Why am I not surprised that someone beat me to this? Ah well…
Indeed, the Jeremy Irons film is a wonder. I liked the Kubrick version, but Adrian Lyne’s take on the story seemed much more true to it, and much more emotionally honest.
Which led me to listen to Irons’ taped reading of the book itself, and my God… if Nabokov’s book was his love affair with the English language (and I think the book itself is a compelling argument that this is true), then Jeremy Irons’ reading of it is his own love affair with the spoken-word. He gives his reading a rhythm and cadence which suits the book ideally… he never rushes, and he takes loving time with some of the best passages of the novel. I’m somewhat of an audiobook aficionado, and this is simply one of the finest readings I’ve ever heard. It may even have unseated Tim Curry’s reading of Foucault’s Pendulum, which is also an amazing experience.
The arguments for why the book is so well-regarded have already been made here… I’ll just back up the opinion of those who have said that the novel’s use of language and complex themes make it an exemplary work of English letters, and worthy of notice. In some ways, it is its disturbing nature that commands attention, and the artful way it deals with it.
Sorry, but that’s bullshit. It’s sort of par for the course that a man who wrote a book about pedophilia would himself be suspected of it. But there’s no mention of any evidence in the multi-volume biography indicating that Nabokov was a pedophile. What he did do, while researching Lolita, was to ride in the back of schoolbuses and loiter around 50s pre-teen hangouts so that he could overhear the conversation and peculiar idiom of American schoolgirls. Sort of creepy but the uncannily accurate results are apparent to any reader of Lolita’s dialogue and to anyone with a younger sister.
There’s been a few mentions of Clare Quilty in this thread by Lizard and others. Actually, Clare Quilty doesn’t exist. It’s pretty apparent from the book and most of the critical literature agrees on this point. HH is psychotic after all, that’s always clear throughout, and he summons up this pursuer as a literal manifestation of his guilt over L.
The Jeremy Irons movie sucks. Utter garbage. He doesn’t even resemble Humbert as he describes himself in the book. Now Peter Sellers on the other hand… Go rent Kubrick’s classic version with Nabokov himself providing the screenplay.
Readers of this thread might enjoy A.M. Homes’ novel “The End of Alice”, which is sort of a reply to Nabokov’s book. The narrators are an imprisoned child murderer, who uses a parody of Humbert’s alliterative, over-inflated prose style, and his admirer, a 20-year old female pedophile who preys on pre-teen boys. Reading it is a far more punishing, disturbing experience than Nabokov’s comic epic, but that’s Homes’ point: there’s nothing funny about pedophilia. Artistically, of course, it doesn’t even touch Lolita and the ending is a bit pat but it’s still a terrifying read.
Homes says she got the idea for the book after overhearing two people talking about Lolita and swearing that, in their view, Humbert never actually has sex with her in the book. Homes saw this as total denial since the entire second half deals with their repeatedly having sex and its after-effects at the school L attends. It’s true that there’s no detailed description of it but there is that scene in one of the hotel rooms where, if I’m remembering correctly, H forces L to cllimb on top of him.
It is possible to read chapter 29 of Part One and still not believe that they had sex, but it takes a naivety and a willing suspension of belief. (And what about the last line of chapter 31: “Sensitive gentlewomen of the jury, I was not even her first lover.”)
And while it’s true that Lolita is quite often referred to as “comic” I don’t think you can understand the book without recognizing that it is also a very angry book. The characters are perpetually angry at events, one another, and society, and the comic portrayal hides a constant anger of the author’s as well.
where, besides the episodes in confinement, is there evidence that he is mentally deranges to the point of being an unreliable narrator? Granted, he is an obsessive and a pedophile but that does not render him clinically insane.
I mean, granted, he is an unreliable narrator: cmon, this is NABOKOV after all. But hardly anyone who mentions Humbert as unreliable mentions that the narrators of Pale Fire and Ada are much more unreliable. I apply Occam’s Razor to the narration: if there is no real reason to doubt the narration I dont write the narrator off as a kook.
he does engage in minor errors of general facts (admittedly ones that a lot of people make), but i see no overall reason to doubt that Lolita would willingly have relations with him that one time; Humbert is fully guilty in my opinion of not being sensitive to her not wanting him to “own” her, and perhaps deluded to the extent of thinking that maybe she will eventually reciprocate fully his love (as well as blowing out of proporation,as it were, her relations with the boy from the camp.) But totally and utterly delusional? I dont see any evidence for that.
I mean, Pale Fire I can understand people not comparing to Lolita, the delusions are too obvious to even mention. But there are multiple problems with Ada that render it also far beyond Lolita in terms of questionability.
[spoilers]
for instance, take the simple note that Ada and Van made love “6 or 7 times a day”. How should we interpret this remark?
– It is completely true.
– Its a stretch of the truth.
– Van lied about it.
– Ada lied about it when editing the book to make Van look good.
or, the location of the world throws a monkeywrench into things, bringing up this possibility:
– It is true, but the physiology of that world makes it less spectacular, more akin to making love 2 or 3 times a day.
Clare Quilty doesn’t exist? then WHY is HH in prison?
I thought the Lyne/Irons/Swain (who was hot & who I have read has suffered some for it) version was technically more accurate & definitely had the appropriate darkness BUT that the Kubrick/Mason/Lyons (who also was hot & has reportedly suffered for it) one was more soulfully tragic in that it did not avoid the comic, which the newest version did.
has anyone read the novel titled I think LO’S STORY? I haven’t yet.