The Defense Of Humbert Humberts Novels English Literature Essay

The narrator of Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita, Humbert Humbert, denounces himself and refers to himself as “a brute,” (Nabokov 193). It is all too easy for many readers to add their own condemnation; after all, Humbert is a grown man who over the course of the story lusts after and engages in sexual relations with a twelve year old girl. Yet a deeper reading of the material reveals that there may be more to the story than a simple case of pedophilia. An examination of character and symbolism in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita provides evidence to support the theory that Humbert is a sympathetic but flawed character who is manipulated by Dolores Haze.

First of all, Humbert offers an argument for his actions that allows insight into his reasoning. The relationship between Humbert and Lolita is not socially acceptable, but Humbert tries “to normalize his actions, citing Poe, Proust, and Petrarch to show how norms have altered over time,” (Rothstein 22). Humbert defends himself from time to time by citing historical relationships that were similar to his with Lolita, pointing out that such relationships were acceptable in certain times and places, and even arguing that many girls of Lolita’s age have reached a state of physical maturity. When he states that “soon I found myself maturing amid a civilization which allows a man of twenty-five to court a girl of sixteen but not a girl of twelve,” it becomes clear that Humbert views society, rather than himself, as the flawed factor in this equation (Nabokov 16). Regardless of his arguments, according to the standards of twentieth century American culture Humbert’s relationship with Lolita is socially unacceptable and he remains branded as a child molester. Once more, Humbert is saved from being entirely evil. Humbert is not interested in children, and is described as having “the utmost respect for ordinary children, with their purity and vulnerability, and under no circumstances would he have interfered with the innocence of a child,” (Nabokov 19-20). Douglas Fowler agrees, asserting that Humbert is “no deflowerer of innocent children” (49). Instead, Humbert’s interest lies with what he calls a “nymphet,” or a young girl who attracts those much older than herself and who is “a deadly little demon among the wholesome children,” (As Nabokov 16-7). As predatory as his behavior may appear, Humbert has no intention of corrupting or harming the innocent.

Unfortunately, these rationalizations lose some of their effectiveness when taking into consideration that they come from an adult who should know better. On the other hand, the argument that Humbert’s “inner child” plays into his behavior provides an alternative explanation for those actions. Near the beginning of the text, Humbert relates the tale from his childhood of a seaside romance with a girl named Annabel, which was broken off first by the interference of a pair of adults and finally by the girl’s death. This sad situation reflects the poem “Annabel Lee” by Edgar Allan Poe, with its tale of lost love.

I was a child and she was a child,

In this kingdom by the sea:

But we loved with a love that was more than love-

I and my Annabel Lee; (Poe 7-10)

Humbert feels intrinsically tied to Annabel, again shadowing the speaker of the poem’s assertion that nothing”[c]an ever dissever my soul from the soul of the beautiful Annabel Lee,” (Poe 32-3). It can be argued that Humbert never entirely grew up as a result of this incident; part of his soul was stunted by his unconsummated childhood love affair. Humbert himself admits to the influence that these circumstances have on later events when he says that “in point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child,” (Nabokov 9). The concept that Humbert’s inner child influences his behavior is reinforced by yet more evidence from the story. For example, when Humbert and Lolita set off on their initial road trip he showers her with gifts and goes out of his way to entertain her, referring to himself as “eager, hopeful Hum,” (Nabokov 140). This reads like a nervous young boy trying desperately to please the girl whom he admires, hoping to catch her attention and gain her favor. The fact that Humbert expresses disgust with his own adult form, which he refers to as his “adult disguise,” also lends support to this argument (Nabokov 39). Margaret Morganroth Gullette points out that to Humbert, “[a]ll grownup characteristics – over-sized frame, hairiness, smell – are unnatural to the soul that feels itself to be essentially childlike,” (223) and that this is “a loathing which he projects onto adult women,” (222). The idea that Humbert is actually a child trapped in a man’s body makes his infatuation with Lolita if not socially acceptable, then at least somewhat more understandable.

If the reader can find a trace of innocence by delving beneath Humbert’s sinister surface, an examination of Lolita exposes a surprising lack of virtue lying underneath her childlike mask. Nabokov establishes the inconsistency of her character within the very first paragraph: “She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita” (9). The girl’s constantly shifting name mirrors the metamorphic quality her character; in one moment she is an injured child, and in the next she reads as a calculating seductress. In many ways she seems to be an average American child, and yet she has none of the innocence that childhood implies. The truth is that she is aware of Humbert’s infatuation with her and torments him with lines such as “[w]ell, you haven’t kissed me yet, have you?” (Nabokov 112). Humbert may never have gone so far as to actually have intercourse with a nymphet were it not for his interactions with Lolita. In fact, it is Lolita who actually seduces Humbert, and then goes on to reveal a history of sexual deviancy. “Suffice to say that not a trace of modesty did I perceive in this beautiful hardly formed young girl whom modern co-education, juvenile mores, the campfire racket and so forth had utterly and hopelessly depraved,” Humbert comments, (Nabokov 133). Because of this previous corruption, “Nabokov saves him from the act of actually deflowering precocious Dolores Haze” and “shifts moral responsibility away,” (Fowler 149). This encounter occurs in an inn named The Enchanted Hunters, introducing the symbolism of the “hunter,” by which Humbert is a hunter whose plans are turned on their head by the youthful nymphet. This theme is echoed later by Lolita’s involvement in a play titled The Enchanted Hunters, in which she portrays “a perfect little nymph” who places several lost hunters under hypnosis (Nabokov 196). Indeed, Humbert spends the entirety of the story under Lolita’s spell.

Perhaps the most compelling argument in Humbert’s favor is that he truly loves Lolita. At first it seems that his love is based upon his view of her as the reincarnation of his lost Annabel, but while Lolita’s resemblance to Annabel may have sparked Humbert’s attraction to her, the idea that this is the driving force behind his attraction soon loses its potency. As Humbert explains, “A little later, of course, she … was to eclipse completely her prototype,” (Nabokov 39-40). Thus, it becomes clear that Humbert’s love is for her, and not for a mere replacement of Annabel. The novel is filled with Humbert’s endearments for Lolita and his obsession with her is palpable. However, there is a difference between obsession and love, and throughout the novel the nature of his feelings for Lolita is ambiguous. It is at the end of the novel that the true extent of his love for Lolita is revealed. As Noni Tamir-Ghez writes, “only at the end does he (and therefore the reader) understand that he actually loves Lolita, not the nymphet in her,” (82). When Humbert finally locates Lolita after three years of searching, he discovers that his nubile nymphet has been replaced with a heavily pregnant and worn-out house-wife. Surprisingly, the man who has been disgusted by signs of aging throughout the entirety of the novel is not repulsed by this glaringly adult version of Lolita. Rather than dissipating, his love for her shows through with full force. He insists that “I loved my Lolita, this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another’s child,” (Nabokov 278). Humbert shows the most humanity when he not only discovers the true depth of his feelings for Lolita, but also takes responsibility for his part in the events in the story. He relates an incident during Lolita’s absence when he listens to the voices of children and comes to realize “that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord,” (Nabokov 308). Only now does Humbert’s love for Lolita overcome his need for her. This combined with his regret for his actions makes it easier for the reader to sympathize with him.

Humbert attests to his own guilt and the entire novel is intended as a confession. However, if Lolita can be viewed as the victim of a child molester, then Humbert can also be seen as the victim of both his own warped mind and the manipulation of a deviant child. Without the context of the story it would be difficult to understand Humbert’s actions, let alone forgive him for them. However, Nabokov provides ample material to support the conclusion of Humbert’s vulnerability. Upon examining his character, Humbert is shown to not truly be a monster, but instead a deeply flawed individual: emotionally stunted, self-deluded, and irresistibly drawn to that which society has deemed is unattainable.