“I love you. I love you all the way.” Is love ever wrong, or is love ever right?
In a hundred years, I could see Bryn Greenwood’s, All the Ugly and Wonderful Things as required reading. This novel has been compared to Lolita, Wuthering Heights, or Tampa, and in some ways, that comparison is apt. This book is a masterpiece because like all great classics, it makes you answer a murky question. In this book, the question is: is it wrong?
Wavy is the daughter of two meth dealers in the Midwest. Although she is just a child, she learns quickly that she can trust no one, and that the only person that she can rely on is herself. Adolescent Wavy raises her younger brother Donal in her broken home while retreating deeper into herself. Those that know her, see her as quiet, strange, and reclusive.
That is until she meets Jesse James Kellen.
All the Ugly and Wonderful Things is the ultimate noir fairy tale, with Wavy as the wounded beauty, small and blonde, abused in body and spirit, and Kellen as the beast, big and hulking but just as broken. The evil father, wasted mother, and other family members, all have their roles to play – and they all impart truths that move the book along at a fast and mesmerizing pace.
Kellen is no knight in shining armor. He works for Wavy’s father and is big, burly, insecure, and just as alone as Wavy. It is their striking similarities and Kellen’s surprising gentleness that draws the two together. Kellen is the father that Wavy never had and she in turn is like a daughter to him.
That is until it evolves into something more. As Wavy says, she wants Kellen to love her “all the way”. Kellen at first resists, until that unexplainable force that first brought them together, brings them even closer.
It would be sweet if Wavy wasn’t fourteen years old and Kellen around twenty-five.
Bryn Greenwood commented on her novel, “As for my book, I firmly maintain that Kellen is not a pedophile (nor an ephebophile), but he has the misfortune of falling for the right girl at the wrong time. From Wavy’s perspective, he falls for her at the perfect time: when she desperately needs him. Life’s funny that way. My intention in writing the book was not to titillate, but to tell a story about love and perseverance that reflects parts of American life that don’t often get seen beyond headlines.”
The two are torn apart, but that can’t keep Wavy and Kellen from recognizing that in this world, all they really need and want is each other. Even though one is a legal adult, and the other is a minor.
The book posits so many questions about statutory rape, consent, love, and whether or not these two similar characters should or should not be together. Upon putting the book down, you are haunted by it and turn over these characters in your head. What are everyone’s motives? Are those who are convicted truly at fault? Are those following the law really doing the right thing? How can you ever have a satisfying ending? Are we supposed to?
It is a very uncomfortable book, but that is the quality that makes it great.
Can the manner in which a story is told influence how we receive it?
“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth.”
Vladimir Nabokov is an incredible author. This awe is only expounded by the knowledge that English was not his first language. He’s not just describing reality, he’s recreating reality with his own linguistic tools.
That being said, Lolita is a truly disturbing book. If you are like most people, you know that Lolita is a book about a pedophilic relationship between an adult man (around 37) and a twelve-year-old girl who he later makes his step-daughter. Not only does he lust for her, but he strategically manipulates her, captures her, and rapes her. It is understandable for the average reader to eschew the book altogether. The topic is not for the faint of heart.
As an English graduate, I knew that I should read the book eventually, but I avoided it knowing that the topic would make my stomach turn. My stomach did turn, but I did not expect to be as drawn to the book as I was. While I would refrain from calling it my favorite, it is a book that makes you dive into your senses. It made me realize how a writer can literally make you feel, hear, touch, and smell, every sense a character has.
The Power That Is Lolita
The style in which it is written makes it seem so realistic. The careful thoughtfulness of the first half gives way to anticlimatic pandemonium at the conclusion as Humbert begins to lose control of the situation. He has only planned and dreamed of the first half, he has never planned for what happens when his nymphet grows up and wants to leave him. The whole book mimics his sexual desire; it builds until it has the object of desire, it enjoys it, only to have it give way to awkward tension after the climax.
I don’t believe there is an occurrence that you truly sympathize with Humbert Humbert, but you are supposed to understand him. He is not some animal that is swept away by primal lust, he is a warm, calculating, emotional, and very disturbed man. His awkward love is distasteful, but it isn’t incomprehensible, at least in how he describes it.
And he is good at it too. He may have faulty logic, but he does employ logic.
Humbert Humbert extolls “certain East Indian provinces [where men of] eighty copulate with girls of eight, and nobody minds.” Before he encounters Dolores Haze, his step-daughter, he was in his habit of seeking out very young girls wherever he could find them, in orphanages and reform schools and public places: “Ah, leave me alone in my pubescent park, in my mossy garden. Let them play around me forever. Never grow up.”
Humbert is trying to lead the reader astray, in an adept and lyrical ploy. If that didn’t work on you, then you aren’t easily fooled.
It is disturbing and uncomfortable, but that is what is supposed to happen.
You want to see how the story ends, even though you know that a happy ending is impossible.
You can rail against Lolita forever… But these reasonable impulses will get you nowhere. Lolita does not ask us: Are you a feminist, a crusader, an upholder of morals, a defender of girls? Lolita asks us only one question: Are you a reader?
… The revulsion is why it endures—long past Story of O or Tropic of Cancer, or any other forbidden text of the past—as a book that shakes its readers, no matter how modern. Lolita will always be both ravishing and shocking, a fire opal dissolving in a ripple-ringed pool.
Since its beginnings in 1935, Penguin Publishing has evolved into a substantial and prominent publishing house. The company began publishing popular literature under a variety of genres. Penguin books to this day continue to publish contemporary books and specialize in publishing classical literature which is not accessible through other venues. While Penguin is a viable and competitive publishing company, what makes it stand apart is not the books it publishes but the lawsuits it has engaged in. Penguin Books, from the beginning of its publication, has challenged and changed the publishing industry through a series of important lawsuits.
The beginning of Penguin Press is romantic in its origins. According to popular legend, Allen Lane was on his way home from visiting his good friend, Agatha Christie, in Devon, U.K. He was unable to find a decent book at Exeter Station and while on the train, conceived of the idea to create decent and inexpensive literature. His daughter, Clare Morpugo (2006) said that she did not think that the idea was, “from a purely philanthropic angle – he was just keen to produce good books which the public would want to buy and might make him a penny or two at the same time” (p. 1). He presented the idea to his two brothers, Richard and Allen who were thrilled with the idea, and so Penguin was born.
Although the Lane brothers believed that their paperback books would be a success, they had difficulties making the idea sell. The brothers presented the idea to the Board of Bodley Head, the publishers, and the booksellers, but the idea was rejected by each of them. Paperback books were seen as ‘cheap literature,’ while ‘good literature’ was published on expensive hardcovers. Bodley Head believed that paperback copies of traditional literature would be redundant and that buyers of ‘cheap fiction’ would not want quality literature. Despite their opposition, the Lane brothers decided to attempt the venture anyway. They published ten titles all owned by Bodley Head which included Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway, The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie, and The Unpleasantness of the Bellona Club by Dorothy Sayers. Lane hoped that prominent names would make his new idea take off.
Lane wanted to create paperback books that were aesthetically pleasing to readers. According to Sagar (2013), Allen thought that illustrated titles were trashy and opted for neater, plain covers using different colored binding for different genres. He created a unique coding system for their books: orange for general fiction, green for crime fiction, dark blue for biographies, and red for drama were just a few examples of their system. To choose the company’s logo, Lane sent Edward Young, a young twenty-one-year-old office junior, to the zoo to illustrate the different birds he saw. Lane eventually settled on the penguin because of its sharp black and white contrast, which he thought would attract readers.
Despite the odds of success, Lane and his brothers were able to popularize their idea. The first printing was a mere 20,000 copies, but Allen Lane creatively marketed them. Morpugo (2006) said that Lane went to Woolworth’s, one of England’s largest retail stores, and managed to persuade him to take a few dozen copies. By the end of the month, Woolworth wanted 63,000 copies of Penguin’s books. Customers were lured by Penguin’s “flippant yet dignified logo” (Morpugo, 2006, p. 4). Penguin books flew off of shelves.
By 1936, a mere year after launching, Penguin had become quite successful and broke away from its parent, Bodley Head. Richard, John, and Allen Lane moved to larger offices and began a very limited “Penguin Books Ltd” with the brothers serving as directors. The company continued to grow and moved to larger offices in 1937 where they published hundreds of titles every year. Nothing seemed to stop the booming company until the 1940s and war reached England.
According to Morpugo (2006), “It is often said that the worst part of being at war is not just the fear but the terrible boredom and maybe Penguins did its part in alleviating this.” (p. 4). Allen Lane had shrewdly managed to arrange for the same amount of paper to be delivered to Penguin as they had received before the war. While other publishing agencies were affected by paper rations, Penguin kept their presses hot. Most conveniently for Penguin, their paperback books fit perfectly into the breast pockets of army uniforms, so soldiers could read them at leisure. Penguin operated during World War II on a skeleton staff of forty employees, yet still managed to publish 500 new titles and open new branches like Pelican’s, Penguin Poets, and Puffin Story Books to name just a few. (Murpugo, 2006, p. 6). Despite the War, the 1940s were truly Penguins’ golden age.
The company has continued to reflect Allen Lane’s entrepreneurial and daring spirit. Since 1950, Penguin has been involved in a variety of lawsuits over the content of its published materials. Regina v. Penguin Books Limited, Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books, and Irving v. Penguin Books Ltd. The company has tested the definitions of what is socially acceptable and pushed against the boundaries of publishing laws.
Lady Chatterley’s Lover
In August of 1960, Penguin published the first unedited version of D. H. Lawrence’s novel, Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Written in 1928, the book was published privately in Australia and Italy but banned in both England and the United States. The novel, in brief, is about an aristocratic woman who has an affair with her husband’s gamekeeper. Several expurgated copies of the book existed, but the promiscuity of the characters’ relationship caused the book to be heavily censored. Krash (1962) believed that Lawrence’s use of “normally unprintable four-lettered Anglo-Saxon words” made the work generally distasteful and such revolutionary work.
England has always had strict laws censoring media. A censoring law prohibiting the publication of literature with obscene and sexual content seems to have been in effect since the late 18th century. According to Hilliard (2013), “Emboldened by the 1959 Obscene Publication Act, which made literary merit a defense, Penguin published an unexpurgated edition (of Lady Chatterley’s Lover)the following year.” (p. 653). Of course, there were serious repercussions. The book was published in August 1960 and by October 1960, Penguin Books had a court date in London’s criminal court.
Perhaps surprisingly, the real issue of Penguin’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover lay in the book’s publishing medium. According to Hilliard (2013), the publication of the book could function as a type of censorship. The more expensive a book was, the more limited the audience would be. Books with morally questionable content were able to slip by and were seen as socially acceptable because the mass population would be less susceptible to buy the book because it was expensive. An MP of the Labor Party, Horace King, expressed his disgust that Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov, which is about an incestuous relationship, was socially acceptable only because it cost more than seven times more than Lady Chatterley’s Lover (Hilliard 2013). The real qualms that the government felt towards Lady Chatterley’s Lover was that the book was inexpensive and accessible to the general public.
Penguin was summoned to Central Criminal Court in London in October of 1960 to respond to their publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The prosecuting counsel, Mervyn Griffith-Jones alienated and ostracized himself. He famously quoted that Lady Chatterley’s Lover was, “a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read” (Hilliard, 2013, p. 654). He implied a dated social structure in which women and the working class were inferior to whites, educated males with money, like himself. His elitist comment did very little to sustain the prosecution. Gerald Gardiner, who outlined the case of the defense, brilliantly turned the Penguin’s case into a crusade for the people. Gardiner said that Penguins had been created to fight against inequality and make great books accessible to the public (Hilliard, 2013, p. 672). When framed in an equality outlook, Penguin’s case became one of literary freedom. The trial only lasted six days, with Penguin emerging victorious.
Penguin’s victory with Lady Chatterley’s Lover opened new possibilities in the publishing industry. Krash (1962) says that Lady Chatterley’s case stands as a “hallmark for literary freedom” (p. 1363). The validity of the prosecuting council’s argument about the accessibility of books was no longer considered viable. Books like Lady Chatterley’s Lover became accessible to the general public at an inexpensive price. Although this was a great victory for all publishing agencies, Penguin brushed the trial off as “probably the most thorough and expensive seminar of Lawrence’s work ever given” (Krash 1962, p. 1359). The trial of Regina v. Penguin Books accurately demonstrated the social inequalities which had divided society, which Penguin had successfully tried to breach.
The Cat NOT in the Hat!
Penguin’s Regina v. Penguin Publishing over the Lady Chatterley’s Lover seems a sharp and serious contrast to Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books more flippant nature. In 1995, Penguin Books USA published a book called The Cat NOT in the Hat! by Dr. Juice. The book covered the O. J. Simpson double-murder trial in a similar format to Theodor S. Geisel’s children’s book, The Cat in the Hat. The author, Alan Katz, and the illustrator, Chris Wrinn parodied the classic children’s book to supply a “fresh new look” into the O. J. Simpson trial (Jung 1998, p. 120). According to Jung (1998), “Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books is one of the first cases to address the acceptable limits of parody.” Seuss Enterprises filed suit for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution in March 1997.
The difference between a parody and a satire became essential in determining whether Penguin was guilty. Jung (1998) clarifies that; “parody uses elements of a prior work to criticize or comment on that work, a satire uses elements of a prior work to criticize or comment on another subject” (p.121). Since The Cat NOT in the Hat! did not directly criticize Geisel’s original book, the court determined that the book was a parody. However, the court ended up in an awkward position when considering copyright laws. The fair use doctrine allows the public to quote copyrighted materials without consulting the owner. Jung (1998) says that this fair doctrine also applies to allow new “transformative works to be created using the copyrighted material, for example, parody or satire” (p. 124-125). Since The Cat NOT in the Hat! was considered a parody the court had to seriously consider Penguin’s legal ramifications.
The nature of the book itself became the final determination for the court’s final ruling. According to Jung (1998), the book had no real literary merit and therefore was not protected by copyright laws. The books parody of the phrases “One Knife? / Two Knife? / Red Knife / Dead Wife” and “He said what he meant / A houseguest is faithful /One hundred percent” were too similar to Seuss’ One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish and quote from Horton Hears a Who (Court Proceedings). The court found Penguin guilty of copyright infringement. Penguin acknowledged that the title of both the book, the author parodied pseudonym, and the striped stovepipe hat were recognized trademarks. The court further ruled that Penguin had, “likely intent in selecting the Seuss marks was to draw consumer attention to what would otherwise be just one more book on the O.J. Simpson murder trial” (Court Proceedings section IV A). Hilliard (1998) said that Seuss has become incorporated into the vernacular of the English language.
While The Cat NOT in the Hat! was not the noblest endeavor, the book was a hallmark for the boundaries of acceptable writing. The characterization and satirizing of the popular children’s books were inappropriate, but it took Penguin’s terrible mistake to realize it. The court case also served as a gauge for Penguin as a publishing company. Until roughly around this time, Penguin had a free license with its publication but realized that it may not be the invincible company it thought itself to be.
Hitler’s War
By far, the most costly and comprehensive of Penguin’s court litigations was Penguins Books Ltd. V. David Irving in a libel lawsuit. The court case was rather unusual in its proceedings as Penguin books were not directly affiliated. One of Penguin’s authors, Deborah Lipstadt wrote in her book, Denying the Holocaust, that David Irving was “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial” (Evans, 2002, p. 6). Lipstadt went on to accuse Irving of falsifying historical documents and giving a hyper-positive view of Hitler.
David Irving was in an unusual position as a historical writer. Irving had no real historical accolades to his name or even a degree. He had started a science degree at London University but never finished it. According to David Irving in an interview in 1986, “History was the only subject that I flunked when I was at school” (Evans 2001, p. 5). Irving’s books were never fully considered viable historical sources outside of the mainstream. However, his resourcefulness and his ability to access otherwise obscure historical documents won him some recognition and prominence even among historians. David Irving had written several historical books including The Destruction of Dresden, Hitler’s War, and Churchill’s War. Irving had taken a controversial opinion in his book Hitler’s War, claiming that Hitler did not know about the Holocaust. Later Irving seemed to demonstrate dissension about the authenticity of the Holocaust.
Irving wrote Penguin in 1995 demanding that the book be pulled from circulation. The excerpt only comprised a small fraction of the book’s total so Penguin was unwilling to pull the book from the market. Irving’s personal vendetta was not against Penguin books but rather against Deborah Lipstadt. According to Guttenplan (2002) perhaps ironically, Penguin had formerly published Irving’s book, The War Between the Generals, prior to the lawsuit in 1981. Evans (2001) says that Penguin knew that Irving would never settle and the company was unwilling to leave Lipstadt stranded in a convoluted court case. Guttenplan (2002) says that Penguin decided to back up Lipstadt out of a sense of guilt for not prospering by censoring the potential libelous material.
Irving was very clever in his filing suit. Irving filed a lawsuit in London, partly because of Penguin, but also because English libel laws are very different than they are in the United States. In an American courtroom, Lipstadt would have had some protection under the first amendment and would have had to have proven actual malice. British libel cases generally are in favor of the one who files the suit. According to Guttenplan (2002), the case was about proving what Lipstadt had written was true rather than proving it false. Since the libel case was about Irving being an uncreditable historian and Holocaust denier, the case really became about the validity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz.
The outline of the court case was extensive. D.D. Guttenplan (2002) expressed the very delicate situation that Penguin was placed in. Penguin had an obligation to win the course case based on the direction that the case had taken. If Irving had been found out to be wrong about Auschwitz but been vindicated on all other charges, Penguin and Lipstadt would have to pay all court fees (Guttenplan, 2002, p. 22). Throughout the entirety of the extensive court proceedings, David Irving seemed to have been not only trying to defend his name but also undermining the credibility of the Holocaust.
The court did eventually find Irving guilty of the charges that Lipstadt had asserted in her book. The evidence provided by Professor Richard Evans demonstrated that Irving had tampered with historical documents to suit his own viewpoint. Other allegations against Irving that were confirmed by the presiding judge were anti-Semitism, being a racist, and associating with militant neo-Nazis (Evans, 2001, p. 228). Deborah Lipstadt is cited in Guttenplan (2002), saying, “There is no end to the fight against racism, anti-Semitism, and hatred” (p. 285). The Irving v. Penguin books case became the case that championed justice and the tragedy of the Holocaust.
According to D. D. Guttenplan (2002), the court case was serious enough in the mind of Penguin books that they were willing to “spend over a million pounds on lawyers fees and hundreds of thousands more hiring expert witnesses” (p. 2). Evans (2001) highlighted the extensive financial backing that Penguin Books provided. “Despite Irving’s assertions to the contrary… it was Penguin that paid the fees of the experts, leading counsel, junior counsel” and also paid all the researchers (Evans, 2001, p. 230). Penguin was seen as the press of the people, who stood up for the oppressed.
Penguin has been in a unique position from other publishing industries. While it is commonly viewed as the press for old literature, this cannot be further from the truth. Penguin has stirred the waters of the publishing industry since it was founded by Allen Lane. Allen Lane’s daughter, Clare Morpurgo (2006), commented that the Allen Lane Foundation has, “MADE A DIFFERENCE to people’s lives- which after all what Allen Lane really wanted when he created the foundation in the first place” (p. 15). However, I think this quote may also be adequately applied to Penguin Books Ltd as well. The company has provided literature to a wide and heterogeneous audience with books that have challenged both individual minds as well as whole companies.
Penguin Books has always been a controversial publisher. However, without its numerous fearless innovations against what was traditionally acceptable many of the books we take for granted today may not have been published. According to Morpurgo (2006), the founders of Penguin, “worked with the zeal of missionaries bringing to their work all their hopes for the future” (p. 6). This ‘mission’ has been successful as its numerous lawsuits solidified its role as a company devoted to the people it serves. Its fresh new take on what ought to be acceptable and accessible to the public has made its home on the shelves of nearly every home.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Penguin Books USA, INC., a corporation; Dove Audio, Inc., a corporation, Defendants-Appellants. No. 96-55619.
Evans, R. J. (2001). Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Guttenplan, D. D. (2001). The Holocaust on Trial. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company Inc.
Hilliard, C. (2013). “Is It a Book That You Would Even Wish Your Wife or Your Servants to Read?” Obscenity Law and the Politics of Reading in Modern England. TheAmerican Historical Review, 118, 653-678. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/118.3.653.
The earth hath bubbles, as the water has, and these are of them
There are plains that seem to extend the length and the breadth of the world.
They are in the mind’s eye. They are never-ending. You can stretch and strain your eyes but you will never trace the edge of that graying horizon. The end is so hazy and undefined, seemingly eons away. Maybe two hills dot the distance along those long open plains like two shoulders thrown back in an expansive embrace, the grass sticking out like awry hair, but these are nothing.
There are no obstructions to limit its expanse. You feel that if you could only reach out far enough you could catch the breath of the wind and it would take you to that edge and on; on to the end of the world.
Close your eyes. Can you feel the earth beneath your feet? It is cold, isn’t it? When you walk on the plain, you are lost in it as though it absorbs you. It is like your veins suddenly bond with the vinous intricacies of the pungent earth, or like a string is being wrapped and pulled around your ribs.
They say you can walk the plains but in reality, the plains walk you. They somehow manipulate themselves into those lonely beaten paths of your heart. The plains exploit your loneliness but somehow fill it up with its great empty expanse. The plains never really end; they merely dissolve into something… They dissolve into you.
The earth hath its bubbles. When gazing out into that expanse you feel like you have reached a place where time has stood still. One thousand years from now the trees will be taller, the hills more pronounced but another pair of eyes will scan the expanse. The souls of a thousand’s past linger, hovering between that fine veil between past and present.
The world seems to call out my name, but it is not in laudation. It is low and clear, as though all has been discovered and doesn’t belong. Is this the call to the West that men have written about for decades?
jessicadickenson.wordpress.com 