"For reasons that may appear more obvious than they really are, I am opposed to capital punishment; this attitude will be, I trust, shared by the sentencing judge. Had I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges. But even so, Dolly Schiller will probably survive me by many years. The following decision I make with all the legal impact and support of a signed testament: I wish this memoir to be published only when Lolita is no longer alive” (308-309).
It is amusing that Humbert would begin this passage by sardonically claiming that he is opposed to capital punishment, and that he is sure that this sentiment will be “shared by the sentencing judge”, particularly, since, he is sitting behind bars for carrying out the execution of Quilty in a Hollywoodesque scene that is as comedic as it is heroic. Certainly, it is the heroic Humbert presenting himself here, as he suggests that his sentence shall be only “thirty-five years” for raping Lolita. He then goes on to suggest he should be rewarded for ridding the world of a man as evil as Quilty. Humbert continues his theme of obsessed hero as he acknowledges he should not outlive “Dolly Shiller” and as such, he is prepared to nobly, support a “legal impact” that would seal his fairy tale until her death. Humbert, though, has no idea of what chivalry or heroism looks like in real life and, as a result, the version he presents of himself does not materialize into a noble protector or father figure. Ultimately, this passage may serve as a reminder to just how unreliable Hubert is as a narrator and offers the reader the chance to abandon a moral reading of this text in favor of an aesthetic one.

Does Humbert’s unreliable narration enable readers to separate their own moral lens from the text? Should this novel be treated as an American fairytale or is it merely smut?