Subject
Re: Fwd: RE: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
From
Date
Body
----- Forwarded message from gshiman@optonline.net -----
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:16:56 -0400
From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
Reply-To: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
Subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'
> and this is not the same as practicing "doublespeak"
No, it is, and here is why. I view ‘demolition of the stereotypes of
"pervert" and "victimÂ’ as conscious attempt to blur reality of the novel.
There is nothing in common between Orwell and VN but Orwell allows
non-passionate (cursive mine) assessment of that kind of the criticism:
To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment
is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to remember that events
happened in the desired manner. (The trick of doing it) is learned by the
majority of party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well
as orthodox. In Old-speak it is called, quite frankly, “reality control.” In
Newspeek it is called doublethink Â… Doublethink means the power of holding
two contradictory beliefs in oneÂ’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must
be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but
by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not
violatedÂ… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to
forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is
needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably
necessary.
Lolita as vintage Oldspeak?! IÂ’ll leave it there.
Same source (‘1984’) describes the only way translation can be accomplished
in difficult Oldspeak cases:
It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless
it either referred to some technical process or some very simple everyday
action. Or was already orthodox (goodthinkful would be Newspeak expression)
in tendency.
Some texts offer difficulty which makes it even more important to tame them.
So, in same way as passage from Declaration of Independence could be
swallowed in the single word crimethink, one may approach difficult Lolita
with pervertvictimlove. (I do it only to reply to Jancy and Mrs. Dawson – it
has absolutely nothing to do with VN)
I had three ways in which to reply to Mrs. Dawson:
1) H.H.: Has I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least
thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges
2) V.V.: I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable
pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only
immortality you and I may share, my Lolita.
3) B.B., no George Orwell: doublethink
I chose Orwell.
Although there is nothing tyrannical about Mrs. Dawson, not everything
non-real in Bend Sinister was tyrannical. We are allowed to take the clue
from VN without falling into the stereotype, donÂ’t we? And is West European
culture so devoid of passion these days?
Notgoodthinkful George
To our Editor: Parsons in 1984 have nothing to do with last name of
protagonist of Transparent Things, right?
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:11 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
Dear List,
Dr. Dawson wrote that "While I thank Mr. Shimanovich for his prompt and
passionate response to my dissertation abstract(...) I would have found
constructive criticism (...) more helpful than mere dismissive reproach. Our
Ed agreed that " criticism is best when it is substantiated. Her work takes
a stance that is controversial but well worth focussed commentary".
Dr. Dawson´s dissertation brings up an interesting point when she "intends
to explore the roots of the culturally-specific assumptions that a reader
may bring to so notorious a text as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita (...)"
A great number of participants of Nabokov´s list come from very different
countries and when they delve into the intrincacies of VN´s novels they
certainly bring into their commentaries new perspectives, perhaps moulded by
their cultures, which usually opens up new ways to read Nabokov.
If I understood her project, Dr.Dawson is quite clear about what she intends
to achieve when she examines "the ways Lolita challenges those
[culturally-specific]assumptions" better to evaluate "the extent to which
cultural theory and literary products interact with and upon each other to
produce a society's collective ideals".
Her departure is the American culture where she finds "overblown
consideration given to pedophilic narratives" that may "interfere with
attention to the larger questions Nabokov tracks throughout his oeuvre".
According to her "through demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and
"victim,"Nabokov teaches the reader to reject categories such as "pedophile"
and "adolescent" in favor of attention to the human beings we force into
these roles".
In the opinion of Mr.G. Shimanovitch "It will take much more than a
dissertation to harness VN to perform judicial feats of the kind this
abstract calls for. Good doublespeak for Orwell's 1984 makes bad criticism
of VN. That would not fly, Mrs. Dawson (...)".
I imagine that those who are regular participants in the N-List must be
acquainted with Mr. G. Shimanovich´s "passionate responses" and as long as
we can turn animation or animus into stimuli to further debates, it is still
possible to bring back the issues that suffered " a dismissive reproach" and
while still valuing Mr.Shimanovich´s contributions.
In my opinion Dr.Dawson did not intend "to harness VN" in any way, but
study "cultural assumptions" ( and "bias" ) that stand in the way of a more
full appreciation of Nabokov´s complex novels.
Contrary to tyrannic impositions, such as we find described in Bend
Sinister, what Dr.Dawson is arguing for seems to be the need to question
cultural and personal stereotypes and this is not the same as practicing
"doublespeak".
Jansy
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald B. <mailto:chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> Johnson
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
----- Forwarded message from gshiman@optonline.net -----
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:52:02 -0400
From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
Reply-To: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
Subject: RE: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'
It will take much more than a dissertation to harness VN to perform judicial
feats of the kind this abstract calls for. Good doublespeak for Orwell's
1984 makes bad criticism of VN. That would not fly, Mrs. Dawson.
Non-realities of such 'observations' are well illustrated by another VN's
novel, Bend Sinister, which, one may argue, 'challenges' your outlook.
>Through demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and "victim," Nabokov
teaches the reader to reject categories such as "pedophile" and "adolescent"
in favor of attention to the human beings we force into these roles.
- George Shimanovich
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:35 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
Per Prof. Johnson's kind suggestion, below is my dissertation abstact.
PORTIONS OF HEAVEN AND HELL: SYMPATHY AND SUFFERING IN LOLITA
Kellie Dawson, Ph.D.
Cornell University
My fascination with the connection between literature and mainstream America
is the basis for this dissertation which intends to explore the roots of the
culturally-specific assumptions that a reader may bring to so notorious a
text as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Firmly grounded in my interest in
observing the vagaries of the American imagination, this work examines the
ways Lolita challenges those assumptions and how it may even have had the
effect of transforming them. In so doing I reveal the extent to which
cultural theory and literary products interact with and upon each other to
produce a society's collective ideals.
Although Vladimir Nabokov denies that he is a writer of didactic fiction,
Lolita does carry a valuable lesson. Unfortunately, even though it is the
most popular and widely read of his novels, it is also the most resisted.
Its characters, situations and themes are so sensational that they tend to
distract from the deeper inquiry that is at the core of this inflammatory
text. Even as scholars acknowledge it as a literary masterpiece it has never
lost its reputation as a "dirty" book - and this reputation still receives
more popular attention than do the issues it raises about the tenuous nature
of human civility. The overblown consideration given to pedophilic
narratives in our culture creates an imbalance of reader engagement that may
interfere with attention to the larger questions Nabokov tracks throughout
his oeuvre. Lolita, along with being an insightful report of 1950s American
culture and a masterful demonstration of the flexibility of the English
langu! age, is an extraordinary examination of both the heights and the
depths of human sensibility. In this novel, Nabokov demonstrates the
suffering of the most "monstrous" of men and convinces his readers to
sympathize with him even as they continue to abhor his crimes.
Through his extended reading of early sexologists and his research into
American adolescence, Nabokov was well aware of the image of "the pedophile"
and "the teen" his readers would bring to his novel. In Lolita he
systematically demolishes these expectations. His "pedophile" is not a
drooling pervert who lures little girls into the bushes - and since his
"teen" is no blushing innocent the reader must re-evaluate what she thought
she knew about adult sexual deviance and child sexuality. Complications such
as these, of suppositions the reader had assumed she could take for granted,
influence her to re-examine her own humanity, her own complicity in the
ideologies that usually cause her to pre-judge and condemn those who are
most in need of sympathy. Through demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert"
and "victim," Nabokov teaches the reader to reject categories such as
"pedophile" and "adolescent" in favor of attention to the human beings we
force into these roles.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----- End forwarded message -----
_____
It will take much more then dissertation to harness VN to perform judicial
feats of the kind this abstract calls for. Good doublespeak for OrwellÂ’s
1984 makes bad criticism of VN. That would not fly, Mrs. Dawson.
Non-realities of such ‘observations’ are well illustrated by another VN’s
novel, Bend Sinister, which, one may argue, ‘challenges’ your outlook.
>Through demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and "victim," Nabokov
teaches the reader to reject categories such as "pedophile" and "adolescent"
in favor of attention to the human beings we force into these roles.
- George Shimanovich
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf
Of Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:35 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Dissertation Abstract: Sympathy & Suffering in LOLITA
Per Prof. Johnson's kind suggestion, below is my dissertation abstact.
PORTIONS OF HEAVEN AND HELL: SYMPATHY AND SUFFERING IN LOLITA
Kellie Dawson, Ph.D.
Cornell University
My fascination with the connection between literature and mainstream America
is the basis for this dissertation which intends to explore the roots of the
culturally-specific assumptions that a reader may bring to so notorious a
text as Vladimir NabokovÂ’s Lolita. Firmly grounded in my interest in
observing the vagaries of the American imagination, this work examines the
ways Lolita challenges those assumptions and how it may even have had the
effect of transforming them. In so doing I reveal the extent to which
cultural theory and literary products interact with and upon each other to
produce a societyÂ’s collective ideals.
Although Vladimir Nabokov denies that he is a writer of didactic fiction,
Lolita does carry a valuable lesson. Unfortunately, even though it is the
most popular and widely read of his novels, it is also the most resisted.
Its characters, situations and themes are so sensational that they tend to
distract from the deeper inquiry that is at the core of this inflammatory
text. Even as scholars acknowledge it as a literary masterpiece it has never
lost its reputation as a "dirty" book – and this reputation still receives
more popular attention than do the issues it raises about the tenuous nature
of human civility. The overblown consideration given to pedophilic
narratives in our culture creates an imbalance of reader engagement that may
interfere with attention to the larger questions Nabokov tracks throughout
his oeuvre. Lolita, along with being an insightful report of 1950s American
culture and a masterful demonstration of the flexibility of the English
langu! age, is an extraordinary examination of both the heights and the
depths of human sensibility. In this novel, Nabokov demonstrates the
suffering of the most "monstrous" of men and convinces his readers to
sympathize with him even as they continue to abhor his crimes.
Through his extended reading of early sexologists and his research into
American adolescence, Nabokov was well aware of the image of "the pedophile"
and "the teen" his readers would bring to his novel. In Lolita he
systematically demolishes these expectations. His "pedophile" is not a
drooling pervert who lures little girls into the bushes – and since his
"teen" is no blushing innocent the reader must re-evaluate what she thought
she knew about adult sexual deviance and child sexuality. Complications such
as these, of suppositions the reader had assumed she could take for granted,
influence her to re-examine her own humanity, her own complicity in the
ideologies that usually cause her to pre-judge and condemn those who are
most in need of sympathy. Through demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert"
and "victim," Nabokov teaches the reader to reject categories such as
"pedophile" and "adolescent" in favor of attention to the human beings we
force into these roles.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----- End forwarded message -----