Jim Twiggs writes:
"Our
differences are perhaps as much of temperament as of substance.
Norquist, like so many others nowadays, seems deeply invested in
protecting the purity of VN and the motives (or passions) behind his
works. At my age--I am very old--I could care less whether VN’s
inner life met what I regard as conventional prudish standards or not.
Nor do I care that Lolita is as popular with pedophiles as it is
in college English courses--which is not to say that I don’t deplore
pedophilia and child abuse as much as anyone else. My main purpose in
writing about MacLean’s remarks was to say that anyone seriously
interested in such questions about VN--which have been with us since the
day Lolita was published--should look to heavyweights like Amis
and Banville rather than pick on a glib and to me inoffensive blogger. I
also wanted to protest, in a mild way, Boyd’s offering, as an
“antidote” to MacLean’s “insinuations,” a piece of stale
conference-style puffery by guest celebrity Jeffrey Masson. Many of the
earliest commentators on Lolita liked to pretend that it was not
“really” about sex and child-rape but was a fancy allegory of one kind
or another. Some
said it was not about sex but about love. In a similar spirit, the
current crop of commentators apparently need reassurance that far from
being a “transgressive” writer, VN was just about the most politically
correct guy you’d ever want to read. Working novelists like Amis and
Banville know better. And they have, like Maar, discussed these old
questions in a fresh new way.
As
for the VN quote about his poem “Lilith,” I’m not
convinced of its importance. (I don’t, however, know the full context.)
Many writers--VN not least among them--are manipulative, self-deceived,
or mischievous when discussing their own work. Many of them say
different things to different audiences at different times and different
places and for different reasons. Furthermore, as Gore Vidal pointed
out in his funny review of Strong Opinions, VN had a valid reason
for being touchy in some of his interviews. “Periodically, the
Professor is obliged to note that he himself is not repeat not
attracted to those very young girls who keep cropping up in his work.
(‘Lewis Carroll liked little girls. I don't.’) At these moments, our
proud Black Swan becomes an uneasy goose, fearful of being cooked by
Cornell's board of regents.” Vidal might also have mentioned VN’s
equally legitimate fear of having his work censored by the government.
Most
important, the connection the quote denies is so obvious that no one
could fail to see it. Mentioning it only makes it more obvious. The
business about writing the poem to amuse a friend is a marvelous touch.
To
conclude my response to Norquist, I should point out that I explicitly
acknowledged that VN “seems to have been a model of health and good
citizenship” in some of the ways that matter to me and that I agreed
with Gwynn about the supposed Sun Valley escapade. But if Norquist
doubts the extent of the “passion for sex, much of it with underage
girls, [that] runs throughout VN's work," he should certainly read the
essays by Amis and Banville--which is what I hoped everyone would do in
the first place."
In response I'd like to acknowledge that all of JT's points are well taken, and I hope that my arguments have not seemed overheated. I don't think I'm deeply invested in the purity of VN or his motives; it does bother me that so many seem willing to jump to conclusions about them, though. JT did acknowledge VN's good citizenship & his doubts about the HST/O'Rourke "escapade." I read Lolita for the first time rather late in life (having gotten as far as the couch scene as a teenager before figuratively "tossing it into a fire"). This forum hosts many better and more serious literary minds than mine, and I certainly don't claim in any way to have "figured VN out." My fascination with and love of his writings frankly does not extend much farther than Lessons In Literature, Lolita and Pale Fire. I do think VN was courageous in illuminating a subject that was not dealt with out in the open much in the 1950s; among the reasons VN nearly destroyed the Lolita manuscript twice was his realization that it might bring him infamy rather than fame. One may just note the numerous child molestation and child pornography arrests around the world to conclude that a true pedophile probably wouldn't get much out of reading Lolita when there seem to be so many more likely avenues for the pursuit of unseemly urges. Say what you will about MacLean's little blog blurb, but I'm hard-pressed to recall another Nabokov-L post with over 50 responses! Of course there is no singular or correct way of reading a work of literary art; each reader approaches literature subjectively, and Jansy, one of my favorite members in the short time I have been a member of Nabokov-L, is certainly a "mellow" and prolific voice of reason here.
All private editorial communications are
read by both co-editors.