NABOKV-L post 0012081, Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:48:54 -0800

Subject
Fwd: Re: daily telegraph review of maar
Date
Body
Dear Don and all,

I'm afraid it's "The Daily Telegraph," and not Michael Maar who is guilty of
having difficulties in reading. Or perhaps the reviewer is simply too young
to recall a time when sexual intercourse in literature was not blatantly
described?

It should be obvious to any reader that the narrator did have sexual
relations with a female child - -"she was terribly young by our Northern
standards" clearly refers to Lolita as being an inappropriate sexual
partner.

Carolyn Kunin

> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:57:41 -0800
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fwd: daily telegraph review of maar
>
> Seventy pages later, the original text reveals quite how coloured this
> description is by the need to fit Lichberg's lifeless protagonist to Nabokov's
> multi-hued monster, Humbert Humbert. There is no suggestion of gross
> impropriety in the original, and the girl's exact age is far from clear.

----- End forwarded message -----