Subject
Fwd: MLA Lolita interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. The Chronicle of Higher Education marks LOLITA's birthday with an
interview of two prominent Nabokovians -- Galya Diment and Zoran Kuzmanovich.
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Subject: MLA Lolita interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education
To: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
Monday, September 12, 2005
'Lolita' Turns 50: 2 Scholars Reflect on Teaching the 'Difficult' Novel
By PETER MONAGHAN
Chronicle of Higher Education
Thursday marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Vladimir Nabokov's
acclaimed but still controversial novel Lolita. Galya Diment, a professor of
Slavic languages and literatures at the University of Washington, and Zoran
Kuzmanovich, a professor of English at Davidson College and the editor of the
journal Nabokov Studies, have edited a collection of essays on teaching the
novel. The collection will appear next year in a Modern Language Association
series on the teaching of "difficult" books.
Q. What large shifts have marked Lolita's reception among students?
Mr. Kuzmanovich: Twenty years ago, my students at the University of Wisconsin
tended to divide into roughly three discernible groups. There were those who
read the book as primarily a satirical nose-thumbing at the moral and parental
failings of America's supposedly sleepwalking decade of the 1950s. Others saw
it as a parody of a love story, and others preferred to chase down Nabokov's
myriad allusions. My students at Davidson today like to write primarily about
Humbert's failed efforts to misdirect their attention away from his pedophilia.
Q. Are teachers now more aware that some students will have been abused by
pederasts?
Mr. Kuzmanovich: Very much so. There are those who consult their institution's
counseling departments before teaching the book, those who give a brief plot of
Lolita on the first day of the class as a kind of caveat to students, and those
who admit to having given up teaching Lolita rather than engage in rolling out
longer and longer red carpets for students, parents, and administrators who
question Lolita's place on the syllabus even when they have not read it.
Ms. Diment: It also depends on the nature of the class. If it's a course
entirely on Nabokov, students tend to be a pretty self-selected group who know
what to expect. If it's a survey course, then it's an entirely different
matter.
Q. How are instructors eliciting moral, but not one-dimensionally moral,
readings?
Ms. Diment: One usually does not have to elicit "moral readings." They are
generously offered by students themselves. We have a very interesting article
in our volume by someone who taught Lolita in a religious (Baptist) college. I
am in awe of her courage, and this is precisely the challenge she was facing --
and, according to her, with mixed results. But it does not have to be a
religious college -- or Tehran, for that matter, to reference Azar Nafisi's
excellent book (The Chronicle, April 25, 2003) -- for it to be a very difficult
task indeed. When Nabokov says, "Lolita has no moral in tow," he is warning
against this kind of a one-dimensional reading because he knows that Lolita
cannot be understood and appreciated by a closed mind. It does not mean,
however, that he wants to stop us from judging Humbert and his actions. A fine
line indeed, but then Nabokov is all about finesse and subtlety.
Q. Do teachers and students have a good sense of the psychology of a Humbert
Humbert?
Mr. Kuzmanovich: Many students shoulder-shruggingly consign the Humberts around
them to the clinic and the television reality shows about serial child abusers.
On the other hand, students find it easy to fall into the trap of imagining
that they "really" know Lolita from their own lives, not just from Nabokov's
book.
Q. What effect does having children of your own have on teaching, and liking,
Lolita?
Ms. Diment: For me the effect was profound, utterly surprising, and, actually,
quite disappointing because I always thought of myself as being able to
separate my identities as a critic and as a mother. I have two daughters, and
when my older daughter turned 12, I found it very painful to be rereading or
teaching Lolita because a 12-year-old girl was no longer a fictional abstract
for me. Despite my best efforts to suppress it, I actually kept imagining my
own child going through this kind of agony, and it hurt. I stopped using Lolita
in my classes for a couple of years. I even found myself thinking that the only
reason Nabokov himself could have written the novel was because he had a son,
and not a daughter. This experience must have also immunized me, for by the
time my second daughter turned 12, four years later, I could once again
sufficiently distance myself from Lolita to enjoy both rereading the novel and
teaching it.
----- End forwarded message -----
interview of two prominent Nabokovians -- Galya Diment and Zoran Kuzmanovich.
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
Subject: MLA Lolita interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education
To: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
Monday, September 12, 2005
'Lolita' Turns 50: 2 Scholars Reflect on Teaching the 'Difficult' Novel
By PETER MONAGHAN
Chronicle of Higher Education
Thursday marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Vladimir Nabokov's
acclaimed but still controversial novel Lolita. Galya Diment, a professor of
Slavic languages and literatures at the University of Washington, and Zoran
Kuzmanovich, a professor of English at Davidson College and the editor of the
journal Nabokov Studies, have edited a collection of essays on teaching the
novel. The collection will appear next year in a Modern Language Association
series on the teaching of "difficult" books.
Q. What large shifts have marked Lolita's reception among students?
Mr. Kuzmanovich: Twenty years ago, my students at the University of Wisconsin
tended to divide into roughly three discernible groups. There were those who
read the book as primarily a satirical nose-thumbing at the moral and parental
failings of America's supposedly sleepwalking decade of the 1950s. Others saw
it as a parody of a love story, and others preferred to chase down Nabokov's
myriad allusions. My students at Davidson today like to write primarily about
Humbert's failed efforts to misdirect their attention away from his pedophilia.
Q. Are teachers now more aware that some students will have been abused by
pederasts?
Mr. Kuzmanovich: Very much so. There are those who consult their institution's
counseling departments before teaching the book, those who give a brief plot of
Lolita on the first day of the class as a kind of caveat to students, and those
who admit to having given up teaching Lolita rather than engage in rolling out
longer and longer red carpets for students, parents, and administrators who
question Lolita's place on the syllabus even when they have not read it.
Ms. Diment: It also depends on the nature of the class. If it's a course
entirely on Nabokov, students tend to be a pretty self-selected group who know
what to expect. If it's a survey course, then it's an entirely different
matter.
Q. How are instructors eliciting moral, but not one-dimensionally moral,
readings?
Ms. Diment: One usually does not have to elicit "moral readings." They are
generously offered by students themselves. We have a very interesting article
in our volume by someone who taught Lolita in a religious (Baptist) college. I
am in awe of her courage, and this is precisely the challenge she was facing --
and, according to her, with mixed results. But it does not have to be a
religious college -- or Tehran, for that matter, to reference Azar Nafisi's
excellent book (The Chronicle, April 25, 2003) -- for it to be a very difficult
task indeed. When Nabokov says, "Lolita has no moral in tow," he is warning
against this kind of a one-dimensional reading because he knows that Lolita
cannot be understood and appreciated by a closed mind. It does not mean,
however, that he wants to stop us from judging Humbert and his actions. A fine
line indeed, but then Nabokov is all about finesse and subtlety.
Q. Do teachers and students have a good sense of the psychology of a Humbert
Humbert?
Mr. Kuzmanovich: Many students shoulder-shruggingly consign the Humberts around
them to the clinic and the television reality shows about serial child abusers.
On the other hand, students find it easy to fall into the trap of imagining
that they "really" know Lolita from their own lives, not just from Nabokov's
book.
Q. What effect does having children of your own have on teaching, and liking,
Lolita?
Ms. Diment: For me the effect was profound, utterly surprising, and, actually,
quite disappointing because I always thought of myself as being able to
separate my identities as a critic and as a mother. I have two daughters, and
when my older daughter turned 12, I found it very painful to be rereading or
teaching Lolita because a 12-year-old girl was no longer a fictional abstract
for me. Despite my best efforts to suppress it, I actually kept imagining my
own child going through this kind of agony, and it hurt. I stopped using Lolita
in my classes for a couple of years. I even found myself thinking that the only
reason Nabokov himself could have written the novel was because he had a son,
and not a daughter. This experience must have also immunized me, for by the
time my second daughter turned 12, four years later, I could once again
sufficiently distance myself from Lolita to enjoy both rereading the novel and
teaching it.
----- End forwarded message -----