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

[Drkshadow03]

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.

I found the 1991 revised annotated edition in the academic library after my shift on the reference desk tonight. I read the preface.

"This annotated edition, a corrected and chastely revised version of the edition first published in 1970, is designed for the general reader and particularly for use in college literature courses"

The rest of the paragraph talks about how his experiences in the classroom made him focus on different issues and themes in the text, and why he decided to redo his annotations.

The next two or three paragraphs all talk about the annotations themselves.

Then finally another paragraph says:

"The text of Lolita is that of the 1989 vintage edition It contains many corrections made over time, some of which are identified in the Notes. All were approved by Nabokov."

For all those complaining about the authorial integrity, the last sentence should appease you.

For all those wondering whether the text is all there or not, I leave you with this question: why would he refer to both a 1970 edition and the text from the 1989 edition?

For those who need a little more information, the 1970 edition was the first version of the annotated edition he published. His comments about "chastely revised" talks about this edition, the rest of the paragraph, as well as the following paragraphs talks only about the changes he made to annotations. Me thinks his chastely revised refers to the annotations, not the text.

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.

Ironically enough I think the YA versions of the classics I read were Dickens, Verne, and Wells!

[Jozanny]

I found the 1991 revised annotated edition in the academic library after my shift on the reference desk tonight. I read the preface.

"This annotated edition, a corrected and chastely revised version of the edition first published in 1970, is designed for the general reader and particularly for use in college literature courses"

The rest of the paragraph talks about how his experiences in the classroom made him focus on different issues and themes in the text, and why he decided to redo his annotations.

The next two or three paragraphs all talk about the annotations themselves.

Then finally another paragraph says:

"The text of Lolita is that of the 1989 vintage edition It contains many corrections made over time, some of which are identified in the Notes. All were approved by Nabokov."

For all those complaining about the authorial integrity, the last sentence should appease you.

For all those wondering whether the text is all there or not, I leave you with this question: why would he refer to both a 1970 edition and the text from the 1989 edition?

For those who need a little more information, the 1970 edition was the first version of the annotated edition he published. His comments about "chastely revised" talks about this edition, the rest of the paragraph, as well as the following paragraphs talks only about the changes he made to annotations. Me thinks his chastely revised refers to the annotations, not the text.

If that's the case Drk then I myself might want to take a look at it for rereading at some point, but I am also interested in earlier Nabokov works, such as The Game, if I rightly remember the title. One does weary of Lolita always sucking the air out of the room.

[JBI]

If that's the case Drk then I myself might want to take a look at it for rereading at some point, but I am also interested in earlier Nabokov works, such as The Game, if I rightly remember the title. One does weary of Lolita always sucking the air out of the room.

Try Pale Fire, it is almost as strong a book as Lolita, and more original in style.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

[QUOTE][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.
/QUOTE]

Honestly, your knowledge and assessment of Nabokov's characters/works/artistic purposes is so ridiculously inaccurate, and inept, that I cannot believe you have really read his works, but instead you choose to sprout forth ad homenim arguments against Nabokov. Actually, Nabokov was a kind, considerate and sensitive man and author, and this is reflect in his writings. Nabokov detested cruelty, and this is apparent in Lolita. Nabokov and Flaubert do have one thing in common though-they rarely lower themselves to banal characterisation-unlike most authors, and if that is what you pretentiously call "reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator" then fair play to you. I challenge you to actually read Lolita, without instilling your own socio-political opinions on it.

[Drkshadow03]

Honestly, your knowledge and assessment of Nabokov's characters/works/artistic purposes is so ridiculously inaccurate, and inept, that I cannot believe you have really read his works, but instead you choose to sprout forth ad homenim arguments against Nabokov. Actually, Nabokov was a kind, considerate and sensitive man and author, and this is reflect in his writings. Nabokov detested cruelty, and this is apparent in Lolita. Nabokov and Flaubert do have one thing in common though-they rarely lower themselves to banal characterisation-unlike most authors, and if that is what you pretentiously call "reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator" then fair play to you. I challenge you to actually read Lolita, without instilling your own socio-political opinions on it.

I don't see anywhere that Jozanny committed an ad hominem. Her argument was an interpretation of Nabokov's work and what she thinks the real issue behind the works are and why the average person finds it troubling.

Also you're whole arguement is pure rhetorical fluff. What exactly is so "pretentious" about her interpretation that the real issue at hand is "reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator"?

What does the author's personality and character have to do with the book?

And G-d forbid you should offer a different interpretation to give some context for what you disagree with in her interpretation.

i would add that I haven't read Lolita or any Nabokov at this point, so I personally cannot judge the book itself and whose interpretation I agree with.

[Petronius]

Honestly, your knowledge and assessment of Nabokov's characters/works/artistic purposes is so ridiculously inaccurate, and inept, that I cannot believe you have really read his works, but instead you choose to sprout forth ad homenim arguments against Nabokov. Actually, Nabokov was a kind, considerate and sensitive man and author, and this is reflect in his writings. Nabokov detested cruelty, and this is apparent in Lolita. Nabokov and Flaubert do have one thing in common though-they rarely lower themselves to banal characterisation-unlike most authors, and if that is what you pretentiously call "reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator" then fair play to you. I challenge you to actually read Lolita, without instilling your own socio-political opinions on it.

Maybe it's you who should re-read it... Nabokov does appeal to raw human nature in order to build his characters. Actually that comment comes really close to describing why I really appreciate him, and I don't think Jozanny meant that's why she would despise him, but rather why many people of our anthropocentric culture would feel offended by it. (Sorry if I misunderstood ) One doesn't need to be cruel to be lucid, witty and detached.

Ironically enough I think the YA versions of the classics I read were Dickens, Verne, and Wells!

Funny. I loved Verne as a kid since I started reading his novels at age 7-8 and with most of them I didn't feel all that challenged. To this day I belived it's established that his works are primarily young age reads. From later reads of Dickens, I assessed he also would have belonged there, and Wells isn't that hard... I don't know, maybe an 8 years old would find him scary. I think you missed out on something... Americans...

[Jozanny]

I don't see anywhere that Jozanny committed an ad hominem. Her argument was an interpretation of Nabokov's work and what she thinks the real issue behind the works are and why the average person finds it troubling.

Also you're whole arguement is pure rhetorical fluff. What exactly is so "pretentious" about her interpretation that the real issue at hand is "reduction of the human animal to the lowest common denominator"?

What does the author's personality and character have to do with the book?

And G-d forbid you should offer a different interpretation to give some context for what you disagree with in her interpretation.

i would add that I haven't read Lolita or any Nabokov at this point, so I personally cannot judge the book itself and whose interpretation I agree with.

Thank you Drkshadow. I have read the novel, though an older and somewhat musty edition, and it must be some years ago now. I cannot remember every detail, and had forgotten Delores name until JBI reminded me of it elsewhere.

1. I love the novel and Nabokov's mastery of language, but my point above, and I will try to simplify, is

a. He is showing off in Lolita. It is there from the opening medical report, to the end game where Humbert is struggling with the gent who took Delores from him, and how pleased he is with his own skill drips straight through the diction, and I'd argue it is this self-conscious irony which offends the propriety of 1950's American mores more than the pedophilia of the protagonist. If it was a straight sex-pandering story it would have been forgotten by now, but it isn't; it is a remarkable use of English to make the vulgar enticing and nearly exalting--but the reader never forgets this is a perversion gleefully indulged--whatever the true meaning of the tale itself.

[Drkshadow03]

Funny. I loved Verne as a kid since I started reading his novels at age 7-8 and with most of them I didn't feel all that challenged. To this day I belived it's established that his works are primarily young age reads. From later reads of Dickens, I assessed he also would have belonged there, and Wells isn't that hard... I don't know, maybe an 8 years old would find him scary. I think you missed out on something... Americans...

Heh. I wasn't a strong enough reader at that point to have handled any of those writers.

[Etienne]

Wow, Jozanny, you sure have something against Nabokov, I remember the last time we discussed him, you ended up saying he was a misogynistic pedophile or something around those lines. Each time you discuss Lolita and it's merit, you end up getting personal on Nabokov and covering him with, in my opinion unjustified criticism, or at least criticism that couldn't be pointed out at him specifically.

You said, that's why "it might shock some people" but if I'm not mistaken you include yourself in this, no?

The attitude you describe, in any case, is of chaste people who do not want to like the story because of it's subject matter (and somehow think "evil" in art matters). And they are frustrated that Nabokov manages it so well to expose Humbert's point of view without inserting the least opposition to it, no holy retribution, no policeman or a little epistle at the end of a book.

[Jozanny]

You said, that's why "it might shock some people" but if I'm not mistaken you include yourself in this, no?

No, I wasn't shocked, and I am also not prepared to discuss the novel in depth. It is a tasking read, don't have a copy on me, and I am studying a Foucault reader right now, among other things.

My argument is really about conceit of intellect. Flaubert had it, and Zola protested that reading Bovary was about "admiring Flaubert's well constructed sentences." An apt criticism, not enough to damn the novel or its revolutionary impact, but there is truth in the barb. What am I supposed to take away from Bovary? Charles is a dunce, and dies because he could not in the end, accept the lie of his marriage. Emma herself was something close to insane because she wanted happiness 24/7. Homais is no better as a counterfactual fool. Scholars argue Flaubert doesn't savage his characterization of his peasants, but he doesn't elevate them out of the mockery of middle class pretension either, not like Tolstoy, who portrays the 'closer to God" peasant with a capital P. I have little patience with Tolstoy, in truth, but he doesn't kill all hope about what it is to be human and what we strive for.

Doesn't Nabokov destroy that hope? If Humbert is the corruption of the best of European values and culture, and Delores is kid America, fresh, young, unsophisticated, groveled over for all that--Nabokov's basic argument is they have both destroyed each other--why would Delores die in childbirth otherwise? But he makes this argument with a chip on his shoulder and a wink and a nod; he is having fun while he implodes any values his readers might hold sacrosanct. Sure, this fun is brilliant, but it comes very close to an art for art's sake argument, with nothing left on which to hang your hat. I don't know if it is enough for me, and by today's values, I don't know how much it holds up either; the passage about Humbert having his masturbation adventure while Delores is on his lap might be a great piece of writing about how to have a great ejaculation, but I think today's author's (and I include myself) face the challenge of actually taking sexual acts head on, without the salad dressing; this is the last argument I am making about Lolita, until further notice.

[Petronius]

But isn't that exactly the point? Isn't that what we truly are in the end, animals with funny ideas about ourselves? And isn't precisely this desire to reach a certain level of refinment beyond the basic beastly needs, our creative thinking, that define us as a superior species?

Nabokov is trying to challenge some absurd morals. A 12 year old girl can be sexually attactive, and it's plausible that an older man would be infatuated with her without him being an insane monster. Unlikely, yes, and perhaps problematic, but not unnatural. It's a good thing if the reader's values are shattered, because they may be misplaced.

Their damnation, I belive, is a game he plays with the critics, since many of them feel the need to find some moral undertone to it in order to approve of the book, when in fact the protagonists' deaths are very cynical, and announced in the first two pages (a little veiled for Dolores). They died so the volume could be published. Somehow like, they were great for as long as it ran, but then they could be discarded (and had to be). If anything, they died because they didn't remain together.

As for the Europe & America allegory, Nabokov himself all but calls it idiotic. It's just the tipical American cultural self-centeredness making them publish a book they didn't approve of in the first place, but for the wrong reasons. Hysterical.

[Jozanny]

But isn't that exactly the point? Isn't that what we truly are in the end, animals with funny ideas about ourselves? And isn't precisely this desire to reach a certain level of refinment beyond the basic beastly needs, our creative thinking, that define us as a superior species?

I don't know if it is the point. I guess that is why we are here coming to blows with each other on a daily basis. I do not believe in gods, which has nothing to do with anything, but I also have a kind of knee-jerk discomfort with clinical dissection of human nature to the degree that our struggle with existence doesn't mean anything, at least through the viewpoint of the dissection. Nabokov doesn't go that far, perhaps.

I do not wish to reread it now, but will someday. I don't know if I want to own my own copy, because, as a second wave feminist, the plot galls me. (I am not going to debate that either, just admitting as a writer that yes, Lolita is a masterpiece, but as a woman ehem, never mind.)

As for the Europe & America allegory, Nabokov himself all but calls it idiotic. It's just the tipical American cultural self-centeredness making them publish a book they didn't approve of in the first place, but for the wrong reasons. Hysterical.

It may be an idiotic interpretation. I will not get worked up about that, as I have read one or two metaphorical takes on the story, but I do believe there is something to the meme of Old World values clashing with New World materialism. Now I will leave this to rest, just wanted to provide you with a respectful answer. Have you read The Game, btw? I am rather interested in Nabokov's chess novel. I like chess stories.

[Petronius]

Well, there's nothing wrong with resenting an author for personal reasons. Art is meant to be subjective. Thanks for the answer anyway. I didn't read The Game yet; I belive the last book about chess I read was something by Perez-Reverte some years back.

[Etienne]

Have you read The Game, btw? I am rather interested in Nabokov's chess novel. I like chess stories.

The Game? Is this The Luzhin Defence or The Defence (why can't they just keep it the Luzhin Defence anyways?). It is a great book.