In the beginning there was Nabokov's Lolita, then Kubrick's, then Lyne's. Today—in 2023–what kind of movie would we (or could we) make from the famous novel?
Jul 8, 2023·edited Jul 8, 2023Liked by Susan Bordo
Excellent article. I see "Lolita" a little differently. Nabokov wanted his books to be made into movies, and as if courting this goal, there are a good 30+ pages of "filler" in Lolita that don't belong there, imo, and, notwithstanding Nabokov's ambitions, this story cannot properly/legally/ethically be made into a movie. I'd like also to note that the main character in this book, as in many fiction stories, is the narrative voice. Nobody could out "voice" Nabokov. So, here is a "pedo" who is smarter, better read, better educated, cleverer, etc, than the "dear reader", who might be apt to condemn Humbert in a huff of moral superiority. Pale Fire perhaps takes this voice aspect of voice even further.
Interesting! I’ll have to think about this. I don’t recall, in any of my research, reading that Nabokov wanted his books made into movies. I do know he wasn’t thrilled with the Kubrick movie—and I think he’d hate the Lyne. I’d be Interested to know what you see as “filler.” I thought every word belonged. Of course, I totally agree that it’s Nabokov’s voice that has the last word. And you may be right, that it’s why movies are bound to fail. They can’t do the split consciousness/perspective that gives the book it’s moral dimension (without being moralistic.)
Susan, honored to have your response. Please don't feel obligated to respond!
I may have overstated my idea. Another book, The Gift, I think, was made into a movie under a different title (chess player). I shouldn't say VB wrote in any way to directly ingratiate himself into Hollywood, but I thought he was looking over his literary shoulder at the possibility. No evidence of it, just imo. The "filler" I think is found in the car chase across the country. Humbert had to be caught so that was one way to do it, but it was lengthy and the story had already peaked. Forgot to mention, I think Lolita can be much enhanced, and demystified perhaps, by reading "The Enchanter", "Lolita" 's grim and mesmerizing prototype. also, opined by some to be the actual "source" material for "Lolita", there was an old "memoir" of some guy-- I think, European, (written from prison of course)-- describing his own pedo crimes (supposedly not fiction). It was kept in the "Stacks", in Boston, accessible only by a librarian, and wow did that librarian give me a shriveling look when she handed the foul thing to me!
I don’t feel obligated, but I would enjoying continuing! No time right now unfortunately; I’ve already indulged my pleasure in staying in bed and carrying on conversation on substack and FB too long this morning. But I’m putting a bookmark on my thoughts on the road trip. Re. “Source” material, did you know that Nabokov used to ride the bus in Ithaca, watching preteens move and talk, and kept notecards with their measurements?
Yes, in a longer piece I discuss why the Kubrick version succeeds where the Lyne one fails. It’s got that satiric edge, while Lyne is all woozy and romantic. I much prefer the Kubrick. But yeah, the book!! Amazing.
My pleasure. I loved your essay on Succession/Shiv. And just read your affirmative action essay.
You might enjoy my short post focusing on a comparison between Thomas's concurrence and Jackson's dissent. I didn't state it directly but Thomas's own insecurity is evident from what he write.
I enjoyed your piece so much, but I wish you’d made the problems with Thomas’s opinion the main point! You certainly illustrate them well, and I’d love for you to do it with your red pencil flying across the page rather than “trembling” (in your words.) In fact, I can kind of see a piece that actually visually does that to his opinion, or a piece of it anyway. Haha, it tickles me to imagine it!
I can see how this topic could explode into a full masterclass. There are multiple quandries at play. Nabokov's masterful rendition of his pedophile affair is disturbing and unsettling by itself. Has the book encouraged this behavior in men? Or are they so accurately portrayed that it snuffs out the allure?
So the author could portray an immature sexual character, but the film never can because a real 12-year-old ... I want to scream.
Then the issue of the filmmaker insisting accurate portrayal of the book. Not true. Then the issue of numerous movie reviewers stating the new movie holds true to the book. Not true.
Yes, it’s why teaching that course was so great. We couldn’t stop talking. (As you might imagine, the men and women sometimes diverged in their reactions—and there was also the delicate issue of managing the fact that some of the students had been sexually abused themselves. I always had them write private journals for my eyes only. But amazingly, many wanted to share with the class. It was such a rich experience!) I’ve often thought of how I might be able to transform the Lolita class into something online/zoom. The topic, as you say, explodes in so many directions—and including the cultural/historical context of the book and movies is a whole other thing.
So now I am intrigued. Are actual pedophiles obsessed with the book? Or is it too real to see themselves portrayed?
And we may assume that, yeah, there would be gals in your class who had been abused as a child. But I would be less likely to assume that as many guys were abusers. Did any admit to such?
I never finished the book, but this was from laziness, not because i didn’t like it. I thought it was some of the finest writing I’d ever seen, and I seem to recall Dorothy Parker was a fan.
I think I’m just tritely repeating back a tiny bit of what you said, and maybe not even getting it right, but I find the ads you used here to be creepy in a way the book wasn’t. Even though Humbert is smart and sophisticated, he’s also obviously doing a colorful but hollow performance, mainly fooling himself. His erudition and brilliance are part of why it’s so effectively tragic. And the ads don’t have anything like that kind of irony and tragic dimension.
Thank you for the congrats, and for reading the piece. You’re getting it right—the book isn’t creepy, because Nabokov’s perspective is always undercutting Humbert’s, while the ads just encourage us to BE Humbert. While I have you “here,” can you recommend a post of yours for me to read? I’m sure there’s more than one, but maybe you have a favorite?
As you’ve guessed, there are a few that I’d recommend. I don’t actually have a favorite, and unfortunately for me and others, I write different kinds of pieces, making it even harder for me to choose.
I’ll describe them here before I add the links in the next comment, and that should make it easy for you to choose one. (I appreciate very much your making this effort, by the way!)
I have one about John Cage, an artist I feel is lazily dismissed by people who don’t know his work.
Another is about politics. This is perhaps the easiest one to avoid if you’re sick of reading about politics. I think it makes some interesting points about how Americans on both right and left avoid critical thinking.
Then there’s one that’s not serious; it’s about how my parents used to drive me to drink when we went on vacation trips.
I couldn’t get any of your pieces, which are available only to paid subscribers. As a rule, I don’t pay and don’t ask people to pay. But I’d be open to trading paid subscriptions with you.
I was just about to respond with a weary “aargh, I went in and unlocked those, why didn’t it work, etc.” All my stuff is free, but after a while the older pieces go behind a paywall. And I felt guilty even doing that, which is ridiculous.
But then I saw your generous offer. Sure, that seems like a great deal for me, and I appreciate the optimism. Give me a couple minutes, please, and I’ll level up my subscription.
I can figure out how to get all three links into one comment, so I’ll put this one here, and come back in a moment with the other two. It’s ok with me if you just end up reading the Cage piece.
Wonderful! As you point out, people seem not to read anymore. I’ve occasionally caught well known scholars commenting on primary sources that they clearly haven’t read. I don’t mind filmmakers departing from a book, but the reviewers should notice.
Thank you!! As to the other thing: It’s depressing. Actually, the whole world of writing/publishing/reviewing has degenerated, in my opinion. At the same time as everyone, it seems, is writing a book! For awhile, I lost heart. Why put more words out into the chaos? But substack has helped revive me.
Thank you!! I’m excited. I’m sure I’ll be writing about the induction (in September) and how it feels to be among so many people I’ve admired and never met. I still can’t figure out how I managed to get elected. I’m serious!! (Not begging for compliments.) I’ve always felt on the other side of the door of most “elite” clubs. And this one has invited me in!
Jul 8, 2023·edited Jul 8, 2023Liked by Susan Bordo
I hope you'll celebrate this for a long time! And I'm sure the ceremony will be memorable and beautiful. Looking forward to your post about it (John Updike! I think I read an essay by Ann Patchett a while back about her experience at the ceremony & meeting him - tangentially, he was gone too soon - I miss him.) & probably what's shocking is that people were paying attention to your work (instead of looking at Instagram!) :)
You make me want to reread the book, which I remember (from decades ago) as piercingly sad. Isn’t there a scene in which Humbert visits the ruin of who Lolita has become? I once interviewed a convicted pedophile. He told me, “The whole time she was painting her nails.” Nabokov got it. The moviemakers didn’t.
Yup. Nabokov got it. Kubrick almost did (although I don’t talk about it in this particular piece, I do elsewhere—he’’s closer to the spirit and perspective of the book than Lyne.) I don’t miss much about academia but I do miss those classes, and having students discover that the book is nothing like what they imagined it would be. So how did you come to be interviewing a convicted pedophile?
Back in the 80s, as a freelancer for Canadian magazines, a women’s magazine assigned me this story. The man had molested his stepdaughter and the editors had wanted me to get inside his head. He seemed so frighteningly wholesome . And he definitely knew he had committed a terrible crime.
Excellent article. I see "Lolita" a little differently. Nabokov wanted his books to be made into movies, and as if courting this goal, there are a good 30+ pages of "filler" in Lolita that don't belong there, imo, and, notwithstanding Nabokov's ambitions, this story cannot properly/legally/ethically be made into a movie. I'd like also to note that the main character in this book, as in many fiction stories, is the narrative voice. Nobody could out "voice" Nabokov. So, here is a "pedo" who is smarter, better read, better educated, cleverer, etc, than the "dear reader", who might be apt to condemn Humbert in a huff of moral superiority. Pale Fire perhaps takes this voice aspect of voice even further.
Interesting! I’ll have to think about this. I don’t recall, in any of my research, reading that Nabokov wanted his books made into movies. I do know he wasn’t thrilled with the Kubrick movie—and I think he’d hate the Lyne. I’d be Interested to know what you see as “filler.” I thought every word belonged. Of course, I totally agree that it’s Nabokov’s voice that has the last word. And you may be right, that it’s why movies are bound to fail. They can’t do the split consciousness/perspective that gives the book it’s moral dimension (without being moralistic.)
Susan, honored to have your response. Please don't feel obligated to respond!
I may have overstated my idea. Another book, The Gift, I think, was made into a movie under a different title (chess player). I shouldn't say VB wrote in any way to directly ingratiate himself into Hollywood, but I thought he was looking over his literary shoulder at the possibility. No evidence of it, just imo. The "filler" I think is found in the car chase across the country. Humbert had to be caught so that was one way to do it, but it was lengthy and the story had already peaked. Forgot to mention, I think Lolita can be much enhanced, and demystified perhaps, by reading "The Enchanter", "Lolita" 's grim and mesmerizing prototype. also, opined by some to be the actual "source" material for "Lolita", there was an old "memoir" of some guy-- I think, European, (written from prison of course)-- describing his own pedo crimes (supposedly not fiction). It was kept in the "Stacks", in Boston, accessible only by a librarian, and wow did that librarian give me a shriveling look when she handed the foul thing to me!
I don’t feel obligated, but I would enjoying continuing! No time right now unfortunately; I’ve already indulged my pleasure in staying in bed and carrying on conversation on substack and FB too long this morning. But I’m putting a bookmark on my thoughts on the road trip. Re. “Source” material, did you know that Nabokov used to ride the bus in Ithaca, watching preteens move and talk, and kept notecards with their measurements?
Wow, didn't know. Might be risky to do such research these days.
There is no substitute for the book!. Although he Kubrick version ia pretty good with HH, Calre Quilty, and the elder Haze.
Yes, in a longer piece I discuss why the Kubrick version succeeds where the Lyne one fails. It’s got that satiric edge, while Lyne is all woozy and romantic. I much prefer the Kubrick. But yeah, the book!! Amazing.
And thank you for the upgrade to paid! It means a lot to me when free subscribers do this!
My pleasure. I loved your essay on Succession/Shiv. And just read your affirmative action essay.
You might enjoy my short post focusing on a comparison between Thomas's concurrence and Jackson's dissent. I didn't state it directly but Thomas's own insecurity is evident from what he write.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/supreme-court-cage-match-thomas-vs
I enjoyed your piece so much, but I wish you’d made the problems with Thomas’s opinion the main point! You certainly illustrate them well, and I’d love for you to do it with your red pencil flying across the page rather than “trembling” (in your words.) In fact, I can kind of see a piece that actually visually does that to his opinion, or a piece of it anyway. Haha, it tickles me to imagine it!
I can see how this topic could explode into a full masterclass. There are multiple quandries at play. Nabokov's masterful rendition of his pedophile affair is disturbing and unsettling by itself. Has the book encouraged this behavior in men? Or are they so accurately portrayed that it snuffs out the allure?
So the author could portray an immature sexual character, but the film never can because a real 12-year-old ... I want to scream.
Then the issue of the filmmaker insisting accurate portrayal of the book. Not true. Then the issue of numerous movie reviewers stating the new movie holds true to the book. Not true.
This is like a creepy whack-a-mole.
Yes, it’s why teaching that course was so great. We couldn’t stop talking. (As you might imagine, the men and women sometimes diverged in their reactions—and there was also the delicate issue of managing the fact that some of the students had been sexually abused themselves. I always had them write private journals for my eyes only. But amazingly, many wanted to share with the class. It was such a rich experience!) I’ve often thought of how I might be able to transform the Lolita class into something online/zoom. The topic, as you say, explodes in so many directions—and including the cultural/historical context of the book and movies is a whole other thing.
So now I am intrigued. Are actual pedophiles obsessed with the book? Or is it too real to see themselves portrayed?
And we may assume that, yeah, there would be gals in your class who had been abused as a child. But I would be less likely to assume that as many guys were abusers. Did any admit to such?
Wonderful news about the Academy!
I never finished the book, but this was from laziness, not because i didn’t like it. I thought it was some of the finest writing I’d ever seen, and I seem to recall Dorothy Parker was a fan.
I think I’m just tritely repeating back a tiny bit of what you said, and maybe not even getting it right, but I find the ads you used here to be creepy in a way the book wasn’t. Even though Humbert is smart and sophisticated, he’s also obviously doing a colorful but hollow performance, mainly fooling himself. His erudition and brilliance are part of why it’s so effectively tragic. And the ads don’t have anything like that kind of irony and tragic dimension.
Thank you for the congrats, and for reading the piece. You’re getting it right—the book isn’t creepy, because Nabokov’s perspective is always undercutting Humbert’s, while the ads just encourage us to BE Humbert. While I have you “here,” can you recommend a post of yours for me to read? I’m sure there’s more than one, but maybe you have a favorite?
The one about my parents driving me to drink when we went on vacation.
https://open.substack.com/pub/karlstraub/p/alcohol-and-coconuts?r=6x9gm&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Just read it. Loved it. Comment is over there.
I don’t want to embarrass you, but it means a hell of a lot to get a compliment from a serious writer. Thank you.
As you’ve guessed, there are a few that I’d recommend. I don’t actually have a favorite, and unfortunately for me and others, I write different kinds of pieces, making it even harder for me to choose.
I’ll describe them here before I add the links in the next comment, and that should make it easy for you to choose one. (I appreciate very much your making this effort, by the way!)
I have one about John Cage, an artist I feel is lazily dismissed by people who don’t know his work.
Another is about politics. This is perhaps the easiest one to avoid if you’re sick of reading about politics. I think it makes some interesting points about how Americans on both right and left avoid critical thinking.
Then there’s one that’s not serious; it’s about how my parents used to drive me to drink when we went on vacation trips.
I couldn’t get any of your pieces, which are available only to paid subscribers. As a rule, I don’t pay and don’t ask people to pay. But I’d be open to trading paid subscriptions with you.
Done, and thanks!
Will do now too.
I was just about to respond with a weary “aargh, I went in and unlocked those, why didn’t it work, etc.” All my stuff is free, but after a while the older pieces go behind a paywall. And I felt guilty even doing that, which is ridiculous.
But then I saw your generous offer. Sure, that seems like a great deal for me, and I appreciate the optimism. Give me a couple minutes, please, and I’ll level up my subscription.
I’ll start with the parental abuse one. I need a little humor today.
Me too, pretty much every day these days.
The political one, with some thoughts about affirmative action and Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc.
https://open.substack.com/pub/karlstraub/p/red-meat-for-elitists?r=6x9gm&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I can figure out how to get all three links into one comment, so I’ll put this one here, and come back in a moment with the other two. It’s ok with me if you just end up reading the Cage piece.
https://open.substack.com/pub/karlstraub/p/john-cages-soft-pedal-revolution?r=6x9gm&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Wonderful! As you point out, people seem not to read anymore. I’ve occasionally caught well known scholars commenting on primary sources that they clearly haven’t read. I don’t mind filmmakers departing from a book, but the reviewers should notice.
Thank you!! As to the other thing: It’s depressing. Actually, the whole world of writing/publishing/reviewing has degenerated, in my opinion. At the same time as everyone, it seems, is writing a book! For awhile, I lost heart. Why put more words out into the chaos? But substack has helped revive me.
Thank you for another excellent essay, and congratulations, Susan, on your election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences!
Thank you!! I’m excited. I’m sure I’ll be writing about the induction (in September) and how it feels to be among so many people I’ve admired and never met. I still can’t figure out how I managed to get elected. I’m serious!! (Not begging for compliments.) I’ve always felt on the other side of the door of most “elite” clubs. And this one has invited me in!
I hope you'll celebrate this for a long time! And I'm sure the ceremony will be memorable and beautiful. Looking forward to your post about it (John Updike! I think I read an essay by Ann Patchett a while back about her experience at the ceremony & meeting him - tangentially, he was gone too soon - I miss him.) & probably what's shocking is that people were paying attention to your work (instead of looking at Instagram!) :)
You make me want to reread the book, which I remember (from decades ago) as piercingly sad. Isn’t there a scene in which Humbert visits the ruin of who Lolita has become? I once interviewed a convicted pedophile. He told me, “The whole time she was painting her nails.” Nabokov got it. The moviemakers didn’t.
Yup. Nabokov got it. Kubrick almost did (although I don’t talk about it in this particular piece, I do elsewhere—he’’s closer to the spirit and perspective of the book than Lyne.) I don’t miss much about academia but I do miss those classes, and having students discover that the book is nothing like what they imagined it would be. So how did you come to be interviewing a convicted pedophile?
Back in the 80s, as a freelancer for Canadian magazines, a women’s magazine assigned me this story. The man had molested his stepdaughter and the editors had wanted me to get inside his head. He seemed so frighteningly wholesome . And he definitely knew he had committed a terrible crime.
As with other comments and FB posts of yours, the story of this would make a great substack post!