Anthony Stadlen writes (in answer to Jerry Friedman and Jansy): While what Jansy says has
its own validity, I do think that it is not "psychologically
strange" that someone "deluded" gives hints as to the "reality" from
which his "delusion" is an escape. After all, it is only such hints that
justify those who argue, as Sartre and others (including myself) do, that
"delusions" are a form of "bad faith", intentional acting on one's own
consciousness, a game that the person is playing with his consciousness and his
relation to others, rather than a kind of accident afflicting the person
from "outside", or from "the brain", etc. So, in this respect, it seems to me
that VN is quite "realistic" and insightful.
Jerry Friedman writes: Especially
after reading Matt Roth's comments, I'd like to ask Anthony Stadlen and anyone
else who might know: Was I right in suspecting that Kinbote's mentions of Botkin
are "psychologically strange"? Or are people with such delusions known to
refer to their original selves, not as overtly the same person, but revealing
that they still know of some connection?
JM:In my opinion, we run the risk of
deviating into another set of tracks when we plan to
investigate psychological facts and "realities" following
Nabokov's inventiveness and satirical turn of mind.
What could be the answer
for what's "psychologically strange" in Kinbote's reference to
Botkin, outside of the boundaries of Nabokov's novel? The Index entry
that introduces Botkin and the text from CK's note n.247 ( am I
mistaken to assume that Botkin has only made another appearance -
extra-textually?) is necessary to the novelist himself. It serves him
to add a fundamental information, but it leaves a mark that
is similar to a navel, no longer functional but revelatory and
non-deletable.