentions was not to glorify the act, but write something that would stand out beautiful. It is not hard to see how much work Nabokov did on each paragraph, each sentence. When I was reading the novel it was not the story or even characters that affected my emotions but sheer beauty of each sentence. The story was at most mediocre. Nabokov does not see literature as a means for morality, but some sort of art, independent from moral and social restraints. This is why he provocatively had chosen a pedophile as his main character.

[[deleted user]]

Pessoa wrote: "The story was at most mediocre. "

I don't understand this criticism. Do you mean that the plot itself is mediocre? And if so, by what rubric are we judging quality of plot? If you mean the overall story, then I would totally disagree. There's more to Lolita the novel than simply questions of "art" and "morality". For example, Humbert Humbert's double name is an important signpost for doppelgangers in the novel, which is a part of the story, and is quite clever. So again, I do not understand this criticism.

[Cateline]

Victoria wrote: "Interesting that you feel he couldn't help himself though. I think that is exactly what the character (though not the author) wanted you to think..."

I agree, HH was the most unreliable of narrators.

However, from what (little) I've read of pedophiles, they truly cannot help themselves. I've read of men in prison that actually plead not to be let out, as they know they will offend again. Some actually hate what they are, and what they do when they are free to do so.

I can't agree that the die was cast with HH, that he couldn't change. Surely all young teens will find another young teen of a similar age attractive at some point, but they don't all go on to become peadophiles
Of course they don't, but there are cases, and for the art of the story, HH was simply unable to change.

.....but the blame for rape always lies squarely on the shoulders of the rapist.
Absolutely correct. However. If Charlotte had been even half of what a mother should have been none of it would have happened.

[Jennifer]

I think that Humbert was trying to find an explanation for why he was attracted to young girls/children and that his feelings for Annabelle were the best explanation that he could come up with. I don't imagine that pedophiles really understand why they are the way they are. I would think that it would be only natural for them to try and understand why they aren't normal. It is interesting that Nabakov came up with this explanation as opposed to anything else.

[Mickey]

Cateline wrote: "However, from what (little) I've read of pedophiles, they truly cannot help themselves. I've read of men in prison that actually plead not to be let out, as they know they will offend again. Some actually hate what they are, and what they do when they are free to do so."

Humbert certainly would not fit into the group of men who beg not to be let out. He does control himself, in that he is stealthy enough to choose his victim and wait for an opportune time.


Cateline wrote: "However. If Charlotte had been even half of what a mother should have been none of it would have happened."

I still don't see how Charlotte is responsible. She met a man and was smitten with him. She did not know he was a pedophile. He even admits he knows that she wouldn't offer up her daughter to keep him. Many single mothers remarry. As soon as she realized what he was, she rejected him. I don't know how you can say she's mostly responsible for what happened. She was dead by the time Humbert raped her.

[Victoria]

Cateline wrote: "Victoria wrote: "Interesting that you feel he couldn't help himself though. I think that is exactly what the character (though not the author) wanted you to think..."

I agree, HH was the most unre..."

My point wasn't tha he could control his feelings, but that he could control his actions. If most of us found ourselves attracted to someone completely innapproriate, we would take step to ensure nothing came of it. HH instead actively persues this child, using her as a thing to satisfy his own needs while never once considering hers, and is very calculating in his grooming of her, and his plans to keep himself safe from the authorities.
I do agree though that if Charlotte had been a more attentive and affectionate mother, Lo wouldn't have felt the need to gain approval by flirting (and, as is suggested, engageing in sex play with her friends) and would have been less vulnerable to being groomed by HH

[Mickey]

Jennifer wrote: "I think that Humbert was trying to find an explanation for why he was attracted to young girls/children and that his feelings for Annabelle were the best explanation that he could come up with. I would think that it would be only natural for them to try and understand why they aren't normal. It is interesting that Nabakov came up with this explanation as opposed to anything else."

Interesting point. I wonder, though, whom is this origin story intended to convince: himself or us? Surely what he describes did not cause his pedophilia. Is he using a common bit of childish exploration that many can relate to as a way to normalize his condition and present himself as just a tangent? It reminds me a little of Dennis Rader's (The BTK Killer's) Factor X, it's a way to describe (or at least give a name to) the difference, but does it really enlighten much? It's like a sick person being asked to diagnose himself; there are many parts and processes of a person that cannot be determined through his reasoning or explanations.

His origin story is interesting because it is very Freudian, focusing on the development of sexuality and emphasizing early experiences. I think lately we tend to look more at genetics and our natural go-to point is that there must be a biological or scientific explanation.

[[deleted user]]

His origin for his pedophilia sounds more Lacanian than Freudian, to be honest. The motif of doppelgangers reaches towards Lacan's mirror stage and concept of the lack.

But none of this arguing about his origin is at all useful unless you put it into context with an interpretation of the novel. You guys are engaging in basic close-reading, but you're never asking what it means.

Blame and culpability aren't really the main points of the novel, if you get my meaning. Sex happened between the two characters. So now figure out WHY rather than WHAT.

[Mickey]

Unfortunately, macgregor, I'm not interested in that sort of analysis. It's too far removed from the literature for my taste. However, if it interests you, have at it. I don't think it's appropriate to try to steer other people's conversation, though.

I wouldn't characterize Jennifer and I as arguing either. We'd have to have views that are opposed and I'm not sure that we do. I've never thought much about his origin story until someone mentioned it as an explanation for his pedophilia. It's what a good discussion does in allowing people to think of things in new ways.

[[deleted user]]

Thinking of things in new ways is fine but this discussion has just been deductive fallacy after deductive fallacy. There is literally no point in imagining how the novel would be different if Charlotte was a "better" mother or if x had happened. The text is the text is the text.

How we use the word "argue" is different, I see. I meant argue as in state a case.

[Mickey]

But there is a point in discussing blame and how certain factors led to certain outcomes, macgregor. If it's not to your taste to discuss these things, then maybe you can start another thread about motifs that you found in the book that are interesting to you. Goodreads is a big place, and no one is going to find every discussion others are involved in to be of interest.

[[deleted user]]

What value is there in discussing blame? Serious question. What do you get out of figuring out who is to blame?

[Beth]

One of the biggest aspects of the novel is understanding that Humbert is an unreliable and biased narrator. The book is less about his actions and more about his state of mind and the stripping of Lolita of any true identity (even the name Lolita takes away a unique piece of her... her true name).

If you can't understand that what you are reading is meant to be wrong, it's meant to challenge you... Humbert is supposed to draw your sympathies (not because he is a sympathetic character, but because Nabakov is such a genius when he portrays what Humbert views as legitimate justifications), and it is supposed to repulse you as well. If you don't realize that you are reading from the POV from someone who is quite literally insane, you shouldn't be reading the book at all. Hell, Nabakov himself stated that he didn't like Humbert, and he created the character.

Lolita isn't a great book because of pedophilic content, it's a great book because of how deep it delves into Humbert's psyche and how Nabakov can engross the readers in that dark place and make them forget just quite how dark and wrong it truly is.

[[deleted user]]

Beth wrote: "One of the biggest aspects of the novel is understanding that Humbert is an unreliable and biased narrator. The book is less about his actions and more about his state of mind and the stripping of ..."

So bias and unreliability are the markers of insanity?

[Mickey]

Beth wrote: "Lolita isn't a great book because of pedophilic content, it's a great book because of how deep it delves into Humbert's psyche and how Nabakov can engross the readers in that dark place and make them forget just quite how dark and wrong it truly is."

I agree that Lolita isn't a great book because of the pedophilia, but I think it's telling that Lolita is the book of Nabokov's that became a classic. I think the inclusion of such content created the necessary contrast in order for the reader to experience both the beauty of his writing and the horror of the content. The reader is seduced and swept along through the manipulations of the narrator and it takes a while to recalibrate your own brain to process it in a way that is non-Humbertian.

[Beth]

macgregor wrote: "Beth wrote: "One of the biggest aspects of the novel is understanding that Humbert is an unreliable and biased narrator. The book is less about his actions and more about his state of mind and the ..."

Hardly... but many of the actions Humbert takes throughout the novel are. Even the way Lolita reads... like Humbert's desperate justification of his actions in order to convince himself that he did not strip a child of her innocence and identity are most definitely signs that a few screws are loose.

[Cateline]

macgregor wrote: "What value is there in discussing blame? Serious question. What do you get out of figuring out who is to blame?"

For my part, blame is an interesting subject. I feel that if one can properly place "blame" or more accurately, understanding who is actually the originator of the problem, we can more easily trace and therefore understand the how and why of the action that has taken place. A bit like good detective work. :) Don't we all like to know why something happened?

The concept of blame is really loaded with all sorts of personal bugaboos for each of us.

Beth wrote: ... like Humbert's desperate justification of his actions in order to convince himself that he did not strip a child of her innocence and identity are most definitely signs that a few screws are loose.

But. In the end, HH did accept his responsibility, that, at least, is to his (very dubious) credit. He did have the full understanding of what he'd robbed her of.

[[deleted user]]

Beth wrote: "Hardly... but many of the actions Humbert takes throughout the novel are. "

So your personal definition of "insanity" is bias, unreliability, self-deception and self-justification?

That is to say, every human being on the planet?

[Mickey]

I don't think Beth's idea of Humbert's insanity is unusual. On the reading guide questions for Lolita for Random House Inc. one of the questions is this:

"We also learn that Humbert is mad—mad enough, at least, to have been committed to several mental institutions, where he took great pleasure in misleading his psychiatrists. Is Humbert’s madness an aspect of his sexual deviance or is it something more fundamental? Can we trust a story told by an insane narrator? What is Humbert’s kinship with the “mad” narrators of such works as Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground and Gogol’s Diary of a Madman?"

Here's the link: http://reading-group-center.knopfdoub...

[[deleted user]]

My response to this should be painfully predictable: Random House is not really a reputable arbiter of mental health, no?

Humbert has a specific sexual proclivity and a tendency to puff himself up - just like everybody. However, while his sexual orientation is demonstrably unethical and quite dangerous, I'm not at any point willing to concede that he's insane.

That's a ridiculous leap of logic.

[Mickey]

Nobody is asking you to concede. Really, I don't think anyone here is interested in changing your mind. My point was that believing Humbert to be insane is not an unusual position. Many people believe that he is. He's even been in several mental institutions, so, within the framework of the story, the case could definitely be made.

In my opinion, it's not ridiculous at all, although I don't personally think he's insane, it's not completely shocking to me that others may think he is.

You may want to rethink your use of the word ridiculous. When you use it as often as you do and for such common opinions, it sounds a bit hysterical.

[[deleted user]]

I suppose I'm still smarting from the rape vs murder comment from above thread. However, I choose my words carefully and ridiculous was the word that best fit my opinion. I'm not concerned with how you use your own words.

[[deleted user]]

Strike that. I'm actually very concerned about the misuse of words and of concepts. Especially complicated concepts.

[Jon]

"Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita"

What an earth-shattering revelation! Next you'll be telling us that Raskolnikov was a murderer and Anna Karenina jumped in front of a train...

[Mickey]

Jon wrote: ""Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita"

What an earth-shattering revelation! Next you'll be telling us that Raskolnikov was a murderer and Anna Karenina jumped in front of a train..."

There are actually people who don't believe Humbert was a pedophile or that he abused Lolita. You might want to look at some other threads, particularly the one titled "Pedophilia". Unfortunately, looking at the thread won't give you the full story, so many of the posters end up deleting all their posts, but I think there are still enough examples to show that there is hardly a consensus about either the pedophilia or the abuse.

[Beth]

macgregor wrote: "Beth wrote: "Hardly... but many of the actions Humbert takes throughout the novel are. "

So your personal definition of "insanity" is bias, unreliability, self-deception and self-justification?

T..."

I don't advocate for the absolute sanity of any human being. Insanity isn't so much a checklist of symptoms so much as it is how much those symptoms interfere with living with our notions of a more-or-less "moral, normal life." Everyone can be delude about their own self-worth, however not everyone thinks they are, quite literally, God. ^.^

Perhaps you think it is perfectly normal and rational to isolate and confine young girl, carry on the fantasy that her mother is still alive and become her only means of reliance and family, strip her of her identity, convince yourself these feelings are mutual... moving around evertime you think someone looks at you the wrong way, isn't paranoid at all. no... humbert never deserved to be thrown into the loony bin at all!

Humbert tried to make his fantasies a reality. Usually people that find themselves in such a situation (especially when their fantasies are so extreme), they get there heavily medicated or at the asylum down the road.

In the end, this is just arguing the semantics of the word insane. I think it's fair to say that Humbert is not exactly a paragon of normalcy (defined by our cultural morality). Many people have what others would deem as strange sexual proclivities, and the actual "wrongness" of these desires can be completly overblown. Because something is not a social-norm does not make it a lapse in sanity. The difference is that Humbert takes action. Many people might fantasize about killing someone, not many people are willing to take up the gun and shoot. Less than that will blame the victim's death entirely upon the victim and not truly be able to understand why their viewpoint is not the general consensus.

In the framework Humbert's mind, people simply do not exist as individuals with identities separate of his own. They are all there to serve or detract from Humbert's purposes in one way or another... even the readers.

[Marion]

It's hard to talk about Lolita realistically because it is satire and meant to be. It's also a terribly misunderstood novel. It's not erotica. Its horrid comedy and Humbert is a monster. (That doesn't mean we can't feel compassion for him. We can and do despite ourselves.) I hate putting the blame on poor Charlotte. In real life, a lot of stepfathers abuse young girls. A lot of times these creeps are opportunity molesters and not grand manipulators of the Humbert variety, and not all mothers miss the signs. Sometimes the men are very good at covering their tracks.

As for the comment by the person who says she'd rather be murdered than raped -- all I can say to that I hope you are never in the position to realize how mistaken you are. Most victims fight for their lives and survival. Whether you realize it or not, that attitude punishes victims for surviving and going on with their lives. It also makes no sense.

My guess is you are pretty young. There are many horrific things that can happen to a person, but death usually tops the list.

[Jon]

Whatever the 'consensus' may be, it can't be disputed that Humbert is a 40-something man in a sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl; ergo, he is by definition a paedophile.

To argue otherwise is to argue that Moby Dick isn't a whale.

[Mickey]

Jon wrote: "Whatever the 'consensus' may be, it can't be disputed that Humbert is a 40-something man in a sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl; ergo, he is by definition a paedophile.

To argue otherwise is to argue that Moby Dick isn't a whale."

I see you haven't taken my advice and read the thread I suggested. I'm saying there isn't a consensus. Some people have argued on that thread, for instance that Humbert is not a pedophile but something called a hebephile, because the victim has started going through puberty and that he doesn't show any attraction to children. (I contested this, so don't start arguing with me about it.) Others dismiss the idea that the ages are a big problem, citing historical instances of girls Lolita's age getting married and to crimimalize it like we do is prudish and unprogressive. Many have said there was no abuse because Lolita was not a virgin and therefore, did not 'lose' anything. Some think she was a willing participant and actually abused and manipulated Humbert. There are people that would not agree with the title of this thread, so your comment about it being obvious does nothing but show that you haven't read widely on the subject.

[Jon]

Admittedly, the 'pedophile' thread is a bit tl;dr for me. When I'm not at work I'll have a scan through it though. However, I'm not sure how well the 'hebephile' argument would stand up in court. If there's a genuine argument as to whether or not Humbert is a paedophile, it would have saved a lot of time if Nabakov had let known if Lolita had pubic hair, so we could answer the question definitively. Shame on him.

[[deleted user]]

Jon wrote: "If there's a genuine argument as to whether or not Humbert is a paedophile, it would have saved a lot of time if Nabakov had let known if Lolita had pubic hair, so we could answer the question definitively. Shame on him. "

God I hope those last two sentences were written in an arch tone and not serious.

[Steven]

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

[Jon]

Macgregor, it was entirely specious, but if we're not going to use age as a yardstick to measure paedophilia then it's probably a better indicator than whether the 12 year old was a virgin or not...

[[deleted user]]

Jon wrote: "Macgregor, it was entirely specious, but if we're not going to use age as a yardstick to measure paedophilia then it's probably a better indicator than whether the 12 year old was a virgin or not..."

Thank heavens! It's hard to measure tone through text, especially when it's in conjunction with a sticky subject.

[Bernard]

as nabokov said there are false bottoms. how to get to the bottom of Lolita? well first of all. the entire debacle is Humbert's fabrication. indeed is john ray jnr. yet another alias for humbert? humbert is constructing an insanity defense(whether or not he is sane).he wants the psychoanalysts to conclude he is insane. he knows he is guilty, not of murder(Quilty is humbert himself, so how could he murder him?) but rape of a minor. if by his 'confession' he can persuade the jury he is insane his responsibility will be diminished and his sentence lessened. he seeks to portray lolita not only as consenting but seducing!but he knows all along that she's his innocent victim. some readers above have blamed charlotte? but that's exactly what humbert wants them to do, he has duped them: the real charlotte and humbert's construct of her are entirely distinct.Humbert wants the jury to shift the blame which he knows rests squarely on his own head onto others' heads. reading lolita is designed to sharpen your senses not to be taken in by the likes of Stalin and Hitler into blaming the Jews as Nabokov himself was not taken in: do not acquiesce to tyrants. remember it's all in humbert's head with the motive of obtaining release so he can be free to prey on his next 'nymphet' or 'his Lolita', not Dolores Haze. don't you be seduced by humbert he is an ingenious liar defending monstrous pedophilia very capably, but that does not make him less of a monster, rather more because of his perfidious plausibility. it's a web of deceit from first to last. nabokov is not humbert he is exposing humbert by holding him up for our examination: this is practice for jury service. will we let him off because of his self-confessed fancy prose style?