Subject
Re: VN vs. Freud (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Brad Buchsbaum <brad@petlab.mssm.edu>
I do not think Nabokov ever writes at length about the reasons for his
detestation of Freud. In general, though, his contempt for Freud is
along the same lines as his contempt for Marx--that is, he cannot
tolerate systems of thought which neglect the individual (or
"individuum", with his two u's hallooing helplessly amidst the dense
growth of economic causes). Freud's theory belongs to the domain of
"general" ideas and, as such, cannot possibly account for the
idiosyncracies of each person's mind. Such ideas tend to treat
all of humanity as one person, with one collective mind. This is of
course, anathema to VN--the ultimate "group" or "club" or "pigeonhole".
VN said once that he took delight in explaining his dreams without using
one of Freud's vulgar precepts. The fact that there are multiple (indeed,
probably an infinite number) explanations for a dream is itself a
devastating criticism of Freud's theories. For, who is to say which one
is *true*? It is really a matter of taste. And in the end, with VN, it
was a matter of taste. He preferred his own explanations to the canned,
one-fits-all, and deterministic explanations of SF. I don't blame him, I
much prefer his imagination to Freud's (and "imagination" is the
right word. Freud was not practicing "science").
Brad Buchsbaum
I do not think Nabokov ever writes at length about the reasons for his
detestation of Freud. In general, though, his contempt for Freud is
along the same lines as his contempt for Marx--that is, he cannot
tolerate systems of thought which neglect the individual (or
"individuum", with his two u's hallooing helplessly amidst the dense
growth of economic causes). Freud's theory belongs to the domain of
"general" ideas and, as such, cannot possibly account for the
idiosyncracies of each person's mind. Such ideas tend to treat
all of humanity as one person, with one collective mind. This is of
course, anathema to VN--the ultimate "group" or "club" or "pigeonhole".
VN said once that he took delight in explaining his dreams without using
one of Freud's vulgar precepts. The fact that there are multiple (indeed,
probably an infinite number) explanations for a dream is itself a
devastating criticism of Freud's theories. For, who is to say which one
is *true*? It is really a matter of taste. And in the end, with VN, it
was a matter of taste. He preferred his own explanations to the canned,
one-fits-all, and deterministic explanations of SF. I don't blame him, I
much prefer his imagination to Freud's (and "imagination" is the
right word. Freud was not practicing "science").
Brad Buchsbaum