Subject
Morrison vs. Boyd (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: "Peter A. Kartsev" <petr@glas.apc.org>
The "Support Your Local Witch-doctor" signs are going up. I wonder if
Marx, too, would find his champions on this list. If so, Mr. Boyd had
better beware, as they are known for even less restraint. The tone of
Jim Morrison's overheated posting makes one suspect that the Freudians
are not so impervious to Nabokovian criticism as VN is to their
allegorical interpretations. I do not think that I am qualified to
defend Mr. Boyd since, like him, I have not read each and every novelist
who ever took up the pen. However, I've got something to say and I want
to use this opportunity while the irony is hot (er, sorry about this).
Mr. Morrison asks whether it's a ridiculous claim that ... is an
allegory of ... (please fill in the blanks). If he means, is it
ridiculous that VN intended this or that book as an allegory of
something or other, then I believe the answer is yes, and I think
anybody familiar with his strong opinions would have to agree. Unless,
of course, the old argument is used that VN lied and deceived us poor
readers with every breath he took. I have long ceased to wonder at the
imbecility of this thesis: apparently, to some, a compulsive liar is
easier to accept than a man who voices his true beliefs in blissful
disregard of the prevailing fad of the moment, be it a Freud, or a
Sartre, or whatever. A theory of the same school is the idea that he
disparaged Freud because he was afraid to loose his happy childhood to
him. What a laugh he would have had... Maybe I am missing something, but
should we all be afraid then, or is it only VN whom we credit with this
curious paranoia? Did VN ever show himself to be so mentally insecure?
To go back to Mr. Morrison. If, on the other hand, he means whether
it's ridiculous of him to interpret "Lolita" as a Freudian allegory
regardless of the context of Nabokov's aesthetics, then my answer will
have to be yes again, on the grounds that it makes the book poorer by a
dimension or two. The value (literary or otherwise) of a Freudian
allegory is unclear to me. We all can imagine, I guess, what happens
when a person can not control his or her libido and/or death instinct,
if Mr. Morrison, whom I am quoting, insists on this unappealing
terminology. Do we need to interpret any work of fiction as further
enlightening and/or cautioning us on this unexciting subject? Does art
have to be a vehicle for some sordid little meaning? I feel it would be
rather absurd to imagine VN as a deluded explorer of this particular
territory.
Peter A. Kartsev
Moscow, Russia
(We've tested Marx here, too. It ain't working.)
The "Support Your Local Witch-doctor" signs are going up. I wonder if
Marx, too, would find his champions on this list. If so, Mr. Boyd had
better beware, as they are known for even less restraint. The tone of
Jim Morrison's overheated posting makes one suspect that the Freudians
are not so impervious to Nabokovian criticism as VN is to their
allegorical interpretations. I do not think that I am qualified to
defend Mr. Boyd since, like him, I have not read each and every novelist
who ever took up the pen. However, I've got something to say and I want
to use this opportunity while the irony is hot (er, sorry about this).
Mr. Morrison asks whether it's a ridiculous claim that ... is an
allegory of ... (please fill in the blanks). If he means, is it
ridiculous that VN intended this or that book as an allegory of
something or other, then I believe the answer is yes, and I think
anybody familiar with his strong opinions would have to agree. Unless,
of course, the old argument is used that VN lied and deceived us poor
readers with every breath he took. I have long ceased to wonder at the
imbecility of this thesis: apparently, to some, a compulsive liar is
easier to accept than a man who voices his true beliefs in blissful
disregard of the prevailing fad of the moment, be it a Freud, or a
Sartre, or whatever. A theory of the same school is the idea that he
disparaged Freud because he was afraid to loose his happy childhood to
him. What a laugh he would have had... Maybe I am missing something, but
should we all be afraid then, or is it only VN whom we credit with this
curious paranoia? Did VN ever show himself to be so mentally insecure?
To go back to Mr. Morrison. If, on the other hand, he means whether
it's ridiculous of him to interpret "Lolita" as a Freudian allegory
regardless of the context of Nabokov's aesthetics, then my answer will
have to be yes again, on the grounds that it makes the book poorer by a
dimension or two. The value (literary or otherwise) of a Freudian
allegory is unclear to me. We all can imagine, I guess, what happens
when a person can not control his or her libido and/or death instinct,
if Mr. Morrison, whom I am quoting, insists on this unappealing
terminology. Do we need to interpret any work of fiction as further
enlightening and/or cautioning us on this unexciting subject? Does art
have to be a vehicle for some sordid little meaning? I feel it would be
rather absurd to imagine VN as a deluded explorer of this particular
territory.
Peter A. Kartsev
Moscow, Russia
(We've tested Marx here, too. It ain't working.)