Subject
Re: Nabokov and Pedophilia (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>
> From: Ori Redler <ori@aristo.co.il>
>
> Is it possible to write about something without identyfing with it, at
> least to some extent?
Well, yes, I should think so. To use a rather trivial example, would
you insist that an author describing cannibalistic practices of some
remote tribe must necessarily identify with them?
On a more serious note, I find this question (no offence meant, naturally)
to be a perfect example of the vague and painfully sentimental kind
of criticism so much deplored by Nabokov. I think that the verb 'identify'
is especially dangerous and invariably brings trouble.
Does Servantes identify with Don Quixote? To the extent that such a silly
question deserves consideration, obviously he doesn't. Does Rabelais
identify with Gargantua? An affirmative answer to such questions is
almost a given in this new wave of sentimental criticism; it cannot really
avoid the assumption that Nabokov must 'identify' with Humbert Humbert
either; psychoanalyzing and seeking roots in VN's childhood is
simply the next logical step.
It is easier to ridicule these concepts than to seriously criticize
them - exactly because they're so vague. What does it mean, really, to say
that Nabokov 'identifies' with Humbert Humbert? That he mistakes
his own life for HH's? That he inserts his own life into HH's? That
he lets HH to represent VN's own ideas to the world? In fact, it is easy
to notice that whenever an author is said to 'identify' with a hero,
it is actually the reader who _identifies_ the author with the hero.
The writer who suffered the most from this confusion, who is a true
martyr of sentimental criticism is, I'm sure, Kafka.
And why is it that the reader must identify VN with HH? Because it
follows inevitably from an even more basic myth - that a writer
is always 'writing about himself.' Nabokov could put a huge footnote
saying 'I despise pedophiles!' on every page of Lolita, and it still
wouldn't have helped. He _must_ be 'exploring his inner world',
to use another typical cliche, in his writings. Yes, Nabokov is
Humbert Humbert, and Lolita, and Van Veen, and Luzhin, in this
worldview.
So even writing about a pedophile, making him a hero of his novel, is
Nabokov's sin. His second sin is forcing us to like Humbert Humbert -
quite ironic, isn't it? _That_ is what makes VN an advocate of
pedophilia - the fact that he doesn't make HH evil enough. All of it
just shows how deeply this worldview of the-author-is-the-hero has
influenced modern readers, not just critics. Accusing VN of
advocating pedophilia is one sign among many; another sign, equally
absurd, is the fact that more and more schools attempt to ban, e.g.
Huckleberry Finn as racist.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
> From: Ori Redler <ori@aristo.co.il>
>
> Is it possible to write about something without identyfing with it, at
> least to some extent?
Well, yes, I should think so. To use a rather trivial example, would
you insist that an author describing cannibalistic practices of some
remote tribe must necessarily identify with them?
On a more serious note, I find this question (no offence meant, naturally)
to be a perfect example of the vague and painfully sentimental kind
of criticism so much deplored by Nabokov. I think that the verb 'identify'
is especially dangerous and invariably brings trouble.
Does Servantes identify with Don Quixote? To the extent that such a silly
question deserves consideration, obviously he doesn't. Does Rabelais
identify with Gargantua? An affirmative answer to such questions is
almost a given in this new wave of sentimental criticism; it cannot really
avoid the assumption that Nabokov must 'identify' with Humbert Humbert
either; psychoanalyzing and seeking roots in VN's childhood is
simply the next logical step.
It is easier to ridicule these concepts than to seriously criticize
them - exactly because they're so vague. What does it mean, really, to say
that Nabokov 'identifies' with Humbert Humbert? That he mistakes
his own life for HH's? That he inserts his own life into HH's? That
he lets HH to represent VN's own ideas to the world? In fact, it is easy
to notice that whenever an author is said to 'identify' with a hero,
it is actually the reader who _identifies_ the author with the hero.
The writer who suffered the most from this confusion, who is a true
martyr of sentimental criticism is, I'm sure, Kafka.
And why is it that the reader must identify VN with HH? Because it
follows inevitably from an even more basic myth - that a writer
is always 'writing about himself.' Nabokov could put a huge footnote
saying 'I despise pedophiles!' on every page of Lolita, and it still
wouldn't have helped. He _must_ be 'exploring his inner world',
to use another typical cliche, in his writings. Yes, Nabokov is
Humbert Humbert, and Lolita, and Van Veen, and Luzhin, in this
worldview.
So even writing about a pedophile, making him a hero of his novel, is
Nabokov's sin. His second sin is forcing us to like Humbert Humbert -
quite ironic, isn't it? _That_ is what makes VN an advocate of
pedophilia - the fact that he doesn't make HH evil enough. All of it
just shows how deeply this worldview of the-author-is-the-hero has
influenced modern readers, not just critics. Accusing VN of
advocating pedophilia is one sign among many; another sign, equally
absurd, is the fact that more and more schools attempt to ban, e.g.
Huckleberry Finn as racist.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton