Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:40:06 -0400 From: To: Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] SIGNS: First paragraph & the next... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=__PartF9D0A9E6.1__=" --=__PartF9D0A9E6.1__= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartF9D0A9E6.2__=" --=__PartF9D0A9E6.2__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Beth, =20 I'm not sure whether to come in heavily at this point with the following: =20 =20 I am delighted that my Inner Circle Seminar on "Signs and Symbols" on 11 = May=20 in London is being honoured in this way. =20 Can I suggest that readers who want to link to the discussion that has =20 already taken place turn to the archives of NABOKV-L for December 2004? =20 I praised Alexander Dolinin's essay "The Signs and Symbols in Nabokov's = =20 'Signs and Symbols'" ( _http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dolinin2.htm_= =20 (http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dolinin2.htm) ) as "an important=20= breakthough". But I did raise the question of whether Nabokov intended us = to be aware=20 that the mother was buying fish, and later making tea (and perhaps = cooking the=20 fish) after dark, when it was already the Jewish Sabbath, when observant = Jews=20 would do none of these things. Dolinin and others, including Dmitri = Nabokov,=20 responded. =20 Meanwhile Alexander Drescher had privately written to me, pointing out = that=20 Good Friday and Erev Pesach (the first Seder evening of Passover) = coincided=20 in 1947; he said he was writing something on "Signs and Symbols". I = thought he=20 must have some evidence for this, and wrote privately to him that the = number=20 of paragraphs in the three parts of story (7,4, 19) could be taken to=20 indicate the year and the very open "For the fourth time in as many = years" the date=20 (in English or American!) 4/4 (4 April or April 4) of Good Friday/Passover= =20 1947. I made these suggestions speculatively, half-frivolously. I believe = I=20 added that the underground train's "losing its life-current" for a = quarter of=20 an hour "between two stations" might have resonances with stations of = the=20 Cross, and descent into hell for three days (the minute hand moving three = numbers=20 on the clock dial). Also I suggested a link with Eliot's "East Coker" = and=20 the underground train, in the tube, [that] "stops too long between = stations":=20 "East Coker" contains the line "Still, in spite of that, we call this = Friday=20 good." To my amazement, when Sandy published his article (=20 _http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dreschersigns.htm_=20 (http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dreschersigns.htm) ), he did not = have any evidence other than the bizarre=20 logic that I had suggested for the historical date of the events in the = story. It=20 had been an inspired hunch. He did, however, give fascinating evidence = to=20 support my hypothesis, namely, that in the story's first publication, in = The=20 New Yorker, it was edited to have only 18 paragraphs in the third part, = and=20 Nabokov's annoyance at this appears to have resonances in "Pnin". =20 Sandy's private email to me also contained a hint that he and I were=20 thinking along similar lines, in that we were both wondering why no = commentator=20 considered the possibility that the third telephone call might be from = the son=20 himself. =20 Then someone raised the question on NABOKV-L: =20 << Returning back to Signs and Symbols, can anyone explain the pattern = of=20 names: Mrs. Sol (the next door neighbor?) and Dr. Solov (family=92s = doctor)=20 surrounding, in the story line, Soloveichik (the one whom daughter of = Rebecca=20 Borisovna married in Minsk)? Should we believe to scientific monthly = article=20 (authored by Dr. Brink) and to the parents that real people are excluded = from the=20 =91referential mania=92 conspiracy? I could almost believe it if not for = this=20 chain of names flagging something in the story. >>=20 To which I responded:=20 << Why should we believe even the first sentence of this story? What does = it=20 mean for someone to be =91incurably deranged in his mind=92? I ask this = in all=20 seriousness as a psychotherapist, so-called. Someone like Nabokov who = writes=20 about, and even impersonates, as narrator, what we may loosely, or not = so=20 loosely, call madmen, has to decide, or at least decide not to decide, = whether=20 these persons are responsible agents subject to the moral law, or some = kind of=20 subhuman whose actions are not, in a true sense, actions at all, but = merely=20 the outcome of some process gone wrong in the human-looking entity that = still=20 bears a human name. Nabokov meets this challenge magnificently, by making = it=20 crystal clear, both within his fiction (for example, in Despair, Lolita = and=20 Pale Fire) and outside it (for example, in his preface to Despair and = in=20 Strong Opinions), that he sees his madmen as moral agents. It is true = that, at=20 times, Nabokov seems less certain of this position, as when he says = that=20 Raskolnikov should be medically examined. But Hermann, Humbert and = Kinbote would be=20 of no interest if they were mere automatons, lacking human autonomy and = =20 responsibility.=20 So who is this narrator who tells us at the outset that the son in = =91Signs=20 and Symbols=92 is =91incurably deranged=92? I would not believe this if = told it by a=20 psychiatrist or psychotherapist about a real person. Why should I believe = it=20 here?=20 Similarly with the young man=92s allegedly being =91inaccessible to = normal minds =92. If this were true, how could the self-styled =91normal minds=92 = know, for=20 instance, that the =91inaccessible=92 one has =91no desires=92? Indeed, = how could the=20 learned Dr Brink write his paper about him? [...] =20 The untrustworthiness of this narrator is apparent from the contradictory= =20 sentences: =91He had no desires=92, and =91What he really wanted to do = was to tear a=20 hole in his world and escape=92.=20 Who is making these contradictory attributions? The first appears to be = the=20 narrator=92s endorsement of an attribution by both parents. The second = appears=20 to be the narrator=92s endorsement of an attribution by the mother, or = perhaps=20 the endorsement of the mother=92s endorsement of an attribution by the = doctor.=20 Such is the spell of this mere unsubstantiated assertion about the young = man=92 s inaccessibility and incurablity that, as far as I know, nobody has=20 suggested a simple possible explanation of the third telephone call. It = appears to=20 be easier for people to envisage the young man=92s posthumously = affecting=20 somebody else=92s telephone call than to think that he might simply make = one himself,=20 while still alive.=20 These parents, who supposedly know that their son has no desires although = he=20 is inaccessible to their normal minds, seem curiously uncurious about = him.=20 They do not even ask the nurse how he had tried to kill himself. The = mother=20 merely reflects on what the doctor had told her about the last attempt.=20= What makes readers so certain that the young man could not have been=20 uncertain in his =91suicide attempts=92? If he is such a genius, surely = his second=20 attempt should have succeeded, after the bad luck of a patient stopping = his last =20 attempt?=20 Why is it so clear that the young man does not want to come home? Why = should=20 we accept the (unattributed) assertion that he wants to =91escape=92 from = the =91 world=92 rather than from incarceration in a =91sanatorium=92?=20 Is it not at least possible that he can only get unobserved access to = a=20 telephone after midnight, or that he has escaped from the =91sanatorium=92= , or that=20 he has =91telepathically=92 or intuitively or calculatingly realised it = may have=20 started to dawn on his parents (after four years, and after several = suicidal=20 gestures by himself) that he might actually be better off with them?=20 I know there are other dimensions and depths to this story, but let us as = a=20 precondition =91get real=92 about what goes on in the families of people = who are=20 alleged to be =91inaccessible=92 and =91incurably deranged=92 in their = minds.=20 [...] >>=20 My sentence "It appears to be easier for people to envisage the young = man=92s=20 posthumously affecting somebody else=92s telephone call than to think = that he=20 might simply make one himself, while still alive," was, of course, a = reference=20 to Dolinin's essay.=20 This started an interesting discussion on NABOKV-L between Andrew Brown = and=20 others, and myself. Then Sandy Drescher published his essay, but I have = seen =20 little response to it.=20 Anthony Stadlen =20 =20 Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html Search archive with Google: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=3Dsite:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=3Den 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 Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html Search archive with Google: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=3Dsite:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=3Den 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 --=__PartF9D0A9E6.2__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML
Dear Beth,
 
I'm not sure whether to come in heavily at this point with the=20 following:
 
I am delighted that my Inner Circle Seminar on "Signs and Symbols" on = 11=20 May in London is being honoured in this way.
 
Can I suggest that readers who want to link to the discussion = that has=20 already taken place turn to the archives of NABOKV-L for December = 2004?
 
I praised Alexander Dolinin's essay "The Signs and Symbols in = Nabokov's=20 'Signs and Symbols'" ( http://www.libra= ries.psu.edu/nabokov/dolinin2.htm=20 ) as "an important breakthough". But I did = raise the=20 question of whether Nabokov intended us to be aware that the mother was = buying=20 fish, and later making tea (and perhaps cooking the fish) after dark, when = it=20 was already the Jewish Sabbath, when observant Jews would do none of = these=20 things. Dolinin and others, including Dmitri Nabokov, responded.<= /DIV>
 
Meanwhile Alexander Drescher had privately written to me, = pointing out=20 that Good Friday and Erev Pesach (the first Seder evening of = Passover)=20 coincided in 1947; he said he was writing something on "Signs = and=20 Symbols". I thought he must have some evidence for this, and=20 wrote privately to him that the number of paragraphs in the three = parts of=20 story (7,4, 19) could be taken to indicate the year and the very open "For = the=20 fourth time in as many years" the date (in English or American!) 4/4 = (4=20 April or April 4) of Good Friday/Passover 1947. I made these = suggestions=20 speculatively, half-frivolously. I believe I added that the underground = train's=20 "losing its life-current" for a quarter of an hour "between two stations" = might=20 have resonances with stations of the Cross, and descent into hell for = three=20 days (the minute hand moving three numbers on the clock dial). Also I = suggested=20 a link with Eliot's "East Coker" and the underground train, in the tube, = [that]=20 "stops too long between stations": "East Coker" contains the line "Still, = in=20 spite of that, we call this Friday good." To my amazement, when Sandy = published=20 his article ( http://www.= libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dreschersigns.htm ),=20 he did not have any evidence other than the bizarre logic that I had = suggested=20 for the historical date of the events in the story. It had been a= n=20 inspired hunch. He did, however, give fascinating evidence to support = my=20 hypothesis, namely, that in the story's first publication, in The = New=20 Yorker, it was edited to have only 18 paragraphs in the third part,=20 and Nabokov's annoyance at this appears to have resonances in = "Pnin".
 
Sandy's private email to me also contained a hint that he and&nbs= p;I=20 were thinking along similar lines, in that we were both wond= ering=20 why no commentator considered the possibility that the third telephone = call=20 might be from the son himself.
 
Then someone raised the question on NABOKV-L:
 

<< Returning = back to=20 Signs and Symbols, can anyone explain the pattern of names: Mrs. Sol (the = next=20 door neighbor?) and Dr. Solov (family=E2=80=99s doctor) surrounding, in = the story line,=20 Soloveichik (the one whom daughter of Rebecca Borisovna married in=20 Minsk)? Should we believe to scientific= monthly=20 article (authored by Dr. Brink) and to the parents that real people are = excluded=20 from the =E2=80=98referential mania=E2=80=99 conspiracy? I could almost = believe it if not for=20 this chain of names flagging something in the story.=20 >>

 

To which I responded:

 

    << Why should we believe even the = first=20 sentence of this story? What does it mean for someone to be =E2=80=98incura= bly deranged=20 in his mind=E2=80=99? I ask this in all seriousness as a psychotherapist, = so-called.=20 Someone like Nabokov who writes about, and even impersonates, as narrator, = what=20 we may loosely, or not so loosely, call madmen, has to decide, or at = least=20 decide not to decide, whether these persons are responsible agents subject = to=20 the moral law, or some kind of subhuman whose actions are not, in a true = sense,=20 actions at all, but merely the outcome of some process gone wrong in = the=20 human-looking entity that still bears a human name. Nabokov meets this = challenge=20 magnificently, by making it crystal clear, both within his fiction (for = example,=20 in Despair, Lolita and Pale Fire) and outside it (for = example,=20 in his preface to Despair and = in Strong Opinions), that he sees = his=20 madmen as moral agents. It is true that, at times, Nabokov seems less = certain of=20 this position, as when he says that Raskolnikov should be medically = examined.=20 But Hermann, Humbert and Kinbote would be of no interest if they were = mere=20 automatons, lacking human autonomy and=20 responsibility.

So who is this = narrator=20 who tells us at the outset that the son in =E2=80=98Signs and Symbols=E2=80= =99 is =E2=80=98incurably=20 deranged=E2=80=99? I would not believe this if told it by a psychiatrist = or=20 psychotherapist about a real person. Why should I believe it=20 here?

Similarly with = the young=20 man=E2=80=99s allegedly being =E2=80=98inaccessible to normal minds=E2=80= =99. If this were true, how=20 could the self-styled =E2=80=98normal minds=E2=80=99 know, for instance, = that the =E2=80=98inaccessible=E2=80=99=20 one has =E2=80=98no desires=E2=80=99? Indeed, how could the learned Dr = Brink write his paper=20 about him? [...]

The untrustwort= hiness of=20 this narrator is apparent from the contradictory sentences: =E2=80=98He = had no desires=E2=80=99,=20 and =E2=80=98What he really wanted to do was to tear a hole in his world = and=20 escape=E2=80=99.

Who is making = these=20 contradictory attributions? The first appears to be the narrator=E2=80=99s = endorsement=20 of an attribution by both parents. The second appears to be the narrator=E2= =80=99s=20 endorsement of an attribution by the mother, or perhaps the endorsement of = the=20 mother=E2=80=99s endorsement of an attribution by the=20 doctor.

Such is the = spell of this=20 mere unsubstantiated assertion about the young man=E2=80=99s inaccessibilit= y and=20 incurablity that, as far as I know, nobody has suggested a simple = possible=20 explanation of the third telephone call. It appears to be easier for = people to=20 envisage the young man=E2=80=99s posthumously affecting somebody else=E2=80= =99s telephone call=20 than to think that he might simply make one himself, while still=20 alive.

These parents, = who=20 supposedly know that their son has no desires although he is inaccessible = to=20 their normal minds, seem curiously uncurious about him. They do not even = ask the=20 nurse how he had tried to kill himself. The mother merely reflects on what = the=20 doctor had told her about the last attempt.=

What makes = readers so=20 certain that the young man could not have been uncertain in his =E2=80=98su= icide=20 attempts=E2=80=99? If he is such a genius, surely his second attempt = should have=20 succeeded, after the bad luck of a patient stopping his last=20 attempt?

Why is it so = clear that=20 the young man does not want to come home? Why should we accept the=20 (unattributed) assertion that he wants to =E2=80=98escape=E2=80=99 from = the =E2=80=98world=E2=80=99 rather than=20 from incarceration in a =E2=80=98sanatorium=E2=80=99?

Is it not at = least=20 possible that he can only get unobserved access to a telephone after = midnight,=20 or that he has escaped from the =E2=80=98sanatorium=E2=80=99, or that he = has =E2=80=98telepathically=E2=80=99 or=20 intuitively or calculatingly realised it may have started to dawn on his = parents=20 (after four years, and after several suicidal gestures by himself) that he = might=20 actually be better off with them?

I know there are = other=20 dimensions and depths to this story, but let us as a precondition = =E2=80=98get real=E2=80=99=20 about what goes on in the families of people who are alleged to be=20 =E2=80=98inaccessible=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98incurably deranged=E2=80=99 in = their minds. [...]=20 >>

 

My sentence = "It appears to=20 be easier for people to envisage the young man=E2=80=99s posthumously = affecting somebody=20 else=E2=80=99s telephone call than to think that he might simply make one = himself, while=20 still alive," was, of course, a reference to Dolinin's=20 essay.

This started = an=20 interesting discussion on NABOKV-L between Andrew Brown and others,=20= and myself. Then Sandy Drescher published his essay, but I have = seen=20 little response to it.

 

Anthony=20 Stadlen 

 

 =

Search the Nabokv-L archive with Google

Contact the Editors

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.

Vi= sit Zembla

View = Nabokv-L Policies

Search the Nabokv-L archive with Google

Contact the Editors

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.

Visit Zembla

View Nabokv-L Policies

--=__PartF9D0A9E6.2__=-- --=__PartF9D0A9E6.1__= Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Header" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Header" UmV0dXJuLXBhdGg6IDw+DQpSZWNlaXZlZDogZnJvbSBpbW8tbTEyLm1haWwuYW9sLmNvbSAoaW1v LW0xMi5teC5hb2wuY29tIFs2NC4xMi4xNDMuMTAwXSkNCglieSB1eGEyLmlzYy51Y3NiLmVkdSAo OC4xMy44LzguMTMuOCkgd2l0aCBFU01UUCBpZCBtM1MxZUJ4ODAwNTI2OA0KCWZvciA8TkFCT0tW LUxAbGlzdHNlcnYudWNzYi5lZHU+OyBTdW4sIDI3IEFwciAyMDA4IDE4OjQwOjExIC0wNzAwIChQ RFQpDQpSZWNlaXZlZDogZnJvbSBTVEFETEVOQGFvbC5jb20NCglieSBpbW8tbTEyLm14LmFvbC5j b20gKG1haWxfb3V0X3YzOF9yOS4zLikgaWQgZC5iYzIuMjRjYTZjYWMgKDM5MzMwKQ0KCSBmb3Ig PE5BQk9LVi1MQGxpc3RzZXJ2LnVjc2IuZWR1PjsgU3VuLCAyNyBBcHIgMjAwOCAyMTo0MDowNyAt MDQwMCAoRURUKQ0KRnJvbTogU1RBRExFTkBhb2wuY29tDQpNZXNzYWdlLUlEOiA8YmMyLjI0Y2E2 Y2FjLjM1NDY4NGY2QGFvbC5jb20+DQpEYXRlOiBTdW4sIDI3IEFwciAyMDA4IDIxOjQwOjA2IEVE VA0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtOQUJPS1YtTF0gU0lHTlM6IEZpcnN0IHBhcmFncmFwaCAmIHRoZSBu ZXh0Li4uDQpUbzogTkFCT0tWLUxAbGlzdHNlcnYudWNzYi5lZHUNCk1JTUUtVmVyc2lvbjogMS4w DQpDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IG11bHRpcGFydC9hbHRlcm5hdGl2ZTsgYm91bmRhcnk9Ii0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tMTIwOTM0NjgwNiINClgtTWFpbGVyOiA5LjAgU0UgZm9yIFdp bmRvd3Mgc3ViIDUwMzUNClgtU3BhbS1GbGFnOiBOTw0K --=__PartF9D0A9E6.1__=--