How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.
A tool like the measurement of abuse can be used, abuse is universally known as ‘bad’. While no abuse is universally known as ‘bad’. In September 1955, Vladimir Nabokov published Lolita. At the the end of the current American Vintage international novel, VN wrote an essay about how people wanted to measure how ‘good’ the book was. He did say that people who tired to measure the book on the basis of grooming had a ‘bad interpretation’ of the book, looking at the scale of emotional abuse that happens to Dolores in the novel. But Dolores was not raped, the odd couple both consented to the relationship and agreed to a unique exchange. Dolores wanted escape from the dull life of a New English middle schooler, Hubert wanted sex with a girl. And so they both ran, until Hubert kills Dolores in a mental crisis in fear that he was about to be accused of being a groomer felon.
Otherwise, people who had ‘good interpretation’ of the book measured the book based on the presentation of a fable, like a children’s story. People who saw the book as a fable praises the book as it showed the exciting exchange of 2 powers, displaying the relationship the Americans and Soviets had during the Cold War. The concept of groomer and groomed could be, rich country and developing country. Dolores could be the Soviet Union, and Hubert could be the United States. Dolores seeking escape from New English could be seen as the Soviets trying to escape socioeconomic poverty by playing around with the Americans with nuclear tensions. Hubert seeking sex with a girl could be seen as a ‘groom’ towards the Soviets, accepting nuclear play with the Soviets because the Americans knew that if they won the Cold War it would be the prefect opportunity to seize and control the country. The exchange was prefect, the groomer got control, and the groomed got the opportunity of power and escape. — Unfortunately by the end of the ‘55 novel, VN predicts both sides of the exchange will demise, Dolores. gets killed by Hubert in a gunshot in fear of his upcoming felon charges. Hubert gets arrested and put on trail shortly after, is deemed ‘guilty’ and gets placed on death row. The fable’s prediction at an ending would be right, as the Soviet Union collapsed in ‘91. And the Americans are only traumatized by decades of nuclear threats and inflation. Nobody is spared.
VN’s essay was written during the Cold War. VN lives until ‘77, he does not see the end of the Cold War. We are only left with our opinions, with nobody declaring the novel ‘good’ as a fact. Only sides, never facts. Although VN in his essay did say he liked the interpretation of the fable better then the groom exchange. Hence, I called the exchange the ‘good interpretation’. We have never known the direct explanation of the book, but VN did say that it was based on an American kidnapping in ‘45. It is up to us to find the meaning, will it be about sex or a fable?