NABOKV-L post 0010568, Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:08:09 -0800

Subject
Fwd: RE: Typo? "Signs and Symbols" beech/beach
Date
Body
Thanks very much to Sandy Drescher for discovering the beech/beach plum
discrepancy, which indeed eluded me. Yes, it sounds like the notorious New
Yorker fact-checkers were at work. I too vote for number 2. And my hunch
is that, when it came time to collect "S&S" in book form, VN did his own
fact-checking and determined that "beech plum" was exactly what he meant to
say.

J. Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald B. Johnson [mailto:chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:27 AM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Fwd: Typo? "Signs and Symbols" beech/beach




----- Forwarded message from bunsan@direcway.com -----
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:58:28 -0500
From: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>

To The List-

The following discrepancy was not addressed in by J. Morris ["Signs and
Symbols and Signs." The Nabokovian, Spring 1994, 32, pp. 24-28.]:

In the penultimate sentence of "Signs and Symbols" [Vintage, Stories p
603], one of the eloquent labels reads "beech plum". In the May 15,
1948 New Yorker, "Symbols and Signs", it reads "beach plum".

Either 1] the New Yorker fact-checker 'corrected' a 'mistake' in the
manuscript [beeches bear nuts; beach plums grow on an unrelated shrub;
BeechNut made the jellies] OR, 2] Nabokov decided to forego an
additional editorial squabble and accept the change pro tempore; OR 3]
the Vintage version is a typographer's slip.

I like answer number 2. Can someone shed light on this?

-Sandy Drescher

----- End forwarded message -----
EDNOTE. One suspects The NEW YORKER slipped up. It would be good though if
someone checked the MS in the Berg. The story is so full of tantalizing
hints
that every possibility deserves checking. Especially those damned fruit
jellies.

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