Subject
Re: Three from Dmitri N.:tennis, (fwd)
Date
Body
From: Juan Martinez <pigbodine@hotmail.com>
I came back to the US from Colombia three days ago, half expecting the
_Lolita_ film to be out already, or at least more or less moored to a
release date. I re-read the novel and Nabokov's script over the summer,
and also a few angry young man writers (they don't stand up quite so
well when you're no longer an angry young man)... Anyway, it was
halfway through this fifth re-reading that I stumbled on the post
regarding _Lolita_'s distribution trouble which, conjoined with all the
angry young man wordage, prompted this question: What, exactly, is so
shocking about _Lolita_?
It may seem dumb to wonder what element triggered the public's
imagination (the answer is obvious)... But I was also reading fellows
like Burroughs and Bukowski at the time, with a smattering of minor
beatnick poets and novelists, as well as a few forgettable paperbacks
from the sixties (bought at nickel a piece at an antique store in
Cartagena)---these writers *strained* themselves to shock the reader and
most failed... why? Artistic quality aside (which has nothing to do
with what makes a bestseller), what is it about _Lolita_ that made it so
hot? Why is it still a hot potato? What's baffling me has little to do
with the novel and more with what's around it... Why is it more
shocking for a man to fall passionately in love with a prepubescent girl
than a boy (or any of the milion other "stark, honest"
relationship-possibilities featured in angry young man novels) or a
bicycle or what have you?
What's bugging me is the (apparent) break between what's going on in the
public's mind and the novel proper... Any ideas or suggestions as to
where I might turn to on this subject?
Peace,
Juan Martinez
P.S. Re Angry (and not so angry) young men: Jim Thompson still stood
out as a great and shocking novelist of devilish economy---better, in
fact, than I remembered him... Also, Thomas Pynchon's new novel turned
out to be more mature and a bit less fun than everything else he's
written, but it's also less sloppy and probably his best work.
>Subject #3:
>Far from being the explicit shocker some feared and others craved, it
>achieves a cinematic dimension of poetry far closer to the novel than
>Stanley Kubrick's distant approximation of a screenplay for which
>Vladimir Nabokov was contractually credited and awarded an Oscar
>nomination.
>Perhaps it would have been easier had Nabokov made Lolita a bicycle or
>a little boy, as some recommended. He would have avoided tickling the
>Humbert in those who contain one, and lots of ecclesiasts would have
>loved the boy.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
I came back to the US from Colombia three days ago, half expecting the
_Lolita_ film to be out already, or at least more or less moored to a
release date. I re-read the novel and Nabokov's script over the summer,
and also a few angry young man writers (they don't stand up quite so
well when you're no longer an angry young man)... Anyway, it was
halfway through this fifth re-reading that I stumbled on the post
regarding _Lolita_'s distribution trouble which, conjoined with all the
angry young man wordage, prompted this question: What, exactly, is so
shocking about _Lolita_?
It may seem dumb to wonder what element triggered the public's
imagination (the answer is obvious)... But I was also reading fellows
like Burroughs and Bukowski at the time, with a smattering of minor
beatnick poets and novelists, as well as a few forgettable paperbacks
from the sixties (bought at nickel a piece at an antique store in
Cartagena)---these writers *strained* themselves to shock the reader and
most failed... why? Artistic quality aside (which has nothing to do
with what makes a bestseller), what is it about _Lolita_ that made it so
hot? Why is it still a hot potato? What's baffling me has little to do
with the novel and more with what's around it... Why is it more
shocking for a man to fall passionately in love with a prepubescent girl
than a boy (or any of the milion other "stark, honest"
relationship-possibilities featured in angry young man novels) or a
bicycle or what have you?
What's bugging me is the (apparent) break between what's going on in the
public's mind and the novel proper... Any ideas or suggestions as to
where I might turn to on this subject?
Peace,
Juan Martinez
P.S. Re Angry (and not so angry) young men: Jim Thompson still stood
out as a great and shocking novelist of devilish economy---better, in
fact, than I remembered him... Also, Thomas Pynchon's new novel turned
out to be more mature and a bit less fun than everything else he's
written, but it's also less sloppy and probably his best work.
>Subject #3:
>Far from being the explicit shocker some feared and others craved, it
>achieves a cinematic dimension of poetry far closer to the novel than
>Stanley Kubrick's distant approximation of a screenplay for which
>Vladimir Nabokov was contractually credited and awarded an Oscar
>nomination.
>Perhaps it would have been easier had Nabokov made Lolita a bicycle or
>a little boy, as some recommended. He would have avoided tickling the
>Humbert in those who contain one, and lots of ecclesiasts would have
>loved the boy.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com