Subject
Fw: Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
From
Date
Body
EDRESPONSE. Jansy's point is well taken. Personally, I doubt there is any
"genetic" connection between the two works. On the other hand, the
discussion has generated a couple of interesting tidbits. And sometimes
completely off-the-wall opinions lead to valuable results. The discussion
is intriguing in two ways. A good number of people have been exposed to the
thoughts of some very well informed people. The whole thing provides a case
study in what our German friends call "reception theory." Nothing that
encourages people to read VN is all bad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@aetern.us>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (159
lines) ------------------
> Dear Don and List
> The continuous flow of comments on Maar is too "maarrant" for words.
I
> suggest we try to transform this endless debate into something more
> profitable for everyone, such as a discussion on what exactly "a quote"
and
> "plagiarism" mean, or what constitutes "a work of art". The distance
> between VN´s "Lolita" and Lichberg´s is so wide as to be incommensurable.
> Why do we accept that those two works could be significantly approached
> here in this list? Is anyone going to have a last word at last?
> Jansy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 2:05 AM
> Subject: Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dieter E. Zimmer" <mail@d-e-zimmer.de>
> > To: "Don Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:23 PM
> > Subject: Reply to Maar
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Don,
> > >
> > > I have the impression the UCSB server thoroughly misunderstood the
> posting
> > I
> > > tried to send to the List yesterday. It obviously tried to execute its
> > words
> > > as computer commands and noted that I would have to consult HELP at
each
> > > one. So probably you have not received anything. It was a copy of the
> > Letter
> > > to the Editor I have sent to the TLS in reply to Maar's. So here it is
> > > again, going directly to your own mailbox.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Dieter
> > >
> > > May 9, 2004 -- 6:15am
> > >
> > >
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > > *
> > >
> > > Sir, - If Mr. Maar thinks my humour un-German, I'll gladly dispense
with
> > it
> > > and state my objection bluntly. Let's talk turkey.
> > >
> > > Mr. Maar's contention is that there is a story A (Lichberg's "Lolita",
> > 1916)
> > > and there is a novel B (Nabokov's "Lolita", 1955), that there are a
> number
> > > of agreements between A and B and therefore it is
possible/likely/almost
> > > certain that Nabokov was acquainted with A and that unknown to himself
A
>
> > > shaped B in various respects. He did not offer a shred of positive
> > evidence
> > > that Nabokov actually knew A or its author. He did not calculate the
> odds
> > > of two men ever meeting who live in a city of over four million -- and
> in
> > > two segregated social environments within that city (German Berlin and
> > > Russian Berlin). He did not offer the slightest hint how the
mysterious
> > > migration of some of A's (forgotten!) elements into B a quarter of a
> > century
> > > later might have come about. His case rests solely on those
agreements.
> > > The reasoning as such is perfectly sound. The more items of agreement
> > there
> > > are, the less likely it is that A and B are unrelated. The question
is
> > just
> > > what you want to count as an agreement. In his letter, Mr. Maar
> > commendably
> > > gives a list of what he considers tell-tale agreements. "1) The title
> is
> > > identical, and the heroine has the same name. 2) She is very young.
3)
> > She
> > > is the daughter of a figure who lets a room by the sea (lake), where
the
> > > narrator wants to take a break. 4) She has an affair with the
narrator
> > and
> > > seduces him. 5) She is, like the later nymphet, half-demon and
> > half-child.
> > > 6) The finale is a grotesque, dream-like murder scene. 7) Nabokov's
> > Lolita
> > > dies after giving birth to a daughter; Lichberg's Lola is murdered
after
> > the
> > > birth of her daughter."
> > >
> > > Now the important thing to grasp is that only specific agreements
count,
> > and
> > > an open list of unspecific ones doesn't. This is so because otherwise
> you
> > > could produce any number of agreements at will just by slackening or
> > > tightening the criteria of what you want to count as one. Here there
is
> > just
> > > one specific agreement, #1, the name 'Lolita'. This is impressive and
> > > suggestive, but not very much so, for 'Lolita' is not Lichberg's
> invention
> > > but a fairly common Spanish appellation known to everybody, deriving
> from
> > > 'Dolores' via 'Lola'. All the other agreements are not specific
details
> > but
> > > unspecific jumbles of what you may, or may not, consider
"resemblances".
> > > Take #2 : "Both girls are very young" -- sure, young they are, but
there
> > is
> > > an all-important difference : Nabokov's narrator was tormented by
Lolita
> > > being still a child (yes, sorry, of 12;5) while Lichberg's did not
worry
> a
> > > bit over her age. As Humbert explains, one or two years make all the
> > > difference for a lover of nymphets. Or #4 : "She has an affair with
the
> > > narrator" -- in what love-story doesn't some woman have an affair with
> > some
> > > man? Or #7 : "birth-daughter-homicide" -- but Nabokov's Humbert kills
> not
> > > Lolita but his rival Quilty, and it is not Lichberg's Lolita who had
> been
> > > killed in the story's past but her mother. I suppose the agreement
> > between
> > > a small and crooked Spanish harbour inn and a white-frame home in
> suburban
> > > America is that both are buildings, and the one between the
> Mediterranean
> > > and a New England lake is that both are water. So this composite
> > agreement
> > > #3 reads, "man meets girl in residence of one of her parents and
located
> > > near some kind of water". What kind of agreements are these? Well,
> they
> > > are unspecific and accordingly uncompelling. Without the 'Lolita'
> > > agreement, you might not consider them agreements at all. In this
> fashion
> > > one could link almost everything to almost everything. If Mr. Maar
had
> > come
> > > up with only one additional specific agreement (say if Lichberg's
> narrator
> > > had a nasty double name like Heinz Heinz), he would have persuaded me.
> As
> > > it stands, I continue to consider his case utterly unconvincing. What
I
> > > find exasperating, however, is something else. Even if it could be
> > > substantiated that Nabokov in fact knew Lichberg's story, there would
be
> > > little insight to be gained from a discovery of this sort. Nabokov
was
> a
> > > most avid reader, and in all of his works there are countless overt
and
> > > covert literary echos. A Lichberg echo in Lolita would be just one
> more,
> > > and
> > > not a significant one. It wouldn't matter.
> > >
> > > Dr. Dieter E. Zimmer
> > > Claudiusstrasse 6
> > > Berlin
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
"genetic" connection between the two works. On the other hand, the
discussion has generated a couple of interesting tidbits. And sometimes
completely off-the-wall opinions lead to valuable results. The discussion
is intriguing in two ways. A good number of people have been exposed to the
thoughts of some very well informed people. The whole thing provides a case
study in what our German friends call "reception theory." Nothing that
encourages people to read VN is all bad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@aetern.us>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (159
lines) ------------------
> Dear Don and List
> The continuous flow of comments on Maar is too "maarrant" for words.
I
> suggest we try to transform this endless debate into something more
> profitable for everyone, such as a discussion on what exactly "a quote"
and
> "plagiarism" mean, or what constitutes "a work of art". The distance
> between VN´s "Lolita" and Lichberg´s is so wide as to be incommensurable.
> Why do we accept that those two works could be significantly approached
> here in this list? Is anyone going to have a last word at last?
> Jansy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 2:05 AM
> Subject: Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dieter E. Zimmer" <mail@d-e-zimmer.de>
> > To: "Don Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:23 PM
> > Subject: Reply to Maar
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Don,
> > >
> > > I have the impression the UCSB server thoroughly misunderstood the
> posting
> > I
> > > tried to send to the List yesterday. It obviously tried to execute its
> > words
> > > as computer commands and noted that I would have to consult HELP at
each
> > > one. So probably you have not received anything. It was a copy of the
> > Letter
> > > to the Editor I have sent to the TLS in reply to Maar's. So here it is
> > > again, going directly to your own mailbox.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Dieter
> > >
> > > May 9, 2004 -- 6:15am
> > >
> > >
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > > *
> > >
> > > Sir, - If Mr. Maar thinks my humour un-German, I'll gladly dispense
with
> > it
> > > and state my objection bluntly. Let's talk turkey.
> > >
> > > Mr. Maar's contention is that there is a story A (Lichberg's "Lolita",
> > 1916)
> > > and there is a novel B (Nabokov's "Lolita", 1955), that there are a
> number
> > > of agreements between A and B and therefore it is
possible/likely/almost
> > > certain that Nabokov was acquainted with A and that unknown to himself
A
>
> > > shaped B in various respects. He did not offer a shred of positive
> > evidence
> > > that Nabokov actually knew A or its author. He did not calculate the
> odds
> > > of two men ever meeting who live in a city of over four million -- and
> in
> > > two segregated social environments within that city (German Berlin and
> > > Russian Berlin). He did not offer the slightest hint how the
mysterious
> > > migration of some of A's (forgotten!) elements into B a quarter of a
> > century
> > > later might have come about. His case rests solely on those
agreements.
> > > The reasoning as such is perfectly sound. The more items of agreement
> > there
> > > are, the less likely it is that A and B are unrelated. The question
is
> > just
> > > what you want to count as an agreement. In his letter, Mr. Maar
> > commendably
> > > gives a list of what he considers tell-tale agreements. "1) The title
> is
> > > identical, and the heroine has the same name. 2) She is very young.
3)
> > She
> > > is the daughter of a figure who lets a room by the sea (lake), where
the
> > > narrator wants to take a break. 4) She has an affair with the
narrator
> > and
> > > seduces him. 5) She is, like the later nymphet, half-demon and
> > half-child.
> > > 6) The finale is a grotesque, dream-like murder scene. 7) Nabokov's
> > Lolita
> > > dies after giving birth to a daughter; Lichberg's Lola is murdered
after
> > the
> > > birth of her daughter."
> > >
> > > Now the important thing to grasp is that only specific agreements
count,
> > and
> > > an open list of unspecific ones doesn't. This is so because otherwise
> you
> > > could produce any number of agreements at will just by slackening or
> > > tightening the criteria of what you want to count as one. Here there
is
> > just
> > > one specific agreement, #1, the name 'Lolita'. This is impressive and
> > > suggestive, but not very much so, for 'Lolita' is not Lichberg's
> invention
> > > but a fairly common Spanish appellation known to everybody, deriving
> from
> > > 'Dolores' via 'Lola'. All the other agreements are not specific
details
> > but
> > > unspecific jumbles of what you may, or may not, consider
"resemblances".
> > > Take #2 : "Both girls are very young" -- sure, young they are, but
there
> > is
> > > an all-important difference : Nabokov's narrator was tormented by
Lolita
> > > being still a child (yes, sorry, of 12;5) while Lichberg's did not
worry
> a
> > > bit over her age. As Humbert explains, one or two years make all the
> > > difference for a lover of nymphets. Or #4 : "She has an affair with
the
> > > narrator" -- in what love-story doesn't some woman have an affair with
> > some
> > > man? Or #7 : "birth-daughter-homicide" -- but Nabokov's Humbert kills
> not
> > > Lolita but his rival Quilty, and it is not Lichberg's Lolita who had
> been
> > > killed in the story's past but her mother. I suppose the agreement
> > between
> > > a small and crooked Spanish harbour inn and a white-frame home in
> suburban
> > > America is that both are buildings, and the one between the
> Mediterranean
> > > and a New England lake is that both are water. So this composite
> > agreement
> > > #3 reads, "man meets girl in residence of one of her parents and
located
> > > near some kind of water". What kind of agreements are these? Well,
> they
> > > are unspecific and accordingly uncompelling. Without the 'Lolita'
> > > agreement, you might not consider them agreements at all. In this
> fashion
> > > one could link almost everything to almost everything. If Mr. Maar
had
> > come
> > > up with only one additional specific agreement (say if Lichberg's
> narrator
> > > had a nasty double name like Heinz Heinz), he would have persuaded me.
> As
> > > it stands, I continue to consider his case utterly unconvincing. What
I
> > > find exasperating, however, is something else. Even if it could be
> > > substantiated that Nabokov in fact knew Lichberg's story, there would
be
> > > little insight to be gained from a discovery of this sort. Nabokov
was
> a
> > > most avid reader, and in all of his works there are countless overt
and
> > > covert literary echos. A Lichberg echo in Lolita would be just one
> more,
> > > and
> > > not a significant one. It wouldn't matter.
> > >
> > > Dr. Dieter E. Zimmer
> > > Claudiusstrasse 6
> > > Berlin
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>