Subject:

RE: [NABOKV-L] Nabokov on Botkin,

From:

Date:

Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:05:49 +0200

To:

'Vladimir Nabokov Forum' <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>

From Aug. 28, 2006: EDNote: There is an interview, in Strong Opinions and not at my fingertips, in which VN tells an interviewer (a scholar, I believe) that the suggestion he makes about a certain pattern was not in his plan for the given work, and that it was either a chance event or a product of unconscious inspiration, whithout which, he says, art and its appreciation would not be worthwhile. Perhaps that resolves the question somewhat? ~SB

In reponse to Mr. Twiggs's query about the EDNote, I would offer the following from VN's 1966 letter to Carl Proffer:

"Page 72 A considerable part of what Mr. Nabokov thinks has been thought up by his critics and commentators, including Mr. Proffer, for whose thinking he is not responsible. Many of the delightful combinations and clues, though quite acceptable, never entered my head or are the result of an author's intuition and inspiration, not calculation and craft. Otherwise why bother at all -in your case as well as mine." Selected Letters 1940-1977, p. 391.

On page 78 of his Keys to Lolita, Proffer wrote:

"The secret basis and technique of Gogol's "craft" is [sic] so deeply hidden it is almost impossible to say anything critically enlightening about it. But it sometimes appears that Nabokov thinks too much, and therefore he can be analyzed. To this statement the great poet would perhaps not subscribe, but, for better or worse, he can still have the last word."

A. Bouazza.

New EDNote: My thanks to A. Bouazza. This is exactly the passage I was thinking of at the time; luckily, I too found it again in its right place a year later. Didn't remember at the time about my imprecise reference to it on-list, but it has always seemed to me a very important and under-quoted comment.

Search the archive	Contact the Editors	Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla	View Nabokv-L Policies	Manage subscription options

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