Subject
Reviews, narrativel delusion, topics of discussion (fwd)
Date
Body
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 98 22:19:40 -0800
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Reviews, narrativel delusion, topics of discussion
Galya wrote,
>There was a glowing review of the movie yesterday in the NYT and the
>opposite of that on NPR.
------------------------
From: Alexander Justice <jahvah@empirenet.com>
The NYT review, I thought, was positive and perhaps glowing in parts, but
also critical of the later parts of the novel, which the writer declared
to be clumsy and out of place in both movie and book, i.e. the 2nd flight
across the US and the death scene of a certain playwright. I would think
a review of the history of this opinion in Nabokovian criticism would be
interesting, as I'm sure it has surfaced before.
My own opinion on another aspect of Lo, formed during my year-long
Nabokov journey in 1996, was that the seduction of Lo at EH, and the
notion that she had engaged in social activity previously, was strongly
distorted by the narrator, and perhaps invented. It would be the mind-set
of a pedophiliac to fantasize such a sex life for his victims.
As we conclude our digestion of reviews and await the Academy Award
nominations, perhaps we could discuss the capacity of film to present the
same irony and level of detail which literature can. I wonder. The films
I most enjoy by far were either plays or original (underived from book)
screenplays, and today I pester anyone who will listen with the view that
the adaptation of books to film puts limits on the latter medium which
really doesn't further the progress of the art, and which hampers the
life of letters.
Alexander Justice * jahvah@empirenet.com * Redlands, California, USA
Graduate Student * Library and Information Science * UCLA
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 98 22:19:40 -0800
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Reviews, narrativel delusion, topics of discussion
Galya wrote,
>There was a glowing review of the movie yesterday in the NYT and the
>opposite of that on NPR.
------------------------
From: Alexander Justice <jahvah@empirenet.com>
The NYT review, I thought, was positive and perhaps glowing in parts, but
also critical of the later parts of the novel, which the writer declared
to be clumsy and out of place in both movie and book, i.e. the 2nd flight
across the US and the death scene of a certain playwright. I would think
a review of the history of this opinion in Nabokovian criticism would be
interesting, as I'm sure it has surfaced before.
My own opinion on another aspect of Lo, formed during my year-long
Nabokov journey in 1996, was that the seduction of Lo at EH, and the
notion that she had engaged in social activity previously, was strongly
distorted by the narrator, and perhaps invented. It would be the mind-set
of a pedophiliac to fantasize such a sex life for his victims.
As we conclude our digestion of reviews and await the Academy Award
nominations, perhaps we could discuss the capacity of film to present the
same irony and level of detail which literature can. I wonder. The films
I most enjoy by far were either plays or original (underived from book)
screenplays, and today I pester anyone who will listen with the view that
the adaptation of books to film puts limits on the latter medium which
really doesn't further the progress of the art, and which hampers the
life of letters.
Alexander Justice * jahvah@empirenet.com * Redlands, California, USA
Graduate Student * Library and Information Science * UCLA