Lolita is a deranged story about a pedophiliac man named Humbert who derives great pleasure in seeking out nymphs

for sexual fulfillment. The novel centers around the psychological aspects of Humberts perverse interests and his reasoning behind the motives as he divulges to the court his story of incest with his daughter Lolita. In his journey, Humbert violates countless tenets of basic human morality and bluntly accepts and admits to his corrupted nature. The question arises as to whether there is in fact a moral behind the story, because even though Humbert is relaying his story to the jury, theres no definitive verdict as to whether hes guilty or not. The novel is left with an open ending, left to the reader to determine the sentence for Humberts crime. Certainly the catalyst for his court hearing is the killing of Cue, but without such an explosive action, Humbert would likely have never been caught. Society has conclusively determined that Humberts killing of Cue was unacceptable, but only through such a tragic event was the darker story behind Humberts motivation revealed. As the majority of the novel focuses on Humberts perverse interest in young nymphs rather than his intended killing at the end, the question arises as to whether this interest is warped and punishable. Does society have the prerogative to punish Humbert for his love in nymphs assuming the nymph isnt harmed, or does Humbert have the right to pursue his own interests without the law interfering as long as he doesnt murder (which was certainly the line of transgression). Though Humbert undeniably commits wrongs and irrevocably alters Lolitas life, his actions are justified. Lolita willingly accepted his advances from the introduction, realizing her sexuality was a pawn to master her guardian. She was intrigued in exploring her capacity for seduction as shown from her escapades in the camp; Humbert was the victim she chose to test and exploit. Lolita surely had the moral convictions established from childhood that her actions crossed the line of innocent exploration to the darker domain of incest. Such invitations were all Humbert needed to cross the line from cautious fear to bolder interest. Even Humbert acknowledged that his actions were wrong and delicately balanced the line between fatherhood and incestuous lover, but once he realized Lolita was tentatively willing to engage in such relations, he proceeded with far greater conviction. In the beginning, he derived enough enjoyment just from being around Lolita and admiring her youth, albeit disturbing, he made no unduly egregious moves on her. This restraint shows that Humbert knew where the draw the line and wasnt willing to breach it and frighten Lolita. Unfortunately, Lolita seduced Humbert and implied that the line was not a sacred barrier but rather an arbitrary one that could be crossed with the right conditions and exchange. Essentially, Lolita on some deeper level played the role of prostitute, realizing she could exchange her sexual favors for protection and treats from Humbert. In such a warped connection, it becomes difficult to determine whether Humbert was the only transgressor and whether only he should be punished. The general argument is that the adult is the violator as he has more experience and judgment compared to an adolescent. But it must also be taken into account that those like Humbert who take interest in nymphs have some dimension of mental derangement. Its not a natural desire to seek out young children for sexual pleasure; for this reason, Humbert could argue insanity for his defense. With this handicap, Humbert and Lolita are basically level in their roles. Lolita willingly accepts and goads Humbert on; Humbert willingly accepts and violates due to his distorted mindset and disease. Each relationship is reciprocal, both Humbert and Lolita play their cards to keep the other under control. Humbert threatens Lolita with the pain of custody under an orphanage whilst Lolita extorts Humbert for more money with her sexual favors. So in the end, is there really any moral standard by which to judge Humberts relationship with Lolita. On some level, it was a fully mutual exchange. Both parties knew the jagged abyss theyd fallen

into, yet neither recognized or more accurately, obeyed, the need to pull out. In this hazy mire of values, it is impossible to pinpoint a determinate set of moral codes to judge the situation. In the end, morals cannot be applied in this distorted dimension of mutual incest. Humbert can be convicted for his wrongful murder, but he cannot be judged for his relationship with Lolita.

Frederick Douglass depicts his painful first hand experience through slavery.