Throughout Lolita, I have been skeptical of Humbert and his role as the author. I felt that he was being untrue with us readers. The entire time I felt as if he was trying to win us over. He made it seem as if he was on trial making an appeal to the jury. This made me uncomfortable the entire time because normally when on trial, people try to sugar-coat their story to make them appear even better than they are. In my mind, Humbert was trying to seen innocent even though he fully admits to being a pedophile. It's one thing to know that you are a pedophile, but it's another to try to justify your actions. The entire time while reading the book, I did not like this point. People began to sympathize with Humbert and I even believed at one point that he was truly in love with Lolita, but in the end I figured out that this is not the case. Humbert was only trying to make himself appear innocent when he clearly was at fault.
In the end of the book, Humbert admits that even though he spent the majority of the book trying to convince us that he is a good guy, Lolita's childhood was stolen and he took a major part in it. This realization makes me question whether things he told us during the story was true; that he was not her first lover and that it was she that seduced him. I feel as if at the end of the book when Lolita is no longer a child, he finally admits to stealing her childhood. Lolita is about seventeen years old at this point in the story and she is married and expecting a child of her own. She did not get to have a childhood. I think at this realization, Humbert finally took in the full effect of his crimes; that while he was enjoying himself, she was being hurt. By Humbert finally realizing and admitting this, it is a sign that he has not been completely truthful throughout the book, that he was giving his spin on the reality that he lived.
When reading Humbert's side of the events in Lolita, I agree that it is clear everything we hear is from Humbert's own take on things. However I still find Humbert to be a credible source. Although the story is told through his eyes, the reader is given countless insights into Humbert's mind and are therefore able to identify his true feelings. I believe Humbert truely loved Lolita, and I think the fact that he came to the realization that he ruined her childhood is more proof of this fact. Although he was so blinded by his own lust that he never noticed the consequences of his actions on this poor girl, the fact that Humbert comes to terms with his mistakes and sets out to resolve what he can, proves he loved her. He is able to let Lolita go in an attempt to save the rest of her life out of pure love. He attacks the man who hurt her, resolving only to spare himself so that he may tell his cautionary tale.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very beginning I actually believed Humbert Humbert. I never suspected that he would "sugar coat" his story. While reading, I feel like I actually got to know him because he was being so honest, I don't see any motive for him to justify his actions when he was fully aware of what he was doing and that it was wrong. Right from the get go his intentions were unspeakable but as the story progressed, the reader can see that he truly loved and cared for Lolita. She never reciprocated the feeling so that is where the reader sympathizes with Humbert, since he gives so much and all she does is take. Yes, the relationship is still disgusting and abominable but there were true feelings involved and that’s where the reader can relate to Humbert.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that Humbert Humbert stole Lolita's childhood,I disagree. I think that Lolita is actually more to blame than Humbert for this situation. Lolita had started the affair by being the more assertive of the two. She had clearly wanted to have sex with Humbert, and I don't think the affair would have happened if she hadn't started it. Also, she also had sexual relations with Clarence Quilty before Humbert Humbert, so i don't think Lolita ever had a genuine childhood. I think Lolita always wanted to be attractive to older men, and never cared about having a childhood. There was no childlike innocence to take away from her.
ReplyDeleteWhile Nymphs do not actually exist and Humbert Humbert just made up the concept to cover up his disgusting passion for children, I do believe the Lolita is not an innocent child. HH should not be blamed for Lolita's lost innocence. As Ally stated, Lolita had other sexual partners before HH. She knew how to handle adult men. She knew that Humbert Humbert had a thing for her and she played it to her advatange.Even when Lolita moved on, got married and was pregnant, I think that further proves that she is very mature and basically skipped over her childhood. At the age of 17 I do not believe that she was ready to be married. I'm 17 and im definitely not ready to be pregnant or married. Lolita is just a mature person for her age and HH had not been the person to initiate this behavior.
ReplyDeleteAs for Humbert Humbert and how much of his story we can believe, I think we can believe most of it. He gave a lot of specific details and focus on insignificant and significant things. He was detailed so I think we can believe a lot of it. He admitted to the wrong he has done and the reader can take that any way he/she wants.
I completely believed that Humbert Humbert was telling the truth the whole time. Humbert never left anything out when he would share his story, even the boring little details that no one cares to hear. He was never afraid to share to what happened in his life, even if it was not sociably acceptable. Humbert even shared his most personal thoughts, such as when he thought about killing Charlotte, put sleeping pills in their drinks, and many other unacceptable actions. Who dare share thought of murder to a jury, whom he kept referring to? Humbert Humbert shared so many details that I could not help but believe what he was sharing. If anything he would over exaggerate.
ReplyDelete