Subject
VN and Freud (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Patrick Nolan <pnolan@animalwelfare.com>
Susan Sweeney wrote, "it seems more useful to try to figure out why VN
concerned himself with Freud at all. (And, of course, why so
vehemently?)"
Doesn't Nabokov make a point of acknowledging that Freud doesn't
quite deserve the energy he (that is, Nabokov) is expending to dismiss
him?
VVN was no doubt aware of the sticky Catch-22's Freudians adore
("I'm not sure who it was in the dream, but it DEFINITELY wasn't my
mother"), and he more than once seems to take the attitude of "...and
that's all we will say about that figure of fun," as though protesting
too much would dignify Freudism.
E.g., "Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that
their personal woes can be solved by the daily application of old Greek
myths to their private parts. I really do not care" (misquoted from
memory).
This is quite a pickle we're in, if to deny the relevance of
something--however "vehemently"--is to demonstrate that, actually, it is
very relevant. It's like the old conundrum of "On Negation" and denial:
someone who is not an alcoholic says, "I'm not an alcoholic." Of
course, denial is a classic symptom of alcoholism, so....
Why doesn't it suffice to say that VN concerned himself with
Freud in response to what he thought was a disproportionate and
undeserved cultural prominence?
Patrick Nolan
Susan Sweeney wrote, "it seems more useful to try to figure out why VN
concerned himself with Freud at all. (And, of course, why so
vehemently?)"
Doesn't Nabokov make a point of acknowledging that Freud doesn't
quite deserve the energy he (that is, Nabokov) is expending to dismiss
him?
VVN was no doubt aware of the sticky Catch-22's Freudians adore
("I'm not sure who it was in the dream, but it DEFINITELY wasn't my
mother"), and he more than once seems to take the attitude of "...and
that's all we will say about that figure of fun," as though protesting
too much would dignify Freudism.
E.g., "Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that
their personal woes can be solved by the daily application of old Greek
myths to their private parts. I really do not care" (misquoted from
memory).
This is quite a pickle we're in, if to deny the relevance of
something--however "vehemently"--is to demonstrate that, actually, it is
very relevant. It's like the old conundrum of "On Negation" and denial:
someone who is not an alcoholic says, "I'm not an alcoholic." Of
course, denial is a classic symptom of alcoholism, so....
Why doesn't it suffice to say that VN concerned himself with
Freud in response to what he thought was a disproportionate and
undeserved cultural prominence?
Patrick Nolan