Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: On Lolita edited by Alfred Appel, Jr. - Vintage Books

  1. #16
    biting writer
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    when it is not pc, philly
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Etienne View Post
    So it is just about the bad guy who is not punished at the end of the story? That does not make much more sense to me...
    I just finished rereading Bovary, and although the two novels are quite different in their technical astuteness Etienne, I have to say, I can see why Flaubert was put on trial, and why Nabokov ended up with more notoriety than homage. Madame Bovary and Lolita are entirely cynical and nihilistic. Damning and unforgiving visions, not just satires, and this is why regular people rebel against either text. It is not the sex; it is the reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator. Name me one redeeming aspect in either story. Give it a shot. These men had no true sympathy; it is ontological buffoonery they both relish, their own wit and wry irony.

    Censorship is the worse evil, but that doesn't mean affront against the text isn't a natural response.
    Last edited by Jozanny; 10-18-2008 at 11:46 PM.

  2. #17
    Registered User Etienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Jozanny View Post
    Damning and unforgiving visions, not just satires, and this is why regular people rebel against either text.
    I'm not sure what you mean by regular people, as people who would rebel against either text, in the culture I live in would more likely be the irregulars.

    It is not the sex; it is the reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator. Name me one redeeming aspect in either story. Give it a shot. These men had no true sympathy; it is ontological buffoonery they both relish, their own wit and wry irony.
    Well I don't feel there needs to be "redeeming" aspects as I feel there is nothing to "doom" them. They are works of art. Great works of art. Not only that, but they are extremely interesting insights into sociological and psychological situations.

    Censorship is the worse evil, but that doesn't mean affront against the text isn't a natural response.
    Well, you know, as I said it might just be cultural. Baudelaire and Flaubert are commonplace teaching in High School (they're pretty much the typical classics taught), and what is taught is their sublime. The controversy they have created is really seen as some ridiculous, remote and curious phenomenon of some prude past. Modern works which are often much worse (Agota Kristof's Le grand cahier, as an example) are taught in High Schools, with absolutely nothing surprising about it.

    Now University is not even to be considered as to attempts at censorship or anything of that kind! Unthinkable.
    Last edited by Etienne; 10-19-2008 at 12:05 AM.
    Et l'unique cordeau des trompettes marines

    Apollinaire, Le chantre

  3. #18
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Jozanny View Post
    I just finished rereading Bovary, and although the two novels are quite different in their technical astuteness Etienne, I have to say, I can see why Flaubert was put on trial, and why Nabokov ended up with more notoriety than homage. Madame Bovary and Lolita are entirely cynical and nihilistic. Damning and unforgiving visions, not just satires, and this is why regular people rebel against either text. It is not the sex; it is the reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator. Name me one redeeming aspect in either story. Give it a shot. These men had no true sympathy; it is ontological buffoonery they both relish, their own wit and wry irony.

    Censorship is the worse evil, but that doesn't mean affront against the text isn't a natural response.
    Lets be honest, both Flaubert and Nabokov are superb writers. Flaubert's Madam Bovary is renown not only for its content, but for its phenomenal prose style, and literary style. As for Nabokov, well what he does with words is rare. He seems to go beyond Joyce, to an applied first person-narration that I cannot find a better practitioner of. Morality doesn't even enter the mix.

    In addition to this though, both books go against their times vision of literature. It is interesting to note the punch Flaubert takes at romanticism, and the punch Nabokov takes at aspects of modernism. Flaubert creates in Madam Bovary the ironized romantic heroine, turned on her head, and ultimately destroyed. Nabokov does the same with the psychoanalytical mass-culture pop-art of his day, and turns it on his head. The book is more about a war between two aesthetes than anything else.

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5
    Could you recommend a version that is 100% not "revised" or otherwise tampered with?

    I see the Appel edition is also published by Penguin, but I expect that'll be identical to the Vintage version. If that's so, it's really unfortunate that the only edition (?) that offers notes in profusion is also somewhat abridged. When I buy a new one, I'll still have to keep this one.

  5. #20
    Bibliophile Drkshadow03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    My heart lives in New York.
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Jozanny View Post
    Censorship is the worse evil, but that doesn't mean affront against the text isn't a natural response.
    Except I think there is a huge difference between censorship with a little "c" and censorship with a capital "C." Right now we're talking about censorship with a little "c." The government isn't coming in and stopping you from reading the book, nobody is going to get shot if you're seen carrying any of those books around, and you won't end up in the gulag. What we are really talking about is an abridgement, which is technically a kind of censorship according to the dictionary definition of censoring. However, it's not censorship in the your Rights as defined by the U.S. constitution sense in which only the government can technically censor.

    We rewrite and change books for young adult versions of the classics all the time (mostly because of difficulty levels, but obviously they cut-out inappropriate things too). Nobody freaks out. I see no problem with Random House releasing an abridged version for those who find certain material in Lolita offensive, but still wish to read the book. Though, it's kind of weird that they would do that with an annotated version.

    However, nobody is stopping anyone from going on Amazon and buying the unabridged version. Or better yet going to your local library.
    Last edited by Drkshadow03; 10-19-2008 at 10:55 AM.
    "You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

    https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
    Feed the Hungry!

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Little Paris in Decay
    Posts
    93
    That's hypocrisy. If you can justify one kind of censorship, you can justify any, given the right circumstances.

    Not to mention that the entire concept of "rewriting and changing books for young adult versions" is bloody retarded. It angers me both that such things are published and that people are actually paid for such hack jobs.
    If a certain work of literature is too difficult or inappropriate for a certain age, I got a bright ideea... Don't teach it in schools/make them read it at that age. There's plenty of things to read, enjoy and learn from at every age... people will grow up... preferably not into idiots with fantastic ideas about their own culture. Or let's just make Lolita read like Harry Potter so we can say kids dig good literature.

    Beyond the fact that such editions are an offense to the writer and shouldn't exist unless he himself decide to write one version for every age, it's also a scam on the buyer, who as you see didn't expect it. Editors can make money selling these outside their market share. They should have a big red CENSORED stamp on their covers.

  7. #22
    Bibliophile Drkshadow03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    My heart lives in New York.
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    That's hypocrisy. If you can justify one kind of censorship, you can justify any, given the right circumstances.

    Not to mention that the entire concept of "rewriting and changing books for young adult versions" is bloody retarded. It angers me both that such things are published and that people are actually paid for such hack jobs.
    If a certain work of literature is too difficult or inappropriate for a certain age, I got a bright ideea... Don't teach it in schools/make them read it at that age. There's plenty of things to read, enjoy and learn from at every age... people will grow up... preferably not into idiots with fantastic ideas about their own culture. Or let's just make Lolita read like Harry Potter so we can say kids dig good literature.

    Beyond the fact that such editions are an offense to the writer and shouldn't exist unless he himself decide to write one version for every age, it's also a scam on the buyer, who as you see didn't expect it. Editors can make money selling these outside their market share. They should have a big red CENSORED stamp on their covers.
    1) How was I being hypocritical?

    2) ::shrugs:: I enjoyed the YA versions when I was younger. Why shouldn't the reader have an opportunity to read anything they would like? Likewise, why do you assume they are being forced to read these YA versions in school? I read them privately and you can walk into the Children's section of any old bookstore and buy them.

    3) No, such a book should have some indication that it was Abridged. And guess what, by golly, most abridged versions of books do just that on their cover! Who would've thunk it!
    "You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

    https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
    Feed the Hungry!

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5
    An adaptation of a book that, however you put it, deals very explicitly about a man having sex with a thirteen-year-old girl can only be sold to people who like to think and say they've read it but don't want it to disconcert them or anything like that...

    Given the nature of the book, I believe what was done in this case was merely purge it of patently "bad words", as if *that* were just too much and paedophilia were all right as long as it was described in King's English. There still was a lot of sultry stuff: how can you "chastely revise" that? Say, Humbert being excited by Lolita's legs "athwart" his lap. Or, towards the end of the book, Dolores saying that she hadn't been willing to---Humbert says the French for the word she used is "souffler" and Appel gives the English translation "blow"---Quilty's friends. All the puns on "dick" were likewise retained. Is there much more?

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Little Paris in Decay
    Posts
    93
    How was I being hypocritical?
    How ideed...?

    You apparently think small scale censorship is good... that it's justified for some people to read an "abridged" version instead of the original. But you oppose Censorship when done by the state. Maybe the state has his reasons too, since it has concerns for social stability... maybe it thinks there will be less problems if people don't have access to certain information.

    Also, you seem to think reading a modified version of a great work of art is a positive cultural act...

    I enjoyed the YA versions when I was younger. Why shouldn't the reader have an opportunity to read anything they would like? Likewise, why do you assume they are being forced to read these YA versions in school? I read them privately and you can walk into the Children's section of any old bookstore and buy them.
    If you read it as you would a different book, it's plagiarism. How about I go about and rewrite Lolita in order to appeal to some random group? An author has something to express through a book, don't you think it's even remotely bad or at least pointless to filter his words? And I had to assume, first because this particular "abridged" version had addnotations useful for study, and secondly because no kid thinks about reading something he doesn't understand on his own. Reading an easier version defeats the purpose of having read that particular work... Kinda like getting a toy Ferrari made of plastic and with pedals so you can drive a cool car before 18.
    Just because it happens, it doesn't mean it's good. I haven't seen such versions in my country... Worst case scenario, they come from some crappy publishing houses who can't afford printing anything else but junk.

    No, such a book should have some indication that it was Abridged. And guess what, by golly, most abridged versions of books do just that on their cover! Who would've thunk it!
    Apparently, no one... have you read the thread?
    Last edited by Petronius; 10-19-2008 at 01:06 PM.

  10. #25
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Drkshadow03 View Post
    1) How was I being hypocritical?

    2) ::shrugs:: I enjoyed the YA versions when I was younger. Why shouldn't the reader have an opportunity to read anything they would like? Likewise, why do you assume they are being forced to read these YA versions in school? I read them privately and you can walk into the Children's section of any old bookstore and buy them.

    3) No, such a book should have some indication that it was Abridged. And guess what, by golly, most abridged versions of books do just that on their cover! Who would've thunk it!
    Yes, but it depends on the publisher. The old penguin designs usually have it in really small writing on the back, right above the cover design artist. They should have an "abridged by" right under the author on the front. But on the subject though, Lolita is not a very long book, and the abridgment therefore is of "obscenity" as the abridger sees it, rather than to cut the length. Technically they could put edited by: etc, and it would work, but traditionally edited by means that an editor sifted through manuscripts to come up with a definite version, as done in the case with Shakespeare, where often the editors make mixtures of folio and quarto versions. Editor even in the case of something like James Joyce could be seen as creating a mix between different publications. One must read the books introduction to truly get to what the "editor" has done, usually starting with a forward by the editor, or an editor's note. A simple edited by anywhere on the cover doesn't reveal anything. Edited also, in the case of older works, could imply changing the spelling or words in certain places to remove archaisms, as seen in additions of Jane Austen, and other writers. It is, therefore problematic if you are not in a book store looking through the editors notes when buying the book, and extremely problematic for anyone buying books on line, as the "edited by" can be seen as providing clarifications, rather than distortions.
    Last edited by JBI; 10-19-2008 at 01:28 PM.

  11. #26
    Bibliophile Drkshadow03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    My heart lives in New York.
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    How ideed...?

    You apparently think small scale censorship is good... that it's justified for some people to read an "abridged" version instead of the original. But you oppose Censorship when done by the state. Maybe the state has his reasons too, since it has concerns for social stability... maybe it thinks there will be less problems if people don't have access to certain information.

    Also, you seem to think reading a modified version of a great work of art is a positive cultural act...
    I personally think the word small-scale censorship is a misnomer of my position. I only included it because I am willing to concede that it would still fit a dictionary definition of censorship, but I wouldn't really consider that censorship assuming other unabridged versions exist. It would, however, be censorship if the government came in and abridged the books for content, not allowing for other versions to be purchased or read.

    Since that isn't the case in this situation, and you can just go on Amazon and buy the unabridged version or go to your local library, we aren't really talking about censorship. We are talking about abridgement geared for a specific audience who are more than free to buy an unabridged version if they so choose.

    It's really simple. Are we talking about having multiple versions that any individual is free to read and purchase based off their own tastes? Or are we talking about less versions or no versions at all? If the answer is producing MORE rather than LESS then I wouldn't be to worried about censorship. Nobody is coming in to take your books away.

    Also, where did I say it was a good or a positive cultural act? Talk about misinterpreting my post.

    I said I see no problem with it, which is not the same as saying I throw a party everytime a new abridged version of a book comes out. I'm sort of apathetic really and just think everyone who goes on about the horrors of censorship because one version of a book exists that is slightly abridged are silly. As for REAL censorship that is something to get upset about.

    If you read it as you would a different book, it's plagiarism. How about I go about and rewrite Lolita in order to appeal to some random group? An author has something to express through a book, don't you think it's even remotely bad or at least pointless to filter his words? And I had to assume, first because this particular "abridged" version had addnotations useful for study, and secondly because no kid thinks about reading something he doesn't understand on his own. Reading an easier version defeats the purpose of having read that particular work... Kinda like getting a toy Ferrari made of plastic and with pedals so you can drive a cool car before 18.
    Reading an easier version doesn't defeat the purpose, it in fact has nothing to do with reading the complete work later on when I'm older just as playing with my toy Ferrari at the age of 8 would have nothing to do with me driving a cool car at the age of 18.

    If a 25 year old were reading the young adult version then you'd have a point.


    Apparently, no one... have you read the thread?
    What's your point? This comment has nothing to do with the truth value of my statement that most abridged books indicate that they are abridged on the cover, which they generally do.

    Quote Originally Posted by JBI View Post
    Yes, but it depends on the publisher. . . . It is, therefore problematic if you are not in a book store looking through the editors notes when buying the book, and extremely problematic for anyone buying books on line, as the "edited by" can be seen as providing clarifications, rather than distortions.
    All very good points, JBI. I actually think it's kind of weird that anyone would abridge Lolita for language, considering it still retains its content.
    Last edited by Drkshadow03; 10-19-2008 at 02:20 PM.
    "You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

    https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
    Feed the Hungry!

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Little Paris in Decay
    Posts
    93
    Look Dark, I just don't think anyone should have the right to tamper with the author's final work. Allowing that implies someone can claim the abridged version is more appropriate in certain circumstances. If the author chose certain words and a certain level of complexity, perhaps he did not adress to children, or perhaps he intended the reader to make a certain effort. There are plenty of people eager to write for 8 year olds, and there are even older writers accessible to them (Jules Verne comes to mind, Dickens maybe).

    In fact, I don't see any reason at all to buy these modified editions, unless the information is cleverly withheld or if there is a cultural undercurrent suggesting to certain people that this is the "proper" version to read. Social restraints are enforced through culture as much as they are by a state's police. One has to wonder why would anyone feel the need to read a "chastely revised" Lolita.

    There is also revulsion against the people who are arrogant enough to think they have the intellectual prowess to not only perfectly understand the author's work, but correct it and adapt it for certain age-levels! That these people are considered distinguished professors, and get money and praise for these works, is just wrong.

    I understand your intenetion is just to invite at a moderate view, but I find it hard to belive anyone would condone this.

  13. #28
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,360


    All very good points, JBI. I actually think it's kind of weird that anyone would abridge Lolita for language, considering it still retains its content.
    It isn't, from my understanding, only abridged for language though, it is abridged for content, but it is under the term edited, which usually goes for language and text-accuracy, from my understanding. Editing in this case acts more like abridgment, and isn't really editing, so, I would think, for the European student who doesn't have easy access to the scholarship and such, buying such a copy is perhaps deceptive, as one may have the impression that they are getting a more accurate rendition, or a more accurate text to the authors original, as apposed to the real case, which is quite the opposite.

  14. #29
    Alea iacta est. mortalterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,914
    Blog Entries
    39
    The Annotated Lolita was the first book I read when I got to college. Don't worry about it. It's all there. I have a regular copy of Lolita and I've never noticed any difference. You're brewing a tempest in a teapot but it's much ado about nothing.
    Last edited by mortalterror; 10-19-2008 at 04:02 PM.
    "So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
    "This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
    Feed the Hungry!

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mortalterror View Post
    The Annotated Lolita was the first book I read when I got to college. Don't worry about it. It's all there. I have a regular copy of Lolita and I've never noticed any difference. You're brewing a tempest in a teapot but it's much ado about nothing.
    But is your edition also "chastely revised" (it says so in the preface)? I take it that the 1991 version is, but possibly the 1970 (and following imprints) version wasn't.

    It would make sense that it was mostly all there, because considering what I did read in the novel, I don't see what could have been edited out. Still, why would it say so if there weren't any difference.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Living without books
    By blazeofglory in forum General Literature
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-27-2023, 05:09 PM
  2. We Need A Revolution In Literature!
    By WolfLarsen in forum General Writing
    Replies: 251
    Last Post: 01-10-2012, 06:56 PM
  3. Lolita
    By Zagor26 in forum Short Story Sharing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 04:57 AM
  4. Good books with character development and hope
    By ucdawg12 in forum General Literature
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 10:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •