Chalices

chalice_concept_art_iv

Can you
Stand to do
Nothing
Standing still
Holding the chalices
In your hands
Can you
Dare to drink
The one they say to drink
The one with the
Bitter aftertaste
Do you
Dare to follow
The one of your dreams
Drink from the chalice of your lover’s
Exploding streams of joy
Drink now,lest you let
Each dream go sour
Will you live for
Everyone or love
Selfless, selfishness
Drink now

Lolita- Book Review pt.1

lolita-world-book-day Lolita is one of those books where you know the basic idea before you read the book. How to Write A Damn Good Novel, among others of its type, had so thoroughly analyzed the book that I was almost certain that it would be dull. There were few surprises but Humbert’s demented lyrics and her-or-die mentality created a realistic madman’s world.

The story originates from Humbert’s doomed first love, Annabel, from when he was a boy. As he becomes an adult, it is implied that Annabel’s image was preserved in his desires for ‘nymphets’. He does not act on his desires until he meets Lolita Haze, whose mother he marries to stay with Lolita. Upon her mother’s death, he takes complete control of her. She eventually escapes, causing him to search for leads, forever pinning, until he finds her, fatally pregnant, and kills the like-minded man who took her.

Despite being a fascinating character that quickly goes from meek to aggressive, Humbert is mostly a static character whose views of others remains constant. Lolita, in his view, is always the girl-child he must possess, without any consideration of her mental health. Because Humbert’s view of Lolita remains static, Lolita herself seems static, although she goes through several changes from girl-child to a pregnant woman in an impoverished house.

How could the author write from the perspective of an inconsiderate pervert? What’s it like to write from the perspective of a static, yet dynamic, character? And-I believe this is not a question Nabokov could consciously answer I would ask him how he approached a deplorable pervert and managed to assimilate his voice seamlessly. Did he have an experience with a pervert or a kidnapper that his subconscious had to express? Did he simply have an inescapable fascination with perversion? Was it not about the perversion but a search to express a different view of love?   I believe the answers lie in the two latter questions. Even if he did not have a fascination with general perversion, he did have a fascination with Humbert’s abnormal love of Lolita.

Humbert’s love would seem perverted to outsiders, torture to Lolita, yet deep, unquestionable love to Humbert. The difference between perversion and love is that perversion is single sided, concerned with only the pervert’s desires while love places higher value on the other’s needs and desires. The author’s work was in clouding love in perversion, or vice versa, while maintain a realistic pervert’s voice.

In an essay further analyzing Lolita, I would ask ‘what does Nabokov do to disguise love as perversion, or vice versa?’ I would look at how he describes Lolita as contrasted against the descriptions of those deemed inferior. I would look at Humbert’s immaturity and ignorance of other’s emotions. I would ask if he truly loved Lolita, or was still clinging to dead Annabel’s image.

 

5 escritor citas

No, the rest of this is not en espanol. I just did es to different it from last week’s post. Sorry about the delay, but I was contibuting to the weekly Anthologia. Eso:

ray

The best literary critic is the one who understands what the author was

unable, for one reason or another, to write; and understanding this, is

able to more appreciatively evaluate what the author was able to achieve.

— PAUL HORGAN, Approaches to Writing

 

It was not long ago that the prevailing attitude among editors was, “This

book has some problems, but the author is so talented that I’d like to buy

it and work with him.” Today such words are rarely heard. A book with

problems is a book rejected, and more and more one hears editors say,

“Let the author revise, then we’ll decide if we want to buy it.”

— RICHARD CURTIS, literary agent, “Are Editors Necessary?”,

in Editors on Editing, third edition, edited by Gerald Gross

 

Readers are like sheep. If there’s any gate to the right or left, they’ll take

  1. You must, therefore, always keep them on the path.

— PETER JACOBI, journalism professor, Indiana University

 

It’s not enough to tell a great story, share an original idea, or create an

intriguing poem; writers are also obligated to pay diligence to the craft…

Bad grammar is a distraction… Each mistake or incorrect construction

will momentarily yank readers out of the story. Sure, they can jump back

in, but it makes for a negative or unpleasant reading experience.

— MELISSA DONOVAN, writing coach, “Ten Grammar Rules

and the Best Writing Practices That Every Writer Should Know,”

 

 

 

5 Writer’s Quotes

shovel-shit

You’re there to be shot at, and that’s part of it.

— NORMAN MAILER, novelist

If you want to do a good job of editing your book, you need to print it

out. Yes, I’m serious. Print it on actual paper, seize a red pen and you

won’t believe what you’ll see that you didn’t see before.

— BELINDA POLLARD, Australian book consultant

 

The best kind of fame is a writer’s fame. Just enough to get a good table

at a restaurant, and not enough for someone to interrupt you while you

are eating.

— FRAN LEBOWITZ, quoted in Us magazine, August 1993

 

Talent — genius, if you will — survives the most stringent oppression.

Quality and distinction are in almost all cases recognized eventually. It’s

only a matter of luck and timing (but the timing, unfortunately, can be

way off).

— WILLIAM McPHERSON, The Nation, October 3, 1981

These quotes, sans King, were stored in an ebook entitled 1,001 Tips For Authors.