Subject
Re: Fwd: Re: daily telegraph review of maar's "Two Lolitas"
From
Date
Body
Blame the casting of James Mason for that.
Mike Donohue
>From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>Subject: Fwd: Re: daily telegraph review of maar's "Two Lolitas"
>Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:07:53 -0800
>
>EDNOTE. I too have often pondered this question.
>I can understand why teenagers and college students (to whom I have taught
>the
>novel) take HH as middle-aged. (Cf. Einstein's theory of relativity.) When
>I
>would ask a class HH's age, the answer was usually absurdly high--showing,
>if
>nothing else, that they were inattentive readers.
>Being now twice HH's age, 36-37 seems to me to be barely beyond
>adolescence.
>------------------------------------------------
>
>----- Forwarded message from STADLEN@aol.com -----
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:48:12 EST
> From: STADLEN@aol.com
>Reply-To: STADLEN@aol.com
> Subject: Re: daily telegraph review of maar
> To:
>
>In a message dated 17/11/2005 18:58:32 GMT Standard Time,
>chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:
>
> > in particular, Lolita, the story of a middle-aged émigré scholar (again)
> > with a desperate passion for a 12-year-old American girl.
>
>Why is HH always described as middle-aged? He was born in 1910 and met the
>12-year-old Lolita in 1947.
>
>The same happens with Herr K. in Freud's "Dora" case, which I recently
>compared with "Lolita" in my anniversary seminar (100 years for "Dora", 50
>for
>"Lolita"). Freud does not give K.'s age (my historical research shows that
>he
>and
>Dora were almost the same ages as HH and Lolita at the first molesting).
>But
>readers always assume, wrongly, and quite without evidence from Freud or
>elsewhere, that K. was "middle-aged", rather than his actual age of 35 or
>36.
>
>Is it somehow a little safer to think of these men as middle-aged, rather
>than, presumably, in the prime of sexual life?
>
>Anthony Stadlen
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>In a message dated 17/11/2005 18:58:32 GMT Standard Time,
>chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:
>
>
>
>in particular, Lolita, the story of a middle-aged émigré scholar (again)
>with a desperate passion for a 12-year-old American girl.
>
>
>
>Why is HH always described as middle-aged? He was born in 1910 and met the
>12-year-old Lolita in 1947.
>
>
>
>The same happens with Herr K. in Freud's "Dora" case, which I recently
>compared with "Lolita" in my anniversary seminar (100 years for "Dora", 50
>for "Lolita"). Freud does not give K.'s age (my historical research shows
>that he and Dora were almost the same ages as HH and Lolita at the first
>molesting). But readers always assume, wrongly, and quite without evidence
>from Freud or elsewhere, that K. was "middle-aged", rather than his actual
>age of 35 or 36.
>
>
>
>Is it somehow a little safer to think of these men as middle-aged, rather
>than, presumably, in the prime of sexual life?
>
>
>
>Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----
Mike Donohue
>From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>Subject: Fwd: Re: daily telegraph review of maar's "Two Lolitas"
>Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:07:53 -0800
>
>EDNOTE. I too have often pondered this question.
>I can understand why teenagers and college students (to whom I have taught
>the
>novel) take HH as middle-aged. (Cf. Einstein's theory of relativity.) When
>I
>would ask a class HH's age, the answer was usually absurdly high--showing,
>if
>nothing else, that they were inattentive readers.
>Being now twice HH's age, 36-37 seems to me to be barely beyond
>adolescence.
>------------------------------------------------
>
>----- Forwarded message from STADLEN@aol.com -----
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:48:12 EST
> From: STADLEN@aol.com
>Reply-To: STADLEN@aol.com
> Subject: Re: daily telegraph review of maar
> To:
>
>In a message dated 17/11/2005 18:58:32 GMT Standard Time,
>chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:
>
> > in particular, Lolita, the story of a middle-aged émigré scholar (again)
> > with a desperate passion for a 12-year-old American girl.
>
>Why is HH always described as middle-aged? He was born in 1910 and met the
>12-year-old Lolita in 1947.
>
>The same happens with Herr K. in Freud's "Dora" case, which I recently
>compared with "Lolita" in my anniversary seminar (100 years for "Dora", 50
>for
>"Lolita"). Freud does not give K.'s age (my historical research shows that
>he
>and
>Dora were almost the same ages as HH and Lolita at the first molesting).
>But
>readers always assume, wrongly, and quite without evidence from Freud or
>elsewhere, that K. was "middle-aged", rather than his actual age of 35 or
>36.
>
>Is it somehow a little safer to think of these men as middle-aged, rather
>than, presumably, in the prime of sexual life?
>
>Anthony Stadlen
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>In a message dated 17/11/2005 18:58:32 GMT Standard Time,
>chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu writes:
>
>
>
>in particular, Lolita, the story of a middle-aged émigré scholar (again)
>with a desperate passion for a 12-year-old American girl.
>
>
>
>Why is HH always described as middle-aged? He was born in 1910 and met the
>12-year-old Lolita in 1947.
>
>
>
>The same happens with Herr K. in Freud's "Dora" case, which I recently
>compared with "Lolita" in my anniversary seminar (100 years for "Dora", 50
>for "Lolita"). Freud does not give K.'s age (my historical research shows
>that he and Dora were almost the same ages as HH and Lolita at the first
>molesting). But readers always assume, wrongly, and quite without evidence
>from Freud or elsewhere, that K. was "middle-aged", rather than his actual
>age of 35 or 36.
>
>
>
>Is it somehow a little safer to think of these men as middle-aged, rather
>than, presumably, in the prime of sexual life?
>
>
>
>Anthony Stadlen
----- End forwarded message -----