Subject
Ferdinand Mount on LOLITA (novel) in London TIMES
Date
Body
EDITOR's NOTE. NABOKV-L thanks Alexandra Colquhoun
<TAColquoun@compuserve.con> for faxing us the item reported below.
-----------------------------------
"I attach an article from The Sunday Times of 29 March.....it describes
LOLITA as "an overrated book" among other not very complimentary things.
The fact that this journalist is berating Nabokov for his "message" is
surely testimony to the fact that he may not be fully aware of what
Nabokov is about."
Alexandra Colquoun
------------------------------------------------
[Summary by DBJ, Editor]
"_Lolita_ really is a sordid little affair"
Mr. Mount remarks on the renewed interest in LOLITA thanks to the new film
that received an "18 certificate" in England last week and observes the
novel is now one of the 250 books that the Millenium Commission is paying
to place in every secondary school library. He reminisces about his first
1959 reading ..."...readable and quite funny in a creepy sort of way, but
thinking that, apart from the shocking theme, there was something wrong
with Nabokov's treatment that I could not quite pin down."
He has now just reread the novel and decided that its failing is
that Humbert "is a totally implausible character." We now know more about
paedophilia. Such perverts are usually products of homes in which they
suffered brutal abuse as children. Recent court cases have shown that
they are "utterly promiscuous and callous, often subjecting boys and girls
indifferently to their degrading treatment. The genteel, well-bred Humbert
obviously does not fit this pattern. Nabokov has had to "bleach out the
dark roots of paedophilia."
Returning to the Schiff/Lyne film, Mount continues "Shorn of
Nabokov's serpentine tricks and flourishes, you see the story for what it
is: a sordid history of moral decay ... What you see before you is a
stuck-up creep...seducing an impassive teenager with a brace on her
teeth..... " "Should the film be banned? No, I don't think so. It's so
dismal that it doesn't seem likely to inspire many imitators. Effort,
rather, should be directed to protecting children in care.
<TAColquoun@compuserve.con> for faxing us the item reported below.
-----------------------------------
"I attach an article from The Sunday Times of 29 March.....it describes
LOLITA as "an overrated book" among other not very complimentary things.
The fact that this journalist is berating Nabokov for his "message" is
surely testimony to the fact that he may not be fully aware of what
Nabokov is about."
Alexandra Colquoun
------------------------------------------------
[Summary by DBJ, Editor]
"_Lolita_ really is a sordid little affair"
Mr. Mount remarks on the renewed interest in LOLITA thanks to the new film
that received an "18 certificate" in England last week and observes the
novel is now one of the 250 books that the Millenium Commission is paying
to place in every secondary school library. He reminisces about his first
1959 reading ..."...readable and quite funny in a creepy sort of way, but
thinking that, apart from the shocking theme, there was something wrong
with Nabokov's treatment that I could not quite pin down."
He has now just reread the novel and decided that its failing is
that Humbert "is a totally implausible character." We now know more about
paedophilia. Such perverts are usually products of homes in which they
suffered brutal abuse as children. Recent court cases have shown that
they are "utterly promiscuous and callous, often subjecting boys and girls
indifferently to their degrading treatment. The genteel, well-bred Humbert
obviously does not fit this pattern. Nabokov has had to "bleach out the
dark roots of paedophilia."
Returning to the Schiff/Lyne film, Mount continues "Shorn of
Nabokov's serpentine tricks and flourishes, you see the story for what it
is: a sordid history of moral decay ... What you see before you is a
stuck-up creep...seducing an impassive teenager with a brace on her
teeth..... " "Should the film be banned? No, I don't think so. It's so
dismal that it doesn't seem likely to inspire many imitators. Effort,
rather, should be directed to protecting children in care.