If we accept Humbert at his word, Lolita initiates their first sexual encounter, seducing him after he has balked at violating her in her sleep. Yet later Humbert admits that Lolita sobbed in the night–“every night, every night–the moment I feigned sleep” [p. 176]. Should we read this reversal psychologically: that what began as a game for Lolita has now become a terrible and inescapable reality? Or has Humbert been lying to us from the first? What is the true nature of the crimes committed against Lolita? Does Humbert ever genuinely repent them, or is even his remorse a sham? Does Lolita forgive Humbert or only forget him?
We know that Humbert is lying and he isn’t a reliable narrator. He manipulates the reader to sympathize with him and romanticizes his obsession with Lolita. (This is the author’s skilled crafting technique that is done to perfection.)
Lolita’s sobbing showed me that she is a child and is traumatized by this abuse. She has lacked any guidance whatsoever by an adult and the psychological damage done to her is undeniable. She’s a child with no power or choices and she could never have consented. Humbert is delusional in thinking it’s a game. The game was never real, except in his twisted fantasy.
The crimes are numerous: rape, manipulation, and using coercion, and psychological abuse. He basically took her childhood from her.
When he says “I loved you. I was a monster. You were a child.” Can we really believe he has any remorse since he’s been an unreliable narrator all along? I think not. I think Lolita has to make peace and move on in order to survive in whatever way she can. Forgiveness. No, she doesn’t forgive Humbert.
1 Like
I think Lolita first saw her relationship as a game. But the game turned into reality and she didn’t know how to escape. At her age, it was infatuation with an older man. Teasing him went too far.
I don’t think Humbert knew how to truly repent and Lolita knew that. She could never forgive him.
1 Like
Not only did Humbert romanticize his crimes, he also reminded the reader that similar behavior has existed, even tolerated, through the ages. It seems to me that he attempts to trick the reader into accepting his perversions as a type of game, equating them with acceptable game structure. While the novel may be brilliant, I found the Humbert reprehensible enough to assume the reader would be drawn into a voyeuristic acceptance of his behavior and a type of acceptance.
While Lolita certainly teased Humbert the older sophisticated attractive man, she as too young to see her teasing has any real consequence. Humbert on the other hand, was so overcome by his obsessive lust that we cannot with any certainty believe his allegations of her behavior. (Rev. 9/22)
Lolita was a child and Humbert was unmoved by the effects of his ‘relationship’ with her. I saw no remorse on his part, only pride even while declaring remorse. Lolita amazingly enough, survived by moving on, at least in Humberto’s interpretation.
3 Likes
I agree with you, Donna. Very well said.
Humbert’s insistence that Dolores (Lolita) initiated their first sexual encounter struck me as self-serving and the fantasy of a predator, which Humbert is often at pains to tell us he is not.
2 Likes
Yes, Robin, I agree. He is a predator above all.
I don’t believe it was a game that Lolita was playing, and I don’t think that Humbert truly believes she initiated it. This is his attempt to manipulate us into believing he is not completely at fault. I think that he is upset that she cried, but I don’t believe he feels remorseful for it.
1 Like
I think Delores was craving attention because she didn’t get what she needed from her mother, so she probably did what she needed to do, to get Humbert’s attention and affection, but didn’t know his intentions, therefore, didn’t know what she was starting.
1 Like
I also agree about Humbert being a predator and a master manipulator. Boy - history continues to repeat itself. 
Lolita was a child and while she may have been acting as a temptress she really didn’t know what she was doing. Her crying evidenced that. Humburt would say anything to justify his immorality.
Dolores was constantly on the outs with her mother, the only adult we see her interacting with. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if she was flirting with HH - but as a child might, not as a grown woman would. I think HH includes the story of her not being a virgin as a way to make others think his behavior is not that bad - there was precedent. I think he completely made that up.
1 Like
Well said Marquita. Narcissists never think it’s their fault.
1 Like
I agree. His implications of Dolores’ role (e.g., she’s not a virgin, she initiated sex) are examples of his making things up to justify his behavior. He also justifies his behavior using historical and cultural examples which perhaps are somewhat true? Regardless, still part of his justification for his behavior.
1 Like
I agree with you Jill. He is a liar and she was a 12 year old girl that he horribly abused.
1 Like
It seems that it was a kissing game of some sort for Lolita at the beginning. If she observed her own mother she may have thought of such things as a type of game. Having said that, I don’t think that the relationship between them went into actual sexual intercourse involving Lolita. Humbert was capable of creating that for himself using his own ways to generate proximity to her physical body, and his own distorted mind. Humbert has been lying to himself from the start and conveying his delusions throughout the book. He essentially kidnapped her, tried to totally possess her, deceived her about her mother’s death, sought a life of remoteness and solitude, and eventually drove her away with his obsessions and control. His repentance is a sham because he immediately starts to eye other young girls. Lolita ran for her freedom, yet she came to him for help. She called him “dad”. She was happy in her new world. When a child abused in the way Humbert portrayed his abuse of her, I doubt that they ever forget the incident, and may not ever forgive. Yet she contacted him, seemed happy to see him, and interacted kindly with him - those actions seem to say that he did not abuse her as he portrayed his abuse.
Sadly, I have to slightly disagree. I think the actual intercourse absolutely happened, over and over. The only reason Lo greeted him kindly at the end of the book is because she now needed something from him. Or, that part could be the delusional lie. The portion where HH meets 17 yr old married and pregnant Dolly was very affecting.
Yeah, and you have to remember we’re getting all this from HH’s point of view, so he may be painting a much rosier picture of her response than was the case in reality.
I appreciate your input. Something to think about, though the thought is totally repulsive, and you may be correct. I prefer, however, to think that other than excessive, manipulative fondling, he didn’t have intercourse with her. That’s the beauty of book club discussions.
It’s not that what began as a game became inescapable for Lolita on her own terms—it’s that Humbert’s narrative initially frames it that way to mitigate his culpability. The latter admission reveals that he has been lying to us, and perhaps to himself, from the start. The “game” was never equal; it was always his construct, and Lolita’s sobbing reveals her powerlessness within it.
1 Like