The first most prominent instance of Humbert's cycle of justification comes in the dialogue between him and Lolita immediately after they leave the camp. Because this account of those crucial moments comes from Humbert, it is hard to interpret the words which Lolita speaks as wholly true. The things she says to Humbert do not exactly seem consistent in the voice of a thirteen year old girl--in one instance, she says "When did you fall for my mummy?"; in the next, she is telling Humbert she has been "revoltingly unfaithful to [him]...because [he's] stopped caring for [her]" (112). The language takes on a much more mature tone--there is something of Humbert's sophisticated sarcasm in the tone, which leads me to believe that Humbet has altered her dialogue to make Lo seem to be on a level plane with his intent psychological bent on their relationship. She even goes on to say that she "is sort of fond of [Humbert]" (115). This, of course, should make the reader a bit suspicious...
The play of dialogue to justify comes in again on 119, starting with another one of Humbert's (seemingly always out of place) speeches: "Look here, Lo. Let's settle this once for all. For all practical purposes I am your father. I have a feeling of great tenderness for you. In your mother's absence I am responsible for your welfare. We are not rich, and while we travel, we shall be obliged--we shall be thrown a good deal together. Two people sharing one room, inevitably enter into a kind--how shall I say--a kind--"; Lo cuts him off with "The word is incest," where as she walks giggling in and out of the hotel room closet.
There is a great deal that can be said about this passage--for one, again, Humbert intrudes his account of his narrative with a moralistic-sounding speech which he writes as spoken dialogue, rather than describing the situation at hand. Because he is the one writing the account, and the account's purpose is to sway a jury, we are to assume he is taking full liberty of writing out what he said with selective and often manipulative memory. Though this piece is fiction, we get a definite sense that Humbert is materizliaing a lot of the details of this story as he writes it in jail, perhaps not always as they actually occurred. Second, the justifications for their close-quartered room is obviously questionable--as an audience who knows Humbert's intentions, his justification of his and Lo's small room as a result of not being rich is very doubtful, but he says it anyway in an effort to construct another moralistic passage which may catch the inattentive observer offguard and perhaps sway their poor opinions of him. The third and final most prominent feature of this dialogue is the way Humbert writes Lo in--as an intrusive interrupter of his modest, fatherly speech. She cuts him off and he depicts her giggling, as if taunting him or purposely aggravating him. As Amy had pointed out in today's post, and what I think is very true, is the way Humbert begins to depict Lo as someone who is negatively affecting him--its a big part of his justification. This passage is a key shift in our perception of Lo, as per how Humbert illustrates her, and I think it is important to pay attention to how that shifts our sentiments about Humbert--how it may lend, even slightly, to the dissent of our opinions and an eventual justification of his actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment