NABOKV-L post 0011861, Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:48:11 -0700

Re: Fwd: Re: Centerwall etc...
Dear List,

I thought my abstract made it clear that Centerwall wanted to prove that VN
was a "closet pedophile". I take the trouble (a final one) of quoting
relevant sentences from the first page of his article which are unambiguous:

" opportune moment to consider that most heretical of questions, was
Vladimir Nabokov a closet pedophile?...Popular dogma notwithstanding, there
are adequate grounds for concluding that he was, as this essay will
demonstrate. More than mere intrusion into an author's private sexuality, at
stake is the very meaning of Lolita. For however vehemently my thesis may be
disputed, there can be no disputing the question's pivotal importance to any
comprehensive understanding of Nabokov's masterpiece. If Nabokov was truly a
closet pedophile, interpretations of Lolita that are predicated upon his
presumed sexual orthodoxy are necessarily incorrect.
I intrude upon Nabokov's privacy, but no offense need be taken...The late
Mr. Nabokov's contact toward children was, and remains, unimpeachable...
A final prefatory note: I take it as self-evident that Nabokov could easily
create a convincing portrait of a pedophile even if he were not one himself.
Therefore, I make no attempt to infer his pedophilia in so banal a manner.
The real evidence lies elsewhere." p. 468

A. Bouazza.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU]On
Behalf Of Donald B. Johnson
Sent: 13 September 2005 20:24
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Centerwall etc...


I shall look for the article and see if I can post it to the list.
While we don't know if Centerwall has called Nabokov a pedophile,
we do know that Jo Morgan has. Still, of course, that does not make
her claim that Nabokov had been molested as a child untrue. I agree
that Nabokov does have a high degree of sensitivity to the pain of
children subjected to abuse by adults, but couching the argument in
terms of "closet child advocate" (this quote may be innacurate it's
what I remember of a now deleted JM message) again belies an agenda
that undermines the credibility of the point. (Which of course
doesn't mean it's still not true:>))


--On Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:14 AM -0700 "Donald B. Johnson"
<> wrote:

> ----- Forwarded message from -----
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 07:01:45 -0800
> From: Carolyn Kunin <>
> Reply-To: Carolyn Kunin <>
> Subject: Re: Centerwall etc...
> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
>> Personally I find it incendiary and sensationalistic and
>> therefore dishonest, to label someone a pedophile without
>> voluminous evidence and to my mind, activity, even if you mean
>> it in the strictest sense of the word (OED definition
>> follows)and even if you could prove that that person HAD been
>> molested as a child by an adult
> Dear Suellen Stringer-Hye,
> I agree with you. If Centerwall has labeled VN himself as a
> pedophile, he had neither right nor reason to do so. The only
> part of the theory that interests me is the possibility that VN
> had been himself molested as a child. That unfortunately makes
> devastating sense which I should hasten to add, doesn't make it
> true.
> Carolyn
> ----- End forwarded message -----

Suellen Stringer-Hye
Vanderbilt University
Email: suellen.stringer-hye@Vanderbilt.Edu

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

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