Subject
Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dieter E. Zimmer" <mail@d-e-zimmer.de>
To: "Don Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Reply to Maar
>
> Dear Don,
>
> I have the impression the UCSB server thoroughly misunderstood the posting
I
> tried to send to the List yesterday. It obviously tried to execute its
words
> as computer commands and noted that I would have to consult HELP at each
> one. So probably you have not received anything. It was a copy of the
Letter
> to the Editor I have sent to the TLS in reply to Maar's. So here it is
> again, going directly to your own mailbox.
>
> Best,
> Dieter
>
> May 9, 2004 -- 6:15am
>
>
****************************************************************************
> *
>
> Sir, - If Mr. Maar thinks my humour un-German, I'll gladly dispense with
it
> and state my objection bluntly. Let's talk turkey.
>
> Mr. Maar's contention is that there is a story A (Lichberg's "Lolita",
1916)
> and there is a novel B (Nabokov's "Lolita", 1955), that there are a number
> of agreements between A and B and therefore it is possible/likely/almost
> certain that Nabokov was acquainted with A and that unknown to himself A
> shaped B in various respects. He did not offer a shred of positive
evidence
> that Nabokov actually knew A or its author. He did not calculate the odds
> of two men ever meeting who live in a city of over four million -- and in
> two segregated social environments within that city (German Berlin and
> Russian Berlin). He did not offer the slightest hint how the mysterious
> migration of some of A's (forgotten!) elements into B a quarter of a
century
> later might have come about. His case rests solely on those agreements.
> The reasoning as such is perfectly sound. The more items of agreement
there
> are, the less likely it is that A and B are unrelated. The question is
just
> what you want to count as an agreement. In his letter, Mr. Maar
commendably
> gives a list of what he considers tell-tale agreements. "1) The title is
> identical, and the heroine has the same name. 2) She is very young. 3)
She
> is the daughter of a figure who lets a room by the sea (lake), where the
> narrator wants to take a break. 4) She has an affair with the narrator
and
> seduces him. 5) She is, like the later nymphet, half-demon and
half-child.
> 6) The finale is a grotesque, dream-like murder scene. 7) Nabokov's
Lolita
> dies after giving birth to a daughter; Lichberg's Lola is murdered after
the
> birth of her daughter."
>
> Now the important thing to grasp is that only specific agreements count,
and
> an open list of unspecific ones doesn't. This is so because otherwise you
> could produce any number of agreements at will just by slackening or
> tightening the criteria of what you want to count as one. Here there is
just
> one specific agreement, #1, the name 'Lolita'. This is impressive and
> suggestive, but not very much so, for 'Lolita' is not Lichberg's invention
> but a fairly common Spanish appellation known to everybody, deriving from
> 'Dolores' via 'Lola'. All the other agreements are not specific details
but
> unspecific jumbles of what you may, or may not, consider "resemblances".
> Take #2 : "Both girls are very young" -- sure, young they are, but there
is
> an all-important difference : Nabokov's narrator was tormented by Lolita
> being still a child (yes, sorry, of 12;5) while Lichberg's did not worry a
> bit over her age. As Humbert explains, one or two years make all the
> difference for a lover of nymphets. Or #4 : "She has an affair with the
> narrator" -- in what love-story doesn't some woman have an affair with
some
> man? Or #7 : "birth-daughter-homicide" -- but Nabokov's Humbert kills not
> Lolita but his rival Quilty, and it is not Lichberg's Lolita who had been
> killed in the story's past but her mother. I suppose the agreement
between
> a small and crooked Spanish harbour inn and a white-frame home in suburban
> America is that both are buildings, and the one between the Mediterranean
> and a New England lake is that both are water. So this composite
agreement
> #3 reads, "man meets girl in residence of one of her parents and located
> near some kind of water". What kind of agreements are these? Well, they
> are unspecific and accordingly uncompelling. Without the 'Lolita'
> agreement, you might not consider them agreements at all. In this fashion
> one could link almost everything to almost everything. If Mr. Maar had
come
> up with only one additional specific agreement (say if Lichberg's narrator
> had a nasty double name like Heinz Heinz), he would have persuaded me. As
> it stands, I continue to consider his case utterly unconvincing. What I
> find exasperating, however, is something else. Even if it could be
> substantiated that Nabokov in fact knew Lichberg's story, there would be
> little insight to be gained from a discovery of this sort. Nabokov was a
> most avid reader, and in all of his works there are countless overt and
> covert literary echos. A Lichberg echo in Lolita would be just one more,
> and
> not a significant one. It wouldn't matter.
>
> Dr. Dieter E. Zimmer
> Claudiusstrasse 6
> Berlin
>
>
From: "Dieter E. Zimmer" <mail@d-e-zimmer.de>
To: "Don Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Reply to Maar
>
> Dear Don,
>
> I have the impression the UCSB server thoroughly misunderstood the posting
I
> tried to send to the List yesterday. It obviously tried to execute its
words
> as computer commands and noted that I would have to consult HELP at each
> one. So probably you have not received anything. It was a copy of the
Letter
> to the Editor I have sent to the TLS in reply to Maar's. So here it is
> again, going directly to your own mailbox.
>
> Best,
> Dieter
>
> May 9, 2004 -- 6:15am
>
>
****************************************************************************
> *
>
> Sir, - If Mr. Maar thinks my humour un-German, I'll gladly dispense with
it
> and state my objection bluntly. Let's talk turkey.
>
> Mr. Maar's contention is that there is a story A (Lichberg's "Lolita",
1916)
> and there is a novel B (Nabokov's "Lolita", 1955), that there are a number
> of agreements between A and B and therefore it is possible/likely/almost
> certain that Nabokov was acquainted with A and that unknown to himself A
> shaped B in various respects. He did not offer a shred of positive
evidence
> that Nabokov actually knew A or its author. He did not calculate the odds
> of two men ever meeting who live in a city of over four million -- and in
> two segregated social environments within that city (German Berlin and
> Russian Berlin). He did not offer the slightest hint how the mysterious
> migration of some of A's (forgotten!) elements into B a quarter of a
century
> later might have come about. His case rests solely on those agreements.
> The reasoning as such is perfectly sound. The more items of agreement
there
> are, the less likely it is that A and B are unrelated. The question is
just
> what you want to count as an agreement. In his letter, Mr. Maar
commendably
> gives a list of what he considers tell-tale agreements. "1) The title is
> identical, and the heroine has the same name. 2) She is very young. 3)
She
> is the daughter of a figure who lets a room by the sea (lake), where the
> narrator wants to take a break. 4) She has an affair with the narrator
and
> seduces him. 5) She is, like the later nymphet, half-demon and
half-child.
> 6) The finale is a grotesque, dream-like murder scene. 7) Nabokov's
Lolita
> dies after giving birth to a daughter; Lichberg's Lola is murdered after
the
> birth of her daughter."
>
> Now the important thing to grasp is that only specific agreements count,
and
> an open list of unspecific ones doesn't. This is so because otherwise you
> could produce any number of agreements at will just by slackening or
> tightening the criteria of what you want to count as one. Here there is
just
> one specific agreement, #1, the name 'Lolita'. This is impressive and
> suggestive, but not very much so, for 'Lolita' is not Lichberg's invention
> but a fairly common Spanish appellation known to everybody, deriving from
> 'Dolores' via 'Lola'. All the other agreements are not specific details
but
> unspecific jumbles of what you may, or may not, consider "resemblances".
> Take #2 : "Both girls are very young" -- sure, young they are, but there
is
> an all-important difference : Nabokov's narrator was tormented by Lolita
> being still a child (yes, sorry, of 12;5) while Lichberg's did not worry a
> bit over her age. As Humbert explains, one or two years make all the
> difference for a lover of nymphets. Or #4 : "She has an affair with the
> narrator" -- in what love-story doesn't some woman have an affair with
some
> man? Or #7 : "birth-daughter-homicide" -- but Nabokov's Humbert kills not
> Lolita but his rival Quilty, and it is not Lichberg's Lolita who had been
> killed in the story's past but her mother. I suppose the agreement
between
> a small and crooked Spanish harbour inn and a white-frame home in suburban
> America is that both are buildings, and the one between the Mediterranean
> and a New England lake is that both are water. So this composite
agreement
> #3 reads, "man meets girl in residence of one of her parents and located
> near some kind of water". What kind of agreements are these? Well, they
> are unspecific and accordingly uncompelling. Without the 'Lolita'
> agreement, you might not consider them agreements at all. In this fashion
> one could link almost everything to almost everything. If Mr. Maar had
come
> up with only one additional specific agreement (say if Lichberg's narrator
> had a nasty double name like Heinz Heinz), he would have persuaded me. As
> it stands, I continue to consider his case utterly unconvincing. What I
> find exasperating, however, is something else. Even if it could be
> substantiated that Nabokov in fact knew Lichberg's story, there would be
> little insight to be gained from a discovery of this sort. Nabokov was a
> most avid reader, and in all of his works there are countless overt and
> covert literary echos. A Lichberg echo in Lolita would be just one more,
> and
> not a significant one. It wouldn't matter.
>
> Dr. Dieter E. Zimmer
> Claudiusstrasse 6
> Berlin
>
>