NABOKV-L post 0011781, Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:46:38 -0700

Subject
Re: Fwd: Re: Response re Jo Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on
the Lolita/Lichberg issue.
Date
Body
The one notable similarity of chain VN-Morgan-Brown-Drescher is that text of
each is remarkably far from each other, in the order from left to right of
coursen (with steep initial descend in the first link). I, for one, find
appalling intellectual snobism of the kind displayed in parenthesis of
Andrew's welcome. Brown-like abundance of what?

- George Shimanovich

-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 10:14 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Response re Jo Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on
the Lolita/Lichberg issue.

Dear List- (From what culture do these salutations to The List, but not to
the persons one is responding to, originate? It can't really be Texas, can
it? Even though they glower with a Bush-like lack of tact.),

There is much to admire in Sandy Drescher's characterization of my post as
"anti-intuitive." To be safe, I looked up intuitive. Yes, it still meant
what I thought it did regarding perception and insight. Drescher's
"Hmmm........ very interesting" formulation is the time-honored
(unfortunately, by now cliched) smart person signal that a good kicking is
on the way. But, in a brilliant innovation, Sandy simply leaves it at that.
The weight of words that tempestuous Brown had offered instantly disappear
through Drescher's intellectual jujitsu. The phenomenon that Drescher
concedes, in reply to Gwendolyn (poor Gwendolyn, packaged together at a
discount with Brown) "is still unexplained, and worthy of investigation."
But not by the anti-intuitive who, though they may remember certain
events -- interestingly late -- obviously cannot offer an analysis worth a
real response. Sandy, not merely nimble but sagacious to boot, is not so
imprudent as to hazard an original view himself.

Andrew



----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 6:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Response re Jo Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on the
Lolita/Lichberg issue.


> Dear List-
>
> > ......It wasn't until I was in my forties that I remembered
> > at least three specific instances from childhood of this sort of thing
> > happening to me.......
> >
> > Andrew Brown
>
> Hmmm........Very interesting but anti-intuitive.
>
> This phenomenon is still unexplained and worthy of investigation.
> Gwendolen's explanation - "I am glad to say that I have never seen a
> spade." - is not the last word on the subject, as she well knew.
>
> -Sandy Drescher
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:35 PM
> > Subject: Jo Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on the Lolita/Lichberg
> > issue.
> >
> >
> >> Re the 'outrage'Kunin expects will one day be unleashed over Michael
> > Maar's
> >> arguments about the connection between VN's Lolita and Lichberg's
> >> minor
> >> work.
> >>
> >> I am still waiting for Nabokov's many scholars and fans to show
> >> sufficient
> >> interest in my book "Solving Nabokov's Lolita Riddle" (2005). By
> >> paying
> >> careful attention to Nabokov's well-documented battle against Sigmund
> > Freud
> >> and his strategy of encrypting deliberate 'blunders' across his
> >> memoirs
> >> (Speak, Memory/Conclusive Evidence and Eugene Onegin)I have managed to
> >> prove that Nabokov wrote Lolita as a
> >> semi-autobiographical/semi-fictional
> >> account of his own terrible incestuous abuse as a boy at the hands of
> >> his
> >> pedophilic Uncle Ruka.
> >>
> >> The dangerous confidence trick 'Nabokov the Magician' has pulled on
> >> everyone explains: 1) the many gender-bending games the author played
> >> around Humbert's 'twofold' nymphet (e.g. Lolita's 'boys knees, her
> > 'butcher-
> >> boy' pyjamas and 'tomboy shirt'); 2) the author's closing confession
> >> in
> > his
> >> so-called 'novel' Lolita - "I have camouflaged what I could so as not
> >> to
> >> hurt people"; and 3) Humbert's sly agreement that Lolita can take
> >> part in
> >> the Beardsley school play provided that boys parts are taken by girls
> >> parts. It also explains the blatant lie Nabokov told in his infamous
> >> postscript "On a Book Entitled Lolita" - namely that a US publisher
> >> had
> >> once proposed he replace his 12 year old girl with a boy.
> >>
> >> The revelations contained in my book with one day make Maar's work
> >> look
> >> like the proverbial storm in a tea cup. Please take the time to
> >> examine
> >> aspects of my analysis on my website www.lolitariddle.com. You can
> >> also
> >> order copies of my book via the website, if you so wish.
> >>
> >> With Lolita turning 50 this month, isn't it past time for Nabokov's
> >> 'time-
> >> bomb' to finally go off?
> >>
> >> Jo Morgan
> >>
> >> ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----

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

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