Author |
Message |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:27 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
But, gee!
Now that I see all the posts that popped up while I was typing maybe I should get started with Timmy.
Sorry for the interruption!
Continue on with the cat stories. I love that one with the shotgun
LOL
And that's an order
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
mitty |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:47 am |
|
|
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Location: Way Down Yonder.......
|
Noblesse Oblige is the phrase I was searching for before. And everything the word "noble" implies.
Its way too early, and not even light yet. Horrors! |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:58 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
Yambu, Mitty, all
Aw shoot, no more cat stories as I type this!
But anyway, herewith, corrections and adjustments of previous complaints:
P. 271-2
"And softly, confidentially, arching her thin eyebrows and puckering her parched lips, she emitted, a little mockingly, somewhat fastidiously, not untenderly, in a kind of muted whistle, the name that the astute reader has guessed long ago..... I sat.... rendering that golden peace through the satisfaction of logical recognition, which my most inimical reader should experience now."
Inimical reader or no, that's a wonderful picture of Lolita.
--
p xxxiii (Appel writing, in the Introduction):
"Although Lolita may still be a shocking novel to several aging non-readers, the exact circumstances of its troubled publication may not be familiar to younger readers."
Ahem, sir!
--
p. xxxv (Appel again writing, in the Introduction):
"Although it [Lolita] never ran afoul of the law in this country, there were predictably some outraged protests, including an editorial in The New Republic, but since these at best belong to social rather than literary history, they need not be detailed here."
Outrage over the content "at best" [only] social history? Harrumph!
--
So those are the passages that eventually led to the annoyance level I presented in the two long previous posts about poshlost and a certain attitude toward the reader, particularly me.
Except to add that Appel was a student of Nabokov's and, having been invited to dinner at VN's house, was probably well thought of by the great man, from whom he may have picked up his tone.
So there I conclude,
Thanks for the patience,
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
mitty |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:48 am |
|
|
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Location: Way Down Yonder.......
|
For Cat People Only
We had a cat named Chauncey. My aunt found him, or more to the point he found her. She was in uptown N.O. and this very young cat started following her. He may have been 5 or 6 months old. She walked around for blocks (and about 3 hours!) trying to find where he belonged. The upshot was he didn't belong to anyone. He was thin as a rail, and very nervy. The cat had decided that she was his person. So in the car he went, and stayed with us 18 years. He ruled all the other cats, and dogs. We have a fairly large blonde sort of german shepard mix. She did not dare pass Chauncey on the steps. She would stay upstairs before she'd pass him. What a picture that made. He'd just stare at her. He could literally fly thru the air to catch one of those horrible flying roaches that sometimes would get in the old house we lived in then. I think thats what he had lived on before he came to us. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:12 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
“.....she emitted, a little mockingly, somewhat fastidiously, not untenderly, in a kind of muted whistle, the name that the astute reader has guessed long ago..... I sat.... rendering that golden peace through the satisfaction of logical recognition, which my most inimical reader should experience now....."
Shyeah, right. And are we supposed to go “Doh!” When Humbert says “Waterproof”? I didn’t get it until the following page when he mentions Clare by name. But he’s just playing with us again; I don't mind.
".....Although Lolita may still be a shocking novel to several aging non-readers, the exact circumstances of its troubled publication may not be familiar to younger readers....."
As you say, this is Appel speaking, not Nabokov. Anyway, I’m not offended, as I don’t doubt the truth of it.
"........Although it [Lolita] never ran afoul of the law in this country, there were predictably some outraged protests, including an editorial in The New Republic, but since these at best belong to social rather than literary history, they need not be detailed here......"
And Charles says: Outrage over the content "at best" [only] social history? Harrumph!.......
Again, it’s Appel speaking. If he doesn’t wish to examine certain protests because he doesn’t see them as literary criticism, then I’m glad he doesn’t. This is hardly a minimizing of pedophelia as a social evil. Certainly the book doesn’t treat it so.
I agree that through his main character Nabokov seems to be looking down at us dullards from a great height. But for me that’s ok, as he no doubt sees us looking up. Finally, condescending (Mitty’s word) is not how I would describe the author’s attitude towards me. I never once felt that he had descended to my level. He has poured everything he had into this work, and showed me humor and pathos amidst repulsiveness and tragedy. If he feels superior to me, he’s earned the right. |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:24 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Yambu,
You've Got Mail!
Marj |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:12 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
No I don't. Or at least I can't find it. Try forwarding it directly:
yambu2@comcast.net |
_________________ That was great for you. How was it for me? |
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:21 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
yambu wrote:
I agree that through his main character Nabokov seems to be looking down at us dullards from a great height. But for me that’s ok, as he no doubt sees us looking up.
Yambu,
I love that! It is just so perfect!
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:28 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
Yambu,
And I don't disagree with any of the rest of your post either. Your points are all well taken. I suppose we just have different boiling points.
But I thought that conclusion of yours deserved its own post, which is why these thoughts are down here, and that's up there.
Still chuckling,
and my hat's still off to you!
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:54 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
mitty wrote: For Cat People Only
We had a cat named Chauncey. My aunt found him, or more to the point he found her. She was in uptown N.O. and this very young cat started following her. He may have been 5 or 6 months old. She walked around for blocks (and about 3 hours!) trying to find where he belonged. The upshot was he didn't belong to anyone. He was thin as a rail, and very nervy. The cat had decided that she was his person. So in the car he went, and stayed with us 18 years.
Mitty,
Your cat's are just amazing! But I would not say that they are for cat people only. Anyone with a love of good stories would have to like yours. I love 'em, even if I do also like cats. And cat people.
My own personal explanation for their attraction to your aunt and you is that the cat world has a secret newspaper that we just don't know about. They all read it and you and your aunt must be featured pretty regularly in their Person of the Month column.
Congratulations,
They know a good person when they see one,
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
mitty |
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:08 pm |
|
|
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1359
Location: Way Down Yonder.......
|
Actually, there is a very large sign embalzoned upon each of our foreheads............................
THIS IS A PRIME SUCKER
GET 'EM!!
Wouldn't have it any other way! |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:03 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
LOL Mitty, |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:16 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
To all:
Can it be!? We have reached the home stretch and a time to think of summaries, and conclusions, and maybe even re-evaluations. And raking leaves. But first:
What have we missed?
We have discussed the characters in detail, and the story also. And have offered our praises to Nabokov in our own ways. What topic or question have we gone right by without noticing at all?
Think! People think!
I'll post this shingle here at the beginning of the weekend, and rattle it again on Monday. And then we'll go from there, or now we can start from right here! But you know how fast a week can slide by, so let's start early getting to things that we still want to squeeze into the discussion.
And, of course, you just know that your wily moderator still has a few questions up his sleeve, so it won't be over 'til its over!
What's on our minds?
What's still bothering us?
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:45 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
Thought #1
The Reader's Guide to Lolita, at the Random House homepage and already mentioned once in this forum, is a wonderful fund of questions. Much more deeply probing and insightful than your moderator has ever thought to post. Do any questions over there tickle any one's fancy for us to have a go at? (Can't get the URL into here, but it is there if ye seek.
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
pedersencr |
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:44 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 921
Location: New Orleans
|
(Wild) Thought #2:
There is poor Humbert languishing in prison, writing away, expecting a trial, and we have already been chosen as the jury.
But we never had a trial!
A major miscarriage of justice! We should at least add murder to the list of charges and then give him his trial. But, how? Every accused deserves a defense. Just laying out the evidence against him would be too easy -- like shooting fish in a barrel.
I would suggest that any one who wished could lay out a prosecution case against Humbert, BUT would also simultaneously have to provide a defense case with three of the best reasons he should be acquitted. That should make it excruciating
We could similarly try Lolita. /gasp!/ Wayward child? Unfit mother? Three reasons for and three reasons against acquittal.
And then there would be Quilty. Ah Quilty! Chlld pornographer? Vulgarian? And ditto three and three.
And, as in real life, silver tongued oratory would be admissible even without hard evidence to back it up.
This could have the makings of daytime soap opera!!!
Or not. You decide
Charles |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|