Subject
Signs and Symbols Poll (fwd)
Date
Body
EDITOR'S NOTE: Leona Toker, whose posting follows, is the author of an
excellent study of "Signs and Symbols" that appeared in the
Nicol-Barabtarlo collection A SMALL ALPINE FORM (Garland, 1993).
--------------------------
From: Toker Leona <toker@HUM.HUJI.AC.IL>
To: Nabokv-l <NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Signs and Symbols
I have already once stated, in print, that in my opinion the ending is
supposed to be ambiguous: the story culminates and the plot gets
cancelled "the moment before" the lady can pick up the receiver. But today I
must protest against one of the statements made in the present forum, the one
to the effect that we should imagine that son has committed suicide because
his parents "do not deserve" the moment of happiness that they share
(because, among other things, of the kind of gift they have bought for him).
Is it that they do not "deserve" this moment because they are old, ugly,
poor, and miserable (or rather fortunate, having escaped the contemporary
hell in Europe)? Who is to judge? Certainly not Nabokov. And should the
father's "I am dying" be read literally or as a manner of reference precisely
to his thoughts about how awful the institution in which the son is kept?
The gift of jellies and other details of this story have, indeed, been
discussed in a great number of articles. Which reminds me of Wayne Booth's
putting on record how he changed his mind about different writers under the
influence of his wife's and his daughter's opinions as well as those of other
critics ("The Company We Keep"). By analogy with in- and de-duction, he
called that process "coduction." I sometimes wonder about the dialectics
of "coduction" and "standing by one's independent opinion."
Leona Toker
excellent study of "Signs and Symbols" that appeared in the
Nicol-Barabtarlo collection A SMALL ALPINE FORM (Garland, 1993).
--------------------------
From: Toker Leona <toker@HUM.HUJI.AC.IL>
To: Nabokv-l <NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Signs and Symbols
I have already once stated, in print, that in my opinion the ending is
supposed to be ambiguous: the story culminates and the plot gets
cancelled "the moment before" the lady can pick up the receiver. But today I
must protest against one of the statements made in the present forum, the one
to the effect that we should imagine that son has committed suicide because
his parents "do not deserve" the moment of happiness that they share
(because, among other things, of the kind of gift they have bought for him).
Is it that they do not "deserve" this moment because they are old, ugly,
poor, and miserable (or rather fortunate, having escaped the contemporary
hell in Europe)? Who is to judge? Certainly not Nabokov. And should the
father's "I am dying" be read literally or as a manner of reference precisely
to his thoughts about how awful the institution in which the son is kept?
The gift of jellies and other details of this story have, indeed, been
discussed in a great number of articles. Which reminds me of Wayne Booth's
putting on record how he changed his mind about different writers under the
influence of his wife's and his daughter's opinions as well as those of other
critics ("The Company We Keep"). By analogy with in- and de-duction, he
called that process "coduction." I sometimes wonder about the dialectics
of "coduction" and "standing by one's independent opinion."
Leona Toker