More on the Delores Discussion

(In response to my Lolita post from last night, Katixa replied):

Thanks, Mike, for your comment. Unfortunately, I disagree with you when you say that "the book defies any reinterpretation". Any text, by definition, is open to interpretation by each of its readers. That's why I'm surprised of the wide acceptance of Lolita as a vixen, when it's clear that Humbert is not reliable as a narrator, and thus, Lolita will not be probably as he describes. It's not that clear that she seduces him, by instance. It's a very interesting debate, I hope you keep on taking part in it. Regards

~~

(My response):

Each person interprets what they read, it's true. When I mentioned 'interpretation', I meant 'adaptation'. Sorry for being vague.

A personal definition I apply to any successful adaptation of a novel - Is the essential essence captured? Does the adaptation summon up the same emotions, teach the same lessons? In cases of Lolita's adaptations, I have to say no. The story only works from inside Humbert's head. Subtracting the narrative removes the essence.

Humbert's descriptions are rich and detailed - he's a very intelligent character - but like all of us, his perspective is limited by ego and agenda. Often what he omits is as important as what he describes. A film made up of two and a half hours of narrative wouldn't be feasible - or very watch able. (At least, not by any but the most committed fans of the novel.)

Can an adaptation be created? Yes. Is it successful? No. This is what I meant by 'defies reinterpretation'. Instead of the beautiful, tragic 'Lolita', you have a pathetic personals ad - 'Older man seeks pubescent girl for prurient purposes'.

I agree with your point that today's pop culture iteration of Lolita is not the true character from the novel. Sorry it took so much rambling to say that.