Comments on: Meme: High School Daze to Praise (For Mature Audiences Only)

By: TML

TML — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:11:37 +0000

Clay,

Of course I’m not claiming the novel doesn’t stand on its own without footnotes…as I said, if you’d read my entire post and actually understood it, it’s one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and should be taught to high school students–I’m actually agreeing with you–but apparently you missed that point. My entire point concerned your claim that the novel is

“lexically and syntactically suited for students’ reading levels, and [doesn't] require the historical background and cultural literacy that really only comes in any deep sense with age and college (or other advanced studies).”

I disagree with that claim. As I said in my first comment, I think they should read it and will likely get a good deal out of it as I did when I first read it. However, anyone who thinks they “get” the novel without reading an annotated version that took years to compile, including interviews with Nabokov himself is missing a great deal–as I suspect you are.

I’m not suggesting at all that you teach the annotated version to high school students…but merely that you recognize they’re only getting a fraction of what’s going on in the text. The games, the allusions, the puns, and so much of the humor are all lost on them. Yes, of course, the language is exquisite, the characters tragic, the plot disturbing, yet powerful, but those are only one level of a novel that has more complexities than they can imagine. Teach it to them, yes, but why not clue them in to the breadth of its genius?

And if you’re going to insult people who disagree with one small point of this whole thread, perhaps you ought not to share your thoughts publicly; keep your thoughts private, then you’ll only be annoyed by yourself.

By: Clay Burell

Clay Burell — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:48:05 +0000

TML, are you claiming that Lolita doesn’t stand on its own as a piece of literature without 150 pages of footnotes? That it doesn’t reward a reading just on the levels of plot and character and language?

I hope not.

As with Lindsea above, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I think you’d kill the pleasure of reading the novel for many students who don’t want to become English professors.

This is a complicated discussion to have when discussing high school students. I’d say more if your tone weren’t so annoying.

By: TML

TML — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:03:19 +0000

I find this exchange very interesting indeed. I’m currently teaching Lolita at a 4-year university, mostly upper-division, non-English majors. It think the content of the novel is well within their “abilities”; that is to say, they can certainly ‘handle’ it. However, I adamantly disagree with Clay that Lolita is “lexically and syntactically suited for students’ reading levels, and don’t require the historical background and cultural literacy that really only comes in any deep sense with age and college (or other advanced studies).”

If you look at Alfred Appel’s annotated version of Lolita, first published in the early 1970s, you will find nearly 150 pages of footnotes; many of the notes are several pages long themselves. To suggest that historical, cultural (and literary) background isn’t “required” in reading this novel indicates a very superficial grasp of the novel’s complexity. I read Lolita several times without footnotes and got a decent understanding of the text of course, as I’m sure your students do. But with allusions to authors such as Poe, Joyce, Shakespeare, Coleridge, Greek mythology, Conan Doyle, fairytales, and countless others, coupled with innumerable French idioms and myriad other cultural references, to suggest that this novel doesn’t require historical or cultural (or literary) background certainly misses the point Nabokov was trying to make.

While I agree with you that it should be taught in High School, especially to AP students (I’m a reader of AP exams myself), I cannot agree with your simplistic view of the text as one so “suited” to students who lack the necessary background to understand the complexities and subtleties of what is surely one of the greatest novels of the 20th century.

By: RL

RL — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:53:17 +0000

Fabulous argument. As a student who has experieced things Dolores has, it only makes sense to me that teachers teach these concepts in school. They most likely are presented with sexual behaviours in and out of class anyways, so why stop with one of the most beautiful books written in the past century?
Unfortunately, even in my AP classes, many students haven’t even heard of Nabokov. They can’t move past Twilight and an idealistic notion of a “romantic realtionship.” No where in Lolita is an explicit act of sexual nature described. It is merely mentioned, whether as a plan or a past action. But nowhere in the novel does Humbert say anythign along the lines of “We just had sex, after having sex…” etc. He says “making love.” To me, that sounds much more honest in emotion than some vampire who can’t read his lovers thoughts. Think of how poor Humbert felt, when he first met his child-bride and could barely touch her, let alone read her thoughts.
At the same time, I’ve always felt Lolita herself to be the antagonist, despite Humbert’s behaviours. In reality, with a book like Lolita (or really anything my Nabokov), there are endless topics to be studied stylistically, contextually, and structurally.Isn’t this the point of an AP class? In depth discussions on all aspects of a work and its effects on a book like Lolita sounds much more interesting than plowing through The Scarlet Letter (because with teen pregnancy rates now, its subject is hardly as shocking as an episode of The Secret Life of the American Teenager). Students in AP classes are supposed to crave higher learning, not trudging through outdated topics, books they hate. They want real, and, from someone who knows it, trust me that Lolita is as real as anguish, desperation, and love will ever get.

By: Mark Coovelis

Mark Coovelis — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:24 +0000

I just (an hour ago) found Rule of the Bone in a thrift shop. I’m a high school English teacher rooting around for something to teach in the fall. I teach at a continuation high school where the kids for the most part don’t read. When they do, it’s because the book speaks to them. I’ve taught Noah Levine’s Dharma Punx, which is full of drugs, sex and punk rock and the kids like it, and so far I’ve gotten away with it. I use power point and scan whole novels onto slides one page at a time. We read the book together off the screen and answer the discussion questions I insert every page or two. It works. I tell you this because this method lets me edit out the most dangerous passages. (Dangerous to my credential, not to the students.) I doubt I could get away with teaching these books at a comprehensive high school. Lolita, my favorite book for many years, is beyond the pale and well beyond the reach of most of my students. Leave that sweet discovery for college or for some summer thrift shop browsing.

By: Jeff Wasserman :: Blog

Jeff Wasserman :: Blog — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:27:39 +0000

[...] Clay tagged me. Let’s knock out the rules, then on to the meat of this [...]

By: Around the Corner - MGuhlin.net

Around the Corner - MGuhlin.net — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:41:15 +0000

[...] while it may not be much to read, it is fun to write. However, the discussion about why or whether Nabokov’s Lolita Should be Taught in High School cuts to the heart of who we are as human beings. For Americans, it challenges us to face our fears, [...]