Yes, JM, there is potential confusion. I don’t think we get to see HH’s formal charge sheet. We read his ruminations while awaiting trial, and during these he seems to be “rehearsing” his defense with various asides to the unseen jury. Even if the charge is confined to murdering Q, it makes novelistic and legal sense to have HH preparing to answer the inevitable questions about motive — these would be likely to reveal the whole sordid Lolita connection?
Stan Kelly-Bootle
On 06/09/2008 03:59, "Nabokv-L" <nabokv-l@UTK.EDU> wrote:
Subject:
RES: [NABOKV-L] Lolita in America ...
From:
"Jansy" <Jansy@aetern.us> <mailto:Jansy@aetern.us>
Date:
Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:00:54 -0300
To:
"'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU> <mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
What puzzles me is the fact that HH, as far as I understood “Lolita”, was only being charged for having murdered Quilty. If it were not for his “Confessions” no one would have learned about his illegal relationship with his step-daughter. Unless, of course, there is no grain of truth in what he wrote.
De: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] Em nome de Stan Kelly-Bootle
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 5 de setembro de 2008 11:31
Para: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Assunto: Re: [NABOKV-L] Lolita in America ...
Being “on the road again,” I’ve misplaced a Times legal report of a court decision of some relevance to the Lolita-innocence debate. . . . .