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

[jamespage]

Hello. I'm new here. I've just finished reading "Lolita" in the Vintage Books edition edited by Alfred Appel, Jr. (LXXV+457 pages). I never read prefaces or introductions before the book itself, so only yesterday did I read in the preface by Mr. Appel to this 1991 edition that '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'. I was floored.

I wrote an email to Random House asking for an explanation, and here's the answer I received:

"Thank you for your interest in our publications. We checked the definition of this phrase and have found that the revised edition is free from obscenity. We hope this information helps."

I beg your pardon? "Chastely revised"? In 1991? Just read something else. What's most ludicrous is that Mr. Appel in the notes would have the reader believe that he, like his pal Vladimir Nabokov, is above censorship and a pharisaic notion of morality.

What's odd is that Nabokov somehow collaborated with the editor answering his questions and even receiving him over the years.

When I think that perhaps even just one word that the author chose, whatever it may have been, was kept from me, I'm furious! I will have to read the book again. I simply do not feel like I've really read it.

How would you feel?

Because of the very extensive introduction and notes, I thought this edition was actually used in college courses. Am I to take it that in American universities students are made to read "chastely revised" texts? I had no idea such "revised" editions even existed any more.

Jamespage

[kelby_lake]

I hate it when school editions of books are so coy about everything. Heaven forbid you should let them read an unadulterated copy!

[JBI]

I hope you didn't pay much for it; it's like getting a 300 page Les Miserables. Seriously though, that just makes Random House that much of a shamed publisher - they allowed the publication of an edited book because of censorship or pornography as they see it in the book. As for the idea though, that's like cutting up Walt Whitman, and using him as American religious propaganda.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Honestly, that is pathetic. 'Chastely revised'-it is all so surreal, and completely against what Nabokov stood for, as a writer! It sounds like something straight out of Charlotte Haze's book clubs! 'General reader'? :lol: Well, if you want to read a book about chastity, then why read a book about, in which the narrator is a self-confessed paedophile, murderer and all round sociopath? Maybe they should print Nabokov's afterword to 'Lolita', which, funnily enough, ridicules cenorship.

[jamespage]

I hope you didn't pay much for it; it's like getting a 300 page Les Miserables. Seriously though, that just makes Random House that much of a shamed publisher

I paid about 20 euro for it. You see, I *wanted* that edition, because of the extensive notes. Actually, the notes were quite helpful; essential, given the complex nature of the book.

The *paradox* of exhaustive notes glossing an adulterated text...

I don't believe the book was heavily tampered with—it wasn't very "chaste"—but I will have to read it again. Not too bad, I guess.

Jamespage

[Petronius]

The people responsible should be forced to give refunds and remove the edition from existence by eating each and every copy.

On a more serious note, how much faith can you put in the notes from a censored book?

[PeterL]

I hope that you didn't much for that copy. I suggest that you put it in the stack for the next bookburning in your area.

[Logos]

"Annotated (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0679727299/theenglishdepart)" is not in Appels (http://www.english.northwestern.edu/people/appel.html)' title?? He's a professor of English Lit at a large North American university so sure his notes are probably great, the version you have being widely acceptable to most because it can, err, "fit" into their programs. I don't know if Lolita is or was studied in colleges or universities before the version you have, but to have a "chastely" revised edition surely goes toward pleasing the majority and toning down the controversy surrounding the book. Would be interesting to get your hands on the 1970 version to compare what was edited, cut, changed etc.

--

Kind of off-topic but I was reading about Jules Verne (http://www.online-literature.com/verne/) recently, an author who has gotten completely ripped off by his publishers, editors, and various translators (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2007/sep/11/julesvernedeservesabetter). Just check out Arthur C. Clarke's foreword to William Butcher (http://home.netvigator.com/~wbutcher/index.htm)'s latest bio about him:

".... one of the most widely distorted, censored, and mistranslated authors of all time. ... excised large chunks of the author's original writing to suit some political and social interests." -- http://www.scribd.com/full/6509353?access_key=key-bz92fujn771o7gay0t4


--

[Etienne]

"Annotated (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0679727299/theenglishdepart)" is not in Appels (http://www.english.northwestern.edu/people/appel.html)' title?? He's a professor of English Lit at a large North American university so sure his notes are probably great, the version you have being widely acceptable to most because it can, err, "fit" into their programs. I don't know if Lolita is or was studied in colleges or universities before the version you have, but to have a "chastely" revised edition surely goes toward pleasing the majority and toning down the controversy surrounding the book. Would be interesting to get your hands on the 1970 version to compare what was edited, cut, changed etc.

Do you mean that some universities could not "fit" Lolita in their programs? Today? What are those universities, just so I dodge them like plague?

Heck, I've read much worse books than Lolita in High School - as part of High School curriculum!

This is very much a matter of culture. Nabokov had found no American publisher willing to publish it, he had to publish it in France. The same had happened for Joyce, for example.

[Logos]

Do you mean that some universities could not "fit" Lolita in their programs? Today? What are those universities, just so I dodge them like plague? .... :p I don't know which schools use Lolita currently, according to this article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/163440) it "hasn't been seriously threatened in the United States for decades". But the fact that someone felt it necessary to "chastely" revise and correct it makes me think there was some demand for a more "palatable" version (http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/lolita/publishing/index.html). I haven't read it though so I don't know to what extent it varies from the original 1955 publication.

[JBI]

Honestly, there is stronger pedophilia content in the majority of books though; take for instance, Homer's Odyssey where Nausica cannot possibly be beyond 12, or almost any work ranging until the end of the 19th century, where the heroines cannot be older than 12-15. Nana herself is 15 when Zola cast her, and she has already born a child, and risen to some fame. The idea of Lolita being so controversial is still puzzling, as me decide to turn blind eyes to everything, from Shakespeare on, yet we cannot accept this book, simply because the narrator is conscious of what he is doing.

The vision in Petrarch for instance, of his Laura cannot be beyond a pre-pubescent girl. Yet he is the model of all poetry, both English and Italian after him for quite a while. How is it that Nabokov is edited, whereas someone like Catlullus is not, I still wonder.

[Etienne]

Honestly, there is stronger pedophilia content in the majority of books though; take for instance, Homer's Odyssey where Nausica cannot possibly be beyond 12, or almost any work ranging until the end of the 19th century, where the heroines cannot be older than 12-15. Nana herself is 15 when Zola cast her, and she has already born a child, and risen to some fame. The idea of Lolita being so controversial is still puzzling, as me decide to turn blind eyes to everything, from Shakespeare on, yet we cannot accept this book, simply because the narrator is conscious of what he is doing.

The vision in Petrarch for instance, of his Laura cannot be beyond a pre-pubescent girl. Yet he is the model of all poetry, both English and Italian after him for quite a while. How is it that Nabokov is edited, whereas someone like Catlullus is not, I still wonder.

Because those who fight for such censorship have not read/have not understood those works is my bet.

[Jozanny]

Honestly, there is stronger pedophilia content in the majority of books though; take for instance, Homer's Odyssey where Nausica cannot possibly be beyond 12, or almost any work ranging until the end of the 19th century, where the heroines cannot be older than 12-15. Nana herself is 15 when Zola cast her, and she has already born a child, and risen to some fame. The idea of Lolita being so controversial is still puzzling, as me decide to turn blind eyes to everything, from Shakespeare on, yet we cannot accept this book, simply because the narrator is conscious of what he is doing.

The vision in Petrarch for instance, of his Laura cannot be beyond a pre-pubescent girl. Yet he is the model of all poetry, both English and Italian after him for quite a while. How is it that Nabokov is edited, whereas someone like Catlullus is not, I still wonder.

It isn't just that he is conscious JBI--it is that he's sticking it to his readers and getting away with it, much like Flaubert does with Bovary; it is neither the pedophile of the former nor the raging sex in the latter--it is the mocking irony that gives nothing back. It is hard for mere common social animals to take, whatever the redeeming value of the genius shoving it down our throats.

[Etienne]

It isn't just that he is conscious JBI--it is that he's sticking it to his readers and getting away with it, much like Flaubert does with Bovary; it is neither the pedophile of the former nor the raging sex in the latter--it is the mocking irony that gives nothing back. It is hard for mere common social animals to take, whatever the redeeming value of the genius shoving it down our throats.

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... ;)

[Bitterfly]

Honestly, there is stronger pedophilia content in the majority of books though; take for instance, Homer's Odyssey where Nausica cannot possibly be beyond 12, or almost any work ranging until the end of the 19th century, where the heroines cannot be older than 12-15. Nana herself is 15 when Zola cast her, and she has already born a child, and risen to some fame. The idea of Lolita being so controversial is still puzzling, as me decide to turn blind eyes to everything, from Shakespeare on, yet we cannot accept this book, simply because the narrator is conscious of what he is doing.

The vision in Petrarch for instance, of his Laura cannot be beyond a pre-pubescent girl. Yet he is the model of all poetry, both English and Italian after him for quite a while. How is it that Nabokov is edited, whereas someone like Catlullus is not, I still wonder.

Because it's much easier to accept such things in "old" books, when you can tell yourself that it's because the authors lived a long time ago that they thought that way. They're excusable because they can be seen as "different", "foreign". You can always say, for Petrarch, "oh yes, it's quite normal, twelve year old girls were married off at that age".

Nabokov was lashed at because he was not politically correct in a period when political incorrectness, at least in such matters, was not acceptable (and in fact, is still not acceptable, if his work is still being censured).

[Jozanny]

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.

[Etienne]

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.

[JBI]

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.

[jamespage]

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. :)

[Drkshadow03]

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. :idea:

[Petronius]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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! ;)

[jamespage]

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?

[Petronius]

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. :rolleyes:

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? :eek: 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?

[JBI]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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. :rolleyes:

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? :eek: 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.


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.

[Petronius]

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! :lol: 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.

[JBI]

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.

[mortalterror]

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.

[jamespage]

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.

[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! :lol: 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]

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 [I]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 :D) 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... :D

[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... :D


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. :D

[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.:p 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. :D

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. :D 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.