Subject
Re: VN and Freud
From
Date
Body
I appreciate Stephen Blackwell's contribution to the Nabokov-Freud thread. In
fact, I owe Stephen an apology for not referring, in my own recent message on
this topic, to Chapter 4 of The Quill and the Scalpel, which is the fullest
account I've seen of the Freudian presence--and absence--across a wide range of
VN's works. My oversight was the result of forgetfulness, not design. I read
Stephen's book when it first came out more than a year ago, but it's only in the
last month that I came across the essays by Durantaye and Shute, to which I did
refer.
Stephen reminds us of how far back the public excitement over Freud goes and of
the power of the popularized version. I also find convincing his idea of a
parallel between VN's views of Chernyshevsky and of Freud, with both of them
representing "scientific" progress. But although Stephen's claims for VN's
skepticism and sense of human limitations is very appealing to me, one might
still be tempted to turn the argument around. If VN was as invested in the hope
of an Otherworld as many of his interpreters claim, then the secularism of the
two movements--socialism and psychoanalysis--may have been threatening to him on
a level deeper even than politics. In this regard, it is surely significant that
VN begins Speak, Memorywith an account of the lengths he has gone--“Short of
suicide, I have tried everything”--in search of eternity and that, at the end of
his third paragraph, he curtly dismisses Freud as a crank. This from a writer
who, long after the educated public had outgrown its interest in the occult, was
still (according to Michael Maar) taking seriously the dream theories of J.W.
Dunne.
In my opinion, one’s reading of Pale Fireis the crucial test case. Is the book
an expression of skepticism or a profession of faith? If forced to say one or
the other, I have always leaned toward the first of these alternatives, largely
because that’s where the comedy is richest, darkest, and deepest. Yet, under the
onslaught of the metaphysicians, I have sometimes found my resolve weakening. In
the last few days, though, I discovered new support for my old view--and, I
believe, for Stephen’s view--as I browsed, online, the book by Thomas Karshan
(mentioned previously by Stan), Vladimir Nabokov and the Art of Play, whose aim
is to update the meta-fictionism of Appel in a more scholarly and sophisticated
manner. According to Karshan (p. 206), it is not only Nabokov but Shade himself
who rejects a metaphysics more akin (in my opinion) to the writings of Blavatsky
and her ilk than to that of any reputable philosopher.
In any case, it is a virtue of Stephen’s chapter that he provides a number of
plausible reasons why VN reacted so strongly against Freud and that he shows how
this reaction is reflected in various of VN’s works. It is essential reading for
anyone interested in this important topic.
I also recommend Jansy’s paper, “Lolita: Freudians, Keep Out,” to which she
recently provided the link:
http://www.aetern.us/article95.html
Jansy, who is friendly to both VN and Freud, gives several examples in which the
ideas of the two men are not in conflict and may actually converge.
For a good brief account of Freud’s visit to the U.S. and of the current status
of his theories in this country, go here:
THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
When Freud Came to America
http://chronicle.com/article/Freuds-Visit-to-Clark-U/48424/
Jim Twiggs
________________________________
From: Stephen Blackwell <sblackwe@UTK.EDU>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 4:55:55 PM
Subject: [NABOKV-L] VN and Freud
I just want to toss in a brief follow-up to Joseph Aisenberg's and Jim Twiggs'
comments. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get as involved in this
discussion as I'd like.
In any case--I would warn against assuming that Nabokov didn't know Freud very
well; I can't seek exact locations, but in a letter he and/or Véra asserted that
he read Freud in the original; elsewhere, he claimed to have read Freud in
English.
But I agree with the idea that Nabokov's main opponent was (is) the popularized
Freud, the Freud at large in western culture. The thing is, the popularized
Freud is undeniably real in some way. The public image of Freud and Freudianism
is its own, free-standing cultural beast (if you will), in part caused by
Freud's willingness to publish some things that seem to authorize that beast's
existence. So to the extent that the Popularized Freud really did have any of
the effects on modern thought that Nabokov seemed to believe it did, he was
pitting himself specifically against that image and its consequences in the
popular imagination, whatever they might be. I see this as very much akin to
his deconstruction of Chernyshevsky's hagiographic image in chapter four of The
Gift, an image which he saw contributing to Lenin's and Stalin's rise to power.
Popular Conception, independent of textual reality, can have a huge cultural
effect. If Nabokov felt that many of his potential readers might be swayed in
advance by Pop-Freud, then he was also working specifically against that
pop-Freudian voice in his readers. In the twenties and even into the thirties,
when Nabokov was forming his major artistic commitments, Pop-Freud's presence on
the cultural scene was enormous.
I want to thank all the contributors to this thread, which I'm looking forward
to rereading when I have more time.
Stephen Blackwell
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
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/
fact, I owe Stephen an apology for not referring, in my own recent message on
this topic, to Chapter 4 of The Quill and the Scalpel, which is the fullest
account I've seen of the Freudian presence--and absence--across a wide range of
VN's works. My oversight was the result of forgetfulness, not design. I read
Stephen's book when it first came out more than a year ago, but it's only in the
last month that I came across the essays by Durantaye and Shute, to which I did
refer.
Stephen reminds us of how far back the public excitement over Freud goes and of
the power of the popularized version. I also find convincing his idea of a
parallel between VN's views of Chernyshevsky and of Freud, with both of them
representing "scientific" progress. But although Stephen's claims for VN's
skepticism and sense of human limitations is very appealing to me, one might
still be tempted to turn the argument around. If VN was as invested in the hope
of an Otherworld as many of his interpreters claim, then the secularism of the
two movements--socialism and psychoanalysis--may have been threatening to him on
a level deeper even than politics. In this regard, it is surely significant that
VN begins Speak, Memorywith an account of the lengths he has gone--“Short of
suicide, I have tried everything”--in search of eternity and that, at the end of
his third paragraph, he curtly dismisses Freud as a crank. This from a writer
who, long after the educated public had outgrown its interest in the occult, was
still (according to Michael Maar) taking seriously the dream theories of J.W.
Dunne.
In my opinion, one’s reading of Pale Fireis the crucial test case. Is the book
an expression of skepticism or a profession of faith? If forced to say one or
the other, I have always leaned toward the first of these alternatives, largely
because that’s where the comedy is richest, darkest, and deepest. Yet, under the
onslaught of the metaphysicians, I have sometimes found my resolve weakening. In
the last few days, though, I discovered new support for my old view--and, I
believe, for Stephen’s view--as I browsed, online, the book by Thomas Karshan
(mentioned previously by Stan), Vladimir Nabokov and the Art of Play, whose aim
is to update the meta-fictionism of Appel in a more scholarly and sophisticated
manner. According to Karshan (p. 206), it is not only Nabokov but Shade himself
who rejects a metaphysics more akin (in my opinion) to the writings of Blavatsky
and her ilk than to that of any reputable philosopher.
In any case, it is a virtue of Stephen’s chapter that he provides a number of
plausible reasons why VN reacted so strongly against Freud and that he shows how
this reaction is reflected in various of VN’s works. It is essential reading for
anyone interested in this important topic.
I also recommend Jansy’s paper, “Lolita: Freudians, Keep Out,” to which she
recently provided the link:
http://www.aetern.us/article95.html
Jansy, who is friendly to both VN and Freud, gives several examples in which the
ideas of the two men are not in conflict and may actually converge.
For a good brief account of Freud’s visit to the U.S. and of the current status
of his theories in this country, go here:
THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
When Freud Came to America
http://chronicle.com/article/Freuds-Visit-to-Clark-U/48424/
Jim Twiggs
________________________________
From: Stephen Blackwell <sblackwe@UTK.EDU>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 4:55:55 PM
Subject: [NABOKV-L] VN and Freud
I just want to toss in a brief follow-up to Joseph Aisenberg's and Jim Twiggs'
comments. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get as involved in this
discussion as I'd like.
In any case--I would warn against assuming that Nabokov didn't know Freud very
well; I can't seek exact locations, but in a letter he and/or Véra asserted that
he read Freud in the original; elsewhere, he claimed to have read Freud in
English.
But I agree with the idea that Nabokov's main opponent was (is) the popularized
Freud, the Freud at large in western culture. The thing is, the popularized
Freud is undeniably real in some way. The public image of Freud and Freudianism
is its own, free-standing cultural beast (if you will), in part caused by
Freud's willingness to publish some things that seem to authorize that beast's
existence. So to the extent that the Popularized Freud really did have any of
the effects on modern thought that Nabokov seemed to believe it did, he was
pitting himself specifically against that image and its consequences in the
popular imagination, whatever they might be. I see this as very much akin to
his deconstruction of Chernyshevsky's hagiographic image in chapter four of The
Gift, an image which he saw contributing to Lenin's and Stalin's rise to power.
Popular Conception, independent of textual reality, can have a huge cultural
effect. If Nabokov felt that many of his potential readers might be swayed in
advance by Pop-Freud, then he was also working specifically against that
pop-Freudian voice in his readers. In the twenties and even into the thirties,
when Nabokov was forming his major artistic commitments, Pop-Freud's presence on
the cultural scene was enormous.
I want to thank all the contributors to this thread, which I'm looking forward
to rereading when I have more time.
Stephen Blackwell
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.
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/