Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3458 pALE fIRE
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3458
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, cfalbert wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your assistance......Belerma, according to one essay I
scanned
> > in the Norton Quixote may be part of a "picaro" metaphor.......this
would
> > make the "cunnilingus" references perhaps only metonymical for the
> > "maturing" process.......
> >
> >
> > and thank you again for going to the trouble
> >
> > love,
> > cfa
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Joseph" <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> > To: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> > Cc: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 Incest Motif
> >
> >
> > > Cfalbert, without an index, it's hard to be absolutely sure, but
Nabokov
> > > seems to make but one passing reference to Lady Belerma, in his
lecture
> > > "Narrative and Commnetary Part To (1615), merely recounting the
narrative
> > > passage in which she appears (chapter 23). Glad to check further if
you
> > > remember something more.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, cfalbert wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone have access to Nab's lectures on Quixote?
> > > >
> > > > If so, please check what he has to say about Lady Belerma and get
back
> > to
> > > > us...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > love,
> > > > cfa
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Michael Joseph" <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> > > > To: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> > > > Cc: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:01 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 Incest Motif
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, s~Z wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My reading has nothing to do with Freud,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought you were pointing through your quotation at VN's use of
the
> > term
> > > > > "uncanny," and it made sense that as you were analyzing the poem
with
> > the
> > > > > thought that it possessed a central secret and that secret was
incest,
> > you
> > > > > would be drawing on Freud, one way or the other, either to explain
> > > > > Nabokov's incest gambit or to rat out the meanings of incest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although I'm persuaded against the incest argument, I'm not
persuaded
> > > > > there aren't clues pointing toward it. I agree that, since Kinbote
is
> > > > > apparently a pedophile, it would be interesting to see Shade as an
> > abused
> > > > > child - which is different from incest, of course. Kinbote <>
Shade
> > would
> > > > > constitute the binary: literary admirer/abuser of innocence ..>
> > admired
> > > > > poet/abused innocent, and Kinbote's various pursuits would take on
an
> > > > > additional quality of menace.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and I read the quote
> > > > > > through my hypothesis that ADA has clues for interpreting PF.
> > > > > > I.e., seeing ADA as the dot-arrow pointing back to PF.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see the mysterious backward foot-print as Shade's symbol of the
> > present,
> > > > > which moves into the future but points back to the past, and the
> > parallel
> > > > > operations of the poem. (Of course, it could be other things, too.
We
> > know
> > > > > it's a pheasant, so at least it can't be a wild goose.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Learn to distinguish banality. Remember that mediocrity thrives
on
> > > > 'ideas.'
> > > > > > Beware of the modish message. Ask yourself if the symbol you
have
> > > > detected
> > > > > > is not your own footprint. Ignore allegories. By all means place
the
> > > > 'how'
> > > > > > above the 'what' but do not let it be confused with the 'so
what.'
> > Rely
> > > > on
> > > > > > the sudden erection of your small dorsal hairs. Do not drag in
Freud
> > at
> > > > this
> > > > > > point. All the rest depends on personal talent." - Vladimir
Nabokov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Devilish advice!
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
--
-0400
>
> Date: 31 Jul 2003 02:05:44 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Doubts on the incest business
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 00:17, Glenn Scheper wrote:
> > > Didn't psychiatrists--following Freud's example--tend to
> > > pass tales of such things off as screen memories and
> > > fantasies deriving from psychoanalytic theory?
> > > It was only in the seventies or later when Freud's so
> > > called rejection of the seduction theory was brought
> > > forcefully into question and Oprah and Roseanne took up the
> > > challenge with a vengeance that this type of child abuse
> > > moved to the front burner of national interest.
> >
> > I have _The Freud Reader_ out under my car seat,
> > so I can read a few pages on each commute, where
> > my contemplation does not pique the wife's wrath.
> > I went to Walmart and came back with a few notes:
> >
> > Freud, 40, presented _The Aetiology of Hysteria_
> > giving his infant seduction theory in April 1896.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > "We have learned that no hysterical symptom
> > can arise from a real experience alone,
> > but that in every case the memory of earlier
> > experiences awakened in association to it
> > plays a part in causing the symptom."
> > ...
> >
> > "I therefore put forward the thesis that
> > at the bottom of every case of hysteria
> > there are one or more occurrences of
> > premature sexual experience,
> > occurrences which belong to the
> > earliest years of childhood
> > but which can be reproduced
> > through the work of psycho-analysis
> > in spite of the intervening decades.
> >
> > I believe that this is an important finding,
> > the discovery of the caput Nili
> > {source of the Nile} in neuropathology."
> >
> > ---
> >
> > 1.5 years later, he abandoned this "seduction theory",
> > writing to Fliess that he has understood the gripping
> > power of Sophocles' Oedipus Rex: the tragedy enshrines
> > the universal experience of the boy loving his mother
> > and being jealous of his father.
> >
>
> This is my understanding of what happened to the "seduction theory."
>
> Whether what psycho-analysts believed (if they did follow Freud on this
> matter) was responsible for the general lack of interest and belief in
> child seduction isn't something I remember having seen written up
> anywhere.
>
> The whole climate of opinion of course changed around 1980 or so. Freud
> was accused of being a lying scoundrel. Real (as opposed to fantasy)
> child seduction started being taken ultra seriously. As it is taken to
> be today.
>
> The name of Freud's chief accuser was Jeffrey Moussaieef Masson, in a
> book called The Assault on Truth. Janet Malcolm wrote a series of
> articles in the New Yorker highly critical of Masson.
>
> Who knows?
>
> P.
>>
>> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3458
> ********************************
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
To: <pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3458
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, cfalbert wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your assistance......Belerma, according to one essay I
scanned
> > in the Norton Quixote may be part of a "picaro" metaphor.......this
would
> > make the "cunnilingus" references perhaps only metonymical for the
> > "maturing" process.......
> >
> >
> > and thank you again for going to the trouble
> >
> > love,
> > cfa
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Joseph" <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> > To: "cfalbert" <calbert@hslboxmaster.com>
> > Cc: <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 Incest Motif
> >
> >
> > > Cfalbert, without an index, it's hard to be absolutely sure, but
Nabokov
> > > seems to make but one passing reference to Lady Belerma, in his
lecture
> > > "Narrative and Commnetary Part To (1615), merely recounting the
narrative
> > > passage in which she appears (chapter 23). Glad to check further if
you
> > > remember something more.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, cfalbert wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone have access to Nab's lectures on Quixote?
> > > >
> > > > If so, please check what he has to say about Lady Belerma and get
back
> > to
> > > > us...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > love,
> > > > cfa
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Michael Joseph" <mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu>
> > > > To: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> > > > Cc: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l@waste.org>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:01 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: NPPF Canto 1 Incest Motif
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, s~Z wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My reading has nothing to do with Freud,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought you were pointing through your quotation at VN's use of
the
> > term
> > > > > "uncanny," and it made sense that as you were analyzing the poem
with
> > the
> > > > > thought that it possessed a central secret and that secret was
incest,
> > you
> > > > > would be drawing on Freud, one way or the other, either to explain
> > > > > Nabokov's incest gambit or to rat out the meanings of incest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although I'm persuaded against the incest argument, I'm not
persuaded
> > > > > there aren't clues pointing toward it. I agree that, since Kinbote
is
> > > > > apparently a pedophile, it would be interesting to see Shade as an
> > abused
> > > > > child - which is different from incest, of course. Kinbote <>
Shade
> > would
> > > > > constitute the binary: literary admirer/abuser of innocence ..>
> > admired
> > > > > poet/abused innocent, and Kinbote's various pursuits would take on
an
> > > > > additional quality of menace.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and I read the quote
> > > > > > through my hypothesis that ADA has clues for interpreting PF.
> > > > > > I.e., seeing ADA as the dot-arrow pointing back to PF.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I see the mysterious backward foot-print as Shade's symbol of the
> > present,
> > > > > which moves into the future but points back to the past, and the
> > parallel
> > > > > operations of the poem. (Of course, it could be other things, too.
We
> > know
> > > > > it's a pheasant, so at least it can't be a wild goose.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Learn to distinguish banality. Remember that mediocrity thrives
on
> > > > 'ideas.'
> > > > > > Beware of the modish message. Ask yourself if the symbol you
have
> > > > detected
> > > > > > is not your own footprint. Ignore allegories. By all means place
the
> > > > 'how'
> > > > > > above the 'what' but do not let it be confused with the 'so
what.'
> > Rely
> > > > on
> > > > > > the sudden erection of your small dorsal hairs. Do not drag in
Freud
> > at
> > > > this
> > > > > > point. All the rest depends on personal talent." - Vladimir
Nabokov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Devilish advice!
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
--
-0400
>
> Date: 31 Jul 2003 02:05:44 -0400
> From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Doubts on the incest business
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 00:17, Glenn Scheper wrote:
> > > Didn't psychiatrists--following Freud's example--tend to
> > > pass tales of such things off as screen memories and
> > > fantasies deriving from psychoanalytic theory?
> > > It was only in the seventies or later when Freud's so
> > > called rejection of the seduction theory was brought
> > > forcefully into question and Oprah and Roseanne took up the
> > > challenge with a vengeance that this type of child abuse
> > > moved to the front burner of national interest.
> >
> > I have _The Freud Reader_ out under my car seat,
> > so I can read a few pages on each commute, where
> > my contemplation does not pique the wife's wrath.
> > I went to Walmart and came back with a few notes:
> >
> > Freud, 40, presented _The Aetiology of Hysteria_
> > giving his infant seduction theory in April 1896.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > "We have learned that no hysterical symptom
> > can arise from a real experience alone,
> > but that in every case the memory of earlier
> > experiences awakened in association to it
> > plays a part in causing the symptom."
> > ...
> >
> > "I therefore put forward the thesis that
> > at the bottom of every case of hysteria
> > there are one or more occurrences of
> > premature sexual experience,
> > occurrences which belong to the
> > earliest years of childhood
> > but which can be reproduced
> > through the work of psycho-analysis
> > in spite of the intervening decades.
> >
> > I believe that this is an important finding,
> > the discovery of the caput Nili
> > {source of the Nile} in neuropathology."
> >
> > ---
> >
> > 1.5 years later, he abandoned this "seduction theory",
> > writing to Fliess that he has understood the gripping
> > power of Sophocles' Oedipus Rex: the tragedy enshrines
> > the universal experience of the boy loving his mother
> > and being jealous of his father.
> >
>
> This is my understanding of what happened to the "seduction theory."
>
> Whether what psycho-analysts believed (if they did follow Freud on this
> matter) was responsible for the general lack of interest and belief in
> child seduction isn't something I remember having seen written up
> anywhere.
>
> The whole climate of opinion of course changed around 1980 or so. Freud
> was accused of being a lying scoundrel. Real (as opposed to fantasy)
> child seduction started being taken ultra seriously. As it is taken to
> be today.
>
> The name of Freud's chief accuser was Jeffrey Moussaieef Masson, in a
> book called The Assault on Truth. Janet Malcolm wrote a series of
> articles in the New Yorker highly critical of Masson.
>
> Who knows?
>
> P.
>>
>> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3458
> ********************************