The Best Of... discussion

This from Michael:

A great quote I just stumbled upon after watching "The Grand Budapest Hotel."


This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneasy about much of what has been written about "Humbert is a Pedophile. He Abuses Lolita" thread:

An odd thought occurred to me a few hours after I saw writer/director Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel" for the first time. It was that Anderson would be the ideal director for a film of "Lolita," or a mini-series of "Ada." Now I know that "Lolita" has been filmed, twice, but the fundamental problem with each version has nothing to do with ability to depict or handle risky content but with a fundamental misapprehension that Nabokov's famous novel took place in the "real world." For all the authentic horror and tragedy of its story, it does not.

"I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art," Humbert Humbert, the book's monstrous protagonist/narrator, writes at the end of "Lolita." Nabokov created Humbert so Humbert might create his own world (with a combination of detail both geographically verifiable and stealthily fanciful), a refuge from his own wrongdoing.

I agree, Michael. I have always had a problem with how Nabokov's work is marketed, particularly "Lolita" as a "love story" but the movie adaptations of Lolita in particular would have benefitted from a more Hitchcokian approach. Something in the vein of "Spellbound" maybe.

In fact...Gregory Peck as HH - that would've been something!

I feel like I'm the only person in the world who hasn't read Lolita.

Paul Martin wrote: "I feel like I'm the only person in the world who hasn't read Lolita."

Well chop chop, Mr. Martin, get to it! ;) I've the annotated Lolita waiting for me at the library for a fall re-read.

I'm about halfway through Pale Fire which is my first Nabokov and I've greatly enjoyed it so far. It's very unique.

Thanks for posting the quote, Leslie. It bothers me when people discuss fiction--especially a novel as fanciful as Lolita--as if it were journalism.

Gregory Peck as HH? Brilliant!

Michael wrote: "Thanks for posting the quote, Leslie. It bothers me when people discuss fiction--especially a novel as fanciful as Lolita--as if it were journalism.

Gregory Peck as HH? Brilliant!"

That would be brilliant. I am reading Lolita again right now, and I am not sure if it could ever be portrayed in a film. How can the exquisite language and nuances of Nabokov's novel be transferred to the screen? My husband and I are planning to watch the James Mason and the Jeremy Irons versions back to back in the near future.

I've bolded the text in the OP that strikes me as the most interesting, Michael. Care to unpack that thought a bit?

Karen wrote: "Michael wrote: "Thanks for posting the quote, Leslie. It bothers me when people discuss fiction--especially a novel as fanciful as Lolita--as if it were journalism.

Gregory Peck as HH? Brilliant!"..."

I haven't seen the James Mason version...he's squicky :P.

Will wrote: "I'm about halfway through Pale Fire which is my first Nabokov and I've greatly enjoyed it so far. It's very unique."

Are you using any special reading technique to flip between the poem and the story narrative, Will, or just one page at a time? Your young brain can probable handle acrobatics better than my tired old steam engine.

I've been flipping back and forth. It's not too much to keep up with because my technique has been to read a large section of the poem all at once (one canto at a time), and then go back to the narrative/commentary and I'll flip back to the parts I've already read when the commentary suggests it. The narrative/commentary has been more of a struggle than the poem as the character's voice tends to drag into long, boring asides.

Leslie wrote: "Karen wrote: "Michael wrote: "Thanks for posting the quote, Leslie. It bothers me when people discuss fiction--especially a novel as fanciful as Lolita--as if it were journalism.

Gregory Peck as HH? Brilliant!"..."

"I haven't seen the James Mason version...he's squicky :P."

I'll have to get out my dictionary for squicky.

Will wrote: "I've been flipping back and forth. It's not too much to keep up with because my technique has been to read a large section of the poem all at once (one canto at a time), and then go back to the nar..."

I quit in the middle of it. It wasn't that I had difficulty understanding it, I just found it tedious much of the time. I'm glad you're enjoying it.

Karen wrote: "I'll have to get out my dictionary for squicky. "

You have a pretty strange relationship with your dictionary, Karen ;) ha ha!

Leslie wrote: "I've bolded the text in the OP that strikes me as the most interesting, Michael. Care to unpack that thought a bit?"

The more I mull over that section of Ebert's discussion, Leslie, the more confused I become. The part that resonates more with me is:

"Now I know that "Lolita" has been filmed, twice, but the fundamental problem with each version has nothing to do with ability to depict or handle risky content but with a fundamental misapprehension that Nabokov's famous novel took place in the "real world." For all the authentic horror and tragedy of its story, it does not."

Critics have written that the true love affair that takes place in “Lolita” is that of Nabokov’s love affair with the English language, which was not his mother tongue. Nabokov takes the most sordid and outlandish material and by means of his astounding skill as a writer, turns it into art that is uproarious, heartbreaking, and sublime. He also concocts a thoroughly despicable protagonist and manages to get us to like and even, in some ways, admire him.

Like other postmodern novels, “Lolita” is also a parody of storytelling and the writing process. As Sam Lloyd notes:

“Within its pages, Lolita effectively parodies detective novels, romance novels, road novels, psychoanalytic novels, “Great American” novels, Greek tragedy stories, family structure in storytelling, character names, settings, forewords, introductions, and just about everything else possible there is to parody.”

So I think Ebert is suggesting—as did Nabokov himself—that it is misguided to look for morals, lessons, or allegories in this work of art.

Leslie wrote: "Karen wrote: "I'll have to get out my dictionary for squicky. "

You have a pretty strange relationship with your dictionary, Karen ;) ha ha!"

Hahaha!! I know, I do! Hey I've looked up words in both Faulkner's books and Nabokov's, and they aren't there!
I've also tried to sneak and look up words while my husband is talking to me, but I always get caught. Ummm, I should say that I knew squicky was not a word. :/

Michael wrote:
'"Critics have written that the true love affair that takes place in “Lolita” is that of Nabokov’s love affair with the English language, which was not his mother tongue. Nabokov takes the most sordid and outlandish material and by means of his astounding skill as a writer, turns it into art that is uproarious, heartbreaking, and sublime. He also concocts a thoroughly despicable protagonist and manages to get us to like and even, in some ways, admire him."

Perfect! And Nabokov succeeds so well- as I'm reading this novel now, I have liked HH- which horrifies me in a way, but I recognize that it is Nabokov's beautiful prose that has done this to me. I don't know if I admire HH as much as I feel his heartbreak, which is something we all know and can empathize with.

Understandable. Luckily the poem is really good and makes up for the tedius commentary.

I think one problem with commentary about Lolita, or any work of narrative art, is the popular assumption that the characters and story should serve as a model for moral behavior, or if they do not that those who transgress should be punished in the story. That is an anti-art attitude, in my opinion, though their are great works in which characters like HH do get their just desserts.

Kallie wrote: "I think one problem with commentary about Lolita, or any work of narrative art, is the popular assumption that the characters and story should serve as a model for moral behavior, or if they do not..."

Excellent point! The question "why did author X write the story" is always a frustrating one to hear. If we limit our comprehension and appreciation to writing that we can relate to, or feels familiar, or is easy to categorize, how do we grow? Why bother waking up in the morning at all? My question would be "why would Nabokov write at all if he must write the same old stories that have already been told, experiences that have already been had, outcomes that have already gone?"

Kallie wrote: "I think one problem with commentary about Lolita, or any work of narrative art, is the popular assumption that the characters and story should serve as a model for moral behavior, or if they do not..."

A great post Kallie! Lolita is so gorgeously written that the mastery of the novel had me feeling sad for HH at the end, that I had forgotten his crime for a few moments. I often feel like I have to hastily throw in a statement like "and of course for Lolita too"- but doesn't that go without saying? The genius of Nabokov's story is that he made HH a sympathetic character, not by convincing us, but purely by his use of language. That's the accomplishment, or one that resonated so vividly for me.

Yes, Karen and Leslie, you get the why. I remember a friend once saying, why create such a character (an orphan, former ne'er do well and con, trying to grow up for his son, often failing) and my immediate response: Because people like that are too often neglected as subjects of creative imagination. In that case, I thought my friend was being middle-class snobby.

Nabokov on storytelling and reading:

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/02/...

Kallie wrote: "Nabokov on storytelling and reading:

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/02/..."

good one! I like the pic of him with the butterfly- his face looks a bit dirty, like he just crawled out of the woods in his suit with a new butterfly he found.

Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Nabokov on storytelling and reading:

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/02/..."

good one! I like the pic of him with the butterfly- his face looks a..."

HaHa! How appropriate.

Great link, Kallie.

I love this quote from Nabokov:

"Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth. Every great writer is a great deceiver, but so is that arch-cheat Nature. Nature always deceives. From the simple deception of propagation to the prodigiously sophisticated illusion of protective colors in butterflies or birds, there is in Nature a marvelous system of spells and wiles. The writer of fiction only follows Nature’s lead."

Michael wrote: "Great link, Kallie.

I love this quote from Nabokov:

"Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth. Every great writer is a great de..."

I wish there was a like button!

That is a fantastic and beautiful quote!

Michael wrote: "Great link, Kallie.

I love this quote from Nabokov:

"Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth. Every great writer is a great de..."

And people make themselves up. Don't we? Who wants to totally accept some other person's idea of who we are.

Leslie wrote: "This from Michael:

A great quote I just stumbled upon after watching "The Grand Budapest Hotel."


This quote from Roger Ebert's review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" captures what makes me uneas..."


I had thought that this quote seemed awfully literary (and recent!) for the late Roger Ebert. Although I took it from RogerEbert.com, the actual reviewer was Glen Kenny.