Why does Dolores' fate have to change in the film's epilogue? Because it ties up every last loose end. I believe that Peter Greenaway could make a good film of Lolita, and that he would have the courage to make it confusing and unerotic and unresolved. This is a beautiful film, with lovely detailed cinematography, good acting and great score, and all to solidify something that Nabokov created such that it could not be so. In this film, everything makes sense, exactly the opposite of the reason the book exists. obviously a joke by the narrator on Nabokov). Humbert is a made up name (as are all names) and clearly the narrator makes up most of the elements of his own character as well (European, Professor, Author. The story never fully exists in the book at all, and such as it does one can never be sure what is true and what imagined. The narrator is crazy, overly colors and outright lies. But the story in the book was incidental, just something on which Nabokov could hang his layered challenges to concepts of narrative. 40.The Author would be dismayed, and precisely because the story is so faithful to the book.Agatha Raisin and the Haunted House - AB.My Sister Lives on the Mantlepiece - AB.Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.Ranger's Apprentice: Kings of Clonmel - AB.Fablehaven: Secrets of the Dragon Sanctuary.Bryant and May and the Memory of Blood - AB.The Strange Affair of Spring Heeled Jack - AB. LOLITA BOOKPEDIA CODEBryant and May and the Invisible Code - AB.I loved it and will certainly read it again sometime. If you like Dickens, you’ll love this one, if you don’t, you may want to try the audio book (which I can recommend either way). The scene where he mentions the cell window being six or seven deep in men’s heads as the jostle for a better position takes on much more of a comic atmosphere when you picture it happening instead of just reading about it. I suspect that’s always what I’ve rather liked about Dickens, but just hadn’t realized it so concretely. Once you start to do that, you can begin to appreciate his use of descriptive language rather than just finding it tediously long and circumspect. You can’t just read about what the characters are doing, you have to picture their actions to make it interesting. This book, or perhaps the fact that I listened to it rather than read it, made me realize that one thing you must have to enjoy Dickens’ works is a good imagination. I really found myself enjoying it once Copperfield reached an age where he was able to control his own life somewhat. The second half more than makes up for this though. The first half of the book can be a bit slow in events at times, so if you don’t care for Dickens or haven’t read any of his works yet, I could see that it might be a bit tedious. David Copperfield himself tells you about his life from the time he was a little lad at The Rookery. It’s quoted in Wikipedia as being the most autobiographical of Dickens’ works, which I suspect is largely due to it’s first person narration. Sometimes Dickens does go just a bit over the top with his characters sometimes.Įven though this is one of the most well known of Dickens works, it’s not one I would recommend to someone as their first Dickens novel. Micawber quite as well as I did though his narration (tongue in cheek). He made even the slower bits entertaining, although I think I could have done without getting to know Mr. I'll certainly be looking forward to hearing more of Jarvis. I'm working my way through all of Dickens books and am really glad I got this particular audio version. It was like seeing a black and white film in colour for the first time. He really made the characters come to life and coloured in the story. I have the version narrated by Martin Jarvis (published by BBC WW) and his narration was nothing short of brilliant. First off, I just have to mention that I listened to David Copperfield rather than read it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |