Subject
Fw: Lolita, Carolyn and Loyalty
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexander Drescher
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: Lolita, Carolyn and Loyalty
Don and List-
Perhaps the current tempest/teapot, mole-hill/mountain discussion is useful, if predictable, and the Maar article but a pretext.
V. V. Nabokov asserted:
1] He had read widely and well but was influenced by no author. 2] His work was not autobiographical.
3] His creations arose within an intellect which inherently abhorred cruelty but was free of other [political, social, economic, literary, etc.] influences.
Choose one: A] Nabokov did not read the German text and the mathematical laws of coincidence do defy common sense. Or, B] he did read it and his Lolita is another puzzle/joke, a trick of the unconscious, a mysterious oversight...whatever. Unfortunately, to choose is to proceed without data. Aside from suggesting a search for an answer hidden by the Master, a better course is to re-examine the three assertions above.
To believe these statements were made tongue-in-cheek is to presume an unauthorized and unwarranted meta-critical knowingness. To believe that these assertions are simply impossible again assumes the meta-critical posture, denying Nabokov the right to define himself. To accept all three stimulates [and has stimulated] questions concerning human authority in relation to the transcendent. As Nabokov raised this last question, it is pertinent even though subject to easy mockery.
Perhaps one can be loyal to Nabokov the writer with simple gratitude for the pleasures he has provided. Perhaps loyalty requires affirmation of the three assertions. But if it is so that even the greatest mortal alchemists can not create from nothing, is the magic of their transmutations less wondrous?
Alexander Drescher