Subject
CORRECTION: Gradus anagrams
From
Date
Body
[EDNOTE. This message should replace the one just sent by Stan
Kelly-Bootle. -- SES]
Matt: I suspect from your subjunctive (‘if I were ...’) that we both
feel in our bones that pulling out arbitrary strings of text and
juggling their letters is unlikely to contribute to serious literary
analysis? Nabokov indulges in many forms of word play (puns,
mis-illusions-allusions, rhyming-slang, acrostics, spoonerisms,
anagrams) but they are served with donnish knowing winks, nudges (and
even the occasional embarrassing smirk) aimed at his prefered target
audience. But, this audience of creative re-readers really disserve the
Master if they overly dwell on these amusing but insignificant and
short-lived tics and tricks. Future generations will be as puzzled as we
are today by Shakespeare’s dated verbal jokes! What is that FOOL saying?
We still need the odd gloss to guide us through the allusions, puns and
shifting lexis, whether 14th or 20th century, but humour of the lasting,
universal variety shines through the invented narrative: characters and
situations. The point being that Nabokov’s genius, like the Bard’s, runs
unfathomable fathoms deeper than transient word play.
With respect to the sport of anagram hunting, there is a huge difference
between VN’s own pointed, obvious, witty permutations (e.g., Vivian
Darkbloom) and simply playing around with arbitrarily selected sequences
until something ‘significant’ appears. Asking if such outcomes are mere
chance or were purposely embedded by VN is, in my non-humble opinion,
unanswerable, absent some clear contextual evidence or an
as-yet-undiscovered note by VN himself. The reason is simply that we
only get to hear of the anagrams that DO produce something of apparent
relevance (and that often stretched to support the juggler’s
interpretational agenda.)
In passing, I could mention that your anagram depends on spelling
‘looney’ as ‘loony,’ and why not? It’s all part of the anagramatic
game! Others are much more rash, borrowing and dropping letters (and
apostrophes) until the right phrase emerges. Available software eases
the pain:
<A href="http://www.anagramgenius.com/ag.html"
target=_blank>http://www.anagramgenius.com/ag.html
Which program converted (in 10 microseconds) Vladimir Nabokov to VIVID
AMORAL KNOB. Say it ain’t so!
I have coined the acronym HECUBA* to mock some of these
gematrian/pseudo-encrypted ploys applied to Shakespeare’s works: HiddEn
Clues Upholding Baconian Authorship. (Note the sneaky, spuriou
upper-case E!)
* The Devil’s DP Dictionary, SK-B, McGraw-Hill, 1981, entry at MUSE
(Most Unusual Shakespearean Engine), p.87
Stan Kelly-Bootle.
On 11/06/2010 23:47, "NABOKV-L" <NABOKV-L@HOLYCROSS.EDU> wrote:
In the spring 2010 Nabokovian, Alex Roy points out that according to the
Index to PF, Gradus should appear in the note to line 12; however, he is
not explicitly mentioned there. Roy finds him in an anagram of Angus
MacDiarmid, which he refigures as "Gradus, ici madman" (ici = institute
for the criminally insane, Jack G's last address). Anagram-hunting is
not my sport (it's hard to tell the difference between chance and
intent) but were I to play that game, I would point out another anagram
directly following the MacDiarmid one. Paired with our man Angus is
"Southey's Lingo-Grande," which, anagramized, comes out as "see Gradus,
loony thing." Or, if you prefer a more index-like entry, "Gradus, see
loony thing." So, does this double incidence confirm intention, or does
it make the opposite point--that anagrams occur by chance all the time,
so we should be wary of assigning intent?
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/
Kelly-Bootle. -- SES]
Matt: I suspect from your subjunctive (‘if I were ...’) that we both
feel in our bones that pulling out arbitrary strings of text and
juggling their letters is unlikely to contribute to serious literary
analysis? Nabokov indulges in many forms of word play (puns,
mis-illusions-allusions, rhyming-slang, acrostics, spoonerisms,
anagrams) but they are served with donnish knowing winks, nudges (and
even the occasional embarrassing smirk) aimed at his prefered target
audience. But, this audience of creative re-readers really disserve the
Master if they overly dwell on these amusing but insignificant and
short-lived tics and tricks. Future generations will be as puzzled as we
are today by Shakespeare’s dated verbal jokes! What is that FOOL saying?
We still need the odd gloss to guide us through the allusions, puns and
shifting lexis, whether 14th or 20th century, but humour of the lasting,
universal variety shines through the invented narrative: characters and
situations. The point being that Nabokov’s genius, like the Bard’s, runs
unfathomable fathoms deeper than transient word play.
With respect to the sport of anagram hunting, there is a huge difference
between VN’s own pointed, obvious, witty permutations (e.g., Vivian
Darkbloom) and simply playing around with arbitrarily selected sequences
until something ‘significant’ appears. Asking if such outcomes are mere
chance or were purposely embedded by VN is, in my non-humble opinion,
unanswerable, absent some clear contextual evidence or an
as-yet-undiscovered note by VN himself. The reason is simply that we
only get to hear of the anagrams that DO produce something of apparent
relevance (and that often stretched to support the juggler’s
interpretational agenda.)
In passing, I could mention that your anagram depends on spelling
‘looney’ as ‘loony,’ and why not? It’s all part of the anagramatic
game! Others are much more rash, borrowing and dropping letters (and
apostrophes) until the right phrase emerges. Available software eases
the pain:
<A href="http://www.anagramgenius.com/ag.html"
target=_blank>http://www.anagramgenius.com/ag.html
Which program converted (in 10 microseconds) Vladimir Nabokov to VIVID
AMORAL KNOB. Say it ain’t so!
I have coined the acronym HECUBA* to mock some of these
gematrian/pseudo-encrypted ploys applied to Shakespeare’s works: HiddEn
Clues Upholding Baconian Authorship. (Note the sneaky, spuriou
upper-case E!)
* The Devil’s DP Dictionary, SK-B, McGraw-Hill, 1981, entry at MUSE
(Most Unusual Shakespearean Engine), p.87
Stan Kelly-Bootle.
On 11/06/2010 23:47, "NABOKV-L" <NABOKV-L@HOLYCROSS.EDU> wrote:
In the spring 2010 Nabokovian, Alex Roy points out that according to the
Index to PF, Gradus should appear in the note to line 12; however, he is
not explicitly mentioned there. Roy finds him in an anagram of Angus
MacDiarmid, which he refigures as "Gradus, ici madman" (ici = institute
for the criminally insane, Jack G's last address). Anagram-hunting is
not my sport (it's hard to tell the difference between chance and
intent) but were I to play that game, I would point out another anagram
directly following the MacDiarmid one. Paired with our man Angus is
"Southey's Lingo-Grande," which, anagramized, comes out as "see Gradus,
loony thing." Or, if you prefer a more index-like entry, "Gradus, see
loony thing." So, does this double incidence confirm intention, or does
it make the opposite point--that anagrams occur by chance all the time,
so we should be wary of assigning intent?
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/