Nah, Anniee gets strongly offended at anything she(?) dislikes. There was a recent Michael Moore thread in Cafe Society where she swore up and down that Moore was the most evil person ever to hold a camera just because he had views she disagreed with(*).
(* = Not an actual statement. Response exaggerated for humorous effect. Consult a physician before reading. May cause dizziness, nausea, cramps, and premature hair loss. Do not take alcohol while using this product. Made in China.) 
True, but the edition of Lolita I’m reading contains the following comment from Nabokov:
“Although there are just enough borrowing from [my Lolita script in Kubrick’s] version to justify my legal position as author of the script, the final product is only a blurred skimpy glimpse of the marvelous picture I imagined and set down scene by scene during the six months I worked in a Los Angeles villa. I do not wish to imply that Kubrick’s film is mediocre; in its own right, it is first-rate, but it is not what I wrote. A tinge of poshlost* is often given by the cinema to the novel it distors and coarsens in its crooked glass. Kubrick, I think, avoided this fault in his version, but I shall never understand why he did not follow my directions and dreams. It is a great pity…”
He did have some good things to say about the film, though: “The four main actors deserve the very highest praise. Sue Lyon bringing that breakfast tray or childishly pulling on her sweater in the car - these are moments of unforgettable acting and directing. The killing [spoiler removed for people who haven’t read it yet] is a masterpiece, and so is the death of [another one]. I must point out, though, that I had nothing to do with the actual production.”
- = sorta means pretentiousness + philistinism
[hijack]I loved the link Cervaise supplied back there, the ChildCare Action Center. I checked it out, I love reading which movies the Catholic Church approves of & so forth.
In reading, I see they quote a pysch from NYC a Frederick Wortham as to the effect of porn on children. Subject matter & quote aside, I find it amusing, I really believe that they are talking about Fredric Wertham, he of the “Seduction of the Innocent” (how comics are Eeeeeeevil). I just find it interesting they don’t quote someone a bit more recent as Dr. Wertham died in 1981 and can’t they spell the man’s name correctly?[/hijack]
Lolita is a wonderful book. I only wish I had the command of the language to describe how beautifully Nabokov uses English. I remember stopping the flow of the story to simple marvel at his aptitude.
OK, just to make sure I’ve got the gist of the thread as far as Anniee, her comments, and the comments about her comments…
In Anniee’s view:
Disturbing character study about a pedophile who seduces (or is seduced by) a barely pubescent girl, and consequently brings the girl, himself, and the girl’s mother to ruin = bad.
Novels that romanticize undead fiends sucking the life’s blood out of their victims, and portray being an undead bloodsucking fiend as a beautiful thing and a state to be desired and sought after = good.
How am I doing?
BTW, haven’t read Lolita, but I have read The Vampire Chronicles up through Tale of the Body Thief.
Oh, and all of the extant Left Behind books.
I want to throw in a couple points regarding the book, seeing as how I’ve just finished reading it for a second time (the first while I was still a teen, now I’m 36). Okay, my points…
-
The first time Humbert and Dolly do the deed, it by no means is child rape, except in a legal sense. Dolly knew exactly what she was doing and considered it a fun thing to do. They slept together in the hotel after Humbert picks her up at the camp, and when they woke up it pretty much just happened. I fully realize Humbert had been dreaming, fantasizing, plotting the whole episode for a long time, but Dolly was not held down, not “physically abused” (except in the legal sense, again), and was a willing participant.
-
There was only one instance of violent physical abuse in the novel, when Humbert struck Dolly across the face while riding in the car, and Humbert expressed regret about what happened later. In my opinion that puts the novel near the bottom of any list of books in terms of the amount of violent physical abuse.
-
The very opening of the book is explicit in showing that Humbert truly loved Dolly, and many times in the book he expresses a heartfelt wish to be more normal in his desires. He knows what he is doing isn’t natural or normal, yet he can’t stop, because his love for underage girls is in his very nature. He can not do anything to stop this desire. In the same way that I, as a man, am most attracted to brunettes, long legs, sexy feet, and intelligent dialogue, he is attracted to prepubescent females. There is nothing he or I can do about it.
-
In my opinion, Nabakov’s treatment of Humbert is probably a pretty good account of what goes on in the mind of a man like him. The constant torment he goes through, knowing what he is putting Dolly through to satisfy his desires, is evident all the way through the book.
Add me to the list of people who think any allegation that Lolita is pornographic is ludicrous. In Nabokov’s own words, included in my edition of the book, he states that he specifically avoided anything that was meant to titillate the reader. He states point blank in the forward, that anyone wishing to read the book for pornographic passages would be wasting their time. I, for one, and sympathetic with the dark character of HH.
I wouldn’t say that. I’d say he was obsessed with her. In a passage I recently passed through, HH admits that in little more than two years (when she hit 15), she’d be going in the midst of puberty, and shortly thereafter he’d find her disgusting. (He uses ‘college girl’ as an epithet.) But he says he’d forever treasure the ideal Lolita, the 12-year-old who personified what he desired in a nymphet. That’s not love, even though he says it is.
Ehh…perhaps you should read the book before making such a sweeping statement. I haven’t read it either (only saw the Polanski film, which of course doesn’t really count) but from those who have read it, I get the feeling that that’s not true at all (i.e. pornographic.)
Damn straight.
Hey, DeepPurple, what gives? The ChildCare Action Project (not the ChildCare Action Center) is in no way affiliated with the Catholic Church. It is run by fundamentalist Protestants.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sponsors the American Catholic Church’s film review board, and their analyses have been quite astute and thoughtful over the years. Check out their Top Ten List for 1968.
What Polanski film?
“That was so film! That was my wife!”
Okay, bad joke, sorry for that.
no film, even…
Bleah.
:smack: I meant Adrian Lyne, of course.
(Heh…tell me that’s not an easy mistake to make…)
I don’t think you understood what I was going for (but that is understandable. When I re-read what i wrote it occurs to me that it wasn’t as clear as it could have been).
What I was trying to say was that it would be true if Ainee told me that she found it pornographic, not that it was in fact pornographic.
How do you find something pornographic? If it turns you on? If Ainnee was turned on by Lolita, I’d be concerned and confused.
Did Nabokov mention that his original draft of the screenplay would have come in at seven hours?
I think that the reason Ainnee is so shocked by Nabokov’s writing and not Rice’s is because Rice is such a hack Go ahead, flame me. I’ve read some of her stuff, she’s a hack. that it’s well-nigh impossible to grasp what the hell Rice is talking about, whereas, even when Nabokov is being oblique, he writes with such clarity and definition, that you know exactly what he’s talking about, even if he doesn’t go into great detail.
That is one theory, Tuckerfan. Another is that she has a feeling that she’s supposed to dislike it, because, because… it’s… vile, ya’know.
Seeing how she was (almost) shot down when debating Michael Moore, one would expect that she learned something, i.e. that the regular Dopers are not easily fooled and that quite a few of them are well read. At a board less inclined to fighting ignorance, and more inclined towards coming together and sharing a knee jerk reaction at anything that is perceived as outside the norm, her self-righteous comments might go down more favourably than here.
I cannot help but wonder what she’d think about Andrew Vachs.
I strongly agree with that. Her self righteous attitude is was she’s supposed to show. Of course, if she’s not trolling in some odd way. 
Actually, I’m starting to wonder if Annie’s last name is Wilkes. Hmm…has anyone heard from Anne Rice lately? Maybe she’s hard at work on “Lestat’s Return”…