Perhaps the current tempest/teapot,
mole-hill/mountain discussion is useful, if predictable, and the Maar article
but a pretext.
V. V. Nabokov asserted: 1] He had read widely and
well but was influenced by no author. 2] His work was not
autobiographical. 3] His creations arose within an intellect which inherently
abhorred cruelty but was free of other [political, social, economic, literary,
etc.] influences.
Choose one: A] Nabokov did not read the German text
and the mathematical laws of coincidence do defy common sense. Or, B] he did
read it and his Lolita is another puzzle/joke, a trick of the
unconscious, a mysterious oversight...whatever. Unfortunately, to choose is to
proceed without data. Aside from suggesting a search for an answer hidden by the
Master, a better course is to re-examine the three assertions above.
To
believe these statements were made tongue-in-cheek is to presume an unauthorized
and unwarranted meta-critical knowingness. To believe that these assertions are
simply impossible again assumes the meta-critical posture, denying Nabokov the
right to define himself. To accept all three stimulates [and has stimulated]
questions concerning human authority in relation to the transcendent. As Nabokov
raised this last question, it is pertinent even though subject to easy mockery.
Perhaps one can be loyal to Nabokov the writer with simple gratitude for
the pleasures he has provided. Perhaps loyalty requires affirmation of the three
assertions. But if it is so that even the greatest mortal alchemists can not
create from nothing, is the magic of their transmutations less wondrous?