Subject
A reinterpretation of Lolita
From
Date
Body
I'm newly registered to this list, but have read sporadically from Nabokov-L
for several years now. I have not seen the following interpretation of *
Lolita* mentioned anywhere. If it has been discussed previously, I
apologize.
This is also posted on my blog, Microscopically
Fictitious<http://microscopicallyfictitious.blogspot.com/>.
The direct URL is
here<http://microscopicallyfictitious.blogspot.com/2007/06/lolita-as-thank-you-to-lolita.html>.
************
*Lolita as a Thank You to Lolita*
I've been sitting on this theory for some time now, and am rather convinced
(as is the case with all my cockeyed interpretations) that I'm correct.
First, some context; then the theory, short and sweet.
*THE CONTEXT*
Things got a little crazy in Lolita-land in late 2005 when Michael Maar
published *The Two Lolitas*, a nuclear bomb of a book that brought to light
a previous *Lolita*—a short story written in 1916 by a Berlin journalist
working under the name of Heinz von Lichberg. This short story, which you
can read here <http://www.arlindo-correia.com/lolita_de.html>, was without a
doubt, regardless of how you look at it, the inspiration for Nabokov's later
classic. Although Lichberg is largely a hack, the central *Lolita* theme we
are familiar with is all too present: a cultured middle-aged man falls for a
young girl (named Lolita) who in the end has a baby and dies.
Nabokovians, surprise surprise, were quick to jump to Nabokov's defense.
That he lived in Berlin while Lichberg did is of no consequence, they say:
it is simply coincidence. But what about the fact that his book shares both
the title and the central plot with a short story written by Lichberg? Well,
says the intelligencia, it turns out that Nabokov, in addition to being a
synesthete, was a cryptomnesiac. He had read the short story, they say, but
then completely forgot it (for after all it *was* of poor artistic quality
and *utterly forgettable*). It was only years later that certain elements of
the story, including the plot and exact title, crept into the conscious side
of Nabokov's brain from his subconscious side, where they had been hiding
all along, and presented themselves to him as original thoughts. It wasn't
plagiarism, see, it was cryptomnesia—and what author, or human for that
matter, hasn't forgotten ideas or memories only to remember them later as
their own?
Now, I don't claim that Nabokov plagiarized the lame little story written by
the Nazi Lichberg in 1916. The story is less than 20 pages long. Nabokov's
novel of the same title is more than 300. It is not plagiarism when one
takes a poorly whistled tune overheard on the street and turns it into an
opera. This distinction—that I disagree with the cryptomnesia theory, that I
disagree that it was coincidence, and that I disagree that he plagiarized
it—is important. These are not the only three possible theories, and one
need not choose from among them. There is at least a fourth: that Nabokov
read the story, remembered it (perhaps even owned a copy), and, struck by
inspiration, used it as a sculptor uses scrap metal. This, I believe, is the
proper approach to understanding not only the Nabokov-Lichberg dilemma, but
to understanding truly, at last, the novel *Lolita*.
*THE THEORY*
In *Lolita*, Nabokov, on nearly every page, in traditional Nabokovian
fashion, openly admits his debt to Lichberg. With this in mind, go back now
and reread it. I can't fathom how you'll finish the book, or even the first
chapter, unconvinced that I'm correct. These admissions are crafty, cryptic,
but they should jump straight off the page for the searching eye.
If for some reason these admissions don't reveal themselves to you, here are
a couple hints to get you going: pay special attention to Humbert's
fascination with doubles (even his name is a double), and rethink what he is
saying when he talks of "a precursor" and "a certain initial girl-child".
Etc.
************
In the near future I will document some of the passages in Lolita which I
believe lend credence to my theory and send these out for further
consideration. If you look for yourself, though, I'm sure you'll find most
of them—and probably more than I found—on your own.
Thanks,
Jason
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
for several years now. I have not seen the following interpretation of *
Lolita* mentioned anywhere. If it has been discussed previously, I
apologize.
This is also posted on my blog, Microscopically
Fictitious<http://microscopicallyfictitious.blogspot.com/>.
The direct URL is
here<http://microscopicallyfictitious.blogspot.com/2007/06/lolita-as-thank-you-to-lolita.html>.
************
*Lolita as a Thank You to Lolita*
I've been sitting on this theory for some time now, and am rather convinced
(as is the case with all my cockeyed interpretations) that I'm correct.
First, some context; then the theory, short and sweet.
*THE CONTEXT*
Things got a little crazy in Lolita-land in late 2005 when Michael Maar
published *The Two Lolitas*, a nuclear bomb of a book that brought to light
a previous *Lolita*—a short story written in 1916 by a Berlin journalist
working under the name of Heinz von Lichberg. This short story, which you
can read here <http://www.arlindo-correia.com/lolita_de.html>, was without a
doubt, regardless of how you look at it, the inspiration for Nabokov's later
classic. Although Lichberg is largely a hack, the central *Lolita* theme we
are familiar with is all too present: a cultured middle-aged man falls for a
young girl (named Lolita) who in the end has a baby and dies.
Nabokovians, surprise surprise, were quick to jump to Nabokov's defense.
That he lived in Berlin while Lichberg did is of no consequence, they say:
it is simply coincidence. But what about the fact that his book shares both
the title and the central plot with a short story written by Lichberg? Well,
says the intelligencia, it turns out that Nabokov, in addition to being a
synesthete, was a cryptomnesiac. He had read the short story, they say, but
then completely forgot it (for after all it *was* of poor artistic quality
and *utterly forgettable*). It was only years later that certain elements of
the story, including the plot and exact title, crept into the conscious side
of Nabokov's brain from his subconscious side, where they had been hiding
all along, and presented themselves to him as original thoughts. It wasn't
plagiarism, see, it was cryptomnesia—and what author, or human for that
matter, hasn't forgotten ideas or memories only to remember them later as
their own?
Now, I don't claim that Nabokov plagiarized the lame little story written by
the Nazi Lichberg in 1916. The story is less than 20 pages long. Nabokov's
novel of the same title is more than 300. It is not plagiarism when one
takes a poorly whistled tune overheard on the street and turns it into an
opera. This distinction—that I disagree with the cryptomnesia theory, that I
disagree that it was coincidence, and that I disagree that he plagiarized
it—is important. These are not the only three possible theories, and one
need not choose from among them. There is at least a fourth: that Nabokov
read the story, remembered it (perhaps even owned a copy), and, struck by
inspiration, used it as a sculptor uses scrap metal. This, I believe, is the
proper approach to understanding not only the Nabokov-Lichberg dilemma, but
to understanding truly, at last, the novel *Lolita*.
*THE THEORY*
In *Lolita*, Nabokov, on nearly every page, in traditional Nabokovian
fashion, openly admits his debt to Lichberg. With this in mind, go back now
and reread it. I can't fathom how you'll finish the book, or even the first
chapter, unconvinced that I'm correct. These admissions are crafty, cryptic,
but they should jump straight off the page for the searching eye.
If for some reason these admissions don't reveal themselves to you, here are
a couple hints to get you going: pay special attention to Humbert's
fascination with doubles (even his name is a double), and rethink what he is
saying when he talks of "a precursor" and "a certain initial girl-child".
Etc.
************
In the near future I will document some of the passages in Lolita which I
believe lend credence to my theory and send these out for further
consideration. If you look for yourself, though, I'm sure you'll find most
of them—and probably more than I found—on your own.
Thanks,
Jason
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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