Subject
Re: Boyd's elegant reply (fwd)
From
Date
Body
*** I am also a fan of _Centuries of Childhood_ which I strongly
recommend to anyone interested in the subject. GD ***
From: Ellen Pifer <epifer@odin.english.udel.edu>
Galya,
You're right that children aren't DOMINANT literary characters
until the 19th century, but there are some scholars who have discussed earlier
(mainly 18th century) portrayals--e.g. a recent book by T.G.A. Nelson
whose title I can't remember at the moment. (There are several books on
the 19th century literary representation of children, e.g., Coveney's
POOR MONKEY.
A seminal book on this topic--the cultural construction of
childhood --is Philippe Aries's CENTURIES OF CHILDHOOD (1962 English
translation). He traces our modern concept of children from the late 17th
century. I discuss a few of these issues in my 1993 article, "Innocence and
Experience Replayed: From SPEAK, MEMORY to ADA," CYCNOS 10, 1 (1993),
and discuss them at much greater length in my just-completed
book-manuscript on literary children. I don't have the time or energy to
summarize all that here, however; hopefully, it will be in print in the
not-too-distant future!
Ellen Pifer
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Galya Diment wrote:
> *** Jim's comment about children as sexual beings and Freud's influence on
> that perception got me thinking whether one can come up with pre-Freudian
> examples of the same as portrayed in literature. I suspect children as
> young humans -- rather than decorative presences -- are not that common in
> literature at all until the early 19th century. Much of that, I presume,
> has to do less with psychology than with social and demographic trends,
> with who populated literature until then and how the children of the
> classes who populated it -- and wrote it -- were raised, or how often they
> participated in the lives of grown ups. I think it's an interesting issue
> to explore. Any comments? GD***
>
>
> >From Jim Morrison jamorrison@metronet.de
>
> How about Brian Boyd's nicely worded reply to
> my nasty email? Once again, thank you Brian,
> for your composure and your thoughtfulness. I hope
> you read my later two postings that apologized
> for my near shrieking tone. The longer that
> original post stays into existence, the more embarrassed
> by it I become. Good luck with your new book.
>
> Just for the record, I not very much in favor of a Freudian
> reading of Lolita. I actually have problems with the
> idea of psychoanalyzing fictional characters. After all,
> they don't have any psyche's to analyze. I simply wanted
> to purpose a possible application of Freudian
> theory that didn't seem to be absurd. Maybe wrong, but
> not totally lacking in substance.
>
> If you can bear with me, I'd like to go into greater detail on
> what Freud can bring to the discussion by way of quoting
> Boyd on Lolita. "By the covert parallels he [Nabokov] constructs between
> the climaxes of the novel's two parts, he indicates that in
> both scenes there is the same romantic sense of the imperious
> dictates of desire, the same overriding quest for self-satisfaction
> even at the expense of another life." Well said. My charitable reading of
> Freud allows me to appreciate that Freud could have
> written something very close to this. Postulating the existence
> of such an entity as the libido may be going too far, but if we
> think of the libido as simply a metaphor for desire, ignoring Freud's
> insistence that it actually exists, it seems to me that we can
> cite Freud's writings as support for Boyd's assertion about
> Humbert's motivation. We don't need to, but to me it seems like
> an intellectual exercise worth doing, an analogy worth considering.
> I think a lot can be learned by examining positions that are close to
> but not quite the same as positions we favor. It's gives us a better
> grasp on what we feel is correct.
>
> I don't think there is much point in reading Freud's writings
> as a big handbook for living, but I do feel he has written very many
> suggestive things that we can rewardingly ponder. I'd like to
> quote a few lines from Freud. I believe you'll see they have worth.
> Please keep in mind that I think these quotes are more evocative
> than absolutely correct conclusions derived from intense scientific
> inquiry. Much of Freud is obviously very far removed from what
> we usually think of as science. He seems to me more speculator
> than scientist.
>
> Consider the following with respect to Nabokov's stance
> against totalitarianism. " No matter how much restriction civilization
> imposes on the individual, he nevertheless finds some way to
> circumvent it. Wit is the best safety valve modern man has evolved."
>
> How about this for a comment on religion seen in the
> light of the Freud/Nabokov issue?
> "Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be
> forced into unbelief." Isn't that close to what someone
> on the list said about politics, religion and Freud?
>
> "Nothing can be bought to an end in the unconscious; nothing is
> past or forgotten." That sounds close to what Nabokov thought
> about memory. (Nabokov must have detested the idea
> of the unconsciousness. I'd like to ask him just what he thought was doing
> the dreaming when he slept.)
>
> Here is Freud on Jung. He might as well have been talking
> about himself. "Anyone who promises to mankind liberation
> from the hardship of sex will be hailed as a hero, let him talk
> what ever nonsense he chooses."
>
> Here's a quote that I'm not going to comment on at all.
> "The great question that has never been answered, and which
> I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research
> into the feminine soul: What does a woman want?"
>
> How about this in relation to Humbert's attitude towards Lolita?
> "To touch is the beginning of every act of possession, of every
> attempt to make use of a person or thing."
>
> Someone of the list mentioned he didn't like Marx. Freud
> too had reservations. "The writings of Marx have
> taken the place of the Bible.. though they would seem to be
> no more free from contradictions... than those older sacred works."
>
> And let's consider the following in relationship to Nabokov's
> praise of the individual. "As regards intellectual work, it remains
> a fact indeed, that great decisions in the realms of thought and
> momentous discoveries and solutions of problems are only
> possible to an individual, working in solitude."
>
> And how about this as a reason for the tone of some of
> our recent postings. "...the first man to use abusive language
> instead of his fists was the founder to civilization." We were
> just imitating the founders of civilization. I feel better already.
>
> Notice the absolutist rhetoric in those quotes. Freud frequently
> overstates the case. It's one of his biggest faults. But isn't
> literature full of such sayings? (Along with our everyday
> conversations.) Don't we still talk about those
> literary statements with enthusiasm. Truth is beauty, beauty
> truth. To thine own self be true, etc.
>
> I've also been wondering about the relationship between
> Freud's ideas on the sexual lives of children and Lolita.
> Were there people before Freud who thought of
> children as sexual beings? Not simply as bodies to be
> raped and abused, but as desiring creatures. I'm no sexual historian. I
> don't know.
> It seems to me that Lolita can be seen as an example
> of a child free of sexual repression. She can be seen as other things,
> of course. I'm just offering one interpretation among many. Don't many
> scholars
> make heavy use of her coming onto Humbert? Doesn't the use of
> that tactic, which in effect puts Humbert in a slightly sympathetic light,
> have some origin in Freud's being able to get people talking about
> the amorous urges of children? I think that without Freud's influence
> we would find much of Lolita's behavior fantastical instead of
> that of a preciousness young teen.
>
> The preceding paragraph was actually a simplification of my
> views on the issue, but the length of this posting would have
> greatly increased if I would have gone into more detail.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
recommend to anyone interested in the subject. GD ***
From: Ellen Pifer <epifer@odin.english.udel.edu>
Galya,
You're right that children aren't DOMINANT literary characters
until the 19th century, but there are some scholars who have discussed earlier
(mainly 18th century) portrayals--e.g. a recent book by T.G.A. Nelson
whose title I can't remember at the moment. (There are several books on
the 19th century literary representation of children, e.g., Coveney's
POOR MONKEY.
A seminal book on this topic--the cultural construction of
childhood --is Philippe Aries's CENTURIES OF CHILDHOOD (1962 English
translation). He traces our modern concept of children from the late 17th
century. I discuss a few of these issues in my 1993 article, "Innocence and
Experience Replayed: From SPEAK, MEMORY to ADA," CYCNOS 10, 1 (1993),
and discuss them at much greater length in my just-completed
book-manuscript on literary children. I don't have the time or energy to
summarize all that here, however; hopefully, it will be in print in the
not-too-distant future!
Ellen Pifer
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Galya Diment wrote:
> *** Jim's comment about children as sexual beings and Freud's influence on
> that perception got me thinking whether one can come up with pre-Freudian
> examples of the same as portrayed in literature. I suspect children as
> young humans -- rather than decorative presences -- are not that common in
> literature at all until the early 19th century. Much of that, I presume,
> has to do less with psychology than with social and demographic trends,
> with who populated literature until then and how the children of the
> classes who populated it -- and wrote it -- were raised, or how often they
> participated in the lives of grown ups. I think it's an interesting issue
> to explore. Any comments? GD***
>
>
> >From Jim Morrison jamorrison@metronet.de
>
> How about Brian Boyd's nicely worded reply to
> my nasty email? Once again, thank you Brian,
> for your composure and your thoughtfulness. I hope
> you read my later two postings that apologized
> for my near shrieking tone. The longer that
> original post stays into existence, the more embarrassed
> by it I become. Good luck with your new book.
>
> Just for the record, I not very much in favor of a Freudian
> reading of Lolita. I actually have problems with the
> idea of psychoanalyzing fictional characters. After all,
> they don't have any psyche's to analyze. I simply wanted
> to purpose a possible application of Freudian
> theory that didn't seem to be absurd. Maybe wrong, but
> not totally lacking in substance.
>
> If you can bear with me, I'd like to go into greater detail on
> what Freud can bring to the discussion by way of quoting
> Boyd on Lolita. "By the covert parallels he [Nabokov] constructs between
> the climaxes of the novel's two parts, he indicates that in
> both scenes there is the same romantic sense of the imperious
> dictates of desire, the same overriding quest for self-satisfaction
> even at the expense of another life." Well said. My charitable reading of
> Freud allows me to appreciate that Freud could have
> written something very close to this. Postulating the existence
> of such an entity as the libido may be going too far, but if we
> think of the libido as simply a metaphor for desire, ignoring Freud's
> insistence that it actually exists, it seems to me that we can
> cite Freud's writings as support for Boyd's assertion about
> Humbert's motivation. We don't need to, but to me it seems like
> an intellectual exercise worth doing, an analogy worth considering.
> I think a lot can be learned by examining positions that are close to
> but not quite the same as positions we favor. It's gives us a better
> grasp on what we feel is correct.
>
> I don't think there is much point in reading Freud's writings
> as a big handbook for living, but I do feel he has written very many
> suggestive things that we can rewardingly ponder. I'd like to
> quote a few lines from Freud. I believe you'll see they have worth.
> Please keep in mind that I think these quotes are more evocative
> than absolutely correct conclusions derived from intense scientific
> inquiry. Much of Freud is obviously very far removed from what
> we usually think of as science. He seems to me more speculator
> than scientist.
>
> Consider the following with respect to Nabokov's stance
> against totalitarianism. " No matter how much restriction civilization
> imposes on the individual, he nevertheless finds some way to
> circumvent it. Wit is the best safety valve modern man has evolved."
>
> How about this for a comment on religion seen in the
> light of the Freud/Nabokov issue?
> "Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be
> forced into unbelief." Isn't that close to what someone
> on the list said about politics, religion and Freud?
>
> "Nothing can be bought to an end in the unconscious; nothing is
> past or forgotten." That sounds close to what Nabokov thought
> about memory. (Nabokov must have detested the idea
> of the unconsciousness. I'd like to ask him just what he thought was doing
> the dreaming when he slept.)
>
> Here is Freud on Jung. He might as well have been talking
> about himself. "Anyone who promises to mankind liberation
> from the hardship of sex will be hailed as a hero, let him talk
> what ever nonsense he chooses."
>
> Here's a quote that I'm not going to comment on at all.
> "The great question that has never been answered, and which
> I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research
> into the feminine soul: What does a woman want?"
>
> How about this in relation to Humbert's attitude towards Lolita?
> "To touch is the beginning of every act of possession, of every
> attempt to make use of a person or thing."
>
> Someone of the list mentioned he didn't like Marx. Freud
> too had reservations. "The writings of Marx have
> taken the place of the Bible.. though they would seem to be
> no more free from contradictions... than those older sacred works."
>
> And let's consider the following in relationship to Nabokov's
> praise of the individual. "As regards intellectual work, it remains
> a fact indeed, that great decisions in the realms of thought and
> momentous discoveries and solutions of problems are only
> possible to an individual, working in solitude."
>
> And how about this as a reason for the tone of some of
> our recent postings. "...the first man to use abusive language
> instead of his fists was the founder to civilization." We were
> just imitating the founders of civilization. I feel better already.
>
> Notice the absolutist rhetoric in those quotes. Freud frequently
> overstates the case. It's one of his biggest faults. But isn't
> literature full of such sayings? (Along with our everyday
> conversations.) Don't we still talk about those
> literary statements with enthusiasm. Truth is beauty, beauty
> truth. To thine own self be true, etc.
>
> I've also been wondering about the relationship between
> Freud's ideas on the sexual lives of children and Lolita.
> Were there people before Freud who thought of
> children as sexual beings? Not simply as bodies to be
> raped and abused, but as desiring creatures. I'm no sexual historian. I
> don't know.
> It seems to me that Lolita can be seen as an example
> of a child free of sexual repression. She can be seen as other things,
> of course. I'm just offering one interpretation among many. Don't many
> scholars
> make heavy use of her coming onto Humbert? Doesn't the use of
> that tactic, which in effect puts Humbert in a slightly sympathetic light,
> have some origin in Freud's being able to get people talking about
> the amorous urges of children? I think that without Freud's influence
> we would find much of Lolita's behavior fantastical instead of
> that of a preciousness young teen.
>
> The preceding paragraph was actually a simplification of my
> views on the issue, but the length of this posting would have
> greatly increased if I would have gone into more detail.
>
>
>
> Jim
>