NABOKV-L post 0001516, Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:47:21 -0800

Re: Lolita queries (fwd)
From: Neil W. Spence <>
Re: Gennady Barabtarlo's Reply:

I must say I find this to be entirely plausible as well
(the more so in that it was my own reading of this sentence
well before this thread started).

Why "small"? Certainly smaller than most real human sexual
partners, and most fantasy ones as well, even HH's.

Why hermaphroditic? The hand is obviously a very versatile
instrument. While receptive (female) here, perhaps intrusive
(male) a few hours later? (I understand that people of all genders and
gender preferences have been known to use the hand in this capacity.)

Why a "total stranger"? How much has been written/discussed
about the unreliability of the narrator/implied author in Lolita?
How much of this relates to the fact that HH seems completely
unaware of -- indeed, oblivious to, *unacquainted with* -- the
true meaning of actions committed _sui manu_, not the least
of which is the narrative itself?

PI Memo

To: NABOKV-L @ UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU (Multiple recipients of list NABOKV-L) @ Internet
From: chtodel @ (Donald Barton Johnson) @ Internet @ WORLDCOM
Date: 12/04/96 01:36:17 PM CST
Subject: Re: Lolita queries (fwd)

EDITOR'S NOTE. Gennady Barabtarlo <>, is the
author of _Phantom of Fact: A Reader's Guide to PNIN_ and _Aerial View:
Essays on Nabokov's Art and Metaphysics_.

>>Vitaly Kupisk ( takes a shot at it:
>>1) Hairy Humbert's hand, I presume, that pitiful pervert...
>Yes! This is entirely plausible, and well spotted

No -- it is entirely implausible, to my mind: why "small"? why
hermaphroditic? why a "total stranger"?