----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:54 PM
Subject: [NABOKV-L] THOUGHTS: SKB re: SIGHTING IN a TRANSLATOR'S
BLOG: my Lolita
Stan Kelly-Bootle:[to JM: On second thoughts, what other words could Humbert
Humbert have delicately employed in lieu of the "delta"? ]:.."it’s a well-ploughed mine-field: English being both
enriched and bothered by so many Anglo-Saxon and Latinate synonyms. For diverse
historico-socio-linguistic reasons, the latter are associated with scientific
and religious scholarship, while the former are rated as less learned or even
downright crude... That the Anglo-Saxon plainspeak intimate body-part words are
indeed shorter (and often wrongly considered less euphonious) than the alien,
unEnglish imposed Latin “refinements” (ironically, the ink-horn terms are
always the least horny!) is a mixed blessing for poets and novelists...the
natural-native four-letter words for faeces, coitus, vagina and penis still
leave a nasty taste ...En passant, I’ve never agreed with VN’s belief that the
word “sex” is inherently nasty. HH’s
choice of alternatives to “delta” (delicate or otherwise!) are NOT the same as
VN’s choices! The novelist is rightly constrained (within obvious
delta-limits!) by HH’s specific European multilingual-cultural
background, close but not identical to Nabokov’s. The narrative-linguistic
context is also delicate: HH is talking and reacting to an American-English
audience, with much humour and even open disdain (especially with Lo’s hip-girly
slang).
JM: Forty years ago, in Rio (I don't know if it was
also practiced elsewhere) to speak good English meant avoiding most Latinate
terms and stick to the
Anglo-Saxon.We had to say
"wealthy", not "rich", "worried", not "preoccupied", "tired," not "fatigued,"
"hand-made,"not "manufactured".... We also learned that in more
sophisticated environments, only (perhaps when, under Roman influence, all those
blond barbarians learned to eat cooked meat) swine, i,e "pigs,"would be called
"pork." When I started to
read Nabokov I was in for a big surprise, but it was mittigated
by characters such as Humbert Humbert and Kinbote. Later I was ready
and anxious for more ( but I still bear a grudge against N's use of
"viatic").
Nevertheless, I'm still uninformed about what would
be HH's spontaneous heartfelt choices, or VN's own, to gently remain
within "delta-limits." Only four-letter words come to my mind, Latin "pubic
region" or "Mount Venus," or silly euphemisms ( is it possible that those
blond barbarians...?)
I thank Carolyn Kunin [I
think you have experienced a perfectly wonderful Conmal moment. Shade &
Kinbote would be delighted with it] for her inventiveness: a "Conmal
moment," indeed! I wish I had set that trap on
purpose.
Dave Haan: In LRB
32.3 (11Feb), James Wood considers a new translation of Lermontov's _A Hero of
Our Time_ ... mentioning Nabokov only en parenthessant: "Natasha Randall’s
English...has exactly the right degree of loose velocity...(Nabokov’s version,
the best-known older translation, is a bit more demure than Randall’s, less
savage.)" However, there is much more of interest in the essay, not only
in Lermontov's relation to Pushkin...but in issues that are suggestive of
grounds for Nabokov's appreciation [...] "What is most striking nowadays,
as Randall points out ..., is the way Lermontov cunningly forecloses the
possibility of terminal readings [...] "Parody, as Dostoevsky acutely
understood, is an act of admiration as much as of disdain, and perhaps the best
way of understanding Pechorin’s distorted histrionics is by way of Dostoevsky’s
dialectic of assertion and abasement."...and perhaps Nabokov's way of
understanding parody is to be preferred, and may also illuminate his disdain for
Dusty ...
JM: Very interesting screening of James
Wood's essay on Natasha Randall's new translation of "A Hero of Our
Time," and your "en parenthessant" readings in
it about Nabokov, translator and author. For you Nabokov is exempt of having
applied both "admiration and disdain"in his parodies, and you consider that
VN opposed Dusty because the latter's "dialectic of assertion and
abasement" was in direct contrast to Nabokov's explicitation that art rests
on a state in which "curiosity, tenderness, kindness" are the
norm.
In his interviews and strong opinions, though, Nabokov allowed us a
glimpse into less elaborate feelings towards many other authors and
people. Do you agree, then, such contrasting motivations make
Nabokov's artistic achievements even
more admirable?