EDNote: Sorry these were delayed-- couldn't forward them conveniently from the limited access I had yesterday. ~SB

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Cunning Stunts in Transparent Things
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:25:00 -0500
From: John A Rea <j.rea2@insightbb.com>
Reply-To: j.rea2@insightbb.com
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
References: <4563802A02000012002CFE2F@dudley.holycross.edu>
It will be remembered that the novel in question was translated
into Italian by a certain Dmitri Nabokov, whose inspired trans-
lation of the play in question was, "Gighe Focose," literally
"Fiery Jigs" (which regrettably may have politically incorrect 
overtones).  It is a scholarly embarrassment to me that I cannot
recall where Mr N. wrote a brief note including this gem:  if I
find it quickly I'll post it, despite our honorable editors
distaste for serial postings on a subject.  Someone with more
lively memory is welcome to rescue me here

John

		Ki semenat ispinaza, non andet isculzu.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Cunning Stunts in Transparent Things
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:02:24 +0000
From: Stan Kelly-Bootle <skb@bootle.biz>
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>


On 22/11/06 15:12, "Priscilla Meyer" <pmeyer@WESLEYAN.EDU> wrote:

> Actually, it's not strange--Nabokov is just using an old joke that
> circulated in that era.
> Priscilla
>
> On Nov 21, 2006, at 11:17 PM, William Dane wrote:
>
>>  
>> Strangely enough, the band Metallica used the phrase as the title of
>> a DVD in 1998.
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:39:38 -0500
>>> From: NABOKV-L@HOLYCROSS.EDU
>>> Subject: [NABOKV-L] Cunning Stunts in Transparent Things
>>> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>>>
>>> I tried to search the Archives and was surprised to discover that no
>> one
>>> seems to have commented on the spooneristic nature of the title of
>> the
>>> play that Hugh and Julia go to see in Transparent Things (chapter
>> 11),
>>> Cunning Stunts. I'm quite sure though that I was not the first one
>> who
>>> noticed it.
>>>
>>> Alexey
>>>

Alexey/William/Priscilla: it is, indeed, an ancient and
too-OBVIOUS-to-annotate joke that probably pre-dates even the Right Rev
Spooner (who, one is sure, would never have used it or even UNDERSTOOD it!!)
in the same category as "mucking round the fountain" which was aired many
posts past. It's rumoured that Jahweh was the first to mumble "Cupid Stunts"
way back when Adam & Eve began the begat?

What is STRANGE, though, is that VN, who accused Miller, Joyce, et al. of
over-explicit, plumpen 'smut,' would have 'dug the dirt' so blatantly. Of
course, be told again, it's all CONtext -- and the hardest idiomatic problem
is judging how 'offensive' language shifts nice'n'naughty over space, time,
and culture. Sweet old ladies in France use 'con' as readily as G Brassens.
I once worked 'wanker' into my UNIX Review column, explaing to the US editor
that it was a common Briticism for 'a person of low worth.' The KJV
translators rendered literally & without a blush the Hebrew idiom "every man
who pisseth against the wall" (the 'local' meaning, I gather, would simply
be our 'every man-jack.')

Did I read in one of the VN press-cuttings forwarded by SES that "Humbert
Humbert seduced Lolita?" I suppose this is the popular misconception by
those who haven't read the novel? At least it distorts the complex problem
of 'who seduced whom?' Most people I've asked are unaware that HH was not
Lol's first lover. We must also distinguish PAEDOPHILIA from EPHEBOPHILIA, a
debate that is currently making headlines in the [London] Times (e.g., Mon.,
Nov. 20.) I find only one ref. to 'ephebophilia' in the N-L archives: an
article by Frederick Smock celebrating 'Lolita -- 50 Years After' in the
Louisville Courier-Journal, May 15, 2005. As I understand the Times debate:
the experts say that 'paedophilia' strictly applies to sexual attraction to
'children' where 'children' are defined as those between birth and PUBERTY.
Where those fancied are POSTPUBESCENT ADOLESCENTS, the preferred term is
'ephebophilia.' Of course, puberty can invade at various ages which makes
both definitions problematical for legal purposes. Some leading UK lawyers &
police are calling for a lowering of the 'age for informed consent' from the
current 16 but disagree where to draw the line. HH would have been safer in
Malta or Holland where the age-limit is 12! (Canada/Italy have 14; Greece
15; and Iceland 17) I know this is well-trodden Lolita territory, but I was
surprised that nobody seems to have picked up on Smock's use of
'ephebophilia.'

Happy Bird-Stuffing.

Stan Kelly-Bootle






Search the Nabokv-L archive at UCSB

Contact the Editors

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.

Visit Zembla

View Nabokv-L Policies