Subject
VN and Freud]]
From
Date
Body
[Editorial Comment: Jo Morgan's comments on the history of Freud's
"seduction theory," below, are illuminating and well-informed, although
also certainly represent a particular, perhaps controversial point of
view.
Readers will notice at the end of the message that Ms. Morgan once
again plugs for her self-published book, which has faced a wall of
silence since coming out last year. She complains that the book has
not received a proper evaluation by scholars. As one of these latter
creatures, I would say the following: I have examined the book's
promotional web site, and found all the (extensive) excerpted material
there to be so fanciful, the "coincidences" and "slips" so contrived and
lacking credibility, that they did not even warrant taking a look at the
book.
The fact that the book and its contents have never passed a peer review
indicates that other readers have felt the same way. While the book,
as suggested, may contain valuable information on VN's dispute with
Freud, its current form--not denial--makes it an unacceptable resource
for scholars. ~Stephen Blackwell]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [NABOKV-L] VN and Freud]
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:30:43 -0700
From: Jo Morgan <jomorgan@VTOWN.COM.AU>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
CC: Jo Morgan <jomorgan@VTOWN.COM.AU>
I am responding to Walter Maile’s request for clarification regarding the
debate over Masson’s take on Freud’s child ‘seduction’ theory.
Freud concocted his ‘Oedipus complex’ theory in the late 19th - early 20th
century after abandoning his earlier theory of child ‘seduction’ under
controversial circumstances. Freud’s initial theory of child ‘seduction’
accepted the premise that some people had suffered real acts of sexual
abuse as children. His child ‘seduction’ theory advanced the hypothesis
that repressed memories of early sexual trauma laid the foundations for
later neurotic and hysterical symptoms.
In his book The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction
Theory (1984), Jeffrey Masson argued that Freud’s 1895-1900 correspondence
shows he had two types of patients, namely: 1) those who remembered being
sexually abuse following Freud’s highly dubious ‘therapy’ sessions (which
effectively contaminated their memories); and 2) those who had spontaneous
memories of being abuse. Esterson (1998) has since demonstrated that
Freud’s letters refers to only one patient who had spontaneous memories of
being sexually abused as a child. While the level of Freud’s exposure to
CSA victims remains a contentious issue, it does not change the fact that
Freud’s child ‘seduction’ theory accepted the reality of child sexual
assault.
For better or worse Freud’s theory regarding the aetiology of hysteria,
along with his dubious clinical techniques, were poorly received at a
conference of his peers in April 1896. Almost immediately, a humiliated,
but still thoroughly ambitious Freud set about revising his concepts and
thinking. By 1906 he had publicly renounced his earlier theory of ‘child
seduction’ and replaced it with his mythic-laden theory of the ‘Oedipus
complex.’
Masson (1984) has argued that Freud’s decision to abandon his childhood
seduction theory was motivated by: 1) a desire to gain the approval and
acceptance of his professional peers; and, 2) concerns that his initial
child seduction theory implied that many fathers (including Freud’s own
father) could be accused of being ‘perverse.’ The various claims and
analysis offered by Freud and Masson with regard to the history and
subsequent rejection of the child ‘seduction’ theory have since been
thoroughly scrutinized and critiqued by many scholars. Suffice to say that
both Freud’s honesty in relation to these matters and Masson’s analysis
have been found wanting.
Can I just say that I disagree strongly with Jansy’s arguments that Nabokov
main beef with Freud related to the manner in which his theories were
popularized. Nabokov’s real argument was with Freud himself. As always,
Nabokov was ahead of his time. He correctly anticipated that Freud’s
Oedipus complex theory had a dangerous potential to dismiss real memories
of incestuous abuse as ‘fantasy.’ While this may not have been what Freud
himself intended, this is precisely what ended up happening. As Richard
Webster (1995, 513) ruefully observed in Why Freud was Wrong: "the
overwhelming tendency of the psychoanalytic profession throughout most of
the twentieth century has been to construe recollections of incest as
fantasies. In this respect at least, psychoanalysis in general and the
theory of the Oedipus complex in particular has caused untold harm."
Once let loose in the public arena, Freud’s Oedipus complex theory helped
to deny and cover up the sexual abuse of children. This includes the
activities of pedophiles who can operate either within, or outside of
families, by, for example, using child prostitutes. This problem stands at
the heart of Nabokov’s complaint against Freud. Nabokov’s deep aversion to
Freud was borne of bitter experience owing to his own prolonged sexual
abuse as a young boy at the hands of his pedophilic Uncle Ruka.
As I have demonstrated in my code-cracking book Solving Nabokov’s Lolita
Riddle (2005) Nabokov set out to dethrone Freud by developing an ingenious
code of deliberate ‘blunders’ or Freudian slips. Via these ‘blunders’ and a
system of patterns, and anagram games, (e.g. Adam Krug = 'mad Ruka,
dropping the 'g')Nabokov was finally able to confess to his own, hidden
experience of incest. In developing this brilliant strategy Nabokov was
inspired not only by the curious habit Lewis Carroll had of dropping
lacunae ____ into the letters he sent to his ‘child friends,’ but also by
Freud’s seminal work The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901).
I remain extremely disappointed that, despite all the efforts I have made
to have my book properly evaluated, no one has yet deigned to check my code-
cracking work on Nabokov’s Lolita riddle. No doubt someone, someday, will
write a long essay about the state of ‘denial’ Nabokov’s scholars fell into
in the wake of the publication of my book. While I know my book is not
perfect and desperately needs editing (which I could not afford), it has
done more to advance our understanding of Nabokov’s dispute with Freud than
anything else written over the last half century or more.
Jo Morgan
Sydney
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
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
"seduction theory," below, are illuminating and well-informed, although
also certainly represent a particular, perhaps controversial point of
view.
Readers will notice at the end of the message that Ms. Morgan once
again plugs for her self-published book, which has faced a wall of
silence since coming out last year. She complains that the book has
not received a proper evaluation by scholars. As one of these latter
creatures, I would say the following: I have examined the book's
promotional web site, and found all the (extensive) excerpted material
there to be so fanciful, the "coincidences" and "slips" so contrived and
lacking credibility, that they did not even warrant taking a look at the
book.
The fact that the book and its contents have never passed a peer review
indicates that other readers have felt the same way. While the book,
as suggested, may contain valuable information on VN's dispute with
Freud, its current form--not denial--makes it an unacceptable resource
for scholars. ~Stephen Blackwell]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [NABOKV-L] VN and Freud]
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:30:43 -0700
From: Jo Morgan <jomorgan@VTOWN.COM.AU>
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
CC: Jo Morgan <jomorgan@VTOWN.COM.AU>
I am responding to Walter Maile’s request for clarification regarding the
debate over Masson’s take on Freud’s child ‘seduction’ theory.
Freud concocted his ‘Oedipus complex’ theory in the late 19th - early 20th
century after abandoning his earlier theory of child ‘seduction’ under
controversial circumstances. Freud’s initial theory of child ‘seduction’
accepted the premise that some people had suffered real acts of sexual
abuse as children. His child ‘seduction’ theory advanced the hypothesis
that repressed memories of early sexual trauma laid the foundations for
later neurotic and hysterical symptoms.
In his book The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction
Theory (1984), Jeffrey Masson argued that Freud’s 1895-1900 correspondence
shows he had two types of patients, namely: 1) those who remembered being
sexually abuse following Freud’s highly dubious ‘therapy’ sessions (which
effectively contaminated their memories); and 2) those who had spontaneous
memories of being abuse. Esterson (1998) has since demonstrated that
Freud’s letters refers to only one patient who had spontaneous memories of
being sexually abused as a child. While the level of Freud’s exposure to
CSA victims remains a contentious issue, it does not change the fact that
Freud’s child ‘seduction’ theory accepted the reality of child sexual
assault.
For better or worse Freud’s theory regarding the aetiology of hysteria,
along with his dubious clinical techniques, were poorly received at a
conference of his peers in April 1896. Almost immediately, a humiliated,
but still thoroughly ambitious Freud set about revising his concepts and
thinking. By 1906 he had publicly renounced his earlier theory of ‘child
seduction’ and replaced it with his mythic-laden theory of the ‘Oedipus
complex.’
Masson (1984) has argued that Freud’s decision to abandon his childhood
seduction theory was motivated by: 1) a desire to gain the approval and
acceptance of his professional peers; and, 2) concerns that his initial
child seduction theory implied that many fathers (including Freud’s own
father) could be accused of being ‘perverse.’ The various claims and
analysis offered by Freud and Masson with regard to the history and
subsequent rejection of the child ‘seduction’ theory have since been
thoroughly scrutinized and critiqued by many scholars. Suffice to say that
both Freud’s honesty in relation to these matters and Masson’s analysis
have been found wanting.
Can I just say that I disagree strongly with Jansy’s arguments that Nabokov
main beef with Freud related to the manner in which his theories were
popularized. Nabokov’s real argument was with Freud himself. As always,
Nabokov was ahead of his time. He correctly anticipated that Freud’s
Oedipus complex theory had a dangerous potential to dismiss real memories
of incestuous abuse as ‘fantasy.’ While this may not have been what Freud
himself intended, this is precisely what ended up happening. As Richard
Webster (1995, 513) ruefully observed in Why Freud was Wrong: "the
overwhelming tendency of the psychoanalytic profession throughout most of
the twentieth century has been to construe recollections of incest as
fantasies. In this respect at least, psychoanalysis in general and the
theory of the Oedipus complex in particular has caused untold harm."
Once let loose in the public arena, Freud’s Oedipus complex theory helped
to deny and cover up the sexual abuse of children. This includes the
activities of pedophiles who can operate either within, or outside of
families, by, for example, using child prostitutes. This problem stands at
the heart of Nabokov’s complaint against Freud. Nabokov’s deep aversion to
Freud was borne of bitter experience owing to his own prolonged sexual
abuse as a young boy at the hands of his pedophilic Uncle Ruka.
As I have demonstrated in my code-cracking book Solving Nabokov’s Lolita
Riddle (2005) Nabokov set out to dethrone Freud by developing an ingenious
code of deliberate ‘blunders’ or Freudian slips. Via these ‘blunders’ and a
system of patterns, and anagram games, (e.g. Adam Krug = 'mad Ruka,
dropping the 'g')Nabokov was finally able to confess to his own, hidden
experience of incest. In developing this brilliant strategy Nabokov was
inspired not only by the curious habit Lewis Carroll had of dropping
lacunae ____ into the letters he sent to his ‘child friends,’ but also by
Freud’s seminal work The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901).
I remain extremely disappointed that, despite all the efforts I have made
to have my book properly evaluated, no one has yet deigned to check my code-
cracking work on Nabokov’s Lolita riddle. No doubt someone, someday, will
write a long essay about the state of ‘denial’ Nabokov’s scholars fell into
in the wake of the publication of my book. While I know my book is not
perfect and desperately needs editing (which I could not afford), it has
done more to advance our understanding of Nabokov’s dispute with Freud than
anything else written over the last half century or more.
Jo Morgan
Sydney
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
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