Subject
Re: Nabokov and Twelve-Year-Old Girls ...
From
Date
Body
Jim Twiggs writes:
"Our differences are perhaps as much of temperament as of substance.
Norquist, like so many others nowadays, seems deeply invested in protecting
the purity of VN and the motives (or passions) behind his works. At my
age--I am very old--I could care less whether VN’s inner life met what I
regard as conventional prudish standards or not. Nor do I care that *Lolita* is
as popular with pedophiles as it is in college English courses--which is
not to say that I don’t deplore pedophilia and child abuse as much as
anyone else. My main purpose in writing about MacLean’s remarks was to say
that anyone seriously interested in such questions about VN--which have
been with us since the day *Lolita* was published--should look to
heavyweights like Amis and Banville rather than pick on a glib and to me
inoffensive blogger. I also wanted to protest, in a mild way, Boyd’s
offering, as an “antidote” to MacLean’s “insinuations,” a piece of stale
conference-style puffery by guest celebrity Jeffrey Masson. Many of the
earliest commentators on *Lolita* liked to pretend that it was not “really”
about sex and child-rape but was a fancy allegory of one kind or another.
Some said it was not about sex but about love. In a similar spirit, the
current crop of commentators apparently need reassurance that far from
being a “transgressive” writer, VN was just about the most politically
correct guy you’d ever want to read. Working novelists like Amis and
Banville know better. And they have, like Maar, discussed these old
questions in a fresh new way.
As for the VN quote about his poem “Lilith,” I’m not convinced of its
importance. (I don’t, however, know the full context.) Many writers--VN not
least among them--are manipulative, self-deceived, or mischievous when
discussing their own work. Many of them say different things to different
audiences at different times and different places and for different
reasons. Furthermore, as Gore Vidal pointed out in his funny review of *Strong
Opinions*, VN had a valid reason for being touchy in some of his
interviews. “Periodically, the Professor is obliged to note that he himself
is not *repeat* not attracted to those very young girls who keep cropping
up in his work. (‘Lewis Carroll liked little girls. I don't.’) At these
moments, our proud Black Swan becomes an uneasy goose, fearful of being
cooked by Cornell's board of regents.” Vidal might also have mentioned VN’s
equally legitimate fear of having his work censored by the government.
Most important, the connection the quote denies is so obvious that no one
could fail to see it. Mentioning it only makes it more obvious. The
business about writing the poem to amuse a friend is a marvelous touch.
To conclude my response to Norquist, I should point out that I explicitly
acknowledged that VN “seems to have been a model of health and good
citizenship” in some of the ways that matter to me and that I agreed with
Gwynn about the supposed Sun Valley escapade. But if Norquist doubts the
extent of the “passion for sex, much of it with underage girls, [that] runs
throughout VN's work," he should certainly read the essays by Amis and
Banville--which is what I hoped everyone would do in the first place."
In response I'd like to acknowledge that all of JT's points are well taken,
and I hope that my arguments have not seemed overheated. I don't think I'm
deeply invested in the purity of VN or his motives; it does bother me that
so many seem willing to jump to conclusions about them, though. JT did
acknowledge VN's good citizenship & his doubts about the HST/O'Rourke
"escapade." I read *Lolita *for the first time rather late in life (having
gotten as far as the couch scene as a teenager before figuratively "tossing
it into a fire"). This forum hosts many better and more serious literary
minds than mine, and I certainly don't claim in any way to have "figured VN
out." My fascination with and love of his writings frankly does not extend
much farther than *Lessons In Literature, Lolita *and *Pale Fire*. I do
think VN was courageous in illuminating a subject that was not dealt with
out in the open much in the 1950s; among the reasons VN nearly destroyed
the *Lolita *manuscript twice was his realization that it might bring him
infamy rather than fame. One may just note the numerous child molestation
and child pornography arrests around the world to conclude that a true
pedophile probably wouldn't get much out of reading *Lolita *when there
seem to be so many more likely avenues for the pursuit of unseemly urges.
Say what you will about MacLean's little blog blurb, but I'm hard-pressed
to recall another Nabokov-L post with over 50 responses! Of course there
is no singular or correct way of reading a work of literary art; each
reader approaches literature subjectively, and Jansy, one of my favorite
members in the short time I have been a member of Nabokov-L, is certainly a
"mellow" and prolific voice of reason here.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
"Our differences are perhaps as much of temperament as of substance.
Norquist, like so many others nowadays, seems deeply invested in protecting
the purity of VN and the motives (or passions) behind his works. At my
age--I am very old--I could care less whether VN’s inner life met what I
regard as conventional prudish standards or not. Nor do I care that *Lolita* is
as popular with pedophiles as it is in college English courses--which is
not to say that I don’t deplore pedophilia and child abuse as much as
anyone else. My main purpose in writing about MacLean’s remarks was to say
that anyone seriously interested in such questions about VN--which have
been with us since the day *Lolita* was published--should look to
heavyweights like Amis and Banville rather than pick on a glib and to me
inoffensive blogger. I also wanted to protest, in a mild way, Boyd’s
offering, as an “antidote” to MacLean’s “insinuations,” a piece of stale
conference-style puffery by guest celebrity Jeffrey Masson. Many of the
earliest commentators on *Lolita* liked to pretend that it was not “really”
about sex and child-rape but was a fancy allegory of one kind or another.
Some said it was not about sex but about love. In a similar spirit, the
current crop of commentators apparently need reassurance that far from
being a “transgressive” writer, VN was just about the most politically
correct guy you’d ever want to read. Working novelists like Amis and
Banville know better. And they have, like Maar, discussed these old
questions in a fresh new way.
As for the VN quote about his poem “Lilith,” I’m not convinced of its
importance. (I don’t, however, know the full context.) Many writers--VN not
least among them--are manipulative, self-deceived, or mischievous when
discussing their own work. Many of them say different things to different
audiences at different times and different places and for different
reasons. Furthermore, as Gore Vidal pointed out in his funny review of *Strong
Opinions*, VN had a valid reason for being touchy in some of his
interviews. “Periodically, the Professor is obliged to note that he himself
is not *repeat* not attracted to those very young girls who keep cropping
up in his work. (‘Lewis Carroll liked little girls. I don't.’) At these
moments, our proud Black Swan becomes an uneasy goose, fearful of being
cooked by Cornell's board of regents.” Vidal might also have mentioned VN’s
equally legitimate fear of having his work censored by the government.
Most important, the connection the quote denies is so obvious that no one
could fail to see it. Mentioning it only makes it more obvious. The
business about writing the poem to amuse a friend is a marvelous touch.
To conclude my response to Norquist, I should point out that I explicitly
acknowledged that VN “seems to have been a model of health and good
citizenship” in some of the ways that matter to me and that I agreed with
Gwynn about the supposed Sun Valley escapade. But if Norquist doubts the
extent of the “passion for sex, much of it with underage girls, [that] runs
throughout VN's work," he should certainly read the essays by Amis and
Banville--which is what I hoped everyone would do in the first place."
In response I'd like to acknowledge that all of JT's points are well taken,
and I hope that my arguments have not seemed overheated. I don't think I'm
deeply invested in the purity of VN or his motives; it does bother me that
so many seem willing to jump to conclusions about them, though. JT did
acknowledge VN's good citizenship & his doubts about the HST/O'Rourke
"escapade." I read *Lolita *for the first time rather late in life (having
gotten as far as the couch scene as a teenager before figuratively "tossing
it into a fire"). This forum hosts many better and more serious literary
minds than mine, and I certainly don't claim in any way to have "figured VN
out." My fascination with and love of his writings frankly does not extend
much farther than *Lessons In Literature, Lolita *and *Pale Fire*. I do
think VN was courageous in illuminating a subject that was not dealt with
out in the open much in the 1950s; among the reasons VN nearly destroyed
the *Lolita *manuscript twice was his realization that it might bring him
infamy rather than fame. One may just note the numerous child molestation
and child pornography arrests around the world to conclude that a true
pedophile probably wouldn't get much out of reading *Lolita *when there
seem to be so many more likely avenues for the pursuit of unseemly urges.
Say what you will about MacLean's little blog blurb, but I'm hard-pressed
to recall another Nabokov-L post with over 50 responses! Of course there
is no singular or correct way of reading a work of literary art; each
reader approaches literature subjectively, and Jansy, one of my favorite
members in the short time I have been a member of Nabokov-L, is certainly a
"mellow" and prolific voice of reason here.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/