Reading Lolita

[WICKES]

I have started to read Lolita (about 30 pages in)- any tips for getting the most out of it? I know very little about the novel.

First impressions are of a striking and distinctive prose style. The narrator has a breezy, urbane and playfully aristocratic voice. I very much admired his depiction of his idyllic (if sexually frustrated) childhood on the French Riviera. I like the way it seemed a lost paradise- a place you could never return to. His description of it was wonderful: "the hotel Mirana swam around me" or something like that. This is underlined by calling the following years "miserable wanderings".

Now, I know many aesthetes admire the prose and call those who wanted it banned philistines but I have to say I feel uncomfortable already. One passage in particular made me wince- he (without guilt or shame) describes a fantasy of being shipwrecked on a desert island with a little girl whose father has drowned (and is presumably frightened and heart-broken) and thus being free to abuse her (rape her, let's be honest) at will. Now that I find pretty repellent, no matter how wonderful the prose.

Anyway, I'll stick with it. So, without giving the plot away, what should I know/ what should I look out for? People say you cannot trust the narrator- I'd be grateful if someone would expand on that for a start.

[PeterL]

Just read it at a leisurely pace. You probably will miss some things, but that's fine; you can reread it later.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've not read it as yet, (even though it seems to be lit net's most talked about book), but really, for a first reading I wouldn't even bother about anything apart from just reading the thing, deeper meanings come later with reflection or experience.

[dfloyd]

I have read it twice, listened to it on CD (unabrdged of course) and watched the Kubrick movie a couple of times. The movie follows the plot quite closely, so it may help to get a dvd of the movie. I got a dvd from our local library. Listening to the book on CD helped a lot.

Most people get confused because the novel is non-linear; that is, it doesn't proceed through time in an always moving forward fashion. Nabokov taught literature at an ivy league school (I can't rember which one), and I have read where Thomas Pynchon was one of his student. Pynchon has certainly written in the style of Nabokov - non-linear- notably in his novel V. But I have also read that Pynchon denies ever being a student of Nabokov.

The movie is very good with James Mason, Peter Sellers, and Shelly Winters, but it was panned by the critics when it was first released. Sue Lyon plays Lolita -,she must be near or over 50 by now.

So read it, listen to it, and watch it, and enjoy.

[WICKES]

I have read it twice, listened to it on CD (unabrdged of course) and watched the Kubrick movie a couple of times. The movie follows the plot quite closely, so it may help to get a dvd of the movie. I got a dvd from our local library. Listening to the book on CD helped a lot.
.

I really do think the best way to really get the most out of a classic is to both read it and listen to it. I have listened to some superb recordings- the best readers are retired Shakespearean actors (old RSC luvvies like Paul Scofield- there is a recording of 'Brideshead Revisited' by John Gielgud). When I get around to Ulysses I am going to listen to it first, then read it carefully, then listen to it again. It doesn't work so well with heavy, long novels full of detailed descriptions though I have to say.

[mal4mac]

I would prepare yourself for more wincing and feeling uncomfortable. The lead character is a thoroughly unlikeable, dangerous and deranged character. And he doesn't change. He doesn't get better. I found myself constantly wishing for him to be arrested and placed in a mental institution.

Humbert, Lolita and the other characters hardly qualify as human beings. They are malign, solipsistic caricatures. So read it as a well written fabulist tale, like "Through the Looking Glass". But don't look for any deep, human meaning. Nabokov's appreciation of social reality died with the Russian revolution. So don't expect any social commentary. The social "environment" is just a nightmare world of unanalysed suburbs, motels and highways. Be warned - part 2 really drags. Humbert is going nowhere in a vehicle made out of shockingly stylish prose.

Don't plan your read through in an expectation to re-read. Even though the prose is very stylish, the other aspects of the novel may mean you never want to read it again. I don't. If you want better style, human beings, and meaning, try Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy and any of a dozen other great writers.

Some big gun have very mixed feelings about Nabokov. I shan't bring Harold Bloom in for once (oops!), instead I''l quote James Woods, from a marvellous exchange of letters (http://www.slate.com/id/2000072/entry/1002675/):

"After the age of 23 or so, perhaps we are all recovering from an earlier infatuation with Nabokov's work. You and I are not rare in this regard, I guess; it is like growing out of a fondness for vividly complex ties. In particular, the pedagogical Nabokov appeals to the younger reader, who has perhaps not yet read Mann or Camus or Dostoyevsky or Faulkner, and is intimidatedly grateful to Nabokov for telling him that he need not bother. But then one reads these other writers, and realises that it is Nabokov who has not read them ... (I mean, Buddenbrooks is worth about four of the smaller Nabokov novels.)"

"...the Nabokovian aesthetic--which is a delicious surfeit of sensory details, a fetishization of visual detail, and a horror of the essayistic or exegetical or obviously philosphical--is lethal in almost any hands but Nabokov's."

[Emil Miller]

I would agree that seeing the film, either Kubrick's version or the more recent version with Jeremy Irons ( it's on Youtube ) will give you a better sense of the novel's direction than just reading it alone. Neither film matches the novel particularly well although they both have good and bad points. The Kubrick version is slightly updated to the 1950s and Lolita looks obviously older than the twelve years she has at the start of the story. Kubrick was handicapped by US censorship laws and had to shoot the film in England; although he did a pretty good job of disguising the fact.
The remake is more faithful to the period i.e.1947, and the girl does look younger, but she is far too precocious and therefore somewhat unconvincing. There is some tedious travel writing in the novel and those who don't read French may find the number of entries in that language irritating.
Overall, though, the novel is a remarkable exercise in word play that leads to a tragic but not unexpected conclusion.

[PeterL]

I would prepare yourself for more wincing and feeling uncomfortable. The lead character is a thoroughly unlikeable, dangerous and deranged character. And he doesn't change. He doesn't get better. I found myself constantly wishing for him to be arrested and placed in a mental institution.

Humbert, Lolita and the other characters hardly qualify as human beings. They are malign, solipsistic caricatures. So read it as a well written fabulist tale, like "Through the Looking Glass". But don't look for any deep, human meaning. Nabokov's appreciation of social reality died with the Russian revolution. So don't expect any social commentary. The social "environment" is just a nightmare world of unanalysed suburbs, motels and highways. Be warned - part 2 really drags. Humbert is going nowhere in a vehicle made out of shockingly stylish prose.


It's a pity that you didn't like Lolita, but your comments are a bit over the top. Have you considered rereading it to see if you can notice what you missed the first time?

[mal4mac]

It's a pity that you didn't like Lolita, but your comments are a bit over the top. Have you considered rereading it to see if you can notice what you missed the first time?

I did say I found the prose style impressive. But it's lacking too much else for me to want to re-read. And I don't think I have a blind-spot here. Too many top critics (Woods, Bloom...) agree with my first impression. So, all in all, I'm not feeling motivated to re-read. Not until I've re-read most of the rest of the Western canon anyway!

[kelby_lake]

It's a pity that you didn't like Lolita, but your comments are a bit over the top. Have you considered rereading it to see if you can notice what you missed the first time?

Agreed. It's definitely one of those books that needs to be read. First time I read it I was roughly 14; reread it in that same year and it clicked.

I like the road trip actually and the evocation of trashy teenage America is really well done.

[PeterL]

I did say I found the prose style impressive. But it's lacking too much else for me to want to re-read. And I don't think I have a blind-spot here. Too many top critics (Woods, Bloom...) agree with my first impression. So, all in all, I'm not feeling motivated to re-read. Not until I've re-read most of the rest of the Western canon anyway!

Many people fail to see most of what Lolita is about. The most similar book that I can think of is Ulysses, which makes sense, because Nabokov was an expert in Joycem and the two had been acquainted.

[PeterL]

Agreed. It's definitely one of those books that needs to be read. First time I read it I was roughly 14; reread it in that same year and it clicked.

I like the road trip actually and the evocation of trashy teenage America is really well done.

There were only a few small parts that I didn't like, and I suspect that I just didn't figure out those bits, the barbershop bit is one such.

[dfloyd]

before reading Nabokov- I still liked the novel. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I like to pick my own reading genre, and I pay little attention to what critics say, be they Bloom or others. As far as only youth liking Nabokov, I was over 60 when I first read it. The book has been acclaimed by many, and it has its detractors as well. Read it, and make up your own mind.

Many on this forum have praised As I Lay Dying, but I was bored by it. It read as if Steinbeck had written a novel about a gang of Oakies going to a funeral. IMHO, Lolita is a much better book. But I say, to each his own.

[catatonic]

I would prepare yourself for more wincing and feeling uncomfortable. The lead character is a thoroughly unlikeable, dangerous and deranged character. And he doesn't change. He doesn't get better. I found myself constantly wishing for him to be arrested and placed in a mental institution.

Humbert, Lolita and the other characters hardly qualify as human beings. They are malign, solipsistic caricatures. So read it as a well written fabulist tale, like "Through the Looking Glass". But don't look for any deep, human meaning. Nabokov's appreciation of social reality died with the Russian revolution. So don't expect any social commentary. The social "environment" is just a nightmare world of unanalysed suburbs, motels and highways. Be warned - part 2 really drags. Humbert is going nowhere in a vehicle made out of shockingly stylish prose.

Don't plan your read through in an expectation to re-read. Even though the prose is very stylish, the other aspects of the novel may mean you never want to read it again. I don't. If you want better style, human beings, and meaning, try Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy and any of a dozen other great writers.

Some big gun have very mixed feelings about Nabokov. I shan't bring Harold Bloom in for once (oops!), instead I''l quote James Woods, from a marvellous exchange of letters (http://www.slate.com/id/2000072/entry/1002675/):


1) Actually James Wood is an ardent admirer of Nabokov as the rest of the letter from which you quote will testify. His stance against Nabokov's pedagogy is understandable as unqualified admiration coming from a critic smacks of a55 kissing.

2) If anyone created caricatures, that would be Dickens. But -- really -- that's beside the point. Fictional characters matter insofar as they are artistically true to the worlds that they are made to inhabit. Just as Lolita's cynical, wisecracking ways would be ridiculously out of place among the ladies in a Victorian drawing room, David Copperfield's purity and goodness would be preposterous next to Charlie Holmes and Mona Dahl (Lolita's peers).

3) Little girls aren't all Nabokov wrote about. Artistic bliss and inspiration, happiness midst exile and loss, and the stupidity of the totalitarian state are recurring motifs in many of Nabokov's works of which Lolita is only a 1/20 of, if that.

[billl]

I thought the first half or so of Lolita was great, but I never actually finished the book. I had read a few of his other books before Lolita, and more after that (maybe 7 or so total?), and I thought Pale Fire was the best, with the rest being really good too. I don't know if it was the hype surrounding Lolita, or just not enough time suddenly, or my opinion of the plot or prose towards the end, but I put it aside for a while, and never finished it.

[sixsmith]

"After the age of 23 or so, perhaps we are all recovering from an earlier infatuation with Nabokov's work. You and I are not rare in this regard, I guess; it is like growing out of a fondness for vividly complex ties. In particular, the pedagogical Nabokov appeals to the younger reader, who has perhaps not yet read Mann or Camus or Dostoyevsky or Faulkner, and is intimidatedly grateful to Nabokov for telling him that he need not bother. But then one reads these other writers, and realises that it is Nabokov who has not read them ... (I mean, Buddenbrooks is worth about four of the smaller Nabokov novels.)"

"...the Nabokovian aesthetic--which is a delicious surfeit of sensory details, a fetishization of visual detail, and a horror of the essayistic or exegetical or obviously philosphical--is lethal in almost any hands but Nabokov's."

Interesting. Woods' aesthetic can appear fairly narrow though. Recall the salvo against De Lillo et al in which he seemed to want to simply yell "Why can't they all write like Chekhov?" . Why oh why would we compare Lolita to C&P or The Plague?

[MarkBastable]

One passage in particular made me wince- he (without guilt or shame) describes a fantasy of being shipwrecked on a desert island with a little girl whose father has drowned (and is presumably frightened and heart-broken) and thus being free to abuse her (rape her, let's be honest) at will. Now that I find pretty repellent, no matter how wonderful the prose.


Perhaps it was intended to make you wince. Possibly the author meant you to find it repellant.

You can't go into Lolita expecting to like the narrator. And you probably won't come out of it liking him either. But you might end up understanding him a bit.

The purpose of Lolita is not to avoid making you uncomfortable. It's to make you consider stuff.

....And that would be a pretty supportable (if trite) way of distinguishing entertainment from art.

[WICKES]

Perhaps it was intended to make you wince. Possibly the author meant you to find it repellant.

You can't go into Lolita expecting to like the narrator. And you probably won't come out of it liking him either. But you might end up understanding him a bit.

The purpose of Lolita is not to avoid making you uncomfortable. It's to make you consider stuff.

....And that would be a pretty supportable (if trite) way of distinguishing entertainment from art.

What made me wince was a sense that this was Nabokov giving free reign to his own fantasies. There does seem to be some suspicion that Nabokov himself was attracted to very young girls. I guess the question for me is 'is the first person narrator Nabokov's alter ego or a genuinely independent, autonomous individual that Nabokov created? How much of Nabokov is there in Humbert? Is this the narrative voice of a distinct literary character or is it a superficial disguise for Nabokov himself?

[mal4mac]

I still liked the novel. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I like to pick my own reading genre, and I pay little attention to what critics say, be they Bloom or others. As far as only youth liking Nabokov, I was over 60 when I first read it. The book has been acclaimed by many, and it has its detractors as well. Read it, and make up your own mind.


Who doesn't pick their own reading? I choose to read critics and be influenced, to some extent, by them. What's wrong with that? It's my free choice?

I was over 30 when I read Lolita, after reading many other "great authors". I didn't think it was up to much compared to the other "usual suspects". But even the greatest readers have their blind spots :D, so I read the best (?) critics to see if I might be missing something. My conclusion - probably not...

I might, of course, still be wrong. But I can't read *all* critics and *all* critics of critics... I'd have no time to re-read Dickens if I did that...

[mal4mac]

1) Actually James Wood is an ardent admirer of Nabokov as the rest of the letter from which you quote will testify.

He's an ardent admirer of Nabakov's visual metaphors. For instance, Nabakov compares and oil slick to a pheasant in admirable prose. But you have to do better than that to join Tolstoy & Shakespeare in the hall of fame.



2) If anyone created caricatures, that would be Dickens... Fictional characters matter insofar as they are artistically true to the worlds that they are made to inhabit.

Good point. Nabakov's world is too denuded, lacking in meaning, not rich enough...


Artistic bliss and inspiration, happiness midst exile and loss, and the stupidity of the totalitarian state are recurring motifs in many of Nabokov's works of which Lolita is only a 1/20 of, if that.

Would that be in the four works that Woods says aren't worth Mann's first novel?

[mal4mac]

Interesting. Woods' aesthetic can appear fairly narrow though. Recall the salvo against De Lillo...

I missed that. Do you have link to it? By the way it's Wood, not Woods. My fault! I started Underworld and it failed my "fifty page test". And one of my main faults is continuing to read when I really shouldn't...

[catatonic]

mal4mac,

I won't hold a grudge if you find Lolita lacking and even repellent because of it's subject matter.

But I remind you, Nabokov wrote 19 novels and about 65 short stories which add up to about 4,400 pages of fiction, meaning 4,000 pages of his are something other than about little girls.

So to extrapolate Nabokov's worth on Lolita alone is a bit like judging Shakespeare on Romeo & Juliet, Julius Caesar, and a A Midsummer Night's Dream. They give an idea of the artist's worth but they're hardly comprehensive or representational.

Oh and here's a quote by James Wood re Vladimir Nabokov's Collected Stories:


A gorgeous book, a tutor in exquisiteness

[mal4mac]

Critics always pick out Lolita as Nabokov's best. No one picks out Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare's best. Wood doesn't include one Nabokov novel in his "fifty best modern novels" list:

http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2009/02/james-woods-best-books-since-1945-circa-1994.html

[kelby_lake]

That's a pretty stupid list. People don't pick Heart of The Matter as Greene's best work.

[catatonic]

Critics always pick out Lolita as Nabokov's best. No one picks out Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare's best. Wood doesn't include one Nabokov novel in his "fifty best modern novels" list:

http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2009/02/james-woods-best-books-since-1945-circa-1994.html

Well, if you're going to let critics do all the thinking for you, that's your prerogative.

[JBI]

I did say I found the prose style impressive. But it's lacking too much else for me to want to re-read. And I don't think I have a blind-spot here. Too many top critics (Woods, Bloom...) agree with my first impression. So, all in all, I'm not feeling motivated to re-read. Not until I've re-read most of the rest of the Western canon anyway!

Bloom, as far as I know, is a fan of the novel - it's on his Western Canon, if you care to look, but lets be honest - writers and critics generally think highly of the text, what James Wood says makes little difference, as he isn't even a noteworthy critic.

And, just to put you through a moral dilemma, Bloom has highly criticized Wood, and Wood has taken a few slaps at Bloom, so who can you really believe?

[Emil Miller]

That's a pretty stupid list. People don't pick Heart of The Matter as Greene's best work.

For my part The Heart of the Matter is one of Greene's best novels but the list details book since 1945 and much of his work was written before that date.

[Petronius]

It always amazes me how people find this book shocking, and how others come with "you're not supposed to like Humbert" as an excuse for the offensed to continue reading. I started reading Lolita "knowing" it was going to be the story of a pedophile I'm not supposed to like (duh!), ending in the obligatory tragedy brought on by such a formidable break from morals (duh, duh, duh!), and precisely because of this I fully expected to loathe it.
Needless to say, my expectations were turned about from the formidable first paragraph to the cruelly ironic ending which allowed me to close the book with a satisfied smile.

I've read through Wood's letter and stopped taking him seriously when he mentioned the words deep, human and truth in the same phrase, as some sort of bland, anthropocentric artistic ideal.
His fascination for "wide certainties" only shows a total lack of understanding for the underlying complexities of not only human beings but the world in general. Tolstoy might have been a great writer, but that doesn't mean claiming that "most literature except the very simplest folk tales should be discarded" isn't silly to the extreme.
Tolstoy's characters (in Anna Karenina) are indeed simple, and their evolution is based as much on the epoch (or the author's) social norms and on principles of moral as on any understanding of individual human nature, if not more so.
The enamoured couple is given a happy ending and personal growth, while the adulterous woman is unable to cope with her "mistakes" and tragically (and visually dramatic) takes her own life, which is exactly what one would expect... if Tolstoy was the "justice"-spreading God of his quaint little world of balanced ethical ecuations. At the end, if you don't count the period details and the author's own political views, a trained mind comes out learning and questioning nothing (and perhaps a little bored).

Obviously, we can't take Tolstoy (or Dostoyevsky, with his novel but unfortunately cliched, disfunctional and ultimately inacurate character psychology) out of context, but to say his characters are superior to Nabokov's is absurd.

The latter's fascination for detail, which Wood laughably faults him for, is exactly what makes his creations more alive than any "deep" and "true" emotional and ethical marionette. Nabokov minutely builds moments of fascination in his character's lives ("towers", I believe he called them in Ada, though I'm not certain since I read a translation) which add to their identity and influence their choices, though subtly, not in a linear freudian way. All of us, I believe, remember such awkward, wonderful bits of life such as those he describes in "Speak, Memory". I, for one, was grateful for the recollection of young Nabokov crawling behind the sofa, since it made me remember having a similar experience in my early childhood, which, as silly and perhaps unconsequential as it is, I found really special at that time.

The details in Lolita aren't there just to fascinate you (though that might be enough for art), but to explain you how they fascinated Humbert and through such fascinations (and lack of altering experiences) he achieved the urge and motivation, but not the restraint to love and manipulate a 12 years old girl (and the 12 years old girl, through her fascinations, to follow and manipulate in turn). Humbert (and Lolita, and her mother, both to a lesser extent) is almost flawlessy human because you know (and that's what's uncomfortable) that if you would have been in his place, having the exact same experiences, you would have ended up making the same choices.

Having this view as opposed to "wide certainties", and then being able to apply it so convincingly and so beautifully in your work is pure genius. I think Lolita has more to say about human nature and the drive of our own past knocked around present situations than about the moral/psychological issue of pedophilia.

[African_Love]

I look forward to reading this book. Purchasing it might be a bit uncomfortable, lol.

[mal4mac]

Bloom, as far as I know, is a fan of the novel - it's on his Western Canon, if you care to look, but lets be honest - writers and critics generally think highly of the text, what James Wood says makes little difference, as he isn't even a noteworthy critic.

And, just to put you through a moral dilemma, Bloom has highly criticized Wood, and Wood has taken a few slaps at Bloom, so who can you really believe?

It's on Bloom's list, and I'd agree that it has canonical status. "Lolita" has become a cultural reference point, like "Big Brother". But Bloom has little good to say about Nabakov. He's only mentioned on one page (p.469) as "petulant" and "unpleasant". In Bloom's "Genius", as you might guess :D, he doesn't figure in Bloom's directory of 100 geniuses.

Bloom has highly criticised Wood? Do you have a link? I love it when my favourites fight :D That's almost up there with Tolstoy v. Shakespeare - with the advantage that both of them are still alive.

"But James is certainly not a Nabokovian writer; his notion of what constitutes a detail is more various, more impalpable, and finally more metaphysical than Nabokov's. James would probably argue that while we should indeed try to be the kind of writer on whom nothing is lost, we have no need to be the kind of writer on whom everything is found." - James Wood

[JBI]

Er, it's in some interview somewhere which I cannot find googling, as every time I put the names together, I end up with James Wood's attack on Bloom instead.

As for letting yourself be influenced by critics Mal4Mac, there is no need to dismiss things, and attack people's tastes just because two rather crummy critics happen to pan them - Bloom may not have mentioned Lolita in his genius - but he does mention Nabokov's short stories in How to Read and Why with high amounts of praise, and I believe he has edited a copy of his critical editions on Nabokov and Lolita as well. He has even made numerous references to the text throughout his published work, referring to Lewis Carrol as "the Humbert Humbert of his generation," and so forth.


There is no need to go around guessing and besmearing a perfectly fine book because you think certain critics dislike it - make your mind up for yourself, because, you will find out the more criticism you read, critics generally don't agree on anything.

[mal4mac]

Er, it's in some interview somewhere which I cannot find googling, as every time I put the names together, I end up with James Wood's attack on Bloom instead.

As for letting yourself be influenced by critics Mal4Mac, there is no need to dismiss things, and attack people's tastes just because two rather crummy critics happen to pan them...

There is no need to go around guessing and besmearing a perfectly fine book because you think certain critics dislike it - make your mind up for yourself, because, you will find out the more criticism you read, critics generally don't agree on anything.

You can't call them crummy critics! That would be like calling Stephen Hawking and Stephen Weinberg crummy physicists! If there any standards at all in literary criticism they have to be recognised as "serious", if anyone is. Or is literature just a free for all where JBI's opinion and mine are held to be as important as those of Wood and Bloom? Note, I'm not saying JBI's opinion and mine are not important, just nowhere near *as* important (except to ourselves:-).

Bloom discusses one Nabakov short story in "How to Read..." and praises him for writing like Chekhow for once! So it isn't great praise... (Though, I wish I could write like Chekhov even once...)

As Wood points out in a partially critical review of Bloom's work, Bloom has edited an awful lot of introductions to various writers, some of who he doesn't necessarily appreciate very much. Wood's basic complaint about Bloom is that he has published too many books too quickly. But he is highly appreciative of Bloom's magnum opi (is that the plural of opus?):

"It is admirable to want to write criticism for someone other than one's colleagues and graduate students, and Bloom's intelligence, erudition, and charm have made him America's best-known man of letters. Some of that recent work has earned its favor: The Western Canon and Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human are rich works of popular criticism. " - James Wood

Note - I did say that I personally did not like Lolita, having read the book cover to cover. My (main) reasons were ... well read the thread ... In summary, my main reasons coincided with those of Bloom and Wood, just thought I'd adopt them as my wing men...

Critics don't agree on anything? Can you point to any critics who don't like Shakespeare?

[PeterL]

You can't call them crummy critics! That would be like calling Stephen Hawking and Stephen Weinberg crummy physicists! If there any standards at all in literary criticism they have to be recognised as "serious", if anyone is. Or is literature just a free for all where JBI's opinion and mine are held to be as important as those of Wood and Bloom? Note, I'm not saying JBI's opinion and mine are not important, just nowhere near *as* important (except to ourselves:-).

One can call critics anything, and it is preferable to use nasty comment in their regard. Their opinions are no better than the opinions of anyone else, and they are frequently not as worthy. The only distinction between critics and anyone who posts here is that critics are published.


But he is highly appreciative of Bloom's magnum opi (is that the plural of opus?):

"Opus" is third declension neuter; the ending of "magnum" should have tipped you as to the gender. The plural of that whrase is "magna opera".

[kelby_lake]

Is this the best time to say that I'd love to be a theatre or film critic?

[mayneverhave]

As Wood points out in a partially critical review of Bloom's work, Bloom has edited an awful lot of introductions to various writers, some of who he doesn't necessarily appreciate very much. Wood's basic complaint about Bloom is that he has published too many books too quickly. But he is highly appreciative of Bloom's magnum opi (is that the plural of opus?):


Hah. Check out Harold Bloom's introduction to Frye's Anatomy of Criticism. Not exactly the thing you want to read if you want momentum going into a new work.

[mal4mac]

Is this the best time to say that I'd love to be a theatre or film critic?

Love to be? Why not just be? In fact, given your posts here, you are!

I liked your review of Aristophanes - "carry on" standard, etc... There is a need for many more "appreciation level" reviews on the web for the common reader. For instance, I find it difficult to find detailed information on which translations of Aristophanes might be worth reading. Don't wait to join a newspaper, stick up a web site with AdSense ads, and start writing, learning *and* earning,,,

[PeterL]

Is this the best time to say that I'd love to be a theatre or film critic?

It's a perfect time for that. Are you sending things to your local rag? If not, then start doing that.

[JBI]

You can't call them crummy critics! That would be like calling Stephen Hawking and Stephen Weinberg crummy physicists! If there any standards at all in literary criticism they have to be recognised as "serious", if anyone is. Or is literature just a free for all where JBI's opinion and mine are held to be as important as those of Wood and Bloom? Note, I'm not saying JBI's opinion and mine are not important, just nowhere near *as* important (except to ourselves:-).

Bloom discusses one Nabakov short story in "How to Read..." and praises him for writing like Chekhow for once! So it isn't great praise... (Though, I wish I could write like Chekhov even once...)

As Wood points out in a partially critical review of Bloom's work, Bloom has edited an awful lot of introductions to various writers, some of who he doesn't necessarily appreciate very much. Wood's basic complaint about Bloom is that he has published too many books too quickly. But he is highly appreciative of Bloom's magnum opi (is that the plural of opus?):

"It is admirable to want to write criticism for someone other than one's colleagues and graduate students, and Bloom's intelligence, erudition, and charm have made him America's best-known man of letters. Some of that recent work has earned its favor: The Western Canon and Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human are rich works of popular criticism. " - James Wood

Note - I did say that I personally did not like Lolita, having read the book cover to cover. My (main) reasons were ... well read the thread ... In summary, my main reasons coincided with those of Bloom and Wood, just thought I'd adopt them as my wing men...

Critics don't agree on anything? Can you point to any critics who don't like Shakespeare?

Nobody takes the critical works of James Wood seriously, and Bloom is hardly a serious critic anymore - they are crummy, as they failed to create anything worth preserving, or worth really reading as of now - Bloom is best as an editor, and not as a writer, and Wood has never been good at really writing anything, and isn't taken seriously.

Neither of them are Northrop Frye - neither of them are Empson, and they know it - or, at least Bloom does, as, for all his dramatics, he knows his own limitations.


You forget that I am a serious reader of criticism and theory, and I spend a great deal of my time reading such texts - it's the same sense that nobody today of any credibility would call Jacob Burckhardt a good historian, or Pierre Loti a good novelist.


As for critics who don't like Shakespeare - Tolstoy, Voltaire and George Bernard Shaw seem to fit that category well - each of them important men of letters, with their own beating of Shakespeare - but we also have, somewhere, a contemporary bit of criticism (a few lines of a letter, of which I don't wish to dig) and there is also the 18th century notion of "fixing Shakespeare" and removing "Shakespeare's Quibbles" something that Doc. Johnson and Pope strived for - plus the long history of modifying, and reworking the endings of Shakespeare.

And then there are cultures where Shakespeare does not, and cannot work - but lets not go there.


Hah. Check out Harold Bloom's introduction to Frye's Anatomy of Criticism. Not exactly the thing you want to read if you want momentum going into a new work.

It makes sense, given that Bloom struggles from the anxiety of Frye's influence, and cannot, ever, shake Frye, despite how much he tries to cover it up - the killeraggio against Frye is based on the simple fact that Frye is the Bible of criticism, and Bloom the fool.

[sixsmith]

Nobody takes the critical works of James Wood seriously, and Bloom is hardly a serious critic anymore - they are crummy, as they failed to create anything worth preserving, or worth really reading as of now - Bloom is best as an editor, and not as a writer, and Wood has never been good at really writing anything, and isn't taken seriously.



This is a fairly large claim JBI. It seems to me that a great many people currently take the critical work of James Wood very seriously indeed. Are you referring to a specific group of people for whom Wood is merely a 'book reviewer'?

[JBI]

This is a fairly large claim JBI. It seems to me that a great many people currently take the critical work of James Wood very seriously indeed. Are you referring to a specific group of people for whom Wood is merely a 'book reviewer'?

Yes, generally when I mention people taking people seriously, I regard people as "academics" or people associated with the academy in one shape or form - that is, people involved in the criticism scene - his Hysterical realism concept gained a little bit of a burst, but beyond that, he is more of a public critic than a literary critic.

[sixsmith]

Yes, generally when I mention people taking people seriously, I regard people as "academics" or people associated with the academy in one shape or form - that is, people involved in the criticism scene - his Hysterical realism concept gained a little bit of a burst, but beyond that, he is more of a public critic than a literary critic.

As a lapsed English Lit major (and general fan of periodicals) i read a good number of public critics. I find many on them to be close readers who elucidate themes, characters, strengths, shortcomings, very well. I think Wood (and people like Clive James, Martin Amis etc) has probably done a great deal to get more people reading literature and, crucially, thinking about literature: where it has come from and where it's heading. I guess the view from within the academy is necessarily different and that's fine. But i don't think you can dismiss Wood, Bloom and their ilk as completely irrelevant. I think many public critics have probably rejected the academy because they perceive it to be overly insular and mired in unintelligible theory.



I missed that. Do you have link to it? By the way it's Wood, not Woods. My fault! I started Underworld and it failed my "fifty page test". And one of my main faults is continuing to read when I really shouldn't...

I think William H Gass had a page 99 test. Turn to page 99 and if you don't like what you see then the book probably isn't for you.

Here's a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/oct/06/fiction

A more full exposition can be found in 'The Irresponsible Self: On Laughter and the Novel'.

It created a bit a bust-up amongst certain literary folk. (it wasn't too
long after the Dale Peck - Rick Moody saga). Check the web and you'll find heaps of commentary. I enjoyed Wyatt Mason's take to which i've posted a link below.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/07/0079679

[Pollopicu]

I would agree that seeing the film, either Kubrick's version or the more recent version with Jeremy Irons ( it's on Youtube ) will give you a better sense of the novel's direction than just reading it alone. Neither film matches the novel particularly well although they both have good and bad points. The Kubrick version is slightly updated to the 1950s and Lolita looks obviously older than the twelve years she has at the start of the story. Kubrick was handicapped by US censorship laws and had to shoot the film in England; although he did a pretty good job of disguising the fact.
The remake is more faithful to the period i.e.1947, and the girl does look younger, but she is far too precocious and therefore somewhat unconvincing. There is some tedious travel writing in the novel and those who don't read French may find the number of entries in that language irritating.
Overall, though, the novel is a remarkable exercise in word play that leads to a tragic but not unexpected conclusion.

The Jeremy Iron film inspired me to read "Lolita" in the first place. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I read it not knowing it was a classic. Personally, I consider the Irons movie to be the best film ever made. Of course I'm not a professional film buff, and as you can see from my previous posts, I don't watch a lot of movies to begin with.
Lolita was the very first classic I ever read, and I didn't expect Nabakov's prose-style writing. I was actually quite confused and ignorant about it.
That being said.. I didn't particularly enjoy the novel at the time. I couldn't have picked a worst first classic to begin with. As a mature adult, I should read it again and re-rate it. I won't state I didn't like the novel, or Nabokov. When I think back on how it felt when I read it, I remember a general tragic cimmerian semblance (which I'm attracted to), even if at the moment I didn't fully understand his prose-y style of writing. I'd love to read it again someday. There are just too many books in my to-read pile to go back to it just yet.

[PeterL]

I haven't seen the remake of Lolita, but the movie with James Mason had very little to do with the book, and only one scene from Nabokov's screenplay was used, so I juidge that movie to be a very poor intorduction to the book.

[kelby_lake]

The Jeremy Iron film inspired me to read "Lolita" in the first place. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I read it not knowing it was a classic. Personally, I consider the Irons movie to be the best film ever made. Of course I'm not a professional film buff, and as you can see from my previous posts, I don't watch a lot of movies to begin with.
Lolita was the very first classic I ever read, and I didn't expect Nabakov's prose-style writing. I was actually quite confused and ignorant about it.
That being said.. I didn't particularly enjoy the novel at the time. I couldn't have picked a worst first classic to begin with. As a mature adult, I should read it again and re-rate it. I won't state I didn't like the novel, or Nabokov. When I think back on how it felt when I read it, I remember a general tragic cimmerian semblance (which I'm attracted to), even if at the moment I didn't fully understand his prose-y style of writing. I'd love to read it again someday. There are just too many books in my to-read pile to go back to it just yet.

I liked the Irons film, although it didn't have the wit of the book or 60's film. As a film, the 1997 Lolita film works best.

I was confused by the style at first. I watched a little bit of the movie and re-read it, then it clicked.

[JBI]

As a lapsed English Lit major (and general fan of periodicals) i read a good number of public critics. I find many on them to be close readers who elucidate themes, characters, strengths, shortcomings, very well. I think Wood (and people like Clive James, Martin Amis etc) has probably done a great deal to get more people reading literature and, crucially, thinking about literature: where it has come from and where it's heading. I guess the view from within the academy is necessarily different and that's fine. But i don't think you can dismiss Wood, Bloom and their ilk as completely irrelevant. I think many public critics have probably rejected the academy because they perceive it to be overly insular and mired in unintelligible theory.




I think William H Gass had a page 99 test. Turn to page 99 and if you don't like what you see then the book probably isn't for you.

Here's a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/oct/06/fiction

A more full exposition can be found in 'The Irresponsible Self: On Laughter and the Novel'.

It created a bit a bust-up amongst certain literary folk. (it wasn't too
long after the Dale Peck - Rick Moody saga). Check the web and you'll find heaps of commentary. I enjoyed Wyatt Mason's take to which i've posted a link below.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/07/0079679

I;d like to make a correction here - Bloom, Wood, Amis and the like have done a great deal to get some people reading their concept of literature - there is a difference - if people were generally not readers, they wouldn't pick up Wood or Bloom - that being said, they merely influence the tastes - they have a direct affect on what people read, moreso than they do on the amount people read.

In that sense, Wood's smacks against Nabokov, or Bloom's comment on how Chinese poetry and literature in general is untranslatable, and therefore ignorable, is also having an affect on what people do not read.


As I have said before, Northrop Frye was a public critic, as was Barthes, and as is Linda Hutcheon, and Margaret Atwood to an extent - yet each did not stoop to the level of saying "This is good, this is bad, anybody who likes this is a moron, anybody who disagrees is uninformed." The actual value game of literature is abused over and over again - it is one thing to encourage people to read good books - but it is another to hammer out one's own concept of good works as a definite "best opinion".


In the grand scheme of things though, neither of these critics has come up with a work that constitutes powerful scholarship, worthy of praise - you get that from the major critics - Frye's Opus in general, but notably, the Anatomy of Criticism, The Great Code, the Bushgarden, amongst other seminal works - Barthes Racine, S/Z, and other important works - Hutcheon's The Canadian Post-Modern, Booth's Rhetoric of Irony, to a name a few - even studies of single authors are worth mentioning. Stephen Booth's edition of Shakespeare's Sonnets is a monumental work of criticism in itself - neither Bloom nor Wood really do that for me - perhaps Bloom does to an extent, but his "value" criticism since the late 80s has all but abandoned the path of good criticism.

If somebody is holding these guys on a pedestal as a means of bringing down common opinion, it is not wrong to lower them down a notch.

[mal4mac]

... Bloom's comment on how Chinese poetry and literature in general is untranslatable, and therefore ignorable, is also having an affect on what people do not read.

Do you have a direct quote? In the Western Canon he says: "the immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart from the Western tradition and is rarely conveyed adequately in the translations available to us."

I think he has a point. Have Shakespeare or Dickens or Tolstoy been influenced by any Chinese works? I've dipped into Chinese literature, and there does seem to be a lot of argument over the quality of the translations. Notice he says Chinese literature has "immense wealth", so he is far from dismissing it.


If somebody is holding these guys on a pedestal as a means of bringing down common opinion, it is not wrong to lower them down a notch.

I agree with that. There is no absolute authority...

[mortalterror]

In the grand scheme of things though, neither of these critics has come up with a work that constitutes powerful scholarship, worthy of praise - you get that from the major critics - Frye's Opus in general, but notably, the Anatomy of Criticism, The Great Code, the Bushgarden, amongst other seminal works - Barthes Racine, S/Z, and other important works - Hutcheon's The Canadian Post-Modern, Booth's Rhetoric of Irony, to a name a few - even studies of single authors are worth mentioning. Stephen Booth's edition of Shakespeare's Sonnets is a monumental work of criticism in itself - neither Bloom nor Wood really do that for me - perhaps Bloom does to an extent, but his "value" criticism since the late 80s has all but abandoned the path of good criticism.
I really don't see Bloom as the same kind of critic as Barthes, Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, or Bergson. They are more like philosophers whose philosophy had an influence on literature. Bloom is fond of comparing himself to William Hazlitt and Samuel Johnson which I think are accurate comparisons both in view of the type of writing and the type of opinions they are prone to. I see Bloom as being more in the tradition of guys like Sainte-Beuve, Edmund Wilson, H.L. Mencken, and Matthew Arnold. Fellows like I.A. Richardson with their modern close reading techniques are just a different breed.