Monthly Archives: May 2012

The Resolution Project Season Two: Lolita (1955)

“My choice, however, was prompted by considerations essence was, as I realized too late, a piteous compromise. All of which goes to show how dreadfully stupid poor Humbert always was in matters of sex.” (p. 25)

The Resolution Project Season Two: For my New Year’s resolution last year (2011), I decided to try and read all one hundred of the novels picked by Time Magazine as the best since their inception in 1923 to the list’s publication in 2005. I got almost halfway through. I’ve decided to bull-headedly push on through and try and finish the challenge, continuing with the same caveat as before: I’ve exempted myself from reading books I’ve already read, leaving eighty-six or so left to go. Some spoilers may lie ahead, so be warned if you’re the type to be bothered by that. It’s not really worth getting that angry about though.

Lolita cover 2005 US Random House (Vintage), New York

The Elevator Pitch: “Humbert Humbert” is a recent emigré to New England following a failed marriage in Europe. Humbert’s obsession is with the species he calls “nymphets”, girls aged between nine and fourteen who have yet to be ravaged at all by age. Dolores Haze, the eventual target of his fatal attraction, is a girl obsessed with movie magazines, comic books and ice cream bars. What follows next is probably one of the loveliest depictions of something we the readers know deep down is absolutely abhorrent.

What I knew about this book, its subject and its author going in: Lolita‘s probably one of the most famous books on the entire Time 100 list. It’s been made into two movies, the good one of which was done by auteur director supreme Stanley Kubrick. I’m going to watch it some time this week, hopefully.

As for the author, Vladimir Nabokov, I waxed philosophical about how much I liked his other entry on the list, Pale Fire, here. Suffice it to say, I was pretty excited for this one, given its impressive pedigree.

Thoughts: This has been a bit of a tough one for me to review, as I really did enjoy it, but I don’t have a lot to say about it. It’s like The Great Gatsby or The Grapes of Wrath, just a classic awesome novel that has been accordingly analysed to death over the years. It’s really good, and if the subject matter doesn’t creep you out too much to touch it, you should definitely read it.

One of the things I guess I should have guessed about Lolita from having read Pale Fire first was that it was at times going to be pretty hilarious. Once you are able to distance yourself somewhat from the, yes, disgusting goings-on between Humbert and his captive nymphet over the course of their “romance”, you have to think about the what the reality of a relationship between a middle-aged man and a precocious young girl would be like. Obviously they have nothing in common: Humbert would have us believe that in addition to his matinee idol looks, he’s also incredibly intelligent, where Lolita’s not much more than a typical movie magazine-reading little girl.

He essentially (and legally) becomes Lolita’s parent over the course of the story, and while that gives him a bit of a delightful frisson for breaking the incest tattoo, it also forces him to come to terms with the reality of his situation. Some of my favorite bits of the story are when even Humbert takes a break from lusting after Lolita to call her a brat or something, like you would a normal child. While Nabokov occasionally alludes to Lolita’s childish love of movie magazines, current music, etc., it’s an interesting experiment to think about what the story would look like nowadays. There would definitely be a lot of Justin Bieber listened to on the road, I’ll tell you that much.

Nabokov, in his afterword, speaks of wanting to write a quintessentially American novel, one that takes the landscape of the country as seriously and allusively as European writers do their own climes. So in addition to being amazingly transgressive, even to a modern-day reader as myself, the book is also a great road novel, in addition to a sort of female bildungsroman. I was also sort of shocked to find that the book is also an excellent critique of the schooling of young women; when Humbert takes Lolita to a private school, he’s appalled by the curriculum, which teaches “useful” skills like:

“[t]he four D’s: Dramatics, Dance, Debating and Dating. We are confronted by certain facts. Your delightful Dolly will presently enter an age group where dates, dating, date dress, date book, date etiquette, mean as much to her as, say, business, business connections, business success, mean to you, or as much as [smiling] the happiness of my girls means to me. Dorothy Humbird is already involved in a whole system of social life which consists, whether we like it or not, of hot-dog stands, corner drugstores, malts and cokes, movies, square-dancing, blanket parties on beaches, and even hair-fixing parties!” (p. 177)

It is at once a little quaint and nice to see hot-dog stands and square dancing brought up as a system of culture for teens as it is condescending to see that a young girl’s education should not extend beyond these things. And really, is this school much different from the applied math courses and life-skills management classes kids who do not plan on going to college take in school these days? At least when she was stuck with Humbert Lolita became somewhat worldly, not that it makes up for essentially being a hostage in sex slavery though.

It’s also interesting to think of the book as a collision between Worlds Old and New. Humbert’s tastes extend towards chess, French literature and gin, while Lolita loves movies, soda pop and jukeboxes. I’ve heard the book described as both “Europe lusting after American youth and joie de vivre” and “America subverting and changing European tastes in pursuit of cultural hegemony”. I’d probably have to agree with the former statement more, but you could look at the way Humbert himself changes during the course of the novel as a gradual lifting of the European out of him to be replaced with a hollow American shell. You know, if you felt like it.

I found the cover picture up there at an awesome website called “Covering Lolita“, which is a repository of all the known covers the book has had over the years, in as many countries as they can find. While looking through the covers and enjoying the typography on display, I was struck as to how difficult it must have been, and continue to be, to market such a strange and beautiful book as Lolita.

Lolita cover 1958 US Putnam, New York

I like this one the most; the one I grabbed for this post up top is just what my copy looks like. There’s a lot of plain, text-based covers, impressionist paintings, and when we get to the first movie era, tie-in stills featuring the iconic heart-shaped glasses.

Lolita cover 1998 FIN Gummerus (BB), Jyväskylä

Weirdly, some of the covers try to sex up the book, this Finnish one (from 1998!) being particularly egregious. I think that the variety of approaches used to demonstrate the book’s importance speaks to just how interesting and unique Lolita is, and how the issues it raises still resonate, maybe even more nowadays.

Honestly, the fact that a TV show like Toddlers and Tiaras exists in a post-Lolita world is awe-inspiringly strange to me. On the one hand, young girls are to be protected and kept safe, this is obvious to people who are not evil. But sometimes, marketers and fashion types still toe the line with regards to how young girls’ youth and beauty can be used for more nefarious purposes.

“But every once in a while I have to remind the reader of my appearance much as a professional novelist, who has given a character of his some mannerism or a dog, has to go on producing that dog or that mannerism every time the character crops up in the course of the book.” (p. 104)

Similar books on the Time 100 list: Humbert’s narration, which is prone to hyperbole and bouts with madness, begrudgingly reminded me of An American Tragedy, which I won’t recommend that hard though because I hated it so much. If for some reason you’re into books where children are raised very very poorly, you might also like reading Housekeeping. Finally, I’ll recommend Pale Fire again, because it’s really good, and deserves to be as well-known as Lolita.

Total pages read since January 1st 2011: 16242 pp. (1783 this year)

Total books on the Time 100 list read: 57/113, or 50% complete.

Next up on the Resolution Project: A Dance to the Music of Time Book Four: At Lady Molly’s (1957), by Anthony Powell.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The Resolution Project Season Two: The Man Who Loved Children (Part Two)

“Henny, never speaking to him, heard him with fright; but she had given herself up entirely to despair; she said nothing, and it seemed to her that (now that the clouds had rolled away) she saw her husband for the first time: she had married a child whose only talent was an air of engaging helplessness by which he got the protection of certain goodhearted people – Saul Pilgrim, who was penniless, various old Socialists, of small property, and in the dim past, by the same means, her own father.” (p. 325)

The Man Who Loved Children cover

The Resolution Project Season Two: For my New Year’s resolution last year (2011), I decided to try and read all one hundred of the novels picked by Time Magazine as the best since their inception in 1923 to the list’s publication in 2005. I got almost halfway through. I’ve decided to bull-headedly push on through and try and finish the challenge, continuing with the same caveat as before: I’ve exempted myself from reading books I’ve already read, leaving eighty-six or so left to go. Some spoilers may lie ahead, so be warned if you’re the type to be bothered by that. It’s not really worth getting that angry about though.

Thoughts: So I finally finished this beast. As I mentioned before, I really did not care for this book at all. I will say though, that it got a little bit better, but that is really not saying much. Maybe it’s the Stockholm Syndrome talking, but once the Pollit clan moved out of Washington to “Spa House” in Annapolis, halfway through the book, it started to get marginally better. This is a book that was desperately in need of editing. Look at the quote I pulled above. That is one long sentence there, folks, Frankensteined together with count ‘em, seven commas, two semi-colons, a regular colon, a dash and a pair of brackets. And the whole book is written like this! It’s a nightmare.

I kind of started to compare this book to a movie like Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father in my head, as that too deals with a similarly rising dread throughout. The problem is though, the film takes 95 minutes to tell its terrible story, whereas The Man Who Loved Children is an agonizing 527 pages of overwritten handwringing, philosophizing, babytalking and insulting, delivered to us through a cast of characters who are all completely and totally unbelievable. Had the book been cut down substantially, we wouldn’t have to spend hundreds of pages detailing just how and why mother Henny and father Sam are so goddamn terrible. One or two instances would have been more than enough, as opposed to the relentless cavalcade of misery that is heaped upon the children, and by extension, whatever poor bastard decided he should read this book in a feat of literary masochism.

Jonathan Franzen, who I believe alongside Time 100 list creator Richard Lacayo is the only reason this book has any critical sway right now, tells us in 2010 that the character of Louisa is based on author Christina Stead. This must be the only reason that the character is an accomplished poet/martyr figure, because nothing in Louisa’s background and upbringing would suggest that. She’s a total Mary Sue-type character, an author stand-in and wish fulfillment fantasy. You literally have no choice but to side with her, and by proxy, the author. Note though that she is given substantial physical defects though, so it’s not a classic Mary Sue move. It’s absolutely ludicrous, though, that a twelve year old would be as well-read as Louisa is in the novel. In addition to that, the school scenes, featuring Louisa’s only friend Clare, are absolutely nonsensical and a complete waste of space, and also prove that she’s not getting some sort of amazing schooling to make her this way. It’s pretty unbelievable to me that Louisa and her friends compose an epic poem cycle about their teacher, alongside numerous plays and other pieces. I realize that before TV and video games people were more inventive, but come on now ;) .

So, I get it. Sam Pollit is an absolutely horrifying man. He’s a symbol of the evils of American-style paternalism and science gone unchecked. One of my “favorite” running themes concerns his attitude towards eugenics and social planning; at one point the phrase “if I were a Stalin or Hitler” is dropped, as Stead decides to go so far as to invoke Godwin’s Law on her main character about 50 years early. There must have been a more elegant way of relaying this information to me.

Franzen’s right about how this book should be included in the feminist discourse, though. If only for the fact that it makes The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series seem like a nice place for a little girl to grow up. It’s about as strident an attack on patriarchal society as you’re going to get, although I’d argue that Doris Lessing’s The Golden Notebook does this in a much more interesting form, with much, much better writing. I am so glad to be done this book, you have no idea.

Similar books on the Time 100 list: If I was to be a real bastard and recommend books like this one to someone, The Golden Notebook for sure. I’m also assuming that people who “enjoy” this one would get something out of Revolutionary Road, although this is me saying this without having read the book yet, just based on the movie. Also, Are You There God, It’s Me Margaret would probably share some thematic similarities, but I kind of feel like a dick for grouping those two together.

Total pages read since January 1st 2011: 16452 pp. (1993 this year)

Total books on the Time 100 list read: 56/113, or 50% complete.

Next up on the Resolution Project: I am going to have to think about this one, it depends on what treasures the library makes available to me.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The #yeggeek Avengers Assembled!

Avengers movie poster

The lovely fellows down at the Jay n’ J podcast, whom I talked to last about the recent John Carter film, had me on this week to talk Avengers. It was actually a pretty momentous occasion, as they somehow convinced Brandon Schatz and Jay Bardyla, from Wizard’s Comics and Happy Harbor Comics, to come on with me, as we hunkered down for some pretty intense nerding out over the film. In retrospect, I might have been a little more critical of the film than I should have been, but after 5 feature-length trailers for the thing, I was probably expecting a little different than what I got.

Check it out down here!

http://jaynj.ca/post/22592949960/avengers-w-yeggeeks

Tagged , , , , ,

Thoughtprojektor – Film Noir Emotion Game

One of my longtime interests has been film noir and its predecessor hardboiled crime fiction. It’s something I wrote about many times while I was at school, and I even went back there a couple of years ago to lecture about it for a class in Comparative Literature. There’s something about the seamy world of double-crossing dames, obsessed detectives and greasy gunsels that just makes me happy, which is kind of strange considering how shitty it’d be to actually live there.

Batman the Animated Series pic

Digression: After I thought about it for a while, I decided that this interest of mine probably dates back to the days of Batman: The Animated Series, which is by far the best iteration of Batman on film or TV, and if you disagree with me on that, I’ll fight you. The world of Gotham City portrayed in some of the best BTAS episodes was straight up noir; hapless dopes ended up owing a psycho like the Joker a favor, or various ne’er do wells sat around reminiscing about crimes past at a poker game, for example.

Anyway, here’s a way in which I’ve tried to link up noir with another one of my interests, role-playing games.

One of the problems that comes with trying to adapt the dangerous world of noir to the RPG format is that the protagonists in classic noir are for the most part too human. They are driven by lust, greed and all the rest of the Deadly Sins, and this is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the, for the most part, altruistic and team-based motives behind Player Characters in most popular RPGs. A noir hero or heroine must be pushed to their absolute limit by their inner demons. It’s very similar in my mind to the classic slasher genre film, which has its best adaptation in Tony Lee’s Killer Thriller.

There have been various workarounds for this problem. Fiasco (review here: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14888.phtml) works at a sort of macro-scale, as the various tensions and rivalries built into their world of the game are constructed by players ahead of time. Unknown Armies (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7780.html) works the obsessions of its damaged heroes into mechanics by having all of the magic schools in the game have “taboos”, repetitive behaviors that must be followed (or avoided) in order to maintain connection to one’s school. It also does a great job of symbolizing psychosis by having the characters become “hardened” to things like violence, the unknown, etc., replicating the way in which people must lose their humanity in these sorts of situations.

My idea is close to one put out by UA designer Greg Stolze in another of his games, A Dirty World, which uses sliding variables to set scenes and characters into various emotional states. My thought was to meld this system with the sort of powers one finds in 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons, with shades of Tim Powers and especially James Ellroy.

Cool (-100) —— 0 ——- (+100) Rage

Establishment/ Square (-100) —— 0 —— Street/Jazz (+100)

Detachment (-100) —— 0 —— Obsession (+100)

The chart shows on a scale from -100 to +100 where a character is currently sitting on various spectra:

Cool v. Rage shows how likely the character (let’s say “investigator”), is to fly into fits of violence, or react at a crime scene. It is a measurement of one’s freakout potential. To look at characters from my favorite movie, L.A. Confidential, Edmund Exley is definitely much cooler than Bud White, who’s extremely prone to rage.

Establishment (Square) v. Street (Jazz) shows the investigator’s relationship to society. Are they more likely to play by the rules, or are those same rules seen more as guidelines. Again, Exley would err on the side of the Establishment (at least initially), while Jack Vincennes would be closer to the Street.

Finally, Detachment v. Obsession measures the investigator’s personal attachment to the case they’re working at any given moment. This is a tough to grade in terms of L.A. Confidential, or anything derived from the works of Ellroy, as the natural tendency is for each investigator to become obsessed with a particular crime or person. Someone like Danny Devito’s Sid Hudgens would err closer to Detachment, as he’s much more interested in finding sleaze for his magazine than solving any cases.

The players would set up their characters, either according to noir archetypes like the Social Climber (high Establishment, high Obsession), the Blunt Instrument (high Rage, high Detachment) or the Bagman (high Cool, high Street), and then spend these qualities’ points in order to pull off various maneuvers, which would leave the character at a different emotional state with the benefit of having made a difference in the story. That’s as far as I’ve gotten, though, as I’ve definitely let this project slide. Hopefully you maybe found this interesting, I’m definitely still interested in pursuing it at a later date.

Tagged , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 841 other followers

%d bloggers like this: