Subject
Re: Fw: Humbert's pedophilia on film
From
Date
Body
----- Forwarded message from as-brown@comcast.net -----
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:04:57 -0400
From: Andrew Brown <as-brown@comcast.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <as-brown@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: Humbert's pedophilia on film
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Something I forgot to add.
It's interesting how our having only HH's word for the events of Lolita is
similar in a way to our having only Charle's Kinbote's word for so much of Pale
Fire.
When we think of how much different a filmed Lolita might be if a director and
writer chose to use all that Kubrick and Lyne neglected, think how different
our filmed Pale Fires might be if one was Shadean, and the other Kinbotean.
Or, more fascinating still, a Pale Fire told largely from the POV of Sybil and
Hazel.
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald B. Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Humbert's pedophilia on film
----- Forwarded message from STADLEN@aol.com -----
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:54:45 EDT
From: STADLEN@aol.com
Reply-To: STADLEN@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Humbert's pedophilia on film
To:
I think Sandy Drescher, Kellie Dawson and Andrew Brown all go a long way to
answering my question about why the "Lolita" films censor out HH's psychiatric
(as opposed to sentimental psychoanalytic) status.
Thank you.
Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Sandy Drescher, Kellie Dawson and Andrew Brown all go a long way to
answering my question about why the "Lolita" films censor out HH's psychiatric
(as opposed to sentimental psychoanalytic) status.
Thank you.
Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----