Subject
Fwd: Re: Out with the Closet
From
Date
Body
Unsigned List Member and All -
True. By the OED definition [which I would not accept] close
monitoring will be required of them what stays in touch with feelings.
[And how to understand "sexual attraction" and "children"?]
When talking past each other, metaphoric usages compound the problem:
"closet". The Red Queen has the answer, as you suggest.
-Sandy Drescher
On Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 06:10 PM, Donald B. Johnson wrote:
> And according to the OED you do not even need to fanatasize about
> molesting children, simply be sexually attracted to them to fit the
> definition of pedophile. Off with its head!
>
>
> --On Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:40 PM -0700 "Donald B. Johnson"
> <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>> EDNOTE. A worthwhile thought on recent loose use of a murky term.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from bunsan@direcway.com -----
>> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:58:52 -0400
>> From: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>
>> Reply-To: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>
>> Subject: Out with the Closet
>> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (140 lines)
>> ------------------
>> Dear List-
>>
>> Before settling whether or not anyone was/is a "closet
>> pedophile" it might be useful to define this term. Perhaps I can
>> be of help:
>>
>> 1. A person who
>> molests children in a wardrobe?
>> 2. A person who molests children but does not make this fact
>> public?
>> 3. A person who
>> does not molest children but might like to?
>> 4. A person who is not aware of harboring a wish to molest
>> children?
>>
>> As Options 1 and 2 specify types of pedophiles [as would
>> "left-handed pedophile", "frightened pedophile", "musical
>> pedophile"], they seem beside the point in this discussion.
>> Option 3 requires that thought or wish be equivalent to
>> action. Although this belief has a long and honorable history,
>> both religious and secular, those of us who - like the White
>> Queen - can believe as many as six impossible things before
>> breakfast are in deep trouble unless we can program our daily
>> half-dozen fantasies into very narrow channels. [After reading
>> today's newspaper, I am a "closet assassin". As yet, this seems
>> safe to admit].
>> Option 4 by definition can not be an identity, even
>> though a wonderful epithet to throw at someone we neither like
>> nor understand. Yes, there is another; my favorite.
>>
>> 5. Delete the
>> adjective.
>>
>> -Sandy Drescher
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Donald B. Johnson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear List,
>>>
>>> I thought my abstract made it clear that Centerwall wanted to
>>> prove that VN
>>> was a "closet pedophile". I take the trouble (a final one) of
>>> quoting relevant sentences from the first page of his article
>>> which are unambiguous:
>>>
>>> "...an opportune moment to consider that most heretical of
>>> questions, was
>>> Vladimir Nabokov a closet pedophile?...Popular dogma
>>> notwithstanding, there
>>> are adequate grounds for concluding that he was, as this essay
>>> will demonstrate. More than mere intrusion into an author's
>>> private sexuality, at
>>> stake is the very meaning of Lolita. For however vehemently my
>>> thesis may be
>>> disputed, there can be no disputing the question's pivotal
>>> importance to any
>>> comprehensive understanding of Nabokov's masterpiece. If Nabokov
>>> was truly a
>>> closet pedophile, interpretations of Lolita that are predicated
>>> upon his
>>> presumed sexual orthodoxy are necessarily incorrect.
>>> I intrude upon Nabokov's privacy, but no offense need be
>>> taken...The late
>>> Mr. Nabokov's contact toward children was, and remains,
>>> unimpeachable...
>>> A final prefatory note: I take it as self-evident that Nabokov
>>> could easily
>>> create a convincing portrait of a pedophile even if he were not
>>> one himself.
>>> Therefore, I make no attempt to infer his pedophilia in so banal
>>> a manner.
>>> The real evidence lies elsewhere." p. 468
>>>
>>> A. Bouazza.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
>>> [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU]On Behalf Of Donald B. Johnson
>>> Sent: 13 September 2005 20:24
>>> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Centerwall etc...
>>>
>>>
>>> Carolyn,
>>>
>>> I shall look for the article and see if I can post it to the
>>> list. While we don't know if Centerwall has called Nabokov a
>>> pedophile, we do know that Jo Morgan has. Still, of course, that
>>> does not make her claim that Nabokov had been molested as a
>>> child untrue. I agree that Nabokov does have a high degree of
>>> sensitivity to the pain of children subjected to abuse by
>>> adults, but couching the argument in terms of "closet child
>>> advocate" (this quote may be inaccurate it's what I remember of
>>> a now deleted JM message) again belies an agenda that undermines
>>> the credibility of the point. (Which of course doesn't mean it's
>>> still not true:>))
>>>
>>> ---Suellen
>>>
>>> --On Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:14 AM -0700 "Donald B.
>>> Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from chaiselongue@earthlink.net -----
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 07:01:45 -0800
>>>> From: Carolyn Kunin <chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
>>>> Reply-To: Carolyn Kunin <chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: Centerwall etc...
>>>> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
>>>>
>>>>> Personally I find it incendiary and sensationalistic and
>>>>> therefore dishonest, to label someone a pedophile without
>>>>> voluminous evidence and to my mind, activity, even if you mean
>>>>> it in the strictest sense of the word (OED definition
>>>>> follows)and even if you could prove that that person HAD been
>>>>> molested as a child by an adult
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Suellen Stringer-Hye,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. If Centerwall has labeled VN himself as a
>>>> pedophile, he had neither right nor reason to do so. The only
>>>> part of the theory that interests me is the possibility that VN
>>>> had been himself molested as a child. That unfortunately makes
>>>> devastating sense which I should hasten to add, doesn't make it
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Carolyn
>>>>
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> Suellen Stringer-Hye
>>> Vanderbilt University
>>> Website:http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/libtech/stringer/
>>> Email: suellen.stringer-hye@Vanderbilt.Edu
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Suellen Stringer-Hye
> Vanderbilt University
> Website:http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/libtech/stringer/
> Email: suellen.stringer-hye@Vanderbilt.Edu
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
----- End forwarded message -----
True. By the OED definition [which I would not accept] close
monitoring will be required of them what stays in touch with feelings.
[And how to understand "sexual attraction" and "children"?]
When talking past each other, metaphoric usages compound the problem:
"closet". The Red Queen has the answer, as you suggest.
-Sandy Drescher
On Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 06:10 PM, Donald B. Johnson wrote:
> And according to the OED you do not even need to fanatasize about
> molesting children, simply be sexually attracted to them to fit the
> definition of pedophile. Off with its head!
>
>
> --On Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:40 PM -0700 "Donald B. Johnson"
> <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>> EDNOTE. A worthwhile thought on recent loose use of a murky term.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from bunsan@direcway.com -----
>> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:58:52 -0400
>> From: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>
>> Reply-To: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>
>> Subject: Out with the Closet
>> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (140 lines)
>> ------------------
>> Dear List-
>>
>> Before settling whether or not anyone was/is a "closet
>> pedophile" it might be useful to define this term. Perhaps I can
>> be of help:
>>
>> 1. A person who
>> molests children in a wardrobe?
>> 2. A person who molests children but does not make this fact
>> public?
>> 3. A person who
>> does not molest children but might like to?
>> 4. A person who is not aware of harboring a wish to molest
>> children?
>>
>> As Options 1 and 2 specify types of pedophiles [as would
>> "left-handed pedophile", "frightened pedophile", "musical
>> pedophile"], they seem beside the point in this discussion.
>> Option 3 requires that thought or wish be equivalent to
>> action. Although this belief has a long and honorable history,
>> both religious and secular, those of us who - like the White
>> Queen - can believe as many as six impossible things before
>> breakfast are in deep trouble unless we can program our daily
>> half-dozen fantasies into very narrow channels. [After reading
>> today's newspaper, I am a "closet assassin". As yet, this seems
>> safe to admit].
>> Option 4 by definition can not be an identity, even
>> though a wonderful epithet to throw at someone we neither like
>> nor understand. Yes, there is another; my favorite.
>>
>> 5. Delete the
>> adjective.
>>
>> -Sandy Drescher
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Donald B. Johnson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear List,
>>>
>>> I thought my abstract made it clear that Centerwall wanted to
>>> prove that VN
>>> was a "closet pedophile". I take the trouble (a final one) of
>>> quoting relevant sentences from the first page of his article
>>> which are unambiguous:
>>>
>>> "...an opportune moment to consider that most heretical of
>>> questions, was
>>> Vladimir Nabokov a closet pedophile?...Popular dogma
>>> notwithstanding, there
>>> are adequate grounds for concluding that he was, as this essay
>>> will demonstrate. More than mere intrusion into an author's
>>> private sexuality, at
>>> stake is the very meaning of Lolita. For however vehemently my
>>> thesis may be
>>> disputed, there can be no disputing the question's pivotal
>>> importance to any
>>> comprehensive understanding of Nabokov's masterpiece. If Nabokov
>>> was truly a
>>> closet pedophile, interpretations of Lolita that are predicated
>>> upon his
>>> presumed sexual orthodoxy are necessarily incorrect.
>>> I intrude upon Nabokov's privacy, but no offense need be
>>> taken...The late
>>> Mr. Nabokov's contact toward children was, and remains,
>>> unimpeachable...
>>> A final prefatory note: I take it as self-evident that Nabokov
>>> could easily
>>> create a convincing portrait of a pedophile even if he were not
>>> one himself.
>>> Therefore, I make no attempt to infer his pedophilia in so banal
>>> a manner.
>>> The real evidence lies elsewhere." p. 468
>>>
>>> A. Bouazza.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
>>> [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU]On Behalf Of Donald B. Johnson
>>> Sent: 13 September 2005 20:24
>>> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Centerwall etc...
>>>
>>>
>>> Carolyn,
>>>
>>> I shall look for the article and see if I can post it to the
>>> list. While we don't know if Centerwall has called Nabokov a
>>> pedophile, we do know that Jo Morgan has. Still, of course, that
>>> does not make her claim that Nabokov had been molested as a
>>> child untrue. I agree that Nabokov does have a high degree of
>>> sensitivity to the pain of children subjected to abuse by
>>> adults, but couching the argument in terms of "closet child
>>> advocate" (this quote may be inaccurate it's what I remember of
>>> a now deleted JM message) again belies an agenda that undermines
>>> the credibility of the point. (Which of course doesn't mean it's
>>> still not true:>))
>>>
>>> ---Suellen
>>>
>>> --On Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:14 AM -0700 "Donald B.
>>> Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from chaiselongue@earthlink.net -----
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 07:01:45 -0800
>>>> From: Carolyn Kunin <chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
>>>> Reply-To: Carolyn Kunin <chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: Centerwall etc...
>>>> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
>>>>
>>>>> Personally I find it incendiary and sensationalistic and
>>>>> therefore dishonest, to label someone a pedophile without
>>>>> voluminous evidence and to my mind, activity, even if you mean
>>>>> it in the strictest sense of the word (OED definition
>>>>> follows)and even if you could prove that that person HAD been
>>>>> molested as a child by an adult
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Suellen Stringer-Hye,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. If Centerwall has labeled VN himself as a
>>>> pedophile, he had neither right nor reason to do so. The only
>>>> part of the theory that interests me is the possibility that VN
>>>> had been himself molested as a child. That unfortunately makes
>>>> devastating sense which I should hasten to add, doesn't make it
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Carolyn
>>>>
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> Suellen Stringer-Hye
>>> Vanderbilt University
>>> Website:http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/libtech/stringer/
>>> Email: suellen.stringer-hye@Vanderbilt.Edu
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Suellen Stringer-Hye
> Vanderbilt University
> Website:http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/libtech/stringer/
> Email: suellen.stringer-hye@Vanderbilt.Edu
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
----- End forwarded message -----