Subject
Re: VN and Freud
From
Date
Body
On February 20, Jerry Friedman wrote: As Jim notes, Karshan says Shade didn't
believe his own theory at the end of Canto 3, but Karshan doesn't give the
evidence for that. I'm not sure what it could be. Shade was an atheist from
childhood on, but his story in Canto 3 suggests a change of mind.
JT: Unlike Jerry, I believe Karshan does present arguments--two of them, one
each on pp. 206 and 207--about Shade’s reasoning, arguments which, to me at
least, carry a good deal of weight.
I was about to comment on these arguments when I read Thomas Karshan’s post this
morning. At this point, I’ll wait to see what he might have to say on the
matter.
One thing I’m especially curious about is how TK, and also JF and anyone else
who cares to comment, might connect Shade’s “text not texture” insight with his
stated belief at the end of the poem that Hazel “somewhere is alive.” In most of
the examples given of the game players in action (ll. 820-829), these “gods”
don’t seem much different from the wanton boys in King Lear. And anyhow, what
started off as thoughts about “life everlasting” has turned into thoughts about
design (and the possibility of poetry). Unless I’ve missed or forgotten
something, it’s not till the end of the poem that immortality re-enters the
picture. Once again, what’s the connection?
JF: On the subject of reputable philosophers, I'm not going to add to my
"onslaught" about what Nabokov believed, but I will say that I don't see why
Shade should be closer to them than to Mme. Blavatsky. Yeats really did follow
Blavatsky among others, and that did not keep him from being a far better poet
than Shade.
JT: I agree that there’s no reason why Shade, as opposed to VN, should be closer
to reputable philosophers than to Blavatsky and her ilk. He (Shade) would be an
interesting character in either case. As for Yeats and VN, the question of VN’s
own beliefs is of some importance because Brian Boyd has made it so:
[D. Barton Johnson] asks if it would make any difference whether Nabokov’s
otherworldly philosophy were shopworn. To me it certainly would. Eliot’s craving
for the authority of tradition, Yeats’s refuge in the irrational, to me
seriously diminish their art. Nabokov is of such interest partly because he is
such a clear and independent thinker, and his style is the way it is because he
has such clarity and independence of thought. --Johnson and Boyd, “Prologue: The
Otherworld,” in Nabokov’s World, Vol. 1: The Shape of Nabokov’s World
(Palgrave-Macmillan, 2002), p. 23.
Jim Twiggs
________________________________
From: Jerry Friedman <jerryfriedman1@GMAIL.COM>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 11:34:56 PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] VN and Freud
I thank Jim for the reference to Karshan's book. I see, among other things,
that I have to read more Swift and Pope!
As Jim notes, Karshan says Shade didn't believe his own theory at the end of
Canto 3, but Karshan doesn't give the evidence for that. I'm not sure what it
could be. Shade was an atheist from childhood on, but his story in Canto 3
suggests a change of mind. Karshan quotes his conversation with Kinbote, but
Shade's side consists mostly of evasions (because he doesn't want to talk about
the subject of the poem he'll start soon?). What he does imply is that he can
accept an afterlife and a psychopompos though maybe not "the Big G", which seems
entirely consistent with Canto 3. He also makes a comparison with chess, as in
the poem, though with chess problems rather than over-the-board play. Another
point might be that undermines his "firm conviction" with the anticlimax "faint
hope". I'd read this, however, as his recognition that he has nothing like
proof--I believe Jim when he says no reputable philosopher has put forward
anything like Shade's ideas--and as disarming criticism but not as diminishing
the value the ideas have for him and that he may thinks they'd have for his
readers.
On the subject of reputable philosophers, I'm not going to add to my "onslaught"
about what Nabokov believed, but I will say that I don't see why Shade should be
closer to them than to Mme. Blavatsky. Yeats really did follow Blavatsky among
others, and that did not keep him from being a far better poet than Shade.
I think Jansy Mello makes a very interesting point about Russia being the thing,
or one thing, behind all of Pale Fire's mirrors. How often he presents the
image of his connection to Russia or his childhood with the imagery of fantasy
and mystery and denial of common sense, as he refused to return to the real
Russia. Jansy mentions the handful of snow in "Mademoiselle O", still real
forty-five years later, which I'd forgotten as I'm sure I've forgotten others.
She notes that Freud didn't invent phallic references to sticks, poles, and the
like (and added that "sometimes a post is only a post," which I wish I'd said.)
But Freud stated that "dreams of flying, so familiar and often so delightful,
have to be interpreted as dreams of general sexual excitement, as
erection-dreams". I think what Nabokov is talking about with those umbrellas
and balloons is this simplistic "have to be", with its implication that
everyone's mind is so similar that Freud knows every individual's (that is,
Nabokov's) psyche better than the individual. Anthony Stadlen says that Freud
stated more nuanced and plausible views both earlier and later, but if Nabokov
knew about that, he doesn't seem to have seen it as mitigation.
I thank Jansy for her convincing argument that, if I may summarize, when Shade
smiled as he suggested Freudians might call polls "political pollination,"
Nabokov (if not Shade too) smiled to think of the Russian word pol, meaning sex.
Jerry Friedman
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
believe his own theory at the end of Canto 3, but Karshan doesn't give the
evidence for that. I'm not sure what it could be. Shade was an atheist from
childhood on, but his story in Canto 3 suggests a change of mind.
JT: Unlike Jerry, I believe Karshan does present arguments--two of them, one
each on pp. 206 and 207--about Shade’s reasoning, arguments which, to me at
least, carry a good deal of weight.
I was about to comment on these arguments when I read Thomas Karshan’s post this
morning. At this point, I’ll wait to see what he might have to say on the
matter.
One thing I’m especially curious about is how TK, and also JF and anyone else
who cares to comment, might connect Shade’s “text not texture” insight with his
stated belief at the end of the poem that Hazel “somewhere is alive.” In most of
the examples given of the game players in action (ll. 820-829), these “gods”
don’t seem much different from the wanton boys in King Lear. And anyhow, what
started off as thoughts about “life everlasting” has turned into thoughts about
design (and the possibility of poetry). Unless I’ve missed or forgotten
something, it’s not till the end of the poem that immortality re-enters the
picture. Once again, what’s the connection?
JF: On the subject of reputable philosophers, I'm not going to add to my
"onslaught" about what Nabokov believed, but I will say that I don't see why
Shade should be closer to them than to Mme. Blavatsky. Yeats really did follow
Blavatsky among others, and that did not keep him from being a far better poet
than Shade.
JT: I agree that there’s no reason why Shade, as opposed to VN, should be closer
to reputable philosophers than to Blavatsky and her ilk. He (Shade) would be an
interesting character in either case. As for Yeats and VN, the question of VN’s
own beliefs is of some importance because Brian Boyd has made it so:
[D. Barton Johnson] asks if it would make any difference whether Nabokov’s
otherworldly philosophy were shopworn. To me it certainly would. Eliot’s craving
for the authority of tradition, Yeats’s refuge in the irrational, to me
seriously diminish their art. Nabokov is of such interest partly because he is
such a clear and independent thinker, and his style is the way it is because he
has such clarity and independence of thought. --Johnson and Boyd, “Prologue: The
Otherworld,” in Nabokov’s World, Vol. 1: The Shape of Nabokov’s World
(Palgrave-Macmillan, 2002), p. 23.
Jim Twiggs
________________________________
From: Jerry Friedman <jerryfriedman1@GMAIL.COM>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 11:34:56 PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] VN and Freud
I thank Jim for the reference to Karshan's book. I see, among other things,
that I have to read more Swift and Pope!
As Jim notes, Karshan says Shade didn't believe his own theory at the end of
Canto 3, but Karshan doesn't give the evidence for that. I'm not sure what it
could be. Shade was an atheist from childhood on, but his story in Canto 3
suggests a change of mind. Karshan quotes his conversation with Kinbote, but
Shade's side consists mostly of evasions (because he doesn't want to talk about
the subject of the poem he'll start soon?). What he does imply is that he can
accept an afterlife and a psychopompos though maybe not "the Big G", which seems
entirely consistent with Canto 3. He also makes a comparison with chess, as in
the poem, though with chess problems rather than over-the-board play. Another
point might be that undermines his "firm conviction" with the anticlimax "faint
hope". I'd read this, however, as his recognition that he has nothing like
proof--I believe Jim when he says no reputable philosopher has put forward
anything like Shade's ideas--and as disarming criticism but not as diminishing
the value the ideas have for him and that he may thinks they'd have for his
readers.
On the subject of reputable philosophers, I'm not going to add to my "onslaught"
about what Nabokov believed, but I will say that I don't see why Shade should be
closer to them than to Mme. Blavatsky. Yeats really did follow Blavatsky among
others, and that did not keep him from being a far better poet than Shade.
I think Jansy Mello makes a very interesting point about Russia being the thing,
or one thing, behind all of Pale Fire's mirrors. How often he presents the
image of his connection to Russia or his childhood with the imagery of fantasy
and mystery and denial of common sense, as he refused to return to the real
Russia. Jansy mentions the handful of snow in "Mademoiselle O", still real
forty-five years later, which I'd forgotten as I'm sure I've forgotten others.
She notes that Freud didn't invent phallic references to sticks, poles, and the
like (and added that "sometimes a post is only a post," which I wish I'd said.)
But Freud stated that "dreams of flying, so familiar and often so delightful,
have to be interpreted as dreams of general sexual excitement, as
erection-dreams". I think what Nabokov is talking about with those umbrellas
and balloons is this simplistic "have to be", with its implication that
everyone's mind is so similar that Freud knows every individual's (that is,
Nabokov's) psyche better than the individual. Anthony Stadlen says that Freud
stated more nuanced and plausible views both earlier and later, but if Nabokov
knew about that, he doesn't seem to have seen it as mitigation.
I thank Jansy for her convincing argument that, if I may summarize, when Shade
smiled as he suggested Freudians might call polls "political pollination,"
Nabokov (if not Shade too) smiled to think of the Russian word pol, meaning sex.
Jerry Friedman
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/