Closing/Themes

This final section of Lolita was very enlightening as to many of the themes of the novel as a whole. Although these themes are clearly relevant throughout the entire book (hence it being a theme), they become abundantly clear in this conclusion to a disturbing yet thought provoking novel.

Throughout the book Humbert mostly gives justifications for his actions towards Lolita, but in this last section we begin to see more regret and guilt than he gives away in previous sections. Although there are still parts that he refuses to feel remorse about, one of them being killing Clare Quilty, he seems to regret ruining Lolita's supposed innocence and childhood.

He realizes that Dick (Lolita's husband) doesn't mistreat Lolita the way that he did which he feels greatly ashamed of. He states, "[Dick] was a lamb...his fingernails were black and broken, but the phalanges, the whole carpus, strong shapely wrist were far, far finer than mine: I have hurt too much too many bodies with my twisted poor hands to be proud of them" (pg 274).

He also states, "Nothing could make my Lolita forget the foul lust I had inflicted upon her" and "Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac" (pg 283). This shows that although he does seem to take some responsibility for his actions, he still is unable to fully acknowledge his role in things. This makes us question whether he is truly regretful or if he's simply manipulating people.

At the end of the novel, he states, "When I started writing Lolita...I thought I would use these notes in toto at my trial, to save not my head of course, but my soul" (pg 308). This answers many of the questions that I had throughout reading the novel as to what Humbert's purpose was in writing it. After this sentence he describes that he wrote it to be a tribute to him and Lolita's story.

As I inquired many times throughout the book as to Humbert's true purpose in writing this, I thought that Humbert was either truly oblivious to the depravity of his actions and believed his justifications, he was manipulating readers (or jury members) into seeing him in a more positive light, or that he was trying to justify his actions to himself. As I read this last section, I began to believe the last option more than the others.

Clearly, this could be his intended purpose and he's truly a psychopathic monster trying to garner empathy from readers. Although I certainly see this as a likely possibility, I found that his constant switching of narration and placing blame on "a maniac" for depriving Lolita of his childhood rather than taking responsibility himself makes it seems as though he is simply unable to face all that he's done.

I see this entire piece of writing somewhat as his own long-winded justification for his actions against Lolita to himself, not just readers. It seems as though this novel is meant to be him grappling with his past mistakes and regrets.

This raises many questions for me that I think Nabakov intends. One of the main ones is when are horrendous acts forgivable? Despite everything awful Humbert does, I still feel empathy for him somehow. However, that empathy in my opinion does not excuse his actions. Regardless of any justifications he has for why he raped Lolita and killed Clare Quilty, he is still guilty in my point of view.

This leads to a major theme which is the murkiness of what is wrong and right. If Humbert is on trial for statutory rape and murder, he is clearly guilty and must be convicted. However, does this negate all of his reasons for doing so? Does his troubled past with Annabel or his supposed undying love for Lolita justify these atrocious acts; does it make them any more forgivable?

This gets even more complicated when I considered how my feelings for Clare Quilty and Humbert differ. They both raped Lolita and did horrible things, yet I find myself viewing Quilty so much more negatively than Humbert because of how much (supposedly) Humbert loves Lolita.

He states, "I loved her more than anything...I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another's child...even if those eyes of hers would fade to myopic fish, and her nipples swell and crack, and her lovely young velvety delicate be tainted and torn, even then I would go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of your dear wan face...my Lolita" (pg 277-278).

He emphasizes his love for her greatly in this section and shows deep regret (although this again could be persuasion/justification), which complicates my understanding of his actions. Conversely, Quilty doesn't even remember who Lolita was at first, and expresses no remorse over their relationship and in fact seems to do it to many other people. When he dies, none of the people around him are not upset at all, showing how awful of a person he was.

However, just because Humbert claims to have loved Lolita deeply, does this mean that he is somehow more absolved of guilt than Quilty? Ironically Humbert kills Quilty for mistreating Lolita, and yet the two are more similar than Humbert realizes. The main difference that Humbert sees is that he truly loved her, but does that justify his actions?

This brings up another major theme in the novel which, as cheesy as it sounds, is the power of love. If we believe Humbert's story, his love for Lolita is supposedly the driving force behind all of his actions. As shown by the sheer amount of space he dedicates in his novel to his time with Lolita compared to everything else, she is the only thing that gives his life any meaning. She becomes all that he is, and all that he builds his life around.

This also ties to the theme of love versus lust. Humbert realizes that because he was so swept up in his lust for Lolita, he missed out on the type of person she truly was. He states, "it struck me...that I simply did not know a thing about my darling's mind and that quite possibly...there was in her a garden and a twilight, and a palace gate-dim and adorable which happened to be lucidly and absolutely forbidden to me, in my polluted rags and miserable convulsions" (pg 284).

The final major theme/takeaway from this novel that I got was the power of art/writing in rendering people immortal. Humbert says at the end, "while the blood still throbs through my writing hand, you are still as much as a part of blessed matter as I am...[and] you [will] live in the minds of later generations" (pg 309). His final sentence is, "And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita" (pg 309).

This wonderfully ties the entire novel together and shows how writing can allow a person or idea to transcend death through the minds and hearts of others. I've always found that concept fascinating, and it seems as though Humbert feels like he is somehow doing penance for all the wrong he has done to Lolita by at least giving her this final gift.

Overall, I really enjoyed reading this novel. It left me with many takeaways, and more questions than answers. This novel left me with the conflict between right and wrong, justice and justification, morality and ambiguity, love and lust, empathy and absolvement, and so many other things. Although disturbing, this novel was highly thought provoking.

These conflicts are present in many places throughout the world, whether it's in politics, history, literature, or many other areas. I suppose that the main takeaway I had from the book as that it is not as simple as right and wrong, or black and white. Instead, we must learn to see the countless shades of grey.