As Lolita continues to become a character of her own, there
are subtle signs and obvious occurrences which signal Humbert’s losing her,
both mentally and physically, that aid in establishing justification for his
actions. In the beginning of chapter 18, when Humbert describes his “hallucinations,” he attempts to blame their
occurrence on outside interference—“I do not know what she or he, or both had
put into my liquor but one night I felt sure somebody was tapping on the door
of our cabin”—shying away from his own overwhelming paranoia. Humbert’s mere
mention of someone fooling with him gives the reader some sense of empathy
towards Hum, whose poor planning and blind love leave him feeling infringed
upon by the outside world; one which seems constantly out to get him, and
surely the common reader can relate to his feeling—if not criminally,
emotionally. Even though he is deserving
of the stress, and obviously destined to lose his Lolita rightly, the reader
feels empathy for the man that is losing his grip on his love.
Again, in the nature overwhelming feelings, the empathetic
reader truly feels the heartbreak in the scene where Humbert consoles Lolita to
come back with him, away from Dick Schiller, to live with him for the rest of
her life, and her simple reply is, “No, honey, no.” This scene may be the only
one in the entire novel where the reader feels blind sadness right alongside
Humbert, as he “[breaks] into the hottest tears [he] had ever shed.” When
Humbert, in the wake of Lo’s answer, only notices that “She had never called
[him] honey before” (279), the reader truly understands his maniacal blindness,
his pure infatuation and the utmost dwellings of his passion. Though he is a child
molesting cynic riddled with lunacy, the universal sentiments of heartbreak
soften the blows of his crimes and have the reader reconsidering really how
poor his initial intentions for Lolita were.
Touching upon the final section—the hunt and final execution
of Clare Quilty—we are again visited by obvious signs of Humbert’s mental
deterioration. When venturing to Grimm Road to find and kill Quilty, Humbert describes the day: “…the
sun was visible again, burning like a man, and the birds screamed in the
drenched and streaming trees.” This memory exudes a severe sense of delusion;
one which, if the account works as fodder for the jury, could easily help sway
them into believing Humbert’s actions were performed on account of insanity
rather than pure, malevolent hatred. He also matter-of-factly informs the
reader that “[he] had overdone the alcoholic stimulation business” (293), further
backing the sentiment of mental impairment which flows through this scene and
those following where, with trust Chum, Humbert will chase Quilty around his
house trying to finish him. He goes on, on the following page, describing his
attempts to avoid any unfortunate accident in his quest for murder: “Consequently,
for at least five minutes I went about—lucidly insane, crazily calm, an
enchanted and very tight hunter—turning whatever keys in whatever locks there
were and pocketing them with my free left hand” (294). Humbert describes
himself as crazy, a lunatic—and his actions here certainly exemplify those
self-assigned adjectives. So, as readers and as “jurors,” we are certainly in
the position to question: Was Humbert really acting in all capacities of his
right mind at the time of the murder? This leaves room for doubt and, in turn,
room for justification.
No comments:
Post a Comment