Subject
Reliability / Intentionality: VN / Spokespeople (fwd)
Date
Body
From: "J. A. Rea" <JAREA@UKCC.uky.edu>
It might be fun, if we are well girded, to chat about how far we as "gentle
readers" must be bound in our reading of VN's texts by a) his own insistent
pronouncements (on thinks of his encounter with Professor Wade!), and,
by pronouncements on his behalf by critics, commentators, kinfolk, etc.
Just as a less impolite example than more recent instances might be,
I note that in his first edition of _The Annotated Lolita_, AA for page
91 note 2 says, "Beaver eaters: a portmanteau of "Beefeaters" (the
yeomen of the British royal guard) <I might not have capitalized just
that way had it been my note: J.Rea> and their Beaver hats." But in his
"Revised and Updated" edition of the same, he adds, "Some have seen this
as an obvious obscene joke, but Nabokov did not intend one...." I note
that AA doesn't actually say, "Nabokov says that he did not intend one."
It may perhaps of interest in enlightening the "innocent" that the "obscene"
reading here would be the one mentioned in the OED II, section 2.a.
"The female genitals or the pubic area in general," and gives citations as
early as 1927, including, indeed, one from Joyce's _Finnegans Wake_!
(Meaning 2.b. is a derivative one, "Hence, a girl or woman, esp. one who
is sexually attractive." -- <dare I assume this to be an example of
synecdoche, i.e. taking the part for the (w)hole?>)
Now to the question. Does this pronouncement of the Appel-ate court of the
new annotated L reqire us to suppress such a meaning. As a poor philologer,
I get frightfully perplexed by such imponderables as "intentional fallacy"
"reader response" and would love for someone to clearly draw the lines for me.
Awaiting the perspicuous, benevolent response of the List, I remain,
J. A. Rea
Ki semenat ispinaza, non andet iskultsu!
J. A. Rea jarea@ukcc.uky.edu
It might be fun, if we are well girded, to chat about how far we as "gentle
readers" must be bound in our reading of VN's texts by a) his own insistent
pronouncements (on thinks of his encounter with Professor Wade!), and,
by pronouncements on his behalf by critics, commentators, kinfolk, etc.
Just as a less impolite example than more recent instances might be,
I note that in his first edition of _The Annotated Lolita_, AA for page
91 note 2 says, "Beaver eaters: a portmanteau of "Beefeaters" (the
yeomen of the British royal guard) <I might not have capitalized just
that way had it been my note: J.Rea> and their Beaver hats." But in his
"Revised and Updated" edition of the same, he adds, "Some have seen this
as an obvious obscene joke, but Nabokov did not intend one...." I note
that AA doesn't actually say, "Nabokov says that he did not intend one."
It may perhaps of interest in enlightening the "innocent" that the "obscene"
reading here would be the one mentioned in the OED II, section 2.a.
"The female genitals or the pubic area in general," and gives citations as
early as 1927, including, indeed, one from Joyce's _Finnegans Wake_!
(Meaning 2.b. is a derivative one, "Hence, a girl or woman, esp. one who
is sexually attractive." -- <dare I assume this to be an example of
synecdoche, i.e. taking the part for the (w)hole?>)
Now to the question. Does this pronouncement of the Appel-ate court of the
new annotated L reqire us to suppress such a meaning. As a poor philologer,
I get frightfully perplexed by such imponderables as "intentional fallacy"
"reader response" and would love for someone to clearly draw the lines for me.
Awaiting the perspicuous, benevolent response of the List, I remain,
J. A. Rea
Ki semenat ispinaza, non andet iskultsu!
J. A. Rea jarea@ukcc.uky.edu