Both the 1997 and the Stanley Kubrick's versions of Lolita offered different interpretations of Nabokov's novel. Although Bruno may not agree, I felt that we were able to see Humbert as he truly was in Kubrick's film: self-centered and overbearing, not to mention cruel and unfeeling. But in contrast, in the novel, we became immersed into Humbert's innermost thoughts and feelings, so much so, that, it takes a knowledgeable reader to be able to differentiate between the persuasive, yet flawed human persona and the actual, verifiable reality. This film was meant to be for the inexperienced reader because the angle of the viewpoint spanned across the entire scenario without getting too involved in any one character's perspective.
On the other hand, the 1997 version of Lolita was based, to a greater extent, on Humbert's perspective. I don't know if it has anything to do with his beautifully articulated, rich voice or his elegant demeanor, but Jeremy Irons gave a really sympathetic portrayal of Humbert Humbert. It was as if the audience was supposed to be seduced by his eloquence in the movie, just as we were supposed to be while reading the novel. The regular voice overs gave the viewer the feeling of Humbert's ever lingering presence. Although we were supposed to sympathize with Lolita, (because she was, after all, a constant victim of sexual abuse), her sexual precociousness made it difficult to feel pity for her. She behaved as a woman who was aware of her feminine wiles, rather than as an innocent child. But in the end, it was difficult to give an impartial judgment because of the extreme slant toward Humbert's perspective.
Neither film adaptations truly fulfilled my expectations of what I felt the novel was. As Bruno mentioned, there is absolutely no way for these kind of movies to satisfy everyone. Sometimes it is best to have these stories kept alive in our minds where we are free to imagine.
Re: Lolita A la Kubrick
In Response to Bruno
I most deffinitely agree with the fact brought up in The Onion article. Although this Newspaper is utterly ridiculous, it always seems to make good points. The point being, kids these days (like Bruno, I feel like an old timer) just don't have the motivation to read. Why should they? It's so much easier to go out, spend 8.50, or however much it is to go see movies now, sit on your butt and just watch something than it is to try and muck through a novel, no matter how entertaining it is. I know for a fact that people would much rather go out and rent the movie than have to read the book assigned in class. It's a shortcut, and in our world of Technology and fast-paced living, every short cut is welcomed with open arms. Also, the amount of violence and "unappropriate" material that children are exposed to seems to completely de-sensitize them to the world around them. The books that were once considered appalling and shocking, are now boring and outdated. The kids are constantly wanting more and more "blood and guts" in the entertainment they receive. Without that it seems almost worthless to even bother. This brings up the topic of whether or not the current "banned books" are truly all that bad. I'm sure that in these days-and-times, there are books out there that are far worse than the one's put on the no-no list. People just don't seem to pay attention to it all that much anymore. The shock-value is completely gone from people's minds. I mean, not to say that some of the topics read in class weren't a little shocking, but once I was exposed to it enough, I sort of got used to it! It's the same scenario with the general public. It's a shame that children are becoming bored with novels and are no longer choosing to read. I feel like reading is such a worth-while task and hate that today's youth are completely missing out on such an enjoyable pasttime. Good luck to the next generation!
Bruno and the Onion
I agree with Bruno in saying that now days teens would rather watch a film based on a movie than actually read the book. To some extent the lack of interest in novels is due to their age and the lack of maturity. But it is not only teens who don't read anymore. I think everyone's lack of interest in books relates to laziness. Certain movies, especially those summer blockbusters, require less from the audience than does a novel. You can just sit there and be entertained, watching a car explode. Another aspect that adds to this problem, is the fact that many feel that reading a novel and to actually understand it, you must thoroughly investigate it and you have to be highly intelligent to do this. Though this is not necessarily true, we know that becoming a good reader does require some work, but one must just be more open and susceptible to nuance. The sad truth about books.
Lolita the Movie (1997)
So I really hope this topic hasn't been brought up yet, but did anyone else get a chance to watch Lolita the movie? I know there was like 2 versions, one from the '60s and one from 1997.
Re: Re: Does Age Matter
As we grow older, age matters less. Because of the ethical and personal reasons involving individual growth, pursuing relationships with those who are a great deal older than us while we are still fairly young and not yet emotionally or physically mature, is greatly frowned upon in our society. The subsequent age gap is less signifcant as we gain more experience and maturity. For instance, in one of my classes, I have a lab partner who is nearly a decade older than me. Nevertheless, we hardly acknowledge it. True, we have our own moments when I would make fun of her for being "old" and she would tease me about being really young, but other than that, we treat each other pretty normally. The sizeable age gap did not cause any weird awkward moments between us . I enjoy my friendship with her, and I especially appreciate it when she imparts her own knowledge from life experiences with me. But there are times when she'd nostalgically sigh and say, "When I was your age I was able to..." The weird thing is, I feel I could relate to her more than to one of my TAs, who is closer to my age. But then again, maybe it was his position of authority that caused this social awkwardness.
Compare an image of Spencer Breslin and his younger sister of four years age difference, Abigail Breslin. They seem to be much farther apart in age than that of Topher Grace and Scarlett Johansson (who, by the way, are not dating, I just used this picture of them to compare) who are six years apart. Grace and Johansson appear closer in age, when, quantitatively, they are actually further apart. Some of the most successful Hollywood marriages are between couples with significant age differences. For instance, Julie Andrews and her husband, Blake Edwards, are 13 years apart, and have been married for nearly 40 years.
One of my friends told me of a formula about calculating the maximum appropriate age difference between couples. It was meant to be a joke, but there is also some truth behind it.
For guys: {(age of guy)/2}+7 = appropriate age for a girl
Men are naturally attracted to women who are younger, and women are customarily drawn toward older men . But in Humbert's case, his unnatural fascination with young "nymphets"indicates his mental instability, especially since he would have no problem pursuing a relationship with a woman his own age. While I watched the 1997 film adapted version of Lolita, I was struck by Lolita's immaturity and wondered how a sophisticated man like Humbert could be drawn to her. The visible discrepancy between their maturity levels make it hard to believe whether there was anything that their relationship could build on.
Does age make a difference?
One of the blogs I read commented on the age difference between H.H. and Lo being 25 years. Now of course I’m not advocating this relationship where the girl is a child, but I am curious as to everyone’s thoughts on general age differences in relationships. Its very common for there to be huge gaps in relationships and it usually the man is the eldest. There has been a spike in celebrity relationships with the female being the eldest, Diaz & Timberlake (9 years) , Moore & Kutcher (16 years), etc. but typically in relationships with huge age gaps, the male is the eldest: Douglas & Zeta-Jones (25 years). The easy answer is females are attracted to maturity. Any other ideas?
Re: Maddie on Good or bad?
You bring up a good point here on a protagonist’s role in a novel. The first definition in the Oxford Dictionary states, “The chief character in a dramatic work. Hence, in extended use: the leading character, or one of the main characters, in any narrative work, as a poem, novel, film, etc.”. None of the other definitions mention ‘hero” on the Oxford website; however, dicionary.com does have a definiot on there that does specifcally say ‘hero’. I think some people automaticaly associate hero with protagonist because traditionally the protagonist is of good character, or heroic. But I don’t think it is always the case. Obvisoly H.H. is the chief character in Lolita and obsviously his efforts are not heroic.
Re Re Re Lolita
I agree that Nabokov has a very powerful hand over his reader. I think that one of the reasons that it is so easy at times to sympathize with HH is because Nabokov rests him on that thin line between true love and obsession. It may not be that I personally identify with him, but that I can see the humanity in him. It is easier, for me anyways, to sympathize with a sick person. If HH really cannot help himself, if he has some deep rooted illness that causes him to obsess over young girls against his will, than I end up almost feeling sorry for him instead/along with of Lolita. On the other hand of that, if he is not mentally ill and truly has sovereign control over his mind and actions, and chooses to rape a young girl out of what he deems true love, well then he is a sick bastard and deserves to rot.
Re: Re: Lolita
I'm glad to see that someone actually agrees with me! I felt so terrible getting confused as to whether or not I should see Lolita as the agressor or not. Also, really good point about the book being about how much power the narrator has and how easy it is to fall into the trap of poor reading skills. I guess that a good author can trick even the most distinguished of all close readers. It's really amazing to me how much power authors really do have over their readers. Confusion over Lolita is only one example of how powerful good writing can really be. Although this book is speaking of a child rapist, the language Nabokov uses is absolutely mesmerizing to me and I find myself completely lost in the reading of this novel. I came into this with a closed-mind, vehemetley against everything it stood for. Your point of Nabokov actually speaking out against the very topic he is writing about makes a very good point that I didn't even think about.
Re: Lolita
I can definitely understand your confusion about this book; it's very easy to get caught up in Humbert Humbert's mind as the window we have into the world of Lolita is all through him. We weren't in that situation, so all we have is Humbert Humbert to tell us what happened and if he sees it as Lolita coming on to him, that's what we see too. All of us are guilty of sympathizing too much with Humbert Humbert, judging from the blog posts about whether or not we should be sympathetic to him. Under normal circumstances, no one would feel sorry for a child rapist but because Humbert wants us to feel sympathy for him, we do in some way.
This is Nabokov's trap for bad readers and making a character that would ordinarily be so despicable is a reality check for us. If you're feeling sorry for a child rapist, there's something going very wrong, i.e. that you're identifying with the characters, something Nabokov vehemently speaks out against. In a way, this book is about how much power the narrator has and how easy (and bad) it is to fall into the trap of poor reading skills.
bruno & leslie & Jesus know love
(Sorry about the silly tittle I couldn't help it) You both make great points, and actually, as Leslie mentioned at the end of her blog, the points agree with each other. What's bothering me is I cannot decide whether I lean more towards Humbert being in love, as Bruno leans, or just selfishly obsessed, as Leslie leans. Ultimately after much mental torture I decided to land on the same middle ground they did in saying that love births that insane almost selfish obsession if it is not kept in check.
Lolita
In class today, we discussed the true nature of this novel and honestly it was like a reality check to me. While reading this book, it's very easy for me to be completely fooled by the way the author tells the story. It's easy for me to fall into this happy world where Lolita just happens to not be 12 years old and Humbert-Humbert is not 25 years older than her. There are moments in the novel that are still baffling to me. For instance, some of the things that Lolita says seem to just fuel the fire. When Humbert-Humbert says that she throws herself at him, obviously it's not the truth, but to me it's very easy to accept it as truth. I feel like possibly, being a young girl, she sees her behavior, as well as his almost natural to an extent. She trusts Humbert-Humbert so maybe she chooses not to see the fact that this behavior is completely and morally wrong. Lolita at some points goes as far as to challenge his and her mothers marriage, saying how pissed her mom would be if she found out that they were lovers. Was this something that she actually said or was it something that he fabricated with his mind? That's one thing that has deffinitely confused me about certain scenes in this novel.
Re: Good or bad?
HH is clearly a "bad" guy when you're judging him from any typical standpoint, simply looking at the facts. I think the point of the book is that HH is creating a different lens through which you should view his case- a lens that makes his actions appear justified. He does this in a number of ways. For example, he makes his summer with Annabelle seem whimsical and dreamlike and he relates his current perversions to it, somehow making them whimsical and dreamlike by association. He repeatedly refers to past relationships similar to his being socially acceptable, as if to say that his actions are right, it's just our society that is skewed. The list goes on. So, in a way, in the book, which is entirely a world created by HH, he is the point of reference for truth, or "the good guy."
More afterword thoughts
I really enjoyed the afterward that Nabakov wrote. It didn't really tell me anything that PK didn't tell us in class as far as how to read the book goes, but, true to form, his afterward didn't wow me with its content, but rather its clever language.
One thing that Nabakov wrote was:
..."reality," one of the only words that has no meaning without quotations...
It's true, especially to authors, that no single reality exists. We each have our own individual reality that we create based on our senses, our imaginations, what have you. This ties in with Nabakov's criticism of certain readers, stretching a single reality created by an author to fit whatever "big world" issue they'd like.
re: glo racial profiling
Glo you need to watch the whole thing and i think you'll get it. I mean look at the police force! I've never watched another series with that many black government authority figures, possibly more black ones than white. And, even in terms of corruption and "bad/ stupid cops" the ratio of black to white was about equal. As for all the crooks being black, the series is about the projects, and all over America there are government projects that are 98 to 100% populated by African Americans and in some, real drug games are being run just like in the show. Also, pay attention to the fact that there is a hierarchy being portrayed in the dope sell that is mirrored by the police hierarchy,like in episode about the chess game. So, there is a constant portrayal of blacks in charge whether they are on the laws side or not.
On Nabokov's afteward
I just read Nabokov's thoughts on his own book (311-317) and its exteremly interesting to me how he reflects on his own work. I began believing an author's purpose should be the true meaning of a book but have evolved that to somewhere different, however, I think Nabokov expresses something that made me look at the book differently. I still pick this up very action and event oriented, trying to decipher what each movement makes to the overall message he is trying to get across and I think Nabokov is saying thats not the point. He says "Lolita has no moral in tow".
Humbert Good or Bad?
So I really meant to post this blog a couple of days ago, but never really figured out how to use this new layout till now. So whatever, here it goes.
The Wire and Racial Profiling
So I just want to make this blog short, sweet and to the point.
Re: Dylan's Interviews
More than wanting to avoid being labeled as a part of folk or rock, I think Dylan really wanted to escape the "artist's intention" strategy of interpreting art. Although he protests it in interviews, Dylan clearly has written a number of meaningful songs and instead of laying down, "Well this means this," he allows the listener to interpret his songs for themselves. He wants people to actually listen to his music, not to him.
Plus, he seems to enjoy being contrary and sarcastic in his interviews, don't you think?
Response to “Is Lolita a Love Story’
Love is a very subjective idea; it comes in many forms, takes on many shapes and means many different things to many different people. With that in mind, I don’t think we can objectify the love H.H. had for Lo. But I will offer an argument based on my own opinion of love. I think that one of the many attributes of love is to put one’s own self behind the one that you love. Since somebody mentioned Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, I will use that story as a point of reference. Romeo was willing to take his own life for Juliet and vice versa – in response to the pain of living in a world without the other. Would H.H. do that for Lo? Let’s look at it another way. In Titanic, when Jack Dawson and Rose Bukater were in the ice cold sea drifting about, Jack helped Rose up on a floating door while he stayed in the water and eventually died of hypothermia. This is a good example of putting your loved one’s livelihood in front of your own. H.H. never had Lo’s interests in mind, he never put her first. He essentially used her until she couldn’t take it any more and she moved on. By my standards of love, Lolita is not a love story, but a lust story.
Re: Bruno and more
There is a discrepancy between the traditional concept of what a love story is in literature, and how we apply it to real life. If you really think about it, much of our great literature does not emphasize actual love, but rather, the idealized image of love. In this respect, Lolita is actually a very traditional love story because it emphasizes this idealized concept to an extreme degree. Although this consuming obsession is disapproved of in society, it does happen. One of the greatest love stories ever written, Romeo and Juliet, was based on the "love at first sight" scenario. But if Romeo and Juliet were to have survived, would their relationship have persisted? I doubt it. Never once was there anything mentioned beyond their mutual physical attraction. Nevertheless, relationships usually start this way. Many people mistake this infatuation for love. Under a spell, starry eyed people often claim to have "fallen in love." If a relationship has any potential substance, it would build beyond this initial spark. In Romeo's and Juliet's case, it never does.
Likewise, in Lolita, Humbert never establishes anything for his relationship with Lolita beyond his lust for her. His longing to get close to Lolita was not built on love, but on his own sexual fulfillment and bribes. Humbert is too involved with himself to communicate with Lolita, and he prefers to ignore her unhappiness, rather than to confront it. If he had interacted with her, there might have been a slight chance that Lolita would not have been drawn to escape. However, as an adolescent, Lolita's emotions were most likely taking on an emotional roller coaster ride, and she probably would not have listened anyways.
As a person "in love", Humbert allows his emotions, rather than his intellect, to rule him. Everything that Lolita says or does to Humbert is an indication that she feels the same toward him, when, in fact, it might have been brought about by Lolita's mercurial adolescent nature. She is experimental and flighty, and, like any adolescent, she is inclined to experiment with new and exciting aspects of her life, sexually and emotionally. Humbert's obsession with Lolita is a bit one-sided, as she does not seem to return his affections. In this respect, you could also argue that this is not a love story but more like a recount of a man's consuming obsession, because as you said before, "a love story is made up of charcters coming together with a certain obsession for each other." This mutual feeling of "love" that you mentioned was not shared equally by Humbert and Lolita.
Getting Sucked In
After reading the other comments I'm glad other people are getting sucked into the head of our character in the same way I am. Especially during the diary entries towards the beginning of the book. I was actually more disconcerted with the way I felt as if I was seeing his actual thoughts, almost in a part of his brain I shouldn't be in... than with the whole pedophilia thing.
Dylan’s Interviews
I was thinking about Dylan’s interviews during our discussion today and made a connection as to why he was being so difficult to his interviewers. One of the themes in his album Bringin it All Back Home is to not trust the “man” and down with structure and authority. But then he tells interviewers one thing one day and a completely different thing the next day. He is creating this mistrust of himself. I think he was doing this so that he could avoid being labeled as the ‘authority’ figure of Folk music and/or Rock music.
Various responses
As far as viewing Lolita, or any work for that matter, from the details to the general and not vice versa, I agree with Leah's explanation. Students, literary critics and many other readers have been "trained" to think that certain symbols are universal across most, if not all works. It's sort of a cop-out technique, and it's very flawed. What if, when watching Blue Velvet, someone thought "Well. There are a lot of blues and reds in this movie. This probably means that the characters are conflicting with sadness and anger," and left it at that? Starting from scratch with the details is effective because it allows you to enter the author's world with a blank slate and no pretenses. If that same Blue Velvet viewer began with the details from Lynch's world rather than prior symbolic knowledge from ours, it would become clear that evidence suggests that the blues and reds represent much more.
Lolita and to Catch a Predator!
So recently I have been thinking about Lolita and how it doesn't seem very surprising to me that this man Humbert man is a Pedafile. I guess for me, I have just been watching WAY too much TV to a point where I am convinced that these things are normal. I'm sure a lot of you know what I am talking about when I share with you my experience with NBC's "To Catch a Predator". This show places an image in modern society, making it seem the norm to live amongst many perverted old men, interested in younger girls and boys. I also hear about ideas of rape amongst the Catholic Church various time, which is the basis for most of my moral ideals.
Re: details.. or tall tales?
I think the main reason that we shouldn't draw grand conclusions and then go back and "plug in" evidence is that working your way up from the text may lead you to new and more interesting conclusions than what you might arrive at by just picking a universal theme and bending the text to fit. To use an example from class: If you automatically jump to the conclusion that Jane Austen describes leaves as "green" because green is the color of hope, than you limit the color green to its association with hope. I think it goes back to the berries thing. Maybe in Jane Austen's world green does not mean hope, maybe it means hate. Either way, your conclusion has to be built from the ground up using the rules that the author establishes, not the rules that we impose on the text. Phew! It took me a long time to write that because I had to make it make sense to me too! Anyone else feel free to add on!
detials..or tall tales?
Today in class we were lectured on Nabokov's attention to detail and his distaste for large/symbolic concept analyzations. I thought the whole reason we were "close reading", looking at these details, was to lead us to large general symbolic interpretations over the material presented. Is then starting with the minor details and working our way up to larger symbolic interpretations given from the cues of the lit. not counter productive? If we can just come to these conclusions first hand, and then if neccacary go back and provide evidence from the details what is the difference?....not trying to be difficult just trying to make sense of it all.
Narrative Style in Lolita
Although Nabokov's style of writing in Lolita does not directly correlate with the established definition of stream of consciousness, there are certain elements of this style that exists. At first glance, it may seem more obvious how this narrative deviates from stream of consciousness. Humbert's personal narration is much more structured and stylized, on account of his own personal pride of being an esteemed literary intellectual. His ability to seduce his readers through his eloquence and writing initially lends him credibility. On the the contrary, the narrator of Tropic of Cancer details his ventures in a much looser structure, thus more closely following the stream of consciousness style of writing. Even though Humbert's discourse admittedly follows conventional linguistic standards, he also inadvertently reveals evidence regarding his mentality, such as when he switches from referring to himself from the first person to the third person.
There are incidences when Humbert vulnerably slips further into the overwhelmingly lure of his subconsciousness. This is particularly evident in Part 2, chapter 2, when Humbert travels with Lolita around the country. Although still maintaining the grammatical structure that he is so adamant on, Humbert unintentionally allows himself to slip further into stream of consciousness. His sentences become somewhat less coherent as he struggles to remember everything that has occurred within the depths of his memory. Humbert's frequent usage of the word, "pubescent" is especially revealing. When describing their exploration of the world's largest stalagmite, he states that admission for "adults [is] one dollar, pubescent sixty cents." By using "pubescent", he applies a sexual connotation to what otherwise could be referred to as "youths." Later, he describes one of the motels at Utah as being "surrounded by pubescent trees [that] were scarcely taller than my Lolita." By referring to everything that is youthful as "pubescent", Humbert reveals further about his psychologically abnormal mindset. Even though Nabokov disapproves of psychoanalysis, his novel, Lolita, is reaped with latent psychological tendencies that would set Freud's mind in a whirlwind.
Stream of consciousness is often used with protagonists who are psychologically unstable, which applies to people of all types, because nobody is ever completely mentally sound all of the time. For instance, William Faulkner uses this style for the mentally retarded Benjy Compson in The Sound and the Fury, and it was also used in James Joyce's semiautobiographical novel, A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.
Annabel...Lee?
In the very first section of Lolita, I was struck by the phrase, "In a princedom by the sea." My mind automatically jumped to Edgar Allen Poe's 1849 poem "Annabel Lee," which reads "In a kingdom by the sea." After re-reading the poem, I also noticed Nabokov's use of seraphs on that same page: "...exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied," in regards to Poe's use of the word in his poem: "...I and my Annabel Lee; With a love that the winged seraphs of heaven Coveted her and me."
Read the next couple of pages, turns out Humbert's first love was named Annabel. How 'bout that. As I read on, he even reused the "princedom by the sea" line a couple of times, particularly when reminiscing about his Annabel (I'm only on section 12 so far, there's probably more). I never suspected this to be something done accdientally by Nabokov, so I wikipedia-ed Lolita. It states that Annabel Leigh is indeed named after Poe's "Annabel Lee," and that Nabokov almost titled the book The Kingdom by the Sea. (I'm really glad he didn't, btw)
I continued to look up things about Nabokov and and Edgar Allen Poe. Maybe Nabokov had a thing for his writing? I found an article written by Steven King titled "Poe, Nabokov, 'Annabel Lee'" here: http://www.todayinliterature.com/print-today.asp?Event_Date=10/9/1849 but I couldn't read it because I'm not a premium member :(
I found another article talking about Edgar Allen Poe's influences on both Nabokov and Alfred Hitchcock. Towards the end of the article, it talks about how Humbert reflects lifestyle habits of Poe himself. http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue03/features/hitchnab4.htm
This interests me a great deal. Hopefully, after reading and re-reading Lolita I'll be able to decipher the rest of the allusions Nabokov is making.
Control Room
For anouther class i watched a documentary called "Control Room" about the war in Iraq and the US's more "conservative" media coverage v. the more explicit coverage of the war from Al-Jezeera the main Arab news source. It was interesting to see how and what images and topics are censored by different governments and bodies of people. In context to this class, it got me thinking in terms of the banned literature we read, and the content that labels it so. One thing i noticed is that the American media was very apprehensive to air violent and morbid graphic photos or videos, especially depicting tragedies amongst our soldiers, where as Al-Jezeera had almost no limits to the depiction of violence on either side. As a whole in terms of loosening standards in America we have become more tolerant to sexual images and innuendo in the media, but it feels like we have perhaps digressed from the early 1960's when the Vietnam War was aired on T.V. The changes are interesting.Are we saying that we are ok with the promotion of illicit sexuality, but not ok with the realities of war? Or, maybe the government just realized a nation is less willing to back a war when they are able to watch their children die fighting it on TV...
Re: Re: Dylan's Influence on the Singing World
You brought up the idea that people listen to these "Top Five" artists because people can relate to their lyrics. However, I really don't think that people are listening to Kanye West or T.I. because of the words their songs have; it's really more about the sound. Songs make the Top Five when they're catchy, easy to listen to or dance to. And vocal quality has everything to do with that. These artists have the sound, vocally and otherwise, that gets the job done for a particular genre, and are thus "good singers." It works the same way with American Idol; they're looking for a specific kind of sound that makes a "good" pop artist. For this reason I think Dylan is a good singer: he has a voice that works with the sound that he is trying to get.
In this way, Dylan left his mark on the musical world; he made it okay for vocalists not to have a traditionally "good voice." Before him, we had Sinatras and Elvises, who have lovely voices and get across what they need to for their purposes, but Dylan was one of the first, by traditional standards, "bad singers." This is just another way he broke the rules. And we're fortunately he did as he led the way for all kinds of artists with unusual vocal talent: Mick Jagger, Tom Waits, etc.
Re: Dylan's influence on the singing world
The structure of resonance
Singing is a mechanical physical action. Sound resonates in the human body, in the throat, chest, mouth and nasal cavities. Depending on where you "place" the sound you get different vocal effects. Vocal styles (opera, jazz, rock, country, ect) are often distinguished by the different qualities of resonance. The sound you make depends on how you use your instrument. Tension in the mouth, tongue, jaw, or throat changes the sound quality of your voice. If the throat is tense, the position of your larynx is effected and the free movement of your larynx and vocal chords is restrained.
I noticed in the clips we watched in class today that Dylan's harmonica is placed right in front of his face. Dylan tries to sing over his harmonica by stretching his neck above the instrument. The effect this has on his body is a straining of his larynx and tension in this throat and neck. This tension causes his voice to sound strained in parts.
Another thing I have noticed is that he almost always sings with his soft pallet down. * Try this* take your tongue, place it on the roof of your mouth behind your teeth. Run your tongue along the roof of your mouth back towards your throat until you feel a soft fleshy surface. This is your soft pallet. The soft pallet can be raised by yawning, sucking in air like you are drinking through a straw or gasping for air. You can also raise your soft pallet just using the muscles in your mouth. Many vocal styles do not require you to sing with your soft pallet raised, but the soft palled does effect the resonance of sound. There are times when Dylan sings at the higher end of his range with his soft pallet down and it sounds almost like he is yelling. This is a choice in style he is making. His sing-talking lends itself to a lowered soft pallet, because speaking with your soft pallet raised is awkward and unnecessary.
There are other parts where Dylan does not properly support his sound. Generally, all singing should be supported by the lungs and diaphragm. Singing that is not properly supported is often called "singing off the chords." Dylan does not always sing off the chords, but often times when he sings he sings from his throat. Singing from your throat may sound louder, but the sound itself is a more harsh strained sound with little vibrato (slight variation in pitch due to vibration of vocal chords) or resonance. The difference is where the support comes from. *Try this* If you make a face like you are sucking air through a straw and blow out, the air will be cool. This type of breath is not supported by the diaphragm. Then if you blow air like you are trying to fog up a glass window with a "ha" sound, the air will be warm. This type of breath is supported by the diaphragm. Dylan plays the harmonica, an instrument that takes a lot of breath support. And there are many times whey Dylan does use vibrato and achieves a warmer resonating sound. So he is capable of this type of singing. He has achieved a unique style that mixes different resonating qualities. I think that the actual sound produced can be looked at from a structuralist perspective to look at where Dylan follows and breaks the rules vocally in his folk and rock genres.
I think understanding how the sound is made (in an extremely short and general explanation) helps understand that the tone and quality of the sound can be manipulated. And while Dylan's voice is unique and does possess tonal qualities that are specific to him, the placement of sound and the way in which Dylan uses his voice is a choice that has nothing to do with weather or not he has a "good voice."
In continuing discussion about vocals...
Singing has varying objectives for different people; the many ways it is used is astonishing. For instance in an orchestra, singing is often utilized as a basis in which to center our playing on. But even though we use it, this is not to say we are trained or experienced singers. If we were, we would have been in choir. Nevertheless, we utilize singing as a musical tool. Sometimes conductors have us sing the A prior to tuning our instruments so we would have a solid pitch foundation. Other times, singing is used to emphasize certain technical aspects of the music, and in this respect, we are expected to sing the way the music should be played. This includes pitch, rhythm, dynamics, and all other musical aspects. There are times when singing a rhythmically difficult area facilitated our performance and there are other times when it assists in fluctuating pitch. But overall, it aids in our expression because we are urged to concentrate on our musicality through our singing.
You may ask, why is this relevant? Because as has been mentioned quite frequently in blog posts and presentations, Bob Dylan uses music in an unconventional way. The music evokes a different mood than what the lyrics expresses. These conventionally complementary elements are not in correspondence with each other. In this way, Dylan is more of a literary artist than a musician because he urges the audience to focus on the message in his lyrics rather than the more accessible music at hand. Displaying lyrics while listening to Dylan's songs during the presentations were helpful because it allowed us to focus on the lyrics amidst the background of the music, thus allowing us to understand the discrepancy between the two.
Dylan's Fashion Stylings
Since I helped formulate the drama that has already begun about Dylan's Vocals, I am going to attempt to stop the madness by introducing a new subject, Dylan's Dress Style!
drums...rap...
So in class today we talked about how Bob Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues was a precursor to rap. I agree. His talk style, sarcasm, and metaphors defiantly fit the style, but we also talked about drums being an essential part of the picture. I also agree, but i feel that in rap today the natural drum sound and use has become archaic. The whole idea of tempo being essential is still there, but the use of drums themselves has been put on a back burner to a more synthesized base and electronic creations. Yes?...or am i totally off?
Re: Vocal twittering
There are no rules for vocal quality. You can't make them because the concept is so incredibly vague. It's a bit like literature, in that you can describe qualities that you like or dislike about someone's voice but you can't say definitively whether it's good or bad, not only because "good" and "bad" are incredibly subjective terms, but because one particular vocal quality may work just as well as another for a work, even if that quality is unusual or different.
The only way you can "objectively" say someone is a bad singer would be if they couldn't sing in a certain style. If you're trying to argue that Dylan would make a bad opera singer, obviously he would be. But he makes a great folk singer.
Re: Desire and Decision
I was thinking the same thing Leslie said as I was reading. H.H. is infatuated with Lo because he sees her as “his Annabel”. His emotions have been “frozen in time” after the traumatic experience of losing Annabel so he is still very much in love with Annabel but obviously he cannot pursue that relationship. Lo is just a replacement for him to fixate on.
Vocal twittering
There's been a lot of rabble on twitter about vocal talent. I realize this has already been addressed on the blog, but a new facet of this argument seems to have surfaced: is vocal talent subjective?
Re: Desire and Decision
I feel that Humbert was infatuated with the idea of love. Following the death of his childhood sweetheart, Annabel Leigh, Humbert became obsessed with the prototype of his failed love and has never really been able to move on. His inability to consummate a relationship with Annabel has led to a search to reassure himself that his failed relationship was not a question on his manhood.
From the time when Humbert initially meets Lolita, he focuses constantly on the physical characteristics of Lolita, such as "the bloom along the incurvation of her spine, and the swellings of her tense narrow nate clothed in black, and the seaside of her schoolgirl thighs", yet he makes no mention of an emotional connection with her, an attribute that constitutes the basis of substantial love. I would say Humbert is in lust rather than in love with Lolita. If Humbert really loved Lolita, he would understand that Lolita was merely a child and wasn't emotionally mature enough to pursue a relationship with a grown man.
Desire & Decision
" So Humbert the Cubus schemed and dreamed- and the red sun of desire and decision (the two things that create a live world) rose higher and higher..." This is the first sentence from the last paragraph on pg 70 of Lolita. The words in parenthesis are the most important. They tell you what a live world is made of, desire and decision, how bad you want something versus the decisions you have to make to obtain it. Why is it important to have a live world...i guess it's not...it's just something we do, because as long as we are living that is exactly what we are experiencing. And whether we are aware or not every day is a choice concerning what we want in relation to what we have to do to get it. For Humbert the stakes were high. He was madly in love but in order to keep his love he had to act drastically, and he decided that drastic decisions were worth what he desired.
Re: Alex's Folk Rock?
That's a really interesting observation. I had realized his singing voice was completely different from his actual voice, but never thought about what effect it had on his songs. In my opinion, I feel that Dylan really immerses himself into his songs and the story he is trying to tell. Therefore, the characters he is portraying can only be brought out though his words, music and voice. I think Dylan executes all three of these aspects in his songs really well. One cannot help notice these changes in his voice in his different songs, and it is to distinctly to enrich his story and the emotions that are in them. The "Southern Blues" type voice that Alex talked about I find mostly to be present in his active protest songs on Civil Rights, like Oxford Town, which is unlike his voice in Mr. Tambourine Man, It's All Over Now Baby Blue and Subterranean Homesick Blues.
Re: "Blowin' in the Wind"
My take on this song was more that the answer was completely up in the air, so to speak. We don't know the answer, we may never know the answer, which is why it's blowin' in the wind. War, intolerance, and other such happenstances that occur in humanity are things we may always have to deal with, but then again, we may find a way around them. Who knows?
However, I'm all for hope. And change.
Dylan and Appreciation.
Today I spent my entire morning volunteering at a homeless shelter. I guess for me, this experience was extremely valuable since many people consider me spoiled. (Something I am not very proud of) But seriously, aren't we all spoiled? Just having access to a computer to read this blog makes us all spoiled.
Response to Alex on Folk rock??
He does speak differently when he speaks in interviews compared to when he sings. I don’t think it’s unheard of for performers to, well – perform, in this fashion. It’s not very common, but he’s not the only one. For example, Rob Zombie offstage and out of his “character” – you could easily mistake for an account or something like that. He looks totally different from his musical persona. I know this isn’t the something as Dylan changing his dialect, but its similar.
My take on “Blowin in the Wind”
I thought this song was about hope. Dylan sings about different problems going on in the world, such as inequalities for mankind, war, and the suffering of man. He sings about how there are people who just ignore these problems and I could see how that would be the perspective of someone living in that time – overwhelmed and confused by all the injustices going on in the world. But then each verse ends with “the answer”, not specifically stated but an answer none the less. He is singing that there is an answer out there, keep hope and mankind will prevail.
Poor Humbert
The point I'm at in reading Lolita is pg65. At this point Humbert is totally infatuated with Lolita. He writes this of her,"I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita...In two years she would cease being a nymphet and would turn into a 'young girl', and then, into a 'college girl'-that horror of horrors.The words 'for ever' referred only to my own passion, to the eternal Lolita as reflected in my blood." It has been implied that Humbert ends up killing someone. He refers to himself as a murderer. I feel like the quote I inserted is where he gets desperate. From the beginning you know he is defected, a child molester, but i believe this is where he crosses over and gains the potential to kill. He just expresses such desire for Lolita and hopelessness in the he knows she can never be his, because she will not be the Lolita he loves forever. Basically I feel mentally this is where he snaps.
Bob Dylan
I want to talk a little about what Bob Dylan has to say about his work as an artist. I find it hard to believe that his songs have no message. Even If Bob Dylan just writes what ever comes to mind, what he writes about and how he writes creates art and, in my opinion, art does not exist for art's sake. The albums we have studied epitomized what many of his peers were thinking and feeling, and even if his influence was unintentional, it was honest and as a result, unifying. Maybe Dylan realizes that he has created something bigger than himself and that is why he feels unqualified to comment on his art. Maybe he feels like he gave as much as he could by simply writing the songs, or resented the public for always wanting something more. Regardless, his songs do not lack meaning, they just lack Dylan's explanation of meaning.
I think it's interesting that the general public does care so much about what the artist thinks. Because Dylan refuses to comment on his work, we are left in this sort of limbo land of wanting validation for our interpretations. Even though Dylan explicitly says, "it means whatever you want it to mean." Somehow, that's just not satisfying. I think that there is a sense of condescension in the way Dylan refuses to acknowledge his own importance. Dylan does not give his audience the chance to judge his explanations because he gives no explanation at all. He always seems to be on a higher level, and we are left on our own to decode his lyrics. I think this bothers some because we want to be told we are right. When we come up with ideas on our own we risk being "wrong," even though in reality there isn't really a wrong interpretation if it can be textually supported.
LSD and the 60's
What I find interesting about the 60's is the emergence of LSD. LSD was developed in 1938 by a Swiss chemist in who was studying the medical uses of a type of fungus that grows on Rye bread. It was originally developed to be used as a drug to aid in circulatory functions.
Time goes on and the Government sees LSD as possibly being a drug that could be used for mind control. Mind control? The hippie rebellion generation was in part fueled by LSD parties, freeing their minds. The drug which the hippie generation adopted was funded, produced, and generated by and for the "man." Those who the generation mistrusted created the drug which fueled the movement that soon became a thorn in the establishment's side.
LSD was a legally available drug in 1966. The government was using the people as guinea pigs for what they hoped to be a mind control drug. The hippies fell right into the evil plot of the man, man! If LSD was successful we would have an entirely different history and present.
Soylent green is made from people.
Folk rock??
I just listened to a Bob Dylan interview from 1965 on YouTube and he said his music wasn't folk rock. He said it was "vision music, it's mathematical." This bothers me because if Dylan doesn't play folk rock then I don't know who does. Also, i watched another Dylan interview and the interviewer asked him if he felt he was "betraying his generation by leaving folk." Dylan, though obviously on drugs responded very defensively; it wasn't really what he said but more how he said it. In addition to this observation, I originally wanted to find a Dylan interview so i could listen to how he spoke vs. sang. His dialect when singing is very "southern blues", but his speaking voice is very regular (in this interview almost timid.) This only leaves me to wonder why he would sing in that accent. What did that dialectical sound give to his music that his natural voice did not?
RE: Anything about Dylan's Voice
ink we already saw this, but it plays into the argument about his singing... that he doesn't seem to care about the singing. When looking for video of him playing Blowin' in the Wind live, it also seems that almost every performance is different. There is a different cadence to the songs, sometimes its upbeat, sometimes real mellow and slow. Thats different than alot of other artists who try to recreate the album-version of their song every time they go out and play... Dylan was OK with inflecting a new meaning every time. I took a couple things away from that. Re: Bob Dylan's Voice
I love Bob Dylan's voice. It's entirely unique; no one else sounds like him or, if they do, haven't showcased it for us. That alone draws me to his music and I feel that at least even if you don't like his voice, you can appreciate its individuality.
Dylan has also used his voice to his advantage in that he writes songs that work for his voice and, in some ways I feel, no one else's. It doesn't feel quite right to hear Bob Dylan covers because no one else has that unique vocal quality.
Bob Dylan's Voice
I completely understand how many people can be turned off by Dylan's voice. He is not a great singer by any normal standards. But, I myself am really (oddly) drawn to his voice. I admire it and really love it. It is raspy, loud and unimpressive, but there is so much emotion and his style totally fit his songs. So, this week I have been obsessed with the song "It's All Over Now Baby Blue," and I cannot imagine anyone else singing that song. I feel this song is only enhanced by Dylan's awkward voice and the part that totally gets me is the last repetition of the chorus:
Strike another match, go start anew
And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
I think it's absolutely beautiful.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Busy being born
I really enjoyed your interpretation of the single phrase "get born." It does sound as though it is a command, as do the other lyrics in that song.
RE: Tyler and Glo, Bob Dylan's Vocals
As a trained singer as well, I've come to really admire people who can get up, sing, and sound decent without any vocal training. I think that if Bob Dylan were to have taken vocal lessons (I'm assuming he never did, I don't really know) then he might not have sung the way he did (and still does), and that would have been very sad. There's something about his raw, untrained, just plain different voice that I've come to really, really like. I can't even put my finger on it. Usually, I don't like folk singers at all. Can't stand Johnny Cash, for example. I apologize if that gets a few of you fired up, but his voice makes it impossible for me to get into his songs at all. I have said before that he's talentless when it comes to singing, which is completely debatable. Same with Bob Dylan. Just out of preference and reasons I can't even name I happen to like his voice.
I agree though, that the real point is that he's a songwriter and he can still get his messages across. Because his messages are awesome. I've purposely not listened to Bob Dylan in the past simply because he's a "folk singer," and I'm really glad that I've been forced to listen to him now, because he's very quickly worked his way up to one of my all time favorites.
Films mentioned in Class
While doing RTF homework today, 3 of the films Mr. K mentioned in class were discussed in the textbook: Blow Up (which I think we are going to be discussing), Diary of a country priest and WR: Mysteries of the Organism. The first two were mentioned on the discussion of film auteur, in which the director is compared to the author of the novel in that his camera is his pen and the cast and crew are mere instruments in the director’s vision. A good example of this would be films by Scorsese. If you have seen The Departed, then you know you didn’t watch Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Departed, or Matt Damon’s The Departed, you watched Scorsese’s The Departed. The third film was mentioned in the discussion on films from the 1960s banned due to political associations. None of this has anything to do with this class but I thought it was interesting that the specific films Mr. K mentioned are all considered critical parts of film history.
Response to MartinL on Tangled Up In Blue
There were some re-occurring themes in this song that we did not discuss that I think are important to its interpretation. The first one is locations; north, south, east west. In the fist verse he writes “headed out for the East Coast”, in the second verse he writes “we drove that car as far as we could Abandoned it out West”, in the third verse he writes “I had a job in the great north woods” and “I drifted down to New Orleans”. If we interpret these verses as happening in chronological order, then he starts out in the first verse with a woman not in the East Coast, presumable in the West coast so he leaves the West and heads to the east. Then, he drives as far as he can with another woman and they reach the West coast. Next, he is in the north working in the woods before he ‘drifts’ down South and finds work on a fishing boat. The first two lines mentioning location are evidence to the song being about different women, one being in the East and one in he West. The next two mentions of location are linked to his wandering or drifting around, possibly looking for another woman, maybe he’s looking for the perfect woman and he is singing about why all his relationships have failed. The jobs he mentions are interesting – a cook and a fisherman. Is he trying to learn how to be a better provider for his women I wonder? He later mentions friends who became mathematicians, and carpenter’s wives. These differ from his jobs in that a mathematician uses their mind, not their hands. I don’t know what that says about being a carpenter’s wife. In the last verse he writes “headin’ for another point”, a very vague description of where he is heading to. Maybe this song is about how he has been all over the country and hasn’t found that perfect woman.
Re: Helloglo
While I have been researching Freewheelin' Bob Dylan and Dylan himself, it keeps popping up that these albums exploded him onto the scene as a songwriter. The emphasis on songwriter not on singer or talent. It's also mentioned that his songs were used by hundreds of other groups, big acts of the time like Peter, Paul and Mary. So I wonder if he is more of a songwriter than a stand-up singer. It just so happens that for that kind of folk music you don't need the most beautiful voice in the world since you are telling stories, and aren't driving the song along with melodies. Also, the audience he is singing to probably isn't looking for a refined voice, the grit, the every-man could sing this song idea reinforces the lyrics of the song in my opinion.
I wouldn't say that it is unacceptable to call him a bad singer, because that probably isn't his intention.
Bob Dylan's Vocals
As a singer, I always find myself criticizing other singers. It's natural. And one thing that I noticed about Bob Dylan's vocal stylings is that most of us in this class do not really like it. Many of us have complained that its too raspy, hard to understand, and is very unpleasant to the ear. What I have to say about this is that I too may agree with these statements, but also am aware that there are reason why people enjoy his music and why he has been succeeding for over 4 decades.
Bob's style
From the close readings i've done covering songs from "Free Wheelin", I've noticed that all of the songs are written in very informal venacular, and utlize sarcasim in subtle ways. In the song "Talking WWIII", Dylan makes several flipant statements about the actions of the society he exhisted in, late 1950's early 1960's. His reactions to the isolation, and self serving nature of America at the time is expressed well through lines like, "He screamed a bit and flew away...thought i was a communist " and "A shotgun fired and away i ran...i don't blame them too much though, He didn't know me." I think by writting very informal, observant and sarcastic works he helped define the "beatnick" and following "hippy" movements of the era.
Re: Re: 1963 Dylan vs. 1965 Dylan
The way I've been thinking about the contrast between those two years was that the sudden shift between Folk Dylan and Rock Dylan was intentional, a way of Dylan saying, "Hey, don't pigeonhole me as a folk singer." In 1963, Dylan was the folk god; the folk movement took credit for him and ran with it and considered him one of its own. Consequently, when Dylan switched genres, people saw him as betraying the folk movement. However, I don't think anyone can say the quality of his music declined really; it just changed styles a bit. People just got angry because he broke their expectations.
More on Tangled Up In Blue
Many possible reasons were contemplated during class as to why the speaker was "layin' in bed" and reflectin' "early one mornin' ". Although the possibilities are endless, it could also be quite plausible that there isn't a reason for this. Maybe the speaker just woke one morning and allowed his thoughts to drift toward the source of his anguish. The mind does not need to have a purpose to dwell on thoughts; sometimes it simply glides aimlessly over the complexity and contours of the individual's human psyche. Even so, the speaker would never truly be relieved of his past until he actually encounters and overcomes the source of his distress.
A line that caught my attention was "I thought you'd never say hello." There are instances in our life when we notice others who intrigue us but never have the courage to talk to them. We simply observe silently from the distance. What one may have heard is only what other people say and yet, after awhile you begin to believe that you actually know this person. Illusions and ideals begin to take form from as it is human nature to peceive one's image of perfection in another.
Sometimes we dwell on memories so often that after a while, one begins to doubt what has actually happened. Our memories could be slanted by personal emotion and yearning.
They're an ilusion to me now.
Re: 1963 Dylan v. 1965 Dylan
There is something endearing about Bob Dylan's fresh innocence during his early years. Of course, we cannot expect him to remain like that forever in a tough world; he would surely be trampled on if he does not adjust to his demanding career. As Doug mentioned, Dylan certainly seemed to have adapted to his rock star lifestyle. His naivete is replaced with a smugly confident coolness. Everything about him seemed to change and honestly, I am not to fond of it. Nevertheless, the quality of his work has not diminished and in the end, that is all that really matters.