Everybody is Aboard the Lolita Express

The Conspiracy of Silence Around Pedophiles and Their Enablers.

The cultural obsession with Lolita has long revealed two truths; american culture loves pedophiles, and loves obfuscating their pedophilia. Lolita was written about a 12-year-old girl from the perspective of a pedophile by a pedophile. Since its inception, Lolita has been a case study on the ways in which heteropatriarchy hides pedophilia in plain sight, and works to groom children into believing that this is something they are made for. Manufacturing notions of agency and consent into the minds of those most vulnerable. Eventually recruiting those unable to deprogram themselves into the role of Charlotte (or really, Humbert). Most importantly, it displays heteropatriarchies obsession with death, ownership, and the preservation of “beauty.” In Nabokov’s case, lepidopterist patriarchy.

A Clarification on Nabokov

(Image: An excerpt from “Hiding in Plain Sight: Nabokov and Pedophilia.”)

Nabokov’s work and legacy has been subjected to perhaps one of the best PR campaigns an author has ever had the fortune of falling into. When Lolita was first released it was regarded as the work of a pedophile for pedophiles. Then, the so-called intellectualists got their hands on it. And, through bastardizations and intentionally shrouding the authors intent, a new perspective was formed. Now, we are told that this is actually some great subversive critique of pedophilia. That Humbert’s clear function as a self insert is actually a masterful gambit to show how awful pedophilia is. Nabokov, for reasons unknown to most, allegedly decided that laying a “trap” to sympathize with a pedophile was the best way to demonstrate pedophilia’s depravity. In the words of Noni, “Nobody sees themselves as Dolores, including the author.” To those who scoff and spit and say critics of Nabokov ‘need to read the book,’ I would encourage you to read more than the book, and join me in an examination of Nabokov’s thoughts and behaviors as it relates to this controversial novel.

The article, “Hiding in Plain Sight: Nabokov and Pedophilia” by Brandon S. Centerwall masterfully pulls the shoddily assembled curtain and reveals Nabokov to be a closet pedophile, thus putting the books true intent on display. The article is full of compelling evidence, three of which I will summarize below.

One, that Nabokov enumerated three literary taboos. Those being pedophilia, an interracial marriage which is entirely happy, and an atheist who lives a long and happy life. For those adept at pattern recognition, we can identify that there is an in-congruence here. His focus on “happy and fulfilling” for the last two but not the first appears to be an intentional omission. The list also works to normalize pedophilia, as it falsely creates an analogy between this and interracial marriages. Nabokov, in pattern with someone seeking to normalize pedophilia, was known to believe pedophilia was “the commonest thing” and evidently knew of 6 who revealed themselves to him.

Two, Nabokov intentionally created Humbert as a self insert, as revealed by their shared double acronym. Nabokov’s full name is Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, commonly referred to as Vladimir Vladimirovich by Russians, or V.V. In the text, Humbert considers a few double acronym-ed pseudonyms before settling on H.H. For those noticing an asymmetry in the amount of syllables between H.H and V.V., Nabokov clarifies in his last novel Look At The Harlequins! that Vladimir Vladimirovich is shortened to “Vladim Vadi-mych” in fast speaking Russian. Meaning it becomes two syllables and not three (like H.H). This would only work as a self-insert and smug secret to himself if he intended to publish anonymously. Which he did. However, too many had learned he attempted to publish anonymously, and so he decided it was less suspicious if he finally laid claim to the novel.

Three, Nabokov did have a pedophile for an uncle, and so did Humbert. Many argue that Dolores is Nabokov’s self-insert, arguing that it’s common for CSA survivors to mull over and create works relating to abuse that they have endured. This is true, but the cycle of abuse for CSA survivors is also a phenomenon. And notably, you can be a pedophile without offending. Or rather, a lack of public victims does not acquit Nabokov from the charge of pedophile. Centerwall goes as in-depth as possible illuminating Humbert’s “Uncle Gustav” as a pedophile, which is an otherwise irrelevant plot point that is only alluded to. Only by connecting easter-egg-esque evidence can we see that Nabokov deepened the connection and relation between Humbert and himself, despite being utterly unnecessary. Humbert then, is a far clearer self insert than Dolores ever was.

Centerwall also mentions Nabokov’s screenplay, pictured above. The scene draws a parallel between Humbert and Nabokov, between Humbert’s Lolita and Nabokov’s butterflies, between pedophilia and lepidopterology. Throughout the novel, Lolita’s beauty is compared to that of a butterfly, and often called fleeting in some capacity. Humbert, like Nabokov, is acutely aware that children grow up. Nabokov was under no obligation to connect his obsession with butterfly catching and lepidopterology and pedophilia in such plain terms, he was under no obligation to tie himself further to Humbert. Entirely optional, and yet he chose to do so.

Nabokov kills a nymph butterfly in this scene. Something that Centerwall moves on from, but I believe requires further unpacking. Beyond the direct relation (nymph and nymphet) we must remember that this is not accidental as Nabokov coined the term “nymphet.” Nabokov was a lepidopterologist (a butterfly specialist in this case) long before he created Lolita. He would have been familiar with the term nymph first, then. A nymph is an insect which appears to be an adult, but is sexually immature (and missing wings if applicable). It is odd, then, that Nabokov created the term nymphet, meaning a child who is sexually mature. This is a reversal of the term he should know so intimately, and is surely an intentional choice.

I find Nabokov’s Playboy Magazine interview to be the most damning evidence. Personally, if I created a novel centered on the depravity of pedophilia, not intended to be an erotic novel centered on a doomed romance, I would not then go interview with a porn company.

Beyond this, Nabokov reveals himself freely. The interviewer asks how he came up with “Lolita” and “Humbert Humbert.” At first, Nabokov ignores the latter part of the question and focuses on Lolita. He stumbles upon the phrasing, calling it a caress, in a way that mimics Humbert’s auto-erotic fixation on the pronunciation at the beginning of the book. When he clarifies on the name “Dolores” he says, “My little girl’s heart-rending fate…” It is possible that Nabokov is referring to her multi-year kidnapping and rape. It is perhaps more possible that he is solely referring to her death at the end of the novel, as fate applies more to the end of a story, rather than what occurs during the duration of one.

The interviewer asks again about Humbert Humbert, and Nabokov provides this explanation, “The double rumble is, I think, very nasty, very suggestive. It is a hateful name for a hateful person. It is also a kingly name, and I did need a royal vibration…” When we recall that Vladim Vadi-mych has his own “double rumble,” it is peculiar that he says this is indicative of a suggestive nastiness. It is also peculiar that he thinks Humbert is deserving of a kingly name, for “Humbert the Fierce and Humbert the Humble.” Again, this was a way Nabakov connected himself to Humbert which was entirely optional.

Let us recall that the entirety of Lolita is written from the perspective of Humbert, something that is meant to be entirely removed from the voice of Nabokov. He is, we are told, not a pedophile, therefore his writing as Humbert is more of a case study. A removed examination at a psychology unfamiliar to him. Humberts words then, are not Nabokov’s. Nabokov admits this is not the case, “Whether or not critics think that in Lolita I am ridiculing human folly leaves me supremely indifferent. But I am annoyed when the glad news is spread that I am ridiculing America.” **When Nabokov does care about these perceptions, the issue he takes is that he is not a moral or social satirist. He does not critique the concept that he is laundering his own ideas through Humbert. To be clear, Nabokov did not like social satirists or moralists, and how this book came to be understood as a moral critique of pedophilia is beyond me. The idea that Nabokov wrote this as an ‘erotic novel with a tragic ending’ seems far simpler and clearer an answer.

Contrary to mainstream narratives, Nabokov does not care about how Lolita is depicted. Many quote his saying that he wants “no girls” on the cover of Lolita. In this interview, Nabokov shows us his favorite covers of Lolita, taking out two for the camera. Both show a girl on the cover, and he takes care to show us the second books first page. In it is the naked silhouette of who we can assume is Dolores. Nabokov does not care about depictions of Dolores, praising the Kubrick film with Sue Lyons. In fact, he said that Sue Lyons was a “nymphet” and Tuesday Weld was not. Remember that Humbert, in the novel, tells us that only pedophiles may argue over who is and is not a nymphet.

He has also said in a 1967 interview, “No, it is not my sense of the immorality of the Humbert Humbert–Lolita relationship that is strong; it is Humbert’s sense. He cares, I do not. I do not give a damn for public morals, in America or elsewhere.” Nabokov has repeatedly told us, time and time again, that he does not care for “moralist” condemnations of this pedophilic relationship. Somehow, his self-insert is more concerned with the immorality of raping a 12-year-old girl for years than Nabokov is. In the afterword of the novel, Nabokov writes “Despite John Ray’s [Nabokovs pseudonym in the forward] assertion, Lolita has no moral in tow.” This is in contrast to the supposed “general lesson” and “warning” John Ray (Nabokov) alleges is contained within the text in the forward.

Many still wail over the implication that this was in fact not a critique of pedophilia, but Nabokov himself offers little in defense of this, “I think it would be more correct to say that had I not written Lolita, readers would not have started finding nymphets in my other works and in their own households. I find it very amusing when a friendly, polite person says to me—probably just in order to be friendly and polite—‘Mr. Naborkov,’ or ‘Mr. Nabahkov,’ or ‘Mr. Nabrov’ or ‘Mr. Nabohkov,’ depending on his linguistic abilities, ‘I have a little daughter who is a regular Lolita.’” Rather than finding this ‘misinterpretation’ which implies pedophilic attraction to one’s own daughter horrifying, Nabokov is amused by it. Indeed, he takes more care to enumerate all the ways in which one might mispronounce his name than he does to admonish such a monstrous misreading of his novel. That is of course, unless Nabokov simply regards pedophilia as taboo, and, as he has said himself, was not seeking to make a condemnation of pedophilia. What is the point of a book written from the perspective of a pedophile if it’s not to condemn pedophilia? Many struggle to conceptualize finding meaning in a text that was not intended by the author. This insecurity leads to a warped defense.

When Nabokov traces over the pronunciation of “Lolita” in the same way Humbert does in the novel, we are forced to wonder where Nabokov ends and Humbert begins. When Vladimir Vladimirovich mulls over who is and is not a nymphet in the same way Humbert Humbert might, we are forced to wonder where Vladimir ends and Humbert begins. When Vladim Vadi-mych insists he is not a moral satirist and tells us that Humbert Humbert worries more about the immorality of child-rape than he, we have to wonder where Vladim Vadi-mych ends and Humbert Humbert begins. When V.V. and H.H. both have a fascination with butterflies and pedophilia, we have to wonder where V.V. ends and H.H. begins.

“Misinterpretation” and The Lolita Express

Epstein’s Lolita Express, the private plane used to sex traffic victims and transport clients to his various properties, is emblematic of an obsession. Epstein made his interest in Lolita no secret, and those he had correspondence with took note of it.

Elisa New, former Powell M. Professor of American Literature at Harvard University once suggested that Epstein read the book My Ántonia. In an email reply she says, “I’m going upstairs to hunt for my copy of Lolita, or will get on my kindle and reread on our way to Australia. I may have lent it to one of my kids. I would recommend reading My Antonia by Cather… and the book has-- come to think of it-- similar themes to Lolita in that it’s about a man whose whole life is stamped forever by his impression of a young girl.”

Just as is the case with most newly discovered affiliates of Epstein, many argue we are to assume New is not a pedophile, but rather a money-hungry vulture willing to look the other way while the killing is happening. Waiting only after the carnage is over to pick from the carcass.

John Warner in “That’s Not What Lolita Is About” makes this case succinctly. He firstly argues that Lolita here is misunderstood, and that New should have been aware of this. “Applying this description to Lolita’s Humbert Humbert is to drain the novel of the entirety of its meaning and significance, bleeding out the irony… Elisa New… surely understands this.” He then goes on to argue that Elisa New intentionally misportrayed Lolita, not because she herself is a pedophile or loves pedophiles, but because Epstein was funding her poetry podcast.

In discussing Epstein’s obsession with Lolita, the idea that he misinterprets the book is an overdone one. One article by the Atlantic, “What Jeffrey Epstein Didn’t Understand About Lolita” by Graeme Wood posits that there’s no way Epstein truly read the text, even if he had direct quotes scrawled on what we can assume were his victims. That it’s more likely he had the text to impress those who he associated with. Within this article he frequently stumbles across the simplest answer, only to quickly straighten himself up and continue asking questions already closed.

Just before he questions if Epstein did read the novel and relate to Humbert, he writes, “It is a scandal that [Humbert] can express himself so well—with the linguistic ingenuity, come to think of it, of Vladimir Nabokov.” The simplest answer has now presented itself. Nabokov has presented himself through Humbert, and so Epstein also finds himself presented through Humbert. Two pedophiles identifying themselves in the literary depiction of a pedophile.

Wood immediately runs from this idea. Calling the imagery of Epstein reading the novel and identifying with Humbert a “dark idea.” He also assumes that if Epstein were to truly identify with Humbert he would have to view himself as a “pompous letcher.” It does not occur to Wood that this could be going against Nabokov’s intent, and that a pedophile self identifying with Humbert in a favorable way may be the intended outcome. Going so far as to end his article with the paragraph, “But just as the notion that Epstein read and understood Lolita is implausible, the alternative—that he read the novel and got off on it—is almost too gross to contemplate. To find Lolita sexy would not only mean finding child-rape sexy. It would also mean finding Humbert Humbert sexy. And that is a level of perversion probably beyond even Jeffrey Epstein.”

In refusing to identify Lolita for what it is, a text written by and for pedophiles, we end up sanitizing both the novel and the pedophiles who identify with it. Somehow, identifying with the pedophile in the book about pedophilia and rape written by a pedophile is “probably beyond” the sex-trafficking serial child-rapist.

It is no coincidence every culturally dominant portrayal of Lolita forces those involved to take on the role of Humbert. The creator of said portrayal intentionally puts the viewer in the shoes of the pedophile, depicting Lolita as a seductress. She is never Dolores, she is only ever Lo. From Lana Del Rey’s song “Lolita” with breathy lyrics about how she “knows what boys want,” to the movie adaptations of the film, to the cultural phenomenon that is the heart shaped glasses (not seen in the novel).

The 1962 Kubrick film of Lolita featuring Sue Lyons as Dolores is further proof. Sue Lyons was predated upon during the filming and was raped by Lolita producer James Harris. A friend of Lyons recounts this as a “relationship” and clarifies that during this Lyons would have been 14 to Harris’s 32. Surely a producer of the film read the book, and surely everyone on set was familiar with its so-called moral condemnation of pedophilia, right? How is it then, that this reproduction of a pedophiles auto-biographical tale which recounts his serial rape of a child as an erotic love affair resulted in the serial rape of a child? How is it that almost everyone who enjoys Lolita seems to get it so wrong? It’s important to once again note that Nabokov spoke highly of Lyons performance, praised her as a nymphet, and approved of the film. The film which is generally regarded as the worst of the two adaptations in terms of sexualizing Lolita and of course, ‘getting the novel all wrong.’

We see this even in the screen test for the 1997 film. Dominique Swain, cast as Dolores, is alone in a dimly lit room with three men. As they are running a scene depicting an argument, she has nobody but herself to help her pull her tank-top straps back up as the director yanks her around. Her parents are nowhere to be seen. The camera man frequently zooms in on her face as she looks down. The entire moment feels grimy, and, revisiting it now as an adult, causes concern.

One comment with over 2 thousand likes says that Dominique is lucky to have been able to kiss Jeremy Irons. At the time of filming Dominique was 15 years old. The screen-test also inspired weigh in’s by self described Nabokovian’s, one by the name of Jim Twiggs says, “My own opinion is that although Swain was already too old for the part, she’s much better in the screen test--much more Lolita-ish--than in the movie itself.” Please recall that as Humbert himself says in the novel, only a pedophile can argue about who is and is not a nymphet. Twiggs also recommends the 1998 Salon article by Justine Brown, titled “Lusting After ‘Lolita.’”

In the article Brown recounts reading the novel at 12, Dolores’ age in the text. She says she was given the book by a woman, “to alert me to the erotic power of nubiles and the pitfalls of that power, to the magnetism of 12-year-old girls, for some men.” After reading, Brown’s pity for Humbert reportedly surprised the gift giver, but how could it? From the very beginning, the warning was not, “beware of pedophiles” but rather beware of the “magnetism.” Patriarchy misapplies blame, Lolita encourages readers to misapply blame. Brown sees herself in Humbert, she sees the “love story” that was put before her, and identifies with the “hopeless romantic” rather than what she sees as the heartless Dolores. She acknowledges that Dolores never loved Humbert, but says this is because she is 12, not because she is exploited, abused, and raped. This ultimately amounts to a clear misapplication of blame.

This is runs parallel to my own experience with Lolita. Though I never identified with Jeremy Iron’s Humbert, I first stumbled across the movie as a 14 year old girl. The age Dolores was depicted as in the 1997 film. At the time, surrounded by adult men’s attention, and experiencing normalization of pedophilia on multiple fronts, I had an internal battle. Aware of just how wrong it was, I found myself identifying as Dolores in both the film and text. No, I found myself identifying as Lolita. Imagining myself to be a nymphet, imagining myself “magnetic” to these adult men, and, just as the patriarchy desires, misapplying blame.

It is important that I make note of young girls and their experiences with Lolita. It is important we recognize the role it plays in patriarchies overarching grooming process. It is also important that I make note of Dolores never identifying as Lolita. Even as young girls identify with Lolita, they are actually identifying with Humbert. We never hear Dolores call herself the nickname associated with Humbert’s dehumanizing and misshapen characterization of her as a “nymphet.” Young girls identifying with the idea of being a nymphet are doing so because of Humbert, and Nabokov, not because of Dolores. This is how it manufactures a false sense of agency and consent. This is how it works to normalize lepidopterist patriarchy.

As an adult now, Brown revisits the text. Horrifyingly, this adult woman now sympathizes with Dolores, yes, but Humbert still. Not once does she call “Lolita” Dolores, and despite calling child molestation “ugly,” she says Sue Lyon’s portrayal of Dolores (age 14-15) in the 1962 adaptation of the film is, “a girl any red-blooded man would admire.” In the sub-heading, Brown says she first read the book as a “nymphet.” This is the mind of the average Nabokovian, and a generous step up from Nabokov himself, who seems to have only ever called Humbert vain or cruel. Never touching on the act of molestation itself.

Girls who become women who are unable to deprogram themselves fully actualize as Humbert. No longer is it a misapplication of self-blame, but rather an active participation in the sexualization and ultimate rape of girls. They become the Ghislanes and Elisa News of the world. Those who aid and abet pedophiles might as well be pedophiles, they are Humbert Humbert, they are Nabokov.

We know from recently released testimony from a “recruiter” that Epstein wanted minors. Exclusively minors, and that it mattered less how old they were as long as they were under 18. When the wealthy have nothing left to purchase, they purchase sexual access to the most vulnerable. They then trade in blackmail and rape to retain and increase their power. Nabokov was acutely aware of the fact that children grow up. Indeed, in an interview, he emphasizes that by the time she was 14 Humbert was already noticing differences. In the novel, it ends with Lolita dying. Either figuratively (giving birth ending her “innocence”) or literally. Either way, it leaves a pressing point. The only option for children subjected to sexual abuse is a spiritual or physical death. Epstein, like Nabokov, searched for a means of retaining access to this limited “beauty.” The connection between pedophilia and preservation of butterflies is a theme within Lolita and explicitly offered up by Nabokov himself.

Everybody is Aboard the Lolita Express

“When my friends are one-eyed, I look at their profile.” - Joseph Joubert

Rapists and pedophiles in the abstract are usually dehumanized beyond belief, depicted only as monsters and devils. They are monsters and devils, yes, but perhaps far worse, they are people. People who exist in the real, who take up space and create bonds and laughter and stories. They are an abuser and a person, and so many forget that hating the abuser means hating the person as well. Pedophiles in the minds of these people must always be Humbert and can never be Nabokov. To them, abusers can only be condemned in the abstract or post-mortem. The worst thing an abuser can be is un-extraordinary or disliked, no favors will be given to their legacy then.

When we begin to realize that pedophiles and rapists are part monster and man (or woman), many begin to empathize. To say, ‘No, no, not them. Not in that way. Sure, this or that thing they said or did was weird, but people can be weird. That’s a lofty accusation, that word. Look away from the things they are telling you, and imagine what you want them to mean.’ When their friend or idol reveals their one eye, many opt to look at their side profile. Deeming the monstrous revelation a mere trick of the light or something that can be overlooked. They do not dare look at both eyes, that would require seeing the person in totality. That would require accepting that they are both monster and man, and hating both.

Even now, we tell ourselves that an adult mans obsession with Lolita cannot have been a declaration of intent, a confession of crimes tucked inside his book-shelf. We tell ourselves that it was just a mere coincidence, that he misinterpreted, that he misunderstood. That everybody around him misinterpreted and misunderstood. That every culturally dominant representation of Lolita has simply misinterpreted and misunderstood. That everybody who participated in the creation and filmings of Lolita, even Nabokov, has simply misinterpreted and misunderstood. That we understand the meaning of the book about pedophilia while pedophiles and their apologists have misunderstood.

Wood could not imagine Epstein reading the pages of Lolita and smiling as he identifies himself within Humbert. Yet it is not difficult to imagine Epstein with a smug smile on his face, nearly every photograph of him depicts this. Some have said that it’s an eery smile, as though he smiles with the pompous belief that nobody is going to stop him. With the knowledge that up until this point, nobody has. I would like the reader to imagine Epstein smiling as a new guest sees the first edition copy of Lolita strewn about one of his many properties. Smug with the knowledge that they will either understand the book and Epstein’s meaning, or assure themselves that it’s just a mundane interest or symbol of status. I would like the reader to imagine Nabokov smiling as he trips and tumbles over the pronunciation of “Lolita,” dodging his recantation of where “Humbert Humbert” came from. Knowing that in this moment he has become merged with Humbert, knowing that the interviewer will move on quickly. Assuring himself that the relation must be accidental.

When I say that everybody is aboard the Lolita express, I mean that when I look around all I see are Humberts, or people who wish they were Humbert, or people who enable Humbert. I mean that the Lolita Express existed in the concrete, but condemning it only exists in the abstract. I mean that when I look around all I see are people willing to do a pedophiles work for him. How lazy they are in their conduct, how in your face they are able to get. Flaunting their perversions and desire to abuse. How assured they are that you’re willing to make excuses for them.

Their defenders will still come out of the woodwork and make arguments for them, parroting the same worn talking points. ‘Maybe the entirety of the novel is an autobiographical account of years long rape and abuse filtered through the lens of an unreliable narrator, but no this absolutely cannot be about pedophilia. Maybe you have to sift through it, maybe it’s an offhand remark about Dolores crying. Just jump through the right hoops to find ways it critiques pedophilia. Maybe the author did say that it wasn’t a moral critique or satirization, and indeed the rapist pedophile character finds it more immoral than he. But really, really, it’s a book against pedophilia, and saying otherwise is moralist or misinterpreting.’ Yet we identify with Dolores in spite of Nabokov, not because of him. Nabokov and Humbert alike take special pleasure in the creation of “Lolita” and rarely, if ever, refer to her as the girl she was. In all my research, I struggle to find Nabokov taking care to call Dolores her name, instead of the pedophilic nickname “Lolita.”

Even if most in american society are not pedophiles, are not Epsteins, they are Elisa News. Even if they are not the owner of the plane, how many were willing to board the Lolita express? Willing to turn a blind eye because it’s easier, or had an overwhelming desire to see this or that island or property. Willing to insist that maybe Epstein was a victim of the justice system, that really he wasn’t a pedophile, that it was all just some big misunderstanding. What’s the difference in the end between the people who aid and abet and the people who commit the crime? What’s the difference between the grown women who fetishize Lolita and Humbert Humbert himself? What’s the difference between Elisa New and Epstein?

Is Elisa New a pedophile? Is Nabokov? Is Chomsky? Is Campbell? Is Clinton? Round and round we go. The simplest answer is usually correct. Yes, they probably all are. But these people are living, or have works that are living, and so we struggle to point the finger. The flight logs and email transcripts are clogged with people who are desperate to be sorted into the “not-pedophile” category, or the “grey zone” of undecided purgatory. The flight logs and email transcripts are full of pedophiles who are regarded as non-pedophiles because ‘we just cant be sure.’ Who were the true pedophiles? Who were simply associates of the pedophile? While I find it exceedingly likely that Nabokov was a pedophile, even if he was not, the impact of Lolita is blatantly clear. This is a book about a pedophile loved by pedophiles and which normalizes pedophilic thought patterns. Nabokov has never taken issue with pedophilic interpretations of his novel, and has never protected Dolores from sexualization. Pedophile or accomplice? The disdain, not for the book itself, but for Nabokov should be applied regardless. Dolores’ voice comes out strangled or not at all, and has never pierced the cultural main-stream. If this was not Nabokov’s intent he has failed spectacularly.

In the end, Epstein, like Humbert, died in his jail cell. In the end, Nabokov was able to live out his days catching butterflies. In the end, nobody on the flight logs, emails, or photographs will see justice. In the end, Dolores and girls like her are reduced to memory. Hazy recollections of limbs and spirit pinned to a display, plot points in an abstract fight against pedophiles that never exist in the here and now. In the end, american culture loves pedophiles, and loves hiding their pedophilia.