Subject
Fw: =- The prewailent distemper (I opened the window and in flew
Enza)-=
Enza)-=
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. The most excellent Tom Bolt offers an explanation/apology to his
"Salt & Lo" posting of April 19th.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bolt" <t@tbolt.com>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (736
lines) ------------------
> Dear List,
>
> A few comments below, if you can bear them.
>
> ============
>
> AN APOLOGY
> My intention was to make general comments
> that would cover all sorts of claims of influence,
> including those put forward for the THE PRICE
> OF SALT (hence "Salt and Lo"), and including
> any such claims made in evaluating any such
> connection anywhere. The difficulty of
> evaluating influence is neither an isolated
> phenomenon nor one peculiar to Nabokov
> (though Nabokov criticism has gone far a-Field
> from time to time). It is certainly not specific to
> Mr. Maar, and I did not intend to give that
> impression. In fact, I did take care in my earlier
> post to say "I do not say that Mr. Maar is
> wrong" but that he has "demonstrated
> nothing" regarding a causal connection. I
> neither made religious inferences nor claims
> of anti-Karlist tendencies. But it was a bad
> decision on my part to illustrate my general
> thesis with specific comments on which
> arguments might or might not support a
> connection of some kind between v.L's story
> and VN's novel; I should have made those
> comments separately. I did not, I believe,
> impute "claims or implications" to Mr. Maar
> that were "the exact opposite" of what he
> wrote; except where I explicitly treated
> individual arguments around the possibility
> of a vL-VN connection, I was attempting to
> examine the methods we use to arrive at
> and support our conclusions regarding
> questions of influence, and to criticize the
> a widespread set of assumptions about
> how writers arrive at their ideas. I do believe
> that I can demonstrate (though this is not
> the place for it) that it is difficult for
> commentators on literature to resist the
> appeal of an apparent connection. "What if"
> is usually a wonderful question to ask. It's all
> in how you choose to answer it.
>
> At any rate, my posting to the List was NOT
> intended as a prolonged screed on Mr. Maar's
> arguments. I see now that it can be read that
> way, and I apologize to him and to the List.
>
>
> HOWEVER: A FEW COMMENTS ON MR.
> MAaR'S NOTES ON MY NOTE
> 1. Coincidence
>
> a) Quoting scientists is not "doing the math"
> Mr. Marr's comments and citations on
> coincidence are merely anecdotal. Please note
> that I do NOT argue for coincidence as the only
> answer, but only for grasping its mathematical
> implications and thereby the nature of the
> only universe in which we can rationally assess
> any of the three hypotheses put forward by
> Mr. Marr (and I agree that there may well be
> more than three*).
>
> b) Tendentious diction is rhetoric, not reason
> "Why then should the chain of concordances
> between the two Lolitas, instead of being
> anchored in cause and effect, not simply
> dangle from the ether of pure contingency?
> Indeed that cannot be excluded. (!!) But it
> would be quite a wonder."
>
> I speak of similarities as a "cluster"--a neutral
> term that does not either presuppose or
> invalidate. Mr. Maar's language is bent to
> reinforce the conclusion he finds "perhaps the
> most plausible of the three." When "concordances"
> come in a "chain," they are linked, whether
> dangled or anchored; when a coincidence is
> described as a "wonder," when it "cannot be
> excluded," we are not giving coincidence its
> due, we are all but dismissing it--and not with
> rational argument, but with rhetoric.
>
> c) Littlewood's Law applies to one person, not
> to our frame of reference
> The word "wonder" is carried over from the
> Littlewood quote. See Freeman Dyson's article
> in the NYRB at
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991
> (quoted below) for an extended definition of
> Littlewood's Law--it treats a different frame
> of reference than the one under examination.
>
> d) What is our frame of reference?
> A drastically simplified argument for v.L's
> causal connection to VN's later work would,
> I think, read as follows:
>
> 1. Berlin overlap establishes availability of
> v.L story to VN
> 2. v.L story has similarities to a later work by VN
>
> Some questions we need to ask in order to
> evaluate the probability of coincidence:
>
> 1. What is the frame of reference?
> This takes an expertise in probability**--if there
> are any experts out there, please advise. To get
> a rough idea of the numbers, I would begin
> (but not end) by asking:
> - What number of books in Russian, English,
> French, and German was available to VN during
> the period in question? (the universe of
> possibilities)
> - Of the available books, how many is it possible
> that VN could have read, assuming a rate of X
> books / year?
> - How many books (read or unread) might have
> had suggestive things in common with some
> later work by VN?
> - How many accessible books not from this
> period (read or unread), but published before
> a given work by VN, might have had suggestive
> things in common with that given later work
> by VN?
> - Assuming vL's book to have suggestive things
> in common with some later work by VN, what
> are the odds that VN read it and was, whether
> consciously or unconsciously, influenced by it?
>
> Some questions we need to ask in order to
> evaluate the probability of causality:
> 1. What was Nabokov's practice?
> - Can we cite other instances of possible
> cryptomnesia in VN's work?
> - Can we cite instances where VN alluded to
> something without supplying a "signpost"
> because the work was sub-literary? Mr. Marr
> says that even alluding to such a work "does
> not fit Nabokov. Allusions to Poe, Proust or
> Pushkin, to Shakespeare, Chateaubriand or
> Joyce, which teem in his work, possess a
> valency that allusions to an unknown minor
> writer could never have." But a look at THE
> ANNOTATED LOLITA for many, many traceable
> references to junk, tritenesses, and "forgotten
> minor works," each reference specific--even
> down to the identification of individual
> advertisements.)
> - Can we rule out the Menard Effect?
> Because of time's arrow, we are predisposed
> to assume that if one work follows another in
> time, it may have been influenced by it.
> Scholars, because of their wide reading, and
> because of their training, are especially
> susceptible to this preconception and need
> to guard against it.
> - Have we corrected for the Confirmation Bias?
> See: http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
>
>
>
> HYPOTHESIS REGARDING THE
> DISPROPORTIONATELY VEHEMENT RESPONSE
> TO MR. MARR'S HYPOTHESES
>
> Mr. Maar's third, preferred claim, however
> gently put forth, has an underlying
> sensationalistic appeal--played down by sober
> commentators, played up by tabloids (which
> must have been painful to Mr. Maar, and far
> from his intentions). But let's admit it: it makes
> a juicy story if it's true. That gives it a certain
> momentum as an assertion, true or false,
> tentative or QED'd. All the more reason to
> examine it, to make sure we are not carried
> away by our intuition (which likes to see
> patterns, real or projected, and is always
> looking for significance).
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Tom Bolt
> Cedarn, Utana
>
>
> ------------
> *
> Hypothesis 4:
> BERLIN--Kafka gets off of the tram, leaving
> behind his copy of the Gioconda volume, with
> the Lolita story dogeared. Nabokov picks up
> the book, chuckles at the title, and, smiling
> his Mona Lisa smile, turns to the marked page:
> he reads only the title: Lo-Lee-Ta, before the
> tram slides heavily into the curve just before
> his stop. Still smiling that odd little smile,
> Nabokov leaves the book with the driver for
> the Lost and Found. It is not the first time he
> has seen the name "Lolita," but this time it
> sticks. He files it away for future use.
>
> Of course the scene-setting is silly, but the
> fourth possibility remains: Nabokov also could
> have seen the story's title alone, say in a table
> of contents, no more.
>
> ------------
> **
> "...the strength of a conclusion is a function
> both of the quality of the evidence provided
> in its support and the a priori probability of
> the claim being supported. Thus there can
> never be a single standard of "acceptable
> evidence" that will suffice to render every
> claim equally plausible. [...] A more precise
> formulation requires us to cast the a priori
> probability of a claim into the form of "odds"
> in its favor. A proposition with 90% probability
> of being true has 90 chances of being true for
> every 10 of being false. Thus the odds are 90
> to 10, which reduces to 9 to 1. A proposition
> with 20% probability of being true has 20
> chances of being true for 80 of being false.
> The odds (in its favor) are 20 to 80 or 0.25 to 1.
> It is more natural to translate the latter case
> into odds of 4 to 1 against the proposition,
> but the calculations require us to work with
> odds "in favor of" a proposition, even if they
> are fractional. Pieces of evidence alter the
> odds in favor of a proposition by a multiplicative
> factor in proportion to the quality of the
> evidence. A good source of evidence might
> multiply the odds by 200. A fair one, perhaps,
> by 10. A negative result might reduce the
> odds 10-fold."
> "Why Extraordinary Claims Demand
> Extraordinary Proof"
> Ed J. Gracely
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html
>
> ------------
>
> Dyson on Littlewood's Law of Miracles
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991
>
> Dyson writes:
> The paradoxical feature of the laws of probability
> is that they make unlikely events happen
> unexpectedly often. A simple way to state the
> paradox is Littlewood's Law of Miracles. Littlewood
> was a famous mathematician who was teaching at
> Cambridge University when I was a student. Being
> a professional mathematician, he defined miracles
> precisely before stating his law about them. He
> defined a miracle as an event that has special
> significance when it occurs, but occurs with a
> probability of one in a million. This definition
> agrees with our common-sense understanding
> of the word "miracle."
>
> Littlewood's Law of Miracles states that in the
> course of any normal person's life, miracles
> happen at a rate of roughly one per month. The
> proof of the law is simple. During the time that
> we are awake and actively engaged in living our
> lives, roughly for eight hours each day, we see
> and hear things happening at a rate of about
> one per second. So the total number of events
> that happen to us is about thirty thousand per
> day, or about a million per month. With few
> exceptions, these events are not miracles because
> they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is
> about one per million events. Therefore we should
> expect about one miracle to happen, on the
> average, every month. Broch tells stories of some
> amazing coincidences that happened to him and
> his friends, all of them easily explained as
> consequences of Littlewood's Law.
>
> David G. Myers writes:
> "That a particular specified event or coincidence
> will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing
> unspecified events will occur is certain. That is
> why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight,
> not predicted with foresight."
>
> Robert Todd Carroll writes:
> "...clusters of coincidences can seem designed or
> the result of a preordained pattern to someone
> who is very selective in his thinking."
> http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html
>
> --------------
> Note that Dyson / Littlewood do not define
> "significant," or approach another problem,
> the retrospective appearance of significance--
> significance in its guise as McFate. (Example:
> I once missed walking into a gunfight that
> killed three people by precisely the timing of
> a telephone call that caught me on the way
> out the door--glad I wrote that recommendation,
> happy he got that grant and called to say
> thanks.)
>
>
>
> =============
>
>
>
> "D. Barton Johnson" wrote:
>
> > EDNOTE. I thank Dr. Maar for his response to Messieurs Bolt and Dolinin.
My only comment is that his remark likening NABOKV-L to a church seems
amiss.
> > NABOKV-L is a forum which, as such, has no a priori positions. The views
of contributors are their own and do not represent those of the editor
(unless clearly stated as such).
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Maar" <michael.maar@snafu.de>
> >
> > Dear List,
> >
> > I must confess that the question whether the TLS is a tabloid or not
seems
> > much less puzzling to me than another question - whether Mr. Bolt has
read
> > the article published in it. For had he done so, he would have come
across
> > the following sentences, which could have spared him many a brillant
> > paragraph.
> >
> > "What exactly are we dealing with here? There are only three
possibilities,
> > at any rate until someone shows us a fourth. The first is that we are
in
> > the presence of one of those fortuitous coincidences which recur in the
> > history of art and science. (!) As we have known since Aristotle, it
> > belongs to the laws of probability that the improbable occurs. It even
> > occurs unexpectedly often. (!)
> >
> > Littlewood's law, called after the Cambridge mathematician, states that
on
> > average everyone can expect a wonder a month. Why then should the chain
of
> > concordances between the two Lolitas, instead of being anchored in cause
and
> > effect, not simply dangle from the ether of pure contingency? Indeed
that
> > cannot be excluded. (!!) But it would be quite a wonder." (TLS, April
2, p.
> > 15)
> >
> > Readers may check and compare these remarks with the items in Mr.
Bolt's
> > message below. Those who have seen the TLS will notice that Mr. Bolt
> > repeatedly imputes claims or implications to me that are the exact
opposite
> > of what I wrote.
> >
> > Another example: "though an inventive writer, VN needed to scrounge
around
> > in the work of others for his ideas". Again, I might be allowed to
quote
> > from this more often attacked than perused article:
> >
> > "The second possibility is that Nabokov knew of Lichberg's tale, and
> > half-revealing, half-covering his tracks, lent himself to that art of
> > quotation which Thomas Mann, himself a master of it, called the 'higher
> > cribbing'. Plagiarism? Nonsense. After all, literature has always
been a
> > huge melting pot of motives, and always consisted, in part, of
literature.
> > But setting that aside, this second eventuality is as unlikely as the
> > first. It does not fit Nabokov. Allusions to Poe, Proust or Pushkin, to
> > Shakespeare, Chateaubriand or Joyce, which teem in his work, possess a
> > valency that allusions to an unknown minor writer could never have.
Nabokov
> > had no need to crib (!), nor would he have ennobled a von Lichberg by
> > citing the name of his heroine."
> >
> > This last paragraph might offer some remedy to Mr. Bolt's disbelief
that "a
> > master of allusion, and a supremely conscious author, VN would lift plot
> > elements and a character name from another work without providing
explicit
> > signposts (such as merciless parody) that direct us unequivocally to the
> > original".
> >
> > There remains a third possibility. Professor Dolinin is generous in
> > expressions of indignation at my article, but doesn't he in fact
provide us
> > with a more generalized version of just what I set down in that very
> > article in the TLS?
> >
> > Here is what he writes:
> >
> > "Texts belonging to these genres usually have a very short life-span;
after
> > a while their individual characteristics are obliterated from the
readers
> > memory; they merge with their peers, dissolving into an anonymous mass,
not
> > unlike folklore, of standard plots, situations, characters, stylistic
> > clichés. It is from this anonymous mass of forgotten texts that Nabokov
> > preferred to draw ideas for his works because a lucky catch in the sea
of
> > bad literature could be transformed beyond recognition and interwoven
into
> > a new context without participating in intertextual dialogue."
> >
> > Very well: and what exactly would be the difference with my thesis of
> > cryptomnesia? To repeat myself for a last time: "That leaves the third
> > possibility as perhaps the most plausible. In some mysterious way
Lichberg's
> > 'Die verfluchte Gioconda' fell into his hands. Leafing through it, he
could
> > have come upon the story of the nymphet and so the theme that had
already
> > begun to dawdle in his mind. He forgot the tale completely, or thought
he
> > had forgotten it. Of this phenomenon too, cryptomnesia, the history of
art
> > offers enough examples. Much later, drawn to the surface by new bait,
whole
> > scraps of the story rose from the depths."
> >
> > Prof. Dolinin speaking of the sea of bad and forgotten literature from
> > which Nabokov drew ideas; the TLS speaking of scraps rising from the
depths
> > of this forgotten literature: What would be the substantial difference?
I
> > can find only one, but it is the most important. In Lichberg's case
there
> > is more in play than just a question of "standard plot", as anyone who
> > reads my essay will see.
> >
> > This difference leads me to a more general observation. There is a
shade
> > too much outrage in the air, a bit too much of talk of innocence and
sin. I
> > haven't thought of this list, which I have often read with pleasure, as
a
> > semi-religious sphere before, and I didn't expect to confront a church
when
> > I presented what I had found. It doesn't seem superfluous to remind
some
> > readers that the unspeakable Heinz von Lichberg (a new Lord Voldemort
for
> > Nabokv-L, as it appears) is not a perfidious invention of mine. I
didn't
> > make that first nymphet up. I didn't print the "Lolita" of 1916 in my
> > cellar to shock Nabokovians. I did what philologists are accustomed to
do
> > when discovering two texts with the same title and the same core-story:
I
> > compared. Without forcing on readers any particular explanation of the
> > parallels between them, I examined their similiarities. Far from being
> > merely "vague", they were strong enough to convince even my most
critical
> > reviewers in the literary pages of the German press; strong enough,
indeed,
> > to cast me in the eyes of the "New York Observer" as an
all-too-cautious
> > partisan of the writer, "seeking to give Nabokov every
> > benefit of the doubt" in considering the parallels.
> >
> > I still think it to be the first philological virtue (to adopt the
> > moralistic language of my critics) to read and to quote correctly.
> > Regrettably, this has so far not often been the case. I want to thank
Prof.
> > Kunin for having strengthened my hopes of a change for the better.
> >
> > Michael Maar
> > -------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > An: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. April 2004 01:58
> > > Betreff: - Salt and Lo -=: Critieria for evaluating subtext
> > >
> > >
> > > EDNOTE. Tom Bolt, writer of poetry and prose, critic, and artist,
proposes
> > > some exceedingly sound thoughts on critieria for evaluating proposed
> > > literary influences. Apparently inspired by the Maar affair, they
offer a
> > > theoretical framework for many of the issues involved. His thoughts
are of
> > > particular interest in that he is the author of a stunning long poem
"Dark
> > > Ice" that has an intricate and fascinating relationship with _Pale
Fire_.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Thomas Bolt" <t@tbolt.com>
> > > > Dear NABOKV-L,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there a serious approach to making or
> > > > evaluating assertions around "influence"
> > > > or (as it were) "unconscious intertextuality"?
> > > >
> > > > I try to use these steps:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Enlarge the frame of reference. Similar
> > > > themes and ideas and stylistic directions
> > > > come up again and again, even where they
> > > > are unlikely to have been transmitted.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Limit strictly the weight given to priority
> > > > alone. Priority is not a proof, no matter how
> > > > obvious it may appear to make a connection.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> > > > Understand actual probabilities rather than
> > > > relying on intuition. (Our intuitive response
> > > > to coincidence is almost always wrong.)
> > > >
> > > > 4. Understand the creative process.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Understand the nature of "originality" in
> > > > context (author, era, history, probability,
> > > > repetition of themes)
> > > >
> > > > 6. Take your conclusions seriously--use the
> > > > test, "Would I put something important at
> > > > risk based on this?"
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > > Enlarge the frame of reference.
> > > > Consult literary history to see which themes
> > > > come up again and again. See, for instance,
> > > > Stith Thompson's _Motif-Index to Folk
> > > > Literature_ before deciding that A must
> > > > have derived an idea or theme from Z.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2.
> > > > Limit strictly the weight given to priority alone.
> > > > "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" is by far the
> > > > favorite logical fallacy when it comes to
> > > > theories of literary influence. If famous A's
> > > > themes are echoed in unread Z's prior
> > > > work, then A (though a remarkable author
> > > > in her own right, and endlessly inventive)
> > > > must have lifted them from poor dim Z.
> > > > Unless this fallacy is properly understood,
> > > > wherever a potential source exists and
> > > > comes first in time, however likely or
> > > > unlikely, it will always seem like proof.
> > > > It is NEVER proof. Priority can only
> > > > establish possibility, never causality.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> > > > argument rests heavily on mere priority--the
> > > > primary claim. (Conclusive proof that the
> > > > work is a forgery dating from 1978 would
> > > > of course demolish the argument that the
> > > > "ur-Lolita" could have influenced our Lolita.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3.
> > > > Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> > > > Review the mathematics of coincidence to
> > > > understand the reality rather than one's
> > > > unexamined, automatic perception. If it is
> > > > at all possible that an event or cluster of
> > > > events may be coincidental, use mathematics
> > > > to get a clear idea of the probabilities
> > > > involved. Unnoticed coincidences are
> > > > everywhere. Assigning meaning to the few
> > > > we happen to notice is a form of magical
> > > > thinking.
> > > >
> > > > "There are many simple reasons why most
> > > > people misinterpret coincidences. Humans
> > > > have a poor innate grasp of probability, we
> > > > believe that all effects must have deliberate
> > > > causes, we do not understand the laws
> > > > regarding truly large numbers, and we easily
> > > > succumb to selective validation - the tendency
> > > > to remember only positive correlations and
> > > > forget the far more numerous misses."
> > > > http://www.theness.com/articles/coincidence-cs0104.html
> > > > See also:
> > > > http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/coincidence.html
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> > > > secondary arguments are all based on the
> > > > idea that a cluster of what appear to be
> > > > important similarities cannot be coincidental:
> > > > a) that the two authors lived in the same city
> > > > at the same time; b) that an important
> > > > character is given the same name in both
> > > > versions; c) that there is an unfortunate
> > > > relationship between an older man and a girl
> > > > (though otherwise quite different in all
> > > > other particulars).
> > > >
> > > > These arguments imply:
> > > >
> > > > i. That, though an inventive writer, VN needed
> > > > to scrounge around in the work of others for his
> > > > ideas (this plays into a crude suspicion that
> > > > people with highly developed creative abilities
> > > > must "get their ideas" from somewhere [usually
> > > > somewhere obvious]);
> > > >
> > > > ii. That, though a scrupulous person, a master
> > > > of allusion, and a supremely conscious author,
> > > > VN would lift plot elements and a character
> > > > name from another work without providing explicit
> > > > signposts (such as merciless parody) that direct
> > > > us unequivocally to the original;
> > > >
> > > > iii. Or, alternatively, that VN could be unconsciously
> > > > influenced by the crude mechanisms so far
> > > > proposed--and that those powerful unconscious
> > > > influences could lead to such obvious conscious
> > > > manifestations as a character's name without VN
> > > > remembering he had read or heard of the book (!);
> > > >
> > > > iv. That there MUST be a causal connection, even
> > > > excepting the unlikeness of i-iii, because such a
> > > > coincidence--well, just feels unlikely. I mean, what
> > > > are the odds? You get that funny feeling thinking
> > > > of it, as when two people in a group of
> > > > twenty-three share the same birthday!
> > > >
> > > > The truth is, we can't evaluate the comparative
> > > > probabilities unless someone does the math.
> > > > (Tabloid editors can be expected to run with
> > > > sensational claims without subjecting them to
> > > > a rigorous critical evaluation as part of the
> > > > editorial process. Is the TLS a tabloid?) With
> > > > conclusions that cannot be verified or falsified,
> > > > the responsibility to investigate is not less.
> > > >
> > > > Please notice I do not say that Mr. Maar is wrong;
> > > > only that he has marred his argument, and
> > > > demonstrated nothing. The "resemblance" can
> > > > certainly be a coincidence. Nabokov could
> > > > certainly have used cheap source material
> > > > and transfigured it with delight; but not
> > > > without "attribution." If "Lolita," both as
> > > > title and as name of the martyred girl, is a
> > > > reference to the von Lichberg book, why is it
> > > > unlike all other Nabokovian references in being,
> > > > not an explicit signpost or a direct allusion,
> > > > but only the shadow of a madman's fancy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 4.
> > > > Understand the creative process generally; and
> > > > then in light of era, milieu, and Individual Talent.
> > > > Without an understanding of how creative work
> > > > is done, readers risk falling back into crude
> > > > characterizations of the creative process--
> > > > scratching our heads and grumbling that the
> > > > artist "must have got it somewhere."
> > > > I would like to believe that literary scholars
> > > > have some understanding of how artists create
> > > > their works, but few are uniformly convincing
> > > > on this point. Those who do have wonderful
> > > > insights and understanding seem to have
> > > > arrived there through intuition, rather than
> > > > as experts in how writers arrive at a finished work.
> > > >
> > > > A couple of points:
> > > >
> > > > i. People with highly developed creative abilities
> > > > are likely to invent things independently that
> > > > others have already invented independently.
> > > > Superficial, and even deep, similarities abound.
> > > > This kind of thing happens in science as well
> > > > as the arts.
> > > >
> > > > ii. People with highly developed creative
> > > > abilities are also susceptible to influences--but
> > > > very seldom through the crude mechanism of
> > > > one-to-one correspondence that is often
> > > > supposed. Influences are fluid; when they
> > > > emerge in a new work of art, they are untraceable
> > > > (unless the writer wants them traced). I take the
> > > > "bars of the poor creature's cage" story as a kind
> > > > of a parable of how such influences operate: a
> > > > work may have its genesis in an influence we will
> > > > probably not be able to guess, often something
> > > > quite indirect. Seldom will it be someone else's
> > > > work; and, where it is, it will almost never be
> > > > recognized.
> > > >
> > > > Many a determined reader in earnest pursuit of
> > > > influences brings along the wrong set of tools. It
> > > > is something like watching someone attempt to
> > > > catch butterflies wielding a bicycle instead of a net.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5.
> > > > Understand the nature of "originality" and its
> > > > context.
> > > > Standards of "originality" are local in time
> > > > and place (current standards being a kind of
> > > > copyright-infested, cutely referential, and
> > > > otherwise decaying Romanticism). Not Samuel
> > > > Johnson's standards at all, and of course not
> > > > Shakespeare's. But Nabokov's standards of
> > > > originality are also his own. He was meticulous
> > > > and specific about his references; Poe, Catullus,
> > > > et al., but not Z?
> > > >
> > > > A writer can only be "original" -- however we
> > > > define it -- within a universe that includes
> > > > coincidence, basic human themes, names, words.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 6.
> > > > Would you trust in the argument or assertions
> > > > put forward if doing so really cost you something,
> > > > or put something important at risk?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================
> > > >
> > > > "Coincidence is the evidence of the True Believer."
> > > > --Chet Raymo
> > > > Skeptics and True Believers
> > > > Walker and Company, 1998, p. 107.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness."
> > > > --Bertrand Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "It is also important to remember that the
> > > > connection between a cause and its effect must
> > > > be a legitimate consequence of natural laws.
> > > > Pseudoscience frequently misapplies
> > > > irrelevancies (such as simple coincidence) to
> > > > imply such a connection, then brings in
> > > > untestable (therefore scientifically meaningless)
> > > > supernatural* agents to connect cause and effect."
> > > > --Zoran Pazameta
> > > > The Laws of Nature: A Skeptic's Guide
> > > > http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/laws.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "When the original is well chosen and judiciously
> > > > copied, the imitator often arrives at excellence
> > > > which he could never have attained without
> > > > direction; for few are formed with abilities to
> > > > discover new possibilities of excellence, and to
> > > > distinguish themselves by means never tried
> > > > before."
> > > >
> > > > --Samuel Johnson
> > > > Rambler No. 164
> > > > October 12, 1751
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------
> > > > * Or "unconscious," or other putative causal agents
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
"Salt & Lo" posting of April 19th.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bolt" <t@tbolt.com>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (736
lines) ------------------
> Dear List,
>
> A few comments below, if you can bear them.
>
> ============
>
> AN APOLOGY
> My intention was to make general comments
> that would cover all sorts of claims of influence,
> including those put forward for the THE PRICE
> OF SALT (hence "Salt and Lo"), and including
> any such claims made in evaluating any such
> connection anywhere. The difficulty of
> evaluating influence is neither an isolated
> phenomenon nor one peculiar to Nabokov
> (though Nabokov criticism has gone far a-Field
> from time to time). It is certainly not specific to
> Mr. Maar, and I did not intend to give that
> impression. In fact, I did take care in my earlier
> post to say "I do not say that Mr. Maar is
> wrong" but that he has "demonstrated
> nothing" regarding a causal connection. I
> neither made religious inferences nor claims
> of anti-Karlist tendencies. But it was a bad
> decision on my part to illustrate my general
> thesis with specific comments on which
> arguments might or might not support a
> connection of some kind between v.L's story
> and VN's novel; I should have made those
> comments separately. I did not, I believe,
> impute "claims or implications" to Mr. Maar
> that were "the exact opposite" of what he
> wrote; except where I explicitly treated
> individual arguments around the possibility
> of a vL-VN connection, I was attempting to
> examine the methods we use to arrive at
> and support our conclusions regarding
> questions of influence, and to criticize the
> a widespread set of assumptions about
> how writers arrive at their ideas. I do believe
> that I can demonstrate (though this is not
> the place for it) that it is difficult for
> commentators on literature to resist the
> appeal of an apparent connection. "What if"
> is usually a wonderful question to ask. It's all
> in how you choose to answer it.
>
> At any rate, my posting to the List was NOT
> intended as a prolonged screed on Mr. Maar's
> arguments. I see now that it can be read that
> way, and I apologize to him and to the List.
>
>
> HOWEVER: A FEW COMMENTS ON MR.
> MAaR'S NOTES ON MY NOTE
> 1. Coincidence
>
> a) Quoting scientists is not "doing the math"
> Mr. Marr's comments and citations on
> coincidence are merely anecdotal. Please note
> that I do NOT argue for coincidence as the only
> answer, but only for grasping its mathematical
> implications and thereby the nature of the
> only universe in which we can rationally assess
> any of the three hypotheses put forward by
> Mr. Marr (and I agree that there may well be
> more than three*).
>
> b) Tendentious diction is rhetoric, not reason
> "Why then should the chain of concordances
> between the two Lolitas, instead of being
> anchored in cause and effect, not simply
> dangle from the ether of pure contingency?
> Indeed that cannot be excluded. (!!) But it
> would be quite a wonder."
>
> I speak of similarities as a "cluster"--a neutral
> term that does not either presuppose or
> invalidate. Mr. Maar's language is bent to
> reinforce the conclusion he finds "perhaps the
> most plausible of the three." When "concordances"
> come in a "chain," they are linked, whether
> dangled or anchored; when a coincidence is
> described as a "wonder," when it "cannot be
> excluded," we are not giving coincidence its
> due, we are all but dismissing it--and not with
> rational argument, but with rhetoric.
>
> c) Littlewood's Law applies to one person, not
> to our frame of reference
> The word "wonder" is carried over from the
> Littlewood quote. See Freeman Dyson's article
> in the NYRB at
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991
> (quoted below) for an extended definition of
> Littlewood's Law--it treats a different frame
> of reference than the one under examination.
>
> d) What is our frame of reference?
> A drastically simplified argument for v.L's
> causal connection to VN's later work would,
> I think, read as follows:
>
> 1. Berlin overlap establishes availability of
> v.L story to VN
> 2. v.L story has similarities to a later work by VN
>
> Some questions we need to ask in order to
> evaluate the probability of coincidence:
>
> 1. What is the frame of reference?
> This takes an expertise in probability**--if there
> are any experts out there, please advise. To get
> a rough idea of the numbers, I would begin
> (but not end) by asking:
> - What number of books in Russian, English,
> French, and German was available to VN during
> the period in question? (the universe of
> possibilities)
> - Of the available books, how many is it possible
> that VN could have read, assuming a rate of X
> books / year?
> - How many books (read or unread) might have
> had suggestive things in common with some
> later work by VN?
> - How many accessible books not from this
> period (read or unread), but published before
> a given work by VN, might have had suggestive
> things in common with that given later work
> by VN?
> - Assuming vL's book to have suggestive things
> in common with some later work by VN, what
> are the odds that VN read it and was, whether
> consciously or unconsciously, influenced by it?
>
> Some questions we need to ask in order to
> evaluate the probability of causality:
> 1. What was Nabokov's practice?
> - Can we cite other instances of possible
> cryptomnesia in VN's work?
> - Can we cite instances where VN alluded to
> something without supplying a "signpost"
> because the work was sub-literary? Mr. Marr
> says that even alluding to such a work "does
> not fit Nabokov. Allusions to Poe, Proust or
> Pushkin, to Shakespeare, Chateaubriand or
> Joyce, which teem in his work, possess a
> valency that allusions to an unknown minor
> writer could never have." But a look at THE
> ANNOTATED LOLITA for many, many traceable
> references to junk, tritenesses, and "forgotten
> minor works," each reference specific--even
> down to the identification of individual
> advertisements.)
> - Can we rule out the Menard Effect?
> Because of time's arrow, we are predisposed
> to assume that if one work follows another in
> time, it may have been influenced by it.
> Scholars, because of their wide reading, and
> because of their training, are especially
> susceptible to this preconception and need
> to guard against it.
> - Have we corrected for the Confirmation Bias?
> See: http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
>
>
>
> HYPOTHESIS REGARDING THE
> DISPROPORTIONATELY VEHEMENT RESPONSE
> TO MR. MARR'S HYPOTHESES
>
> Mr. Maar's third, preferred claim, however
> gently put forth, has an underlying
> sensationalistic appeal--played down by sober
> commentators, played up by tabloids (which
> must have been painful to Mr. Maar, and far
> from his intentions). But let's admit it: it makes
> a juicy story if it's true. That gives it a certain
> momentum as an assertion, true or false,
> tentative or QED'd. All the more reason to
> examine it, to make sure we are not carried
> away by our intuition (which likes to see
> patterns, real or projected, and is always
> looking for significance).
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Tom Bolt
> Cedarn, Utana
>
>
> ------------
> *
> Hypothesis 4:
> BERLIN--Kafka gets off of the tram, leaving
> behind his copy of the Gioconda volume, with
> the Lolita story dogeared. Nabokov picks up
> the book, chuckles at the title, and, smiling
> his Mona Lisa smile, turns to the marked page:
> he reads only the title: Lo-Lee-Ta, before the
> tram slides heavily into the curve just before
> his stop. Still smiling that odd little smile,
> Nabokov leaves the book with the driver for
> the Lost and Found. It is not the first time he
> has seen the name "Lolita," but this time it
> sticks. He files it away for future use.
>
> Of course the scene-setting is silly, but the
> fourth possibility remains: Nabokov also could
> have seen the story's title alone, say in a table
> of contents, no more.
>
> ------------
> **
> "...the strength of a conclusion is a function
> both of the quality of the evidence provided
> in its support and the a priori probability of
> the claim being supported. Thus there can
> never be a single standard of "acceptable
> evidence" that will suffice to render every
> claim equally plausible. [...] A more precise
> formulation requires us to cast the a priori
> probability of a claim into the form of "odds"
> in its favor. A proposition with 90% probability
> of being true has 90 chances of being true for
> every 10 of being false. Thus the odds are 90
> to 10, which reduces to 9 to 1. A proposition
> with 20% probability of being true has 20
> chances of being true for 80 of being false.
> The odds (in its favor) are 20 to 80 or 0.25 to 1.
> It is more natural to translate the latter case
> into odds of 4 to 1 against the proposition,
> but the calculations require us to work with
> odds "in favor of" a proposition, even if they
> are fractional. Pieces of evidence alter the
> odds in favor of a proposition by a multiplicative
> factor in proportion to the quality of the
> evidence. A good source of evidence might
> multiply the odds by 200. A fair one, perhaps,
> by 10. A negative result might reduce the
> odds 10-fold."
> "Why Extraordinary Claims Demand
> Extraordinary Proof"
> Ed J. Gracely
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html
>
> ------------
>
> Dyson on Littlewood's Law of Miracles
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991
>
> Dyson writes:
> The paradoxical feature of the laws of probability
> is that they make unlikely events happen
> unexpectedly often. A simple way to state the
> paradox is Littlewood's Law of Miracles. Littlewood
> was a famous mathematician who was teaching at
> Cambridge University when I was a student. Being
> a professional mathematician, he defined miracles
> precisely before stating his law about them. He
> defined a miracle as an event that has special
> significance when it occurs, but occurs with a
> probability of one in a million. This definition
> agrees with our common-sense understanding
> of the word "miracle."
>
> Littlewood's Law of Miracles states that in the
> course of any normal person's life, miracles
> happen at a rate of roughly one per month. The
> proof of the law is simple. During the time that
> we are awake and actively engaged in living our
> lives, roughly for eight hours each day, we see
> and hear things happening at a rate of about
> one per second. So the total number of events
> that happen to us is about thirty thousand per
> day, or about a million per month. With few
> exceptions, these events are not miracles because
> they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is
> about one per million events. Therefore we should
> expect about one miracle to happen, on the
> average, every month. Broch tells stories of some
> amazing coincidences that happened to him and
> his friends, all of them easily explained as
> consequences of Littlewood's Law.
>
> David G. Myers writes:
> "That a particular specified event or coincidence
> will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing
> unspecified events will occur is certain. That is
> why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight,
> not predicted with foresight."
>
> Robert Todd Carroll writes:
> "...clusters of coincidences can seem designed or
> the result of a preordained pattern to someone
> who is very selective in his thinking."
> http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html
>
> --------------
> Note that Dyson / Littlewood do not define
> "significant," or approach another problem,
> the retrospective appearance of significance--
> significance in its guise as McFate. (Example:
> I once missed walking into a gunfight that
> killed three people by precisely the timing of
> a telephone call that caught me on the way
> out the door--glad I wrote that recommendation,
> happy he got that grant and called to say
> thanks.)
>
>
>
> =============
>
>
>
> "D. Barton Johnson" wrote:
>
> > EDNOTE. I thank Dr. Maar for his response to Messieurs Bolt and Dolinin.
My only comment is that his remark likening NABOKV-L to a church seems
amiss.
> > NABOKV-L is a forum which, as such, has no a priori positions. The views
of contributors are their own and do not represent those of the editor
(unless clearly stated as such).
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Maar" <michael.maar@snafu.de>
> >
> > Dear List,
> >
> > I must confess that the question whether the TLS is a tabloid or not
seems
> > much less puzzling to me than another question - whether Mr. Bolt has
read
> > the article published in it. For had he done so, he would have come
across
> > the following sentences, which could have spared him many a brillant
> > paragraph.
> >
> > "What exactly are we dealing with here? There are only three
possibilities,
> > at any rate until someone shows us a fourth. The first is that we are
in
> > the presence of one of those fortuitous coincidences which recur in the
> > history of art and science. (!) As we have known since Aristotle, it
> > belongs to the laws of probability that the improbable occurs. It even
> > occurs unexpectedly often. (!)
> >
> > Littlewood's law, called after the Cambridge mathematician, states that
on
> > average everyone can expect a wonder a month. Why then should the chain
of
> > concordances between the two Lolitas, instead of being anchored in cause
and
> > effect, not simply dangle from the ether of pure contingency? Indeed
that
> > cannot be excluded. (!!) But it would be quite a wonder." (TLS, April
2, p.
> > 15)
> >
> > Readers may check and compare these remarks with the items in Mr.
Bolt's
> > message below. Those who have seen the TLS will notice that Mr. Bolt
> > repeatedly imputes claims or implications to me that are the exact
opposite
> > of what I wrote.
> >
> > Another example: "though an inventive writer, VN needed to scrounge
around
> > in the work of others for his ideas". Again, I might be allowed to
quote
> > from this more often attacked than perused article:
> >
> > "The second possibility is that Nabokov knew of Lichberg's tale, and
> > half-revealing, half-covering his tracks, lent himself to that art of
> > quotation which Thomas Mann, himself a master of it, called the 'higher
> > cribbing'. Plagiarism? Nonsense. After all, literature has always
been a
> > huge melting pot of motives, and always consisted, in part, of
literature.
> > But setting that aside, this second eventuality is as unlikely as the
> > first. It does not fit Nabokov. Allusions to Poe, Proust or Pushkin, to
> > Shakespeare, Chateaubriand or Joyce, which teem in his work, possess a
> > valency that allusions to an unknown minor writer could never have.
Nabokov
> > had no need to crib (!), nor would he have ennobled a von Lichberg by
> > citing the name of his heroine."
> >
> > This last paragraph might offer some remedy to Mr. Bolt's disbelief
that "a
> > master of allusion, and a supremely conscious author, VN would lift plot
> > elements and a character name from another work without providing
explicit
> > signposts (such as merciless parody) that direct us unequivocally to the
> > original".
> >
> > There remains a third possibility. Professor Dolinin is generous in
> > expressions of indignation at my article, but doesn't he in fact
provide us
> > with a more generalized version of just what I set down in that very
> > article in the TLS?
> >
> > Here is what he writes:
> >
> > "Texts belonging to these genres usually have a very short life-span;
after
> > a while their individual characteristics are obliterated from the
readers
> > memory; they merge with their peers, dissolving into an anonymous mass,
not
> > unlike folklore, of standard plots, situations, characters, stylistic
> > clichés. It is from this anonymous mass of forgotten texts that Nabokov
> > preferred to draw ideas for his works because a lucky catch in the sea
of
> > bad literature could be transformed beyond recognition and interwoven
into
> > a new context without participating in intertextual dialogue."
> >
> > Very well: and what exactly would be the difference with my thesis of
> > cryptomnesia? To repeat myself for a last time: "That leaves the third
> > possibility as perhaps the most plausible. In some mysterious way
Lichberg's
> > 'Die verfluchte Gioconda' fell into his hands. Leafing through it, he
could
> > have come upon the story of the nymphet and so the theme that had
already
> > begun to dawdle in his mind. He forgot the tale completely, or thought
he
> > had forgotten it. Of this phenomenon too, cryptomnesia, the history of
art
> > offers enough examples. Much later, drawn to the surface by new bait,
whole
> > scraps of the story rose from the depths."
> >
> > Prof. Dolinin speaking of the sea of bad and forgotten literature from
> > which Nabokov drew ideas; the TLS speaking of scraps rising from the
depths
> > of this forgotten literature: What would be the substantial difference?
I
> > can find only one, but it is the most important. In Lichberg's case
there
> > is more in play than just a question of "standard plot", as anyone who
> > reads my essay will see.
> >
> > This difference leads me to a more general observation. There is a
shade
> > too much outrage in the air, a bit too much of talk of innocence and
sin. I
> > haven't thought of this list, which I have often read with pleasure, as
a
> > semi-religious sphere before, and I didn't expect to confront a church
when
> > I presented what I had found. It doesn't seem superfluous to remind
some
> > readers that the unspeakable Heinz von Lichberg (a new Lord Voldemort
for
> > Nabokv-L, as it appears) is not a perfidious invention of mine. I
didn't
> > make that first nymphet up. I didn't print the "Lolita" of 1916 in my
> > cellar to shock Nabokovians. I did what philologists are accustomed to
do
> > when discovering two texts with the same title and the same core-story:
I
> > compared. Without forcing on readers any particular explanation of the
> > parallels between them, I examined their similiarities. Far from being
> > merely "vague", they were strong enough to convince even my most
critical
> > reviewers in the literary pages of the German press; strong enough,
indeed,
> > to cast me in the eyes of the "New York Observer" as an
all-too-cautious
> > partisan of the writer, "seeking to give Nabokov every
> > benefit of the doubt" in considering the parallels.
> >
> > I still think it to be the first philological virtue (to adopt the
> > moralistic language of my critics) to read and to quote correctly.
> > Regrettably, this has so far not often been the case. I want to thank
Prof.
> > Kunin for having strengthened my hopes of a change for the better.
> >
> > Michael Maar
> > -------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > An: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. April 2004 01:58
> > > Betreff: - Salt and Lo -=: Critieria for evaluating subtext
> > >
> > >
> > > EDNOTE. Tom Bolt, writer of poetry and prose, critic, and artist,
proposes
> > > some exceedingly sound thoughts on critieria for evaluating proposed
> > > literary influences. Apparently inspired by the Maar affair, they
offer a
> > > theoretical framework for many of the issues involved. His thoughts
are of
> > > particular interest in that he is the author of a stunning long poem
"Dark
> > > Ice" that has an intricate and fascinating relationship with _Pale
Fire_.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Thomas Bolt" <t@tbolt.com>
> > > > Dear NABOKV-L,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there a serious approach to making or
> > > > evaluating assertions around "influence"
> > > > or (as it were) "unconscious intertextuality"?
> > > >
> > > > I try to use these steps:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Enlarge the frame of reference. Similar
> > > > themes and ideas and stylistic directions
> > > > come up again and again, even where they
> > > > are unlikely to have been transmitted.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Limit strictly the weight given to priority
> > > > alone. Priority is not a proof, no matter how
> > > > obvious it may appear to make a connection.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> > > > Understand actual probabilities rather than
> > > > relying on intuition. (Our intuitive response
> > > > to coincidence is almost always wrong.)
> > > >
> > > > 4. Understand the creative process.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Understand the nature of "originality" in
> > > > context (author, era, history, probability,
> > > > repetition of themes)
> > > >
> > > > 6. Take your conclusions seriously--use the
> > > > test, "Would I put something important at
> > > > risk based on this?"
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > > Enlarge the frame of reference.
> > > > Consult literary history to see which themes
> > > > come up again and again. See, for instance,
> > > > Stith Thompson's _Motif-Index to Folk
> > > > Literature_ before deciding that A must
> > > > have derived an idea or theme from Z.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2.
> > > > Limit strictly the weight given to priority alone.
> > > > "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" is by far the
> > > > favorite logical fallacy when it comes to
> > > > theories of literary influence. If famous A's
> > > > themes are echoed in unread Z's prior
> > > > work, then A (though a remarkable author
> > > > in her own right, and endlessly inventive)
> > > > must have lifted them from poor dim Z.
> > > > Unless this fallacy is properly understood,
> > > > wherever a potential source exists and
> > > > comes first in time, however likely or
> > > > unlikely, it will always seem like proof.
> > > > It is NEVER proof. Priority can only
> > > > establish possibility, never causality.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> > > > argument rests heavily on mere priority--the
> > > > primary claim. (Conclusive proof that the
> > > > work is a forgery dating from 1978 would
> > > > of course demolish the argument that the
> > > > "ur-Lolita" could have influenced our Lolita.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3.
> > > > Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> > > > Review the mathematics of coincidence to
> > > > understand the reality rather than one's
> > > > unexamined, automatic perception. If it is
> > > > at all possible that an event or cluster of
> > > > events may be coincidental, use mathematics
> > > > to get a clear idea of the probabilities
> > > > involved. Unnoticed coincidences are
> > > > everywhere. Assigning meaning to the few
> > > > we happen to notice is a form of magical
> > > > thinking.
> > > >
> > > > "There are many simple reasons why most
> > > > people misinterpret coincidences. Humans
> > > > have a poor innate grasp of probability, we
> > > > believe that all effects must have deliberate
> > > > causes, we do not understand the laws
> > > > regarding truly large numbers, and we easily
> > > > succumb to selective validation - the tendency
> > > > to remember only positive correlations and
> > > > forget the far more numerous misses."
> > > > http://www.theness.com/articles/coincidence-cs0104.html
> > > > See also:
> > > > http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/coincidence.html
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> > > > secondary arguments are all based on the
> > > > idea that a cluster of what appear to be
> > > > important similarities cannot be coincidental:
> > > > a) that the two authors lived in the same city
> > > > at the same time; b) that an important
> > > > character is given the same name in both
> > > > versions; c) that there is an unfortunate
> > > > relationship between an older man and a girl
> > > > (though otherwise quite different in all
> > > > other particulars).
> > > >
> > > > These arguments imply:
> > > >
> > > > i. That, though an inventive writer, VN needed
> > > > to scrounge around in the work of others for his
> > > > ideas (this plays into a crude suspicion that
> > > > people with highly developed creative abilities
> > > > must "get their ideas" from somewhere [usually
> > > > somewhere obvious]);
> > > >
> > > > ii. That, though a scrupulous person, a master
> > > > of allusion, and a supremely conscious author,
> > > > VN would lift plot elements and a character
> > > > name from another work without providing explicit
> > > > signposts (such as merciless parody) that direct
> > > > us unequivocally to the original;
> > > >
> > > > iii. Or, alternatively, that VN could be unconsciously
> > > > influenced by the crude mechanisms so far
> > > > proposed--and that those powerful unconscious
> > > > influences could lead to such obvious conscious
> > > > manifestations as a character's name without VN
> > > > remembering he had read or heard of the book (!);
> > > >
> > > > iv. That there MUST be a causal connection, even
> > > > excepting the unlikeness of i-iii, because such a
> > > > coincidence--well, just feels unlikely. I mean, what
> > > > are the odds? You get that funny feeling thinking
> > > > of it, as when two people in a group of
> > > > twenty-three share the same birthday!
> > > >
> > > > The truth is, we can't evaluate the comparative
> > > > probabilities unless someone does the math.
> > > > (Tabloid editors can be expected to run with
> > > > sensational claims without subjecting them to
> > > > a rigorous critical evaluation as part of the
> > > > editorial process. Is the TLS a tabloid?) With
> > > > conclusions that cannot be verified or falsified,
> > > > the responsibility to investigate is not less.
> > > >
> > > > Please notice I do not say that Mr. Maar is wrong;
> > > > only that he has marred his argument, and
> > > > demonstrated nothing. The "resemblance" can
> > > > certainly be a coincidence. Nabokov could
> > > > certainly have used cheap source material
> > > > and transfigured it with delight; but not
> > > > without "attribution." If "Lolita," both as
> > > > title and as name of the martyred girl, is a
> > > > reference to the von Lichberg book, why is it
> > > > unlike all other Nabokovian references in being,
> > > > not an explicit signpost or a direct allusion,
> > > > but only the shadow of a madman's fancy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 4.
> > > > Understand the creative process generally; and
> > > > then in light of era, milieu, and Individual Talent.
> > > > Without an understanding of how creative work
> > > > is done, readers risk falling back into crude
> > > > characterizations of the creative process--
> > > > scratching our heads and grumbling that the
> > > > artist "must have got it somewhere."
> > > > I would like to believe that literary scholars
> > > > have some understanding of how artists create
> > > > their works, but few are uniformly convincing
> > > > on this point. Those who do have wonderful
> > > > insights and understanding seem to have
> > > > arrived there through intuition, rather than
> > > > as experts in how writers arrive at a finished work.
> > > >
> > > > A couple of points:
> > > >
> > > > i. People with highly developed creative abilities
> > > > are likely to invent things independently that
> > > > others have already invented independently.
> > > > Superficial, and even deep, similarities abound.
> > > > This kind of thing happens in science as well
> > > > as the arts.
> > > >
> > > > ii. People with highly developed creative
> > > > abilities are also susceptible to influences--but
> > > > very seldom through the crude mechanism of
> > > > one-to-one correspondence that is often
> > > > supposed. Influences are fluid; when they
> > > > emerge in a new work of art, they are untraceable
> > > > (unless the writer wants them traced). I take the
> > > > "bars of the poor creature's cage" story as a kind
> > > > of a parable of how such influences operate: a
> > > > work may have its genesis in an influence we will
> > > > probably not be able to guess, often something
> > > > quite indirect. Seldom will it be someone else's
> > > > work; and, where it is, it will almost never be
> > > > recognized.
> > > >
> > > > Many a determined reader in earnest pursuit of
> > > > influences brings along the wrong set of tools. It
> > > > is something like watching someone attempt to
> > > > catch butterflies wielding a bicycle instead of a net.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5.
> > > > Understand the nature of "originality" and its
> > > > context.
> > > > Standards of "originality" are local in time
> > > > and place (current standards being a kind of
> > > > copyright-infested, cutely referential, and
> > > > otherwise decaying Romanticism). Not Samuel
> > > > Johnson's standards at all, and of course not
> > > > Shakespeare's. But Nabokov's standards of
> > > > originality are also his own. He was meticulous
> > > > and specific about his references; Poe, Catullus,
> > > > et al., but not Z?
> > > >
> > > > A writer can only be "original" -- however we
> > > > define it -- within a universe that includes
> > > > coincidence, basic human themes, names, words.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 6.
> > > > Would you trust in the argument or assertions
> > > > put forward if doing so really cost you something,
> > > > or put something important at risk?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================
> > > >
> > > > "Coincidence is the evidence of the True Believer."
> > > > --Chet Raymo
> > > > Skeptics and True Believers
> > > > Walker and Company, 1998, p. 107.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness."
> > > > --Bertrand Russell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "It is also important to remember that the
> > > > connection between a cause and its effect must
> > > > be a legitimate consequence of natural laws.
> > > > Pseudoscience frequently misapplies
> > > > irrelevancies (such as simple coincidence) to
> > > > imply such a connection, then brings in
> > > > untestable (therefore scientifically meaningless)
> > > > supernatural* agents to connect cause and effect."
> > > > --Zoran Pazameta
> > > > The Laws of Nature: A Skeptic's Guide
> > > > http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/laws.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "When the original is well chosen and judiciously
> > > > copied, the imitator often arrives at excellence
> > > > which he could never have attained without
> > > > direction; for few are formed with abilities to
> > > > discover new possibilities of excellence, and to
> > > > distinguish themselves by means never tried
> > > > before."
> > > >
> > > > --Samuel Johnson
> > > > Rambler No. 164
> > > > October 12, 1751
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------
> > > > * Or "unconscious," or other putative causal agents
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>