Here's a curious little question that sort of goes with the subject at hand that's always bothered me. Vivian Darkbloom, according to John Ray Jr., has written a biography called "My Cue" "her best book"--clearly this is a pun title given to a manuscript which must be an indiscreet book about her relationship with the murdered playwright, Quilty, as in "My Q"? But if his name wasn't really Clare Quilty, something that ought to be remembered in these sorts of discussions (Lolita's first name is the only "real" one in the book) then the pun would be literally meaningless in the world of the of the book. I suppose it's not a total cheat, since Vivian may not have intended a pun which Lolita's over-familiar reader can't help but see in the title, but it seems a bit like dirty pool.
 
As to the question at hand: it seems John Ray is pretty clear that he edited the final manusript: "My task proved simpler than either of us had anticipated. Save for the correction of obvious solecisms and a careful suppression of a few tenacious details that despite "H.H."'s own efforts still subsisted in his text as signposts and tombstones (indicative of places or persons that taste would conceal and compassion spare), this remarkable memoir is presented intact."  That means he left all those quirky instructions to Clark and the printers in. As to why John Ray did so, I suspect the reason he would give for it is this: "As a case history, "Lolita" will become, no doubt, a classic in psychiatric circles. As a work of art, it transcends its expiatory aspects; and still more important to us than scientific significance and liteary worth, is the ethical impact the book should have on the serious reader..." p.5 Library of America edition. In other words I disagree with you a bit. I think obviously, in the world of the book, Humbert initially did begin his text as a part of his defense for killing Quilty, but it metamorphosed into an arty confession to expiate his guilt; to Ray, it really is a case study, and a work of art. But obviously Nabokov left all the extra textual stuff in because he found it entertaining and it was also a way to throw the reader out of Humbert's thrall now and then. It's similar, by the way, to Ronald Oranger's poor editing of Van Veen's manuscript in Ada. Part of the reason it doesn't seem fully explicable is that these fictional editors take for granted something many may not. I believe in N's voluminous writings on Eugene Onegin he suggested that works by great writers should never be altered from their final forms, not even to correct obvious mistakes. I suggest Ray and Oranger, in taking the "genius" of their authors for granted, adhere strictly to this standard.  
--- On Sat, 7/11/09, jansymello <jansy@AETERN.US> wrote:

From: jansymello <jansy@AETERN.US>
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Fw: [NABOKOV-L] On plums and Bend Sinister,PS
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 9:26 AM

JM: Carolyn Kunin spotted a typo qua Sybil Shade's translation from  "Odelette," when I mentined that it was written by Henri de Régnier ( 1804-1936) . 
 
She wrote, off-list:
"Your French poet seems to combine two life-spans... Henri de was born in 1864 according to my Oxford Companion to French Literature."  Thanks, Carolyn.
Anyway, A.Stadlen's clarification led me back to Lolita... Besides various "Clare" ( sometimes, quipped by HH as "Clare Obscure") which might have been abbreviations for "Clarence", I found previews of Kinbotean insertions, addressing his editor and complaining about the lack of a good library in his cage (not "cave")
 
Lolita ( Foreword by J.Ray Jr)
"His lawyer, my good friend and relation, Clarence Choate Clark, Esq., now of he District of Columbia bar, in asking me to edit the manuscript, based his request on a clause in his client's will which empowered my eminent cousin to use his discretion in all matters pertaining to the preparation of "Lolita" for print."
 
Lolita ( from the manuscript confessions )
1. HH addressing his "editor" Clarence and offering an astonishing preview of Clare Quilty ( as "Aunt Clare"):
"...appeared (I notice the slip of my pen in the preceding paragraph, but please do not correct it, Clarence) in The Murdered Playwright
Was pink pig Mr. Swoon absolutely sure my wife had not telephoned? He was. If she did, would he tell her we had gone on to Aunt Clare's place?"
 
2.  HH writing in a spirit similar to C.Kinbote from his Cedarn Cave:
 "...(this is not too clear I am afraid, Clarence, but I did not keep any notes, and have at my disposal only an atrociously crippled tour book in three volumes, almost a symbol of my torn and tattered past, in which to check these recollections)..." 
 
QUERY: Who edited the final manuscript after all?
If it was John Ray Jr. why did he leave HH's instructions to his lawyer-cousin, Clarence, in it? 
The latter was hired not as an editor, but in relation to "a clause in his client's will which empowered my eminent cousin to use his discretion..."  Was Clarence C.C. Esq. a criminal lawyer? Under what capacity was he hired by HH? 
 
Bibliography about "Lolita" is so extensive as to be totally overwhelming and mind-twisting. 
Perhaps the List can offer a short-cut or allow itself to redundantly open old & settled issues? 
(HH's writings were not material for a psychiatrist's "clinical case", nor were they a raving pervert's tactics to get his aquittal in court while under the care of Dr. JRJr.  They were addressed to an imaginary jury, but clearly written to be printed as an autobiographical novel.)
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.

Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.