NABOKV-L discussion

Patricia Lockwood has a long essay-review about VN in the 5 November London Review of Books. It won't be to everyone's taste, but I enjoyed it, and I think she has some insightful, interesting things to say. For instance, this nugget:

Nabokov sets up problems to which it seems there should be answers, but he does not give answers, he gives rewards. That is why he is beloved, why people dedicate whole academic lives to him.

LATH: Hazel & Fleur

As I mentioned in my two previous posts (Junkers=Jung & Esmeralda=G. Emerald), it seems to me that LATH’s conflation of VN’s novels was VN’s way of signaling the key themes that link them – possibly themes that had been overlooked (his “catalogue raisonne of the roots and origins” of his fiction). Here is another allusion in Esmeralda and Her Parandrus to PF’s conflation with Lolita:

I’m struck by how many Zemblans (and Zemblan places) contain clockfaced letter O’s in their names. Noes and reverse-noes abound.

I’m wanting to find recent scholarship that builds on Boyd’s Nabokov's Pale Fire and James Ramey’s discoveries in his ‘Brown MacIntosh’ and ‘Black Crown’ papers.

Thank you.

Hello all,

This is my first time posting, so please forgive any mistakes regarding conventions of the forum.

If VN’s intent in LATH was to distance himself from his work through a parody of readership projections, it seems it may also have been to bring the essence of his novels closer to reader apprehension through the conflated parodied titles; e.g. See Under Real seems to conflate TRLSK with PF. The theme of both is the appropriation of the writer of genius by the commentator, ending ambiguously as either an ironic mistake or spiritual transcendence.

I recently began re-reading LATH, a book I did not care for on first reading. This second time around I find there are some interesting connections that I missed before. The conflated and skewed authorial re-inventions shed light on Nabokov’s estimations of his previous novels, and suggest keys to their salient points. In fact, it may even be the point and purpose of the novel, like in Speak, Memory where he hopes for closer readings  because he “hates to have to point such things out.”

I wanted to point out a detail in this transition:

“Espied on a pine’s bark,
As we were walking home the day she died,
An empty emerald case, squat and frog-eyed,
Hugging the trunk; and its companion piece,
A gum-logged ant.
                         That Englishman in Nice,
A proud and happy linguist: je nourris
Les pauvres cigales—meaning that he
Fed the poor sea gulls!” (Lines 236-243)

I have been posting on this site my theory of a Jungian substrate to Pale Fire, particularly the idea that the novel’s main characters are archetypes within Prof. Botkin’s subconscious. I have found in the text specific Jungian words that relate to the character archetypes, i.e: shadow (Gradus), mask (Shade/persona), joker (G. Emerald/trickster), and typical images for the anima women (soul, butterfly, mermaid, nymph, spider, Medusa, indistinct, blurry), savior (Balthasar/self), Judge & Dr.

Good afternoon, folks! This is my first post—glad to be joining you all, and please forgive me if this already well-trodden ground. I was messing around with an anagram decoder earlier today, and realized I had never tried rearranging "Humbert" before now. Turns out I could have seen "thumber" hidden in there pretty easily if I just took out the space and wrote Humberthumbert, but hey, no use crying over spilled milk.