Nick Grundy wrote: "Just a quick note in response to Jansy's last post ("Edsel Ford and conjuring nebulae in two lungs") - the wikipedia information I provided was in acknowledgement of my own ignorance of astronomy. By contrast, the medical information I provided was not "wikipedia-inspired" ...While I appreciate that a certain academic suspicion is healthy, I'd have found it less abrasive to have had the source of my information checked ... On the question of how far discussions can or should diverge from what VN intended - one could use Barthes' Death of the Author to argue that would Nabokov intended in his work is of *no* importance... minority discussions, I would hate to see them excluded *from* discussion ..."

 

Dear Nick Grundy, it was not my intention to offend you or to question your qualifications. Please, excuse me if what I wrote conveyed that meaning.

Neither would I dream of suggesting that "minority dicussions" should be excluded and, in fact, this is something that lies not within our capacities as participants in this List.

My intention was to join in the discussion on how much should we emphasise the medical precision of Nabokov's images on illness and death - even if by asserting my "opposition", for divergences are an integral part of any sound discussion. 

I agree with you that to ponder about what an author "intended" with his work may not yield a productive debate. And yet, if we happen to raise such  conjectures, we should then reach closer to the author's sources, cultural milieu and time.   
Jansy