Subject
Re: Nabokov and Pedophilia (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: TENTENDER <TENTENDER@aol.com>
Mr. Vorobey's posting has finally provoked me to enter this rather bizarre
fray.
While the concept of "identification" is a vague one (and seems to be based in
the kind of "psychology" practiced by the Viennese witch doctor), it is
perhaps more pertinent to cite the example of Shakespeare (master of a more
encompassing and human type of psychology) -- who clearly "identifies" (in a
much simpler and, in my estimation, more meaningful sense) with every
character he writes -- no matter how small that character's role may be in a
play. This, along with his unimaginably huge poetic gift, is what makes
Shakespeare great: every line in his plays is "about" character. A superb
example: a very minor figure in CYMBELINE, the Second Lord [who appears in
only acts one and two, attendant on Cloten] is differentiated from the First
Lord in these scenes as understanding that Cloten is a fool, and a dangerous
one. Why, we may well ask, does this character exist at all, and why is he
given an insight that the other is not? In his second and final appearance
(end of Act II, scene i), this Lord is given (rather astonishingly) a brief
soliloquy, in which we learn that his needling of Cloten is the surface
manifestation of care and concern for Imogen and her husband Posthumous, who
are being unjustly thwarted by the power figures (King, Queen, Cloten) in the
court. With a total of no more than 35 lines, Shakespeare has created a
character full of beauty and pity -- a memorable person. This, to me, is the,
shall we say, technical literary definition of "identification." (When we ask,
"Who does the author intend us to identify with?" we are asking something else
-- and something in essence non-artistic.)
The "identification" of Nabokov (probably the greatest literary genius since
Shakespeare) "as" a pedophile, a nymphet, a child abuser, a good father, a
kind husband -- or whatever else -- from his books is absurd, based on a gross
misunderstanding of the nature of the creative process.
Why the SUBJECT of pedophilia interested him (if it interested him at all, and
I am led to believe it did NOT in a "human" or "moral" sense -- rather, as he
tells Edmund Wilson, I believe, as the vehicle for the solution of a
particular artistic problem -- and what that problem is EXACTLY is rather
mysterious) is not really of interest -- except that when the question is
used (as it appears to be being used on the list at the moment) to cast doubt
on the ultimate "value" of the man's work by making it appear morally suspect,
we had better examine our method of thinking about it. It's wrongheaded, and
it's dangerous.
That the new LOLITA film MIGHT be (absurd as this possibility seems) as great
a work of art as the novel and is not being seen in the U.S. on the basis of
its subject matter is really quite reprehensible. With all that TITANIC money
lying around, mightn't Fox or Paramount just pick it up as an act of artistic
mercy?
Christopher Berg
Mr. Vorobey's posting has finally provoked me to enter this rather bizarre
fray.
While the concept of "identification" is a vague one (and seems to be based in
the kind of "psychology" practiced by the Viennese witch doctor), it is
perhaps more pertinent to cite the example of Shakespeare (master of a more
encompassing and human type of psychology) -- who clearly "identifies" (in a
much simpler and, in my estimation, more meaningful sense) with every
character he writes -- no matter how small that character's role may be in a
play. This, along with his unimaginably huge poetic gift, is what makes
Shakespeare great: every line in his plays is "about" character. A superb
example: a very minor figure in CYMBELINE, the Second Lord [who appears in
only acts one and two, attendant on Cloten] is differentiated from the First
Lord in these scenes as understanding that Cloten is a fool, and a dangerous
one. Why, we may well ask, does this character exist at all, and why is he
given an insight that the other is not? In his second and final appearance
(end of Act II, scene i), this Lord is given (rather astonishingly) a brief
soliloquy, in which we learn that his needling of Cloten is the surface
manifestation of care and concern for Imogen and her husband Posthumous, who
are being unjustly thwarted by the power figures (King, Queen, Cloten) in the
court. With a total of no more than 35 lines, Shakespeare has created a
character full of beauty and pity -- a memorable person. This, to me, is the,
shall we say, technical literary definition of "identification." (When we ask,
"Who does the author intend us to identify with?" we are asking something else
-- and something in essence non-artistic.)
The "identification" of Nabokov (probably the greatest literary genius since
Shakespeare) "as" a pedophile, a nymphet, a child abuser, a good father, a
kind husband -- or whatever else -- from his books is absurd, based on a gross
misunderstanding of the nature of the creative process.
Why the SUBJECT of pedophilia interested him (if it interested him at all, and
I am led to believe it did NOT in a "human" or "moral" sense -- rather, as he
tells Edmund Wilson, I believe, as the vehicle for the solution of a
particular artistic problem -- and what that problem is EXACTLY is rather
mysterious) is not really of interest -- except that when the question is
used (as it appears to be being used on the list at the moment) to cast doubt
on the ultimate "value" of the man's work by making it appear morally suspect,
we had better examine our method of thinking about it. It's wrongheaded, and
it's dangerous.
That the new LOLITA film MIGHT be (absurd as this possibility seems) as great
a work of art as the novel and is not being seen in the U.S. on the basis of
its subject matter is really quite reprehensible. With all that TITANIC money
lying around, mightn't Fox or Paramount just pick it up as an act of artistic
mercy?
Christopher Berg