Having plotted Charlotte’s murder and failed to carry it out, Humbert is rid of her by means of a bizarre, and bizarrely fortuitous, accident. Is this the only time that fate makes a spectacular intrusion on Humbert’s behalf? Are there occasions when fate conspires to thwart him? Is the fate that operates in this novel–a fate so preposterously hyperactive that Humbert gives it a name– actually an extension of Humbert’s will, perhaps of his unconscious will? Is Humbert in a sense guilty of Charlotte’s death? Discuss the broader question of culpability as it resonates throughout this book.
Charlotte was a snoop. He had a locked drawer and she forced it open. She read his journal and learned how he felt about her and how he felt about Lolita. She needed to get away from him. She woke letters to friends and in haste wanted to post them. In her haste she fell and was run over and killed. So I think it was her actions that caused her death. H’mm, we should respect people’s privacy and their locked drawers!
Charlotte was “luckily” killed in accident. But she was hysterical, and we don’t know exactly what happened because we are never sure of the truthfulness of his tale. It’s also true that people tend to see what they want to see. If a person has a ‘lucky’ number, that number will crop up frequently because the person will notice and exaggerate its significance.
Fate seems to be a constant character throughout the novel, whether to thwart Humbert or make things fit. He ascribes most events to Fate, and Nabokov’s writing reinforces Humbert’s observations and beliefs.
Fate in Lolita both aids Humbert (Charlotte’s death, his chance lodging) and works against him (Lolita’s flight, her inevitable aging). While Humbert did not cause Charlotte’s accident, his fantasies and his callous reaction make him morally complicit. Nabokov uses this to blur the line between accident and intention, showing how Humbert’s narrative manipulates chance into seeming like destiny.
Charlotte suspected that something was really wrong and broke into Humbert’s locked desk drawer. Had she not done that, she would not have reacted, wrote letters, ran to the mailbox. With all that said, I can still say that it seems that he did indirectly cause her death by his obnoxious nature and deeds. She should not have broken into his locked desk, but her instincts and his behavior drove her to her breaking point, and she took that action. The reality, shock and horror of what had been transpiring for years drove her reaction. His behavior was what triggered her reaction. In fact the person responsible for her death was the driver of the car.