Subject
Fwd: Re: JO Morgan & Michael Maar's evidence
From
Date
Body
----- Forwarded message from chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu -----
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:50:19 -0700
From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
Reply-To: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: JO Morgan & Michael Maar's
To: jansy@aetern.us
Quoting "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>:
> ----- Forwarded message from jansy@aetern.us -----
> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:51:24 -0300
> From: Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello <jansy@aetern.us>
> Reply-To: Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello <jansy@aetern.us>
> Subject: Fw: Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on...j-4 Sept.8
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@aetern.us>
> To: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>; "Vladimir Nabokov Forum"
> <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:04 AM
> Subject: Fw: Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on...j-3
>
>
>>
> I would like to add that with technical "proofs" about VN´s life, or
> without them, all the present discussion and conjectures about this
> writer´s intimate life is rude, misdirected, sterile since nothing in them,
> at least up to my present readings, helped to enrich our sensibility or
> understand VN´s works.
> The discussions lack, for a better term...they lack "style" . They lack
> dignity.
> This is not a matter for gleeful deciphering. A person´s right to intimacy
> is, to my eyes, sacred.
>> Jansy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@aetern.us>
>> To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 12:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on the Lolita/Lichberg
>> issue.
>>
>>
>>> I was not really expecting an answer when I wondered why would VN bother
>>> to encrypt information about Unkle Ruka.
>>> Wherefrom would that strange urge to make public one´s own family secrets
>>> arise and, if such a need to confess should take hold of a person, why
>>> would she feign a "freudian repression" and encrypt his revelation?
>>>
>>> Jo Morgan wrote that "other reasons for the encryption lie, I believe,in
>>> the realm of Nabokov's intense interest in otherworldly, or spiritual
>>> matters. Such matters are in desperate need of further biographical
>>> research and investigation. After all, one does not encrypt a secret
>>> message without anticipating that someone will one day come along and
>>> decipher it".
>>> I am totally confused now. I had the impression Mrs.Morgan thought there
>>> was something about Uncle Ruka to "decrypt" and that she was the person
>>> who came along and deciphered it. Isn´t that aquite "out of this world"?
>>> Jansy
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>>> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Jo Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on the
>>> Lolita/Lichberg issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Re Jansy's queries as to why Nabokov would bother encrypting information
>>>> about his Uncle Ruka's incestuous abuse of him.
>>>>
>>>> Good question. I have wondered about this myself. I suspect there are
>>>> multiple reasons for why he did so. To some extent at least I believe
>>>> the
>>>> answer has to do with the severity, but secretiveness of Ruka's abuse.
>>>> The
>>>> decoding work in Solving Nabokov's Lolita Riddle (SNLR)proves this went
>>>> far
>>>> beyond simple fondling to include oral and penetrative anal sex. Having
>>>> been a victim of incest VN full appreciated how hidden such abuse can be
>>>> within families. In SNLR I have argued that in settling upon his
>>>> encryption
>>>> methodology (which spans across Lolita, Bend Sinister, Eugene Onegin and
>>>> Speak, Memory) VN very adeptly set out to divulge the hidden nature of
>>>> child sexual abuse by hiding it. Clear evidence of VN's immodest claim
>>>> to 'think like a genius.' Other reasons for the encryption lie, I
>>>> believe,
>>>> in the realm of Nabokov's intense interest in otherworldly, or spiritual
>>>> matters. Such matters are in desperate need of further biographical
>>>> research and investigation. After all, one does not encrypt a secret
>>>> message without anticipating that someone will one day come along and
>>>> decipher it. Perhaps the matter is discussed by VN in the cache of
>>>> secret
>>>> papers he has lodged at the Library Congress. Unfortunately these papers
>>>> will not be accessible to the public for at least another 50 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jo Morgan
>>>> Sydney
>>>>
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:50:19 -0700
From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
Reply-To: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: JO Morgan & Michael Maar's
To: jansy@aetern.us
Quoting "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>:
> ----- Forwarded message from jansy@aetern.us -----
> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:51:24 -0300
> From: Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello <jansy@aetern.us>
> Reply-To: Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello <jansy@aetern.us>
> Subject: Fw: Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on...j-4 Sept.8
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@aetern.us>
> To: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>; "Vladimir Nabokov Forum"
> <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:04 AM
> Subject: Fw: Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on...j-3
>
>
>>
> I would like to add that with technical "proofs" about VN´s life, or
> without them, all the present discussion and conjectures about this
> writer´s intimate life is rude, misdirected, sterile since nothing in them,
> at least up to my present readings, helped to enrich our sensibility or
> understand VN´s works.
> The discussions lack, for a better term...they lack "style" . They lack
> dignity.
> This is not a matter for gleeful deciphering. A person´s right to intimacy
> is, to my eyes, sacred.
>> Jansy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@aetern.us>
>> To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 12:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on the Lolita/Lichberg
>> issue.
>>
>>
>>> I was not really expecting an answer when I wondered why would VN bother
>>> to encrypt information about Unkle Ruka.
>>> Wherefrom would that strange urge to make public one´s own family secrets
>>> arise and, if such a need to confess should take hold of a person, why
>>> would she feign a "freudian repression" and encrypt his revelation?
>>>
>>> Jo Morgan wrote that "other reasons for the encryption lie, I believe,in
>>> the realm of Nabokov's intense interest in otherworldly, or spiritual
>>> matters. Such matters are in desperate need of further biographical
>>> research and investigation. After all, one does not encrypt a secret
>>> message without anticipating that someone will one day come along and
>>> decipher it".
>>> I am totally confused now. I had the impression Mrs.Morgan thought there
>>> was something about Uncle Ruka to "decrypt" and that she was the person
>>> who came along and deciphered it. Isn´t that aquite "out of this world"?
>>> Jansy
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>>> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Jo Morgan re Michael Maar's evidence on the
>>> Lolita/Lichberg issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Re Jansy's queries as to why Nabokov would bother encrypting information
>>>> about his Uncle Ruka's incestuous abuse of him.
>>>>
>>>> Good question. I have wondered about this myself. I suspect there are
>>>> multiple reasons for why he did so. To some extent at least I believe
>>>> the
>>>> answer has to do with the severity, but secretiveness of Ruka's abuse.
>>>> The
>>>> decoding work in Solving Nabokov's Lolita Riddle (SNLR)proves this went
>>>> far
>>>> beyond simple fondling to include oral and penetrative anal sex. Having
>>>> been a victim of incest VN full appreciated how hidden such abuse can be
>>>> within families. In SNLR I have argued that in settling upon his
>>>> encryption
>>>> methodology (which spans across Lolita, Bend Sinister, Eugene Onegin and
>>>> Speak, Memory) VN very adeptly set out to divulge the hidden nature of
>>>> child sexual abuse by hiding it. Clear evidence of VN's immodest claim
>>>> to 'think like a genius.' Other reasons for the encryption lie, I
>>>> believe,
>>>> in the realm of Nabokov's intense interest in otherworldly, or spiritual
>>>> matters. Such matters are in desperate need of further biographical
>>>> research and investigation. After all, one does not encrypt a secret
>>>> message without anticipating that someone will one day come along and
>>>> decipher it. Perhaps the matter is discussed by VN in the cache of
>>>> secret
>>>> papers he has lodged at the Library Congress. Unfortunately these papers
>>>> will not be accessible to the public for at least another 50 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jo Morgan
>>>> Sydney
>>>>
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----