Hearing for decades that it was one of the literary masterpieces of the 20th Century, and having not seen either movie yet, I saw an old paperback somewhere (a Goodwill store?) and picked it up, as it seemed to be just before Kubrick's film came out. I wanted to read it before seeing the films. (I've done that with a few well-known novels in my time. I'm all about how something gets adapted.)
As I read it, the old paper back started to come apart due to age, and my use of it (not that I pin back pages....I've never done that). It was unraveling much like Humbert was, and by the time I got to the end of the book, much of the previous novel had peeled off. (That happened with me and "To Kill A Mockingbird" too....an old paperback I wanted to read before finally seeing the film.)
But before it broke apart, I was rushing to a Met Opera run-through that the public can see, if you get a ticket or someone passes one on to you, which was my case. Coming out of the 1 train at Lincoln Center, I dropped the book to the tracks exiting the car, and not wanting to miss a rare Opera experience, I left it.
Afterwards I figured I'd ask a subway employee if there was a lost and found. The woman behind the token-booth glass raised her eyebrow when I said I lost an old paperback of Lolita. Comical moment. She went behind her and retrieved it for me. I guess someone saw me drop it, or the tracks are "cleaned" between trains mid-day?
Admiring Kubrick's film, I still think he let Sellers a little too loose on his improvising ways, and that changes the film's tone. The Adrian Lyne version was far more faithful to the novel (as it could be in the 1990s.)
I really love this Tom! The connection between our past Satanic Panic and the mass false hysteria around trans kids feels exactly right to me.
I’m also super happy to know you’ve returned to novels.
I’ve always felt that Kubrick’s adaptation nails the romanticism-as-domination theme
Funny anecdote about me and "Lolita".
Hearing for decades that it was one of the literary masterpieces of the 20th Century, and having not seen either movie yet, I saw an old paperback somewhere (a Goodwill store?) and picked it up, as it seemed to be just before Kubrick's film came out. I wanted to read it before seeing the films. (I've done that with a few well-known novels in my time. I'm all about how something gets adapted.)
As I read it, the old paper back started to come apart due to age, and my use of it (not that I pin back pages....I've never done that). It was unraveling much like Humbert was, and by the time I got to the end of the book, much of the previous novel had peeled off. (That happened with me and "To Kill A Mockingbird" too....an old paperback I wanted to read before finally seeing the film.)
But before it broke apart, I was rushing to a Met Opera run-through that the public can see, if you get a ticket or someone passes one on to you, which was my case. Coming out of the 1 train at Lincoln Center, I dropped the book to the tracks exiting the car, and not wanting to miss a rare Opera experience, I left it.
Afterwards I figured I'd ask a subway employee if there was a lost and found. The woman behind the token-booth glass raised her eyebrow when I said I lost an old paperback of Lolita. Comical moment. She went behind her and retrieved it for me. I guess someone saw me drop it, or the tracks are "cleaned" between trains mid-day?
Admiring Kubrick's film, I still think he let Sellers a little too loose on his improvising ways, and that changes the film's tone. The Adrian Lyne version was far more faithful to the novel (as it could be in the 1990s.)