SK-B
sighting: “ ’Les papillons ne sont que des fleurs envolees
un jour de fete,’ ecrivait Georges Sand qui, comme Nabokov, Gerard de Nerval ou
Colette, vouait une veritable passion aux papillons.... (Les Papillons
d’Europe (Rhopaloceres et Heteroceres Diurnes),”introduction by Gerald Hibon,
Delachaux et Nestle, 1989)
JM: Beautiful find. Some time ago, in
relation to beards and frills, there was a reference
to "papillote"(& butterflies). In America, frills may be used to
decorate protuding bones of a roast turkey. In Brazil we used the word
"papelote" for paper-made frills applied to bob or curl the
hair. Until then I hadn't thought about "butterflies" (
"papillote"), because I heard the sound "paper" ("papel")
- but when one sees a small girl with "papillotes" curlers,
indeed it looks as if a swarm of butterflies had alighted on her
hair.
SK-B: considering that your examples
[nacht/acht;ocho/noche;huit/nuit] come from the same (parochial!)
Indo-European language family, one might claim that the real mystery is why
people are mystified or sent into transcendental shock at inevitable
“coincidences” .Whence endless word-sound interactions: I certainly endorse
SES’s comment “ ... A typical Nabokovian device, that visual memory becomes
animated by sound.” (p 73 “How Nabokov Rewrote America,” Susan Elizabeth
Sweeney, in the never-far-from-my-bedside Cambridge Companion to Nabokov). Once
linked in the mind, there’s no escaping the sequence L-o-l-i-t-a from images of
Humbert succumbing to her labio-dental temptations, even if the movies prudishly
substitute ice-creams and lollipops [...] Darwin and others have find
common cross-cultural features in HomSap’s body-language and facial expressions
[...] Our in-family joke when taking pictures is “Say Gorganzola!” This
relates to JF’s recent confession that he does not share VN’s sensayuma, and the
subseqent problem of defining “humour” in any objective way[...] Explaining
“jokes” has been compared, unfairly, with killing and dissecting a butterfly to
see how it works. [...]... apparently influencing Freud’s Oedipal
interpretations... Dora catches a glimpse of the best-friend’s wife fellating
her father (why do these Austrians have all the fun?) -- is she shocked or
jealous?
JM: You wondered why do these Humberts
and Austrians have all the fun... Well, I don't think Freud ever did enjoy this
kind of fun in his practice, but his books about the psychopathology of
everyday life has marvellous examples of humorous situations and, as we all
know, he was very efficient when dismantling euphemisms. Besides, he
writes beautifully ( he once won a Goethe prize in recognition of his
style) No one needs to believe in psychoanalysis to thoroughly enjoy his
"Dora". A short answer to your query ( shocked or jealous?): Dora was in love
with the wife and not with her husband, so most probably she
was...jealous!
Jerry Friedman:[ A written
text may have a "suggestive" effect...] "Forward" for "foreword" is a
common spelling error [...] I
can't argue with you about Kinbote's frequent images of Gradus's forward motion,
but lots of people who have never read /Pale Fire/ misspell "foreword".
I'd need to see a well-controlled statistical study to be convinced that common
spelling errors are more likely when they have some relation to what the person
is writing about.
[ JM: I hope
I understood your former reference to a "symbolic
reading"] Those were Joseph Aisenberg's observations. I should
ask, J. A., when you spoke of homosexuality meant to be symbolic of narcissism
(as you said incest was), did you mean Kinbote, or the homosexuality scene in
/Ada/?[...]
JM: Sorry, JF and
JA, for having confused your references.
Lapsus linguae and other
parapraxies happen all the time and would be meaningless effects of
language were they not related to a particular moment as observed by
someone significant. I was wondering about VN's stylistic intention. He'd
stated as much as in: "We feel doom, in
the image of Gradus, eating away the miles and miles of "feigned remoteness"
between him and poor Shade. He, too, is to meet, in his urgent and blind flight,
a reflection that will shatter him....] The force propelling him is the magic action
of Shade’s poem itself, the very mechanism and sweep of verse, the powerful
iambic motor. Never before has the inexorable advance of fate received such a
sensuous form.", but this "sensuous form" might have been felt
in K's Forward....
Any modern ( not so modern, actually) text about psychology with
whiffs of Freud connects a special kind of "narcisism"
and "homosexuality" ( analogies,mirrors, reflective
surfaces, incapacitu to love except one's likeness etc). There is no
"symbolism" or "symbolic reading", as I see it ( Yeah...define love, define
metaphor, define symbol etc...) .
SK-Bootle: [ to JM: "You are
earnestly hoping that "some people got the o with the Hungarian 'long
umlaut'... but I don't get your "long" point."] Jerry refers to the
“long” Hungarian umlaut because that is one of its correct technical,
typographical names. You were seeking some metaphorical significance to JF’s use
of “long” that was entirely literal on this particular occasion! This is no
criticism but a reminder that the “perfect” Nabokovian reader would need to be
“omniscient” to avoid the following extremes: (i) overlooking real, intended
fruitful allusions (ii) inventing far-fetched, daft unintended allusions (often
disdainfully disowned by VN Himself);
JF: The diacritical mark is not
the ordinary umlaut or dieresis; it's two acute accents next to each
other.
JM: Substitute "earnestly" for "literally" in
your important caveat, Stan. Actually the fun often lies in having overlooked an
allusion and getting the point later on & the same for
correcting "daft" mistakes and red-faced inward chuckles.