Subject
VN and Freud (response to Blackwell)
From
Date
Body
[Because of problems posting messages to the List a few weeks ago, Jo
Morgan's reply to Stephen Blackwell's earlier comments on the critical
reception of her work was delayed. Although Steve Blackwell, NABOKV-L
Co-Editor, is away until the end of the month, I am posting Jo Morgan's
reply now since it should have gone out earlier. Please let me know of
any other messages sent to NABOKV-L in late June or early July which
were not distributed to the List. Thanks! -- SES]
Thank you, Stephen Blackwell for confirming my complaints re the lack of
critical attention provided to date by Nabokov's literary scholars to my
self-published, code-cracking book Solving Nabokov's Lolita Riddle
(2005).
As you yourself freely conceded, my book has met with a 'wall of
silence.'
You also admitted dismissing my arguments on the basis of perusing my
website.
As the opening pages of my website clearly state, my website was set up
to
achieve two specific purpose, namely: 1) to remind readers about
the riddle or puzzle Nabokov indicated he had planted within Lolita,
and: 2) to provide supportive documentation for some of the arguments
advanced in my book. In particular, I have provided photocopies and
accurate references for the systematic 'blunders' (i.e. oxymoronic
Freudian
slips) Nabokov inserted into successive editions of his memoirs, Speak,
Memory and Eugene Onegin. Several of these deliberate errors pivot upon
mistranslations of the 'key' word 'plain.' The first chapter of my book
discusses how these 'errors' are linked to the vital 'Cue, Cue ...
curious
coincidence' passage in Lolita. In that passage Lolita confesses, for
the
first time, to being abused at the Duk Duk Ranch - a location which
not
only evokes the specter of salacious penetration, but which once again
plays a quasi anagram game around 'Unc Ruka'. The Cue Cue theatrical
prompt
is all part of a literary game that leads back to Vivian Darkbloom
(anagram
of Vladimir Nabokov)who has written a biography called "My Cue."
The strategy Nabokov adopted of providing both correct and then
incorrect
translations of the word 'plain' was very deliberate. It lasted over a
27
year period starting with the 1948 article Nabokov wrote on Uncle Ruka
(first published in the New Yorker) and ending with his revised
translation
of Eugene Onegin in 1975. Why these 'errors' should be
dismissed as 'so fanciful' (quoting Blackwell) is beyond me. Especially
given 1) that the patterning Nabokov built around these mistakes all
point
to hidden scenes of incestuous abuse; 2) that Nabokov openly confessed
in
an interview to planting 'blunders' within his writings; 3) the fact
that
even biographers like Brian Boyd (1990, 386) regard Lolita as being
infused
with a private code that can be sorted out by the alert reader.
The utmost importance of these 'plain' blunders is in
fact, attested to by that trickster Vladimir Nabokov himself. When
asked,
Nabokov specifically requested no Freudian rot or Marxist bunkum from
his
biographer. He simply wanted his biographer to attend to the "plain
facts"
about his life.
As Blackwell pointed out, my book as it has not been subjected to peer
evaluation. I am, in fact, most anxious to have my code-cracking
research
evaluated and reviewed. I have been trying to achieve this since 2001
when
the first draft of my text was sent off by my literary agent (Rose
Creswell)
to New York. Publishers I have contacted who have declined to
even read my research include the Cambridge University Press down here
in
Melbourne, Australia. After several years of trying to attract the
attention of a publisher, I despaired of ever getting past the literary
gate-keepers who seem determined to avoid pertinent issues pertaining to
Nabokov's battle with Freud. This is what drove me (despite the expense
involved) to self-publish.
Unfortunately, the decision I took to self-publish my research has not
solved my fundamental problem. Despite
sending out the requisite review copies to various literary journals, as
well as several of Nabokov establishsed scholars, (along with a slew of
emails to academics who never responded) my research has still not been
evaluated.
Zoran Kuzmanovich did, very kindly, arrange for the review copy I sent
him
to be sent on to several scholars. He has since advised me that my
research
had been rejected on the following grounds:
1) that my book has already received plenty of discussion on various
Nabokov lists.
Response: As the vast majority of this discussion was generated by
people
who have either not read my book, or failed to double-check my
deciphering work, it can be dismissed as either openly prejudiced or
uninformed.
2) Speak, Memory indicates that Nabokov's father heartily disapproved
of Ruka's fondling behaviours - ergo nothing could possibly have
happened between Vladimir and Ruka.
Response: Vladimir D. Nabokov was often away in St Petersburg when the
rest
of the family spent the summer at Vyra. He was not always able to
supervise Ruka's interactions with Vladimir. Also, the elaborate chess
game
code Nabokov planted within Speak, Memory indicates that Ruka managed to
seduce Vladimir into meeting him in private. That is a common modus
operandi for pedophiles. It is ludicrous to suggest that pedophiles will
refrain from their underhanded activities simply because they
know other adults disapprove of them.
3) that final evidence of incest between Nabokov and Ruka may been
contained in the sealed boxes held in the Library Congress. However, the
scholarly consensus is that we can happily wait for 50 or so more years
until these boxes are finally opened, as per the conditions of Nabokov's
will.
Response: At last! An uneasy admission that there may be something to my
arguments and decoding work - but the level of scholarly complacency
demonstrated is nothing short of woeful. My book, which documents the
tragic consequences flowing from our misplaced (nay, perverse) socio-
cultural appropriation of Lolita provides more than one reason why we
should not sit back on our heels and wait another 50 years or so until
the
unhappy truth lurking behind Nabokov' novel (Lolita - the greatest
literary
hoax of all time) is finally told.
4) That the case studies contained in my book which demonstrate how
the word 'Lolita' has been used to pillory young girls are unhelpful.
Response: It is only natural that my book should contain case studies.
My
approach to Nabokov's Lolita riddle combines riddle-solving with
sociology.
Its primary purpose is not literary.
5) that my findings will not change the way in which people read
Lolita or Eugene Onegin.
Response: I am quite sure many readers (women in particular) will
thoroughly
disagree with this outlandish statement.
In his correspondence Zoran Kuzmanovich also let me know he was unaware
if
any scholar had checked my decoding work. It is vital that they should
do
so. I firmly believe Nabokov's scholars have a moral and intellectual
responsibility to check my code-cracking methodology. If they are do so
in
any meaningful way, they must be prepared to confront the extent of
Nabokov's hatred of Freud and the reasons for his protracted
preoccupation
with pedophilia.
Once again, I extend an invitation to literary scholars to rise to the
occasion and respond to my ground-breaking research
into Nabokov's Lolita riddle. I am more than happy to receive meaningful
feedback and to correct any errors my research might currently
contain. I expect to incorporate all such remarks and comments into the
second edition of my book (which I anticipate will enjoy the invaluable
assistance of an editor.)
I look forward to hearing from you.
Jo Morgan
Sydney
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu,chtodel@cox.net
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Morgan's reply to Stephen Blackwell's earlier comments on the critical
reception of her work was delayed. Although Steve Blackwell, NABOKV-L
Co-Editor, is away until the end of the month, I am posting Jo Morgan's
reply now since it should have gone out earlier. Please let me know of
any other messages sent to NABOKV-L in late June or early July which
were not distributed to the List. Thanks! -- SES]
Thank you, Stephen Blackwell for confirming my complaints re the lack of
critical attention provided to date by Nabokov's literary scholars to my
self-published, code-cracking book Solving Nabokov's Lolita Riddle
(2005).
As you yourself freely conceded, my book has met with a 'wall of
silence.'
You also admitted dismissing my arguments on the basis of perusing my
website.
As the opening pages of my website clearly state, my website was set up
to
achieve two specific purpose, namely: 1) to remind readers about
the riddle or puzzle Nabokov indicated he had planted within Lolita,
and: 2) to provide supportive documentation for some of the arguments
advanced in my book. In particular, I have provided photocopies and
accurate references for the systematic 'blunders' (i.e. oxymoronic
Freudian
slips) Nabokov inserted into successive editions of his memoirs, Speak,
Memory and Eugene Onegin. Several of these deliberate errors pivot upon
mistranslations of the 'key' word 'plain.' The first chapter of my book
discusses how these 'errors' are linked to the vital 'Cue, Cue ...
curious
coincidence' passage in Lolita. In that passage Lolita confesses, for
the
first time, to being abused at the Duk Duk Ranch - a location which
not
only evokes the specter of salacious penetration, but which once again
plays a quasi anagram game around 'Unc Ruka'. The Cue Cue theatrical
prompt
is all part of a literary game that leads back to Vivian Darkbloom
(anagram
of Vladimir Nabokov)who has written a biography called "My Cue."
The strategy Nabokov adopted of providing both correct and then
incorrect
translations of the word 'plain' was very deliberate. It lasted over a
27
year period starting with the 1948 article Nabokov wrote on Uncle Ruka
(first published in the New Yorker) and ending with his revised
translation
of Eugene Onegin in 1975. Why these 'errors' should be
dismissed as 'so fanciful' (quoting Blackwell) is beyond me. Especially
given 1) that the patterning Nabokov built around these mistakes all
point
to hidden scenes of incestuous abuse; 2) that Nabokov openly confessed
in
an interview to planting 'blunders' within his writings; 3) the fact
that
even biographers like Brian Boyd (1990, 386) regard Lolita as being
infused
with a private code that can be sorted out by the alert reader.
The utmost importance of these 'plain' blunders is in
fact, attested to by that trickster Vladimir Nabokov himself. When
asked,
Nabokov specifically requested no Freudian rot or Marxist bunkum from
his
biographer. He simply wanted his biographer to attend to the "plain
facts"
about his life.
As Blackwell pointed out, my book as it has not been subjected to peer
evaluation. I am, in fact, most anxious to have my code-cracking
research
evaluated and reviewed. I have been trying to achieve this since 2001
when
the first draft of my text was sent off by my literary agent (Rose
Creswell)
to New York. Publishers I have contacted who have declined to
even read my research include the Cambridge University Press down here
in
Melbourne, Australia. After several years of trying to attract the
attention of a publisher, I despaired of ever getting past the literary
gate-keepers who seem determined to avoid pertinent issues pertaining to
Nabokov's battle with Freud. This is what drove me (despite the expense
involved) to self-publish.
Unfortunately, the decision I took to self-publish my research has not
solved my fundamental problem. Despite
sending out the requisite review copies to various literary journals, as
well as several of Nabokov establishsed scholars, (along with a slew of
emails to academics who never responded) my research has still not been
evaluated.
Zoran Kuzmanovich did, very kindly, arrange for the review copy I sent
him
to be sent on to several scholars. He has since advised me that my
research
had been rejected on the following grounds:
1) that my book has already received plenty of discussion on various
Nabokov lists.
Response: As the vast majority of this discussion was generated by
people
who have either not read my book, or failed to double-check my
deciphering work, it can be dismissed as either openly prejudiced or
uninformed.
2) Speak, Memory indicates that Nabokov's father heartily disapproved
of Ruka's fondling behaviours - ergo nothing could possibly have
happened between Vladimir and Ruka.
Response: Vladimir D. Nabokov was often away in St Petersburg when the
rest
of the family spent the summer at Vyra. He was not always able to
supervise Ruka's interactions with Vladimir. Also, the elaborate chess
game
code Nabokov planted within Speak, Memory indicates that Ruka managed to
seduce Vladimir into meeting him in private. That is a common modus
operandi for pedophiles. It is ludicrous to suggest that pedophiles will
refrain from their underhanded activities simply because they
know other adults disapprove of them.
3) that final evidence of incest between Nabokov and Ruka may been
contained in the sealed boxes held in the Library Congress. However, the
scholarly consensus is that we can happily wait for 50 or so more years
until these boxes are finally opened, as per the conditions of Nabokov's
will.
Response: At last! An uneasy admission that there may be something to my
arguments and decoding work - but the level of scholarly complacency
demonstrated is nothing short of woeful. My book, which documents the
tragic consequences flowing from our misplaced (nay, perverse) socio-
cultural appropriation of Lolita provides more than one reason why we
should not sit back on our heels and wait another 50 years or so until
the
unhappy truth lurking behind Nabokov' novel (Lolita - the greatest
literary
hoax of all time) is finally told.
4) That the case studies contained in my book which demonstrate how
the word 'Lolita' has been used to pillory young girls are unhelpful.
Response: It is only natural that my book should contain case studies.
My
approach to Nabokov's Lolita riddle combines riddle-solving with
sociology.
Its primary purpose is not literary.
5) that my findings will not change the way in which people read
Lolita or Eugene Onegin.
Response: I am quite sure many readers (women in particular) will
thoroughly
disagree with this outlandish statement.
In his correspondence Zoran Kuzmanovich also let me know he was unaware
if
any scholar had checked my decoding work. It is vital that they should
do
so. I firmly believe Nabokov's scholars have a moral and intellectual
responsibility to check my code-cracking methodology. If they are do so
in
any meaningful way, they must be prepared to confront the extent of
Nabokov's hatred of Freud and the reasons for his protracted
preoccupation
with pedophilia.
Once again, I extend an invitation to literary scholars to rise to the
occasion and respond to my ground-breaking research
into Nabokov's Lolita riddle. I am more than happy to receive meaningful
feedback and to correct any errors my research might currently
contain. I expect to incorporate all such remarks and comments into the
second edition of my book (which I anticipate will enjoy the invaluable
assistance of an editor.)
I look forward to hearing from you.
Jo Morgan
Sydney
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu,chtodel@cox.net
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm