PS: I didn't mean to imply that the reader ought
to choose bt. either the "apparitionist view" or the "psychoanalytic
explanation for hallucinations", in PF, or to various other
items. My intention has been to suggest that, should he have read E.
Wilson's 1934/38 essay, Nabokov might have deliberately tried to foil this
line of interpretation, by introducing similar issues as a parody, creating
a protective smoke-screen, or leaving matters undecided,
thereby enhancing the "ambiguity" described in connection
to Henry James. Wilson also describes a resource similar
to Kinbote's - as an "unreliable narrator": "there are two
separate things to be kept straight: a false hypothesis which the narrator is
putting forward and a reality which we are supposed to guess from what he tells
us about what actually happens" *
* he is here referring to "The Sacred Fount"
........................................................................................
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:57
PM
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] [Query] [THOUGHT]
E.Wilson, Freud, Nabokov
Off-List, James Twiggs observed, qua E.Wilson's "The Ambiguity of Henry James"
("The Triple Thinkers", Penguin, 1962) in relation to JM's
query: [I always felt that Nabokov's rejection
of Freud was too repeated, emotional and emphatic, but I was unable to place
his off-key mood...Nabokov might have been acquainted with "Wilson's Freud",
beside his own reading experience.This might explain the special "strain" in
VN's mockery and rejection of the Viennese...?] that:
"Although--as I think you'll agree--it contains the elements of
Freudianism that VN objected to, the essay contains much else besides. It's a
very rich piece of work, in my opinion, and one that has justly provoked much
high-level discussion over the course of the last 70 or so years. Here's a
link to a full-blown treatment of the essay and some of its critics:
http://turnofthescrew.com/ch3.htm "
[...]