Nature vs Nurture in Lights Out: Josh’s Battle Against His Father’s Shadow

The Central Thematic Claim: A Son’s Choice Defines Him

In Navessa Allen’s Lights Out, the theme of nature versus nurture drives the internal conflict of Josh, the son of a notorious serial killer known as the Ken Doll Killer. Josh spends his life terrified that genetics will force him to repeat his father’s atrocities. The novel ultimately argues that environment and conscious choice—nurture—can override biological inheritance, even when the pull of one’s origins feels inescapable. Josh’s journey from secretive stalker to a partner capable of trust and love demonstrates that identity is forged through action, not blood.

Tracing the Theme Across the Plot

Part 1: The Weight of the Father’s Blood

Josh’s first-person chapters reveal a man constantly monitoring himself for signs of inherited evil. During his initial break-in at Aly’s house, he interacts with her cat, Fred, and feels no violent urge to harm either the animal or Aly. He reflects: “So far, I’d learned two crucial things about myself this week: I didn’t want to hurt Aly or her cat. Maybe I wasn’t a psychopath after all.” This moment is his first counter-evidence against the “nature” argument. Yet he immediately questions whether he might be a sociopath capable of caring only for a select few—showing how deeply the nurture of his childhood trauma has rooted the fear.

The psychological abuse Josh suffered as a child compounds this fear. As Tyler later explains, a psychologist manipulated Josh and his mother into believing Josh needed lifelong antipsychotics to avoid becoming his father. This “treatment” was part of a flawed study attempting to prove psychopathy is genetic. Tyler states: “He has none of the more troubling signs that would point to antisocial personality disorder. … The fact that I’m still alive should be all the proof you need.” In other words, Josh’s environment—the very people who should have nurtured him—instead instilled a false sense of deterministic doom.

Part 2: The Accidental Killing and Its Existential Fallout

The accidental death of Bradley Bluhm becomes the crucible for Josh’s nature-versus-nurture crisis. While trying to deliver the rapist to justice, Josh inadvertently kills Brad by covering both his mouth and nose with duct tape. Instead of horror, Josh feels no guilt, which terrifies him more than the death itself. He confesses to Aly: “The worst part about it is that I don’t even feel bad. … I’m more fucked up over not being fucked up if that makes sense.” This reaction seems to validate his deepest fear: that he has inherited his father’s emotional void.

Yet the narrative complicates this. Aly, a trauma nurse, reframes the lack of guilt as a normal response to removing a predator from the world. She says, “You’ve been taught that killing is wrong and only monsters do it, but that’s not right. … Making one mistake doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.” Her nurture—her professional exposure to death—provides Josh with an alternative interpretation. Furthermore, the death is an accident caused by Josh’s clumsy attempt to be a vigilante, not a cold-blooded murder. His horror at the physical act (he vomits) separates him from his father, who killed deliberately.

Part 3: Aly’s Trust and the Choice to Be Better

The climax of the nature-versus-nurture theme occurs after Aly learns Josh’s lineage through a DNA test. She initially panics, recalling crime statistics and the Bundy comparison. But she quickly interrogates her bias, remembering that Josh is kind, funny, and has never broken her trust. She chooses to believe in his nurture over his nature: “It hit me then. Tyler wasn’t just Josh’s roommate; he was his best friend. … That meant he probably knew all about Josh’s dad.” She goes to Tyler for verification rather than fleeing.

Josh’s own choice to be vulnerable seals the theme. In the aftercare scene (Chapter 25), he removes his physical mask—the symbol of his hidden identity—and confesses his love. Their intimacy is consensual, gentle, and built on mutual trust. Later, at the family dinner with crime boss Uncle Nico, Josh reflects on his father’s background: “My father was a monster, but at least he’d never profited from his crimes. He committed them because he was sick, because he’d grown up in a violently abusive household, and had suffered several frontal lobe injuries that altered his brain function.” This internal monologue acknowledges the nurture factors that created his father—and subtly affirms that Josh, who has found a supportive partner and a moral compass, is walking a different path.

In the epilogue, Josh and Aly play a consensual predator-prey game in the forest. Josh hunts her, but the game is bounded by rules, aftercare, and love. His choice to channel his darkness into negotiated kink rather than violence is the ultimate repudiation of determinism.

Symbol Connections

Complexity and Contradiction

The novel does not offer a simple triumph of nurture over nature. Josh’s lack of guilt after killing Brad is unsettling, even to himself. The text invites readers to question whether his innocence is due to nurture—Aly’s reframing—or because he genuinely lacks a conscience. The psychologist’s earlier abuse leaves Josh’s self-assessment permanently clouded. Furthermore, Aly’s own “dark desires” (she admits in Chapter 8 wanting “someone with a soul as black as night”) complicate the moral landscape. She is not a pure redeemer; she is drawn to Josh’s edge, which blurs the line between acceptance and enablement.

Ultimately, the resolution hinges on choice. Josh chooses to tell his story, to accept Aly’s trust, and to build a domestic life. The epilogue’s image of toilet-papered cats and a proposal in a stream underscores that happiness is possible when one actively resists the pull of the past.

Study Questions and Answers

1. How does Josh’s interaction with Fred the cat serve as an early test of the nature-versus-nurture question?
   Answer: Josh examines his own reactions for signs of psychopathy—caring for a pet and not wanting to harm Aly. This self-assessment shows he is not purely driven by instinct but is actively monitoring his behavior, indicating that he believes nurture (self-control, reflection) can override any inherited tendencies.

2. What role does the psychologist’s manipulation play in Josh’s self-concept?
   Answer: The psychologist forced Josh and his mother to believe Josh was destined to become a killer, prescribing unnecessary medication. This early “nurture” of false medical authority implanted a deep-seated fear that nature would dominate. It illustrates how external influences can create self-fulfilling prophecies, which Josh must later unlearn.

3. Why does Josh’s lack of guilt over Brad’s death both terrify him and serve as evidence against the “nature” argument?
   Answer: He fears it confirms he is a psychopath like his father. However, the narrative shows that guilt is not the only moral marker. Aly’s perspective—that removing a rapist is justifiable—offers a nurture-based moral framework. Josh’s horror at the physical act (vomiting) shows he has a visceral aversion to killing, unlike his cold father.

4. How does Aly’s acceptance of Josh’s dark side complicate the theme?
   Answer: Aly is not a conventional rescuer; she actively desires a man who “would burn the world down” for her. Her own nature is drawn to darkness, meaning she doesn’t simply teach Josh to be good—she validates his entire identity, shadows included. This makes the theme less about erasing nature and more about integrating it through consensual boundaries.

5. What does the epilogue’s predator-prey game reveal about Josh’s final stance on his inherited legacy?
   Answer: By choosing a negotiated, consensual exchange of power with Aly, Josh demonstrates that he can inhabit the predator role without becoming a monster. His choice to play within clear rules—and to return to domesticity afterward—proves that nurture (his commitment to Aly and his own values) has decisively shaped his path, not his bloodline.