> I also donīt see how her dissertation could be understood as an approach to Nabokovīs novel in order to reduce it to "pervertvictimlove".
Here is how:
The abstract builds up to the following conclusion: ‘Nabokov teaches the reader to reject categories such as "pedophile" and "adolescent" in favor of attention to the human beings we force into these roles.’
That connection is fully mechanical and as such it makes perfect connection with doublethink and the rest of it. I rest my case.
- George
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
[mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Sunday, April
17, 2005 6:45 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Fwd: On Sympathy and
Suffering in Lolita
----- Forwarded message from gshiman@optonline.net
-----
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:16:56 -0400
From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
Reply-To: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
Subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in
LOLITA
Former postings: ...............................................................................
1. (Jansy): ... and this is not the same as practicing
"doublespeak"...
2. (G.Shimanovich): No, it is, and here is why. I view 'demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and "victim' as conscious attempt to blur reality of the novel. There is nothing in common between Orwell and VN but Orwell allows non-passionate (cursive mine) assessment of that kind of the criticism(...) Some texts offer difficulty which makes it even more important to tame them. So, in same way as passage from Declaration of Independence could be swallowed in the single word crimethink, one may approach difficult Lolita with pervertvictimlove. (I do it only to reply to Jancy and Mrs. Dawson - it has absolutely nothing to do with VN) (...)
..............................................................
Continuing with the discussion:
Dear G.Shimanovich,
Iīm afraid I didnīt fully understand your
arguments.
In the first paragraph of your answer I found what I took to be your
criticism concerning Dr.Dawsonīs dissertation, that it aimed at a
'demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and "victim' as
conscious attempt to blur reality of the novel". And yet, a little
further on you employed Orwellīs invention of "doublespeak" to
ironize what would have been as to " approach difficult Lolita with
pervertvictimlove".
I understand that Dr.Dawson was not trying to demolish the categories comprised by the concepts "pervert" or "victim", but to study cultural stereotypes that alter these concepts and turn society blind to all the other complexities that come under these words.
I also donīt see how her dissertation could be understood as an approach to Nabokovīs novel in order to reduce it to "pervertvictimlove".
Her scope seemed to me less ambitious than
that since I could see no intention to reduce VNīs entire novel
to fit into that issue.
To give you an example of what I mean: Once I read a dissertation about
the meaning of "heavenīs spite" in Hamlet. The author
illustrated how that word had radically changed from Elizabethan days to
ours because the religious view that lay behind its use had altered.
His argument was that it was important to understand more about Elizabethan
customs and practices to realize what the poet was saying by
"spite" and obviously was not reducing Hamlet to a
"spite" issue but on how to read Shakespeare correctly.
And thatīs how I also understood Dr.Dawsonīs project ( but I havenīt read her full work to be sure, of course )
Jansy