Subject
Fw: Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. I would point out that neither Michael Maar, nor Dieter Zimmer have
been "loud" (see below) in their exchange. The "loudness" has come from
ill-informed, sensation-seeking journalists who have trumpeted the whole
von Lichberg business to idiotic proportions.
--------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (138
lines) ------------------
> Thank you to Mr. Zimmer for speaking turkey.
>
> What is specific though is how Mr. Maar's theory came to be known to us.
>
> Isn't that so typical for generalities applied to Nabokov's art that they
> are so specifically loud? Having read Mr. Zimmer's reply I would not call
> that a German quality but it is certainly germain as far as loudness of
the
> taste of the essay's begetter is concerned. For the same reason
"inscrutable
> .... side-swipe at Nabokov's first biographer, Andrew Field" and 'swimming
> German with two swans' scene in the work on Gogol has everything to do
with
> Mr. Maar. .... There is nothing personal in my observation: I simply had
to use Mr. >Maar's name as it was he who started this thread.
>
> Sincerely,
> George Shimanovich
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:05 AM
> Subject: Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > > *
> > >
> > > Sir, - If Mr. Maar thinks my humour un-German, I'll gladly dispense
with
> > it
> > > and state my objection bluntly. Let's talk turkey.
> > >
> > > Mr. Maar's contention is that there is a story A (Lichberg's "Lolita",
> > 1916)
> > > and there is a novel B (Nabokov's "Lolita", 1955), that there are a
> number
> > > of agreements between A and B and therefore it is
possible/likely/almost
> > > certain that Nabokov was acquainted with A and that unknown to himself
A
> > > shaped B in various respects. He did not offer a shred of positive
> > evidence
> > > that Nabokov actually knew A or its author. He did not calculate the
> odds
> > > of two men ever meeting who live in a city of over four million -- and
> in
> > > two segregated social environments within that city (German Berlin and
> > > Russian Berlin). He did not offer the slightest hint how the
mysterious
> > > migration of some of A's (forgotten!) elements into B a quarter of a
> > century
> > > later might have come about. His case rests solely on those
agreements.
> > > The reasoning as such is perfectly sound. The more items of agreement
> > there
> > > are, the less likely it is that A and B are unrelated. The question
is
> > just
> > > what you want to count as an agreement. In his letter, Mr. Maar
> > commendably
> > > gives a list of what he considers tell-tale agreements. "1) The title
> is
> > > identical, and the heroine has the same name. 2) She is very young.
3)
> > She
> > > is the daughter of a figure who lets a room by the sea (lake), where
the
> > > narrator wants to take a break. 4) She has an affair with the
narrator
> > and
> > > seduces him. 5) She is, like the later nymphet, half-demon and
> > half-child.
> > > 6) The finale is a grotesque, dream-like murder scene. 7) Nabokov's
> > Lolita
> > > dies after giving birth to a daughter; Lichberg's Lola is murdered
after
> > the
> > > birth of her daughter."
> > >
> > > Now the important thing to grasp is that only specific agreements
count,
> > and
> > > an open list of unspecific ones doesn't. This is so because otherwise
> you
> > > could produce any number of agreements at will just by slackening or
> > > tightening the criteria of what you want to count as one. Here there
is
> > just
> > > one specific agreement, #1, the name 'Lolita'. This is impressive and
> > > suggestive, but not very much so, for 'Lolita' is not Lichberg's
> invention
> > > but a fairly common Spanish appellation known to everybody, deriving
> from
> > > 'Dolores' via 'Lola'. All the other agreements are not specific
details
> > but
> > > unspecific jumbles of what you may, or may not, consider
"resemblances".
> > > Take #2 : "Both girls are very young" -- sure, young they are, but
there
> > is
> > > an all-important difference : Nabokov's narrator was tormented by
Lolita
> > > being still a child (yes, sorry, of 12;5) while Lichberg's did not
worry
> a
> > > bit over her age. As Humbert explains, one or two years make all the
> > > difference for a lover of nymphets. Or #4 : "She has an affair with
the
> > > narrator" -- in what love-story doesn't some woman have an affair with
> > some
> > > man? Or #7 : "birth-daughter-homicide" -- but Nabokov's Humbert kills
> not
> > > Lolita but his rival Quilty, and it is not Lichberg's Lolita who had
> been
> > > killed in the story's past but her mother. I suppose the agreement
> > between
> > > a small and crooked Spanish harbour inn and a white-frame home in
> suburban
> > > America is that both are buildings, and the one between the
> Mediterranean
> > > and a New England lake is that both are water. So this composite
> > agreement
> > > #3 reads, "man meets girl in residence of one of her parents and
located
> > > near some kind of water". What kind of agreements are these? Well,
> they
> > > are unspecific and accordingly uncompelling. Without the 'Lolita'
> > > agreement, you might not consider them agreements at all. In this
> fashion
> > > one could link almost everything to almost everything. If Mr. Maar
had
> > come
> > > up with only one additional specific agreement (say if Lichberg's
> narrator
> > > had a nasty double name like Heinz Heinz), he would have persuaded me.
> As
> > > it stands, I continue to consider his case utterly unconvincing. What
I
> > > find exasperating, however, is something else. Even if it could be
> > > substantiated that Nabokov in fact knew Lichberg's story, there would
be
> > > little insight to be gained from a discovery of this sort. Nabokov
was
> a
> > > most avid reader, and in all of his works there are countless overt
and
> > > covert literary echos. A Lichberg echo in Lolita would be just one
> more,
> > > and
> > > not a significant one. It wouldn't matter.
> > >
> > > Dr. Dieter E. Zimmer
> > > Claudiusstrasse 6
> > > Berlin
> > >
> > >
>
been "loud" (see below) in their exchange. The "loudness" has come from
ill-informed, sensation-seeking journalists who have trumpeted the whole
von Lichberg business to idiotic proportions.
--------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (138
lines) ------------------
> Thank you to Mr. Zimmer for speaking turkey.
>
> What is specific though is how Mr. Maar's theory came to be known to us.
>
> Isn't that so typical for generalities applied to Nabokov's art that they
> are so specifically loud? Having read Mr. Zimmer's reply I would not call
> that a German quality but it is certainly germain as far as loudness of
the
> taste of the essay's begetter is concerned. For the same reason
"inscrutable
> .... side-swipe at Nabokov's first biographer, Andrew Field" and 'swimming
> German with two swans' scene in the work on Gogol has everything to do
with
> Mr. Maar. .... There is nothing personal in my observation: I simply had
to use Mr. >Maar's name as it was he who started this thread.
>
> Sincerely,
> George Shimanovich
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:05 AM
> Subject: Dieter Zimmer reply to Maar (The Lichberg LO)
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > > *
> > >
> > > Sir, - If Mr. Maar thinks my humour un-German, I'll gladly dispense
with
> > it
> > > and state my objection bluntly. Let's talk turkey.
> > >
> > > Mr. Maar's contention is that there is a story A (Lichberg's "Lolita",
> > 1916)
> > > and there is a novel B (Nabokov's "Lolita", 1955), that there are a
> number
> > > of agreements between A and B and therefore it is
possible/likely/almost
> > > certain that Nabokov was acquainted with A and that unknown to himself
A
> > > shaped B in various respects. He did not offer a shred of positive
> > evidence
> > > that Nabokov actually knew A or its author. He did not calculate the
> odds
> > > of two men ever meeting who live in a city of over four million -- and
> in
> > > two segregated social environments within that city (German Berlin and
> > > Russian Berlin). He did not offer the slightest hint how the
mysterious
> > > migration of some of A's (forgotten!) elements into B a quarter of a
> > century
> > > later might have come about. His case rests solely on those
agreements.
> > > The reasoning as such is perfectly sound. The more items of agreement
> > there
> > > are, the less likely it is that A and B are unrelated. The question
is
> > just
> > > what you want to count as an agreement. In his letter, Mr. Maar
> > commendably
> > > gives a list of what he considers tell-tale agreements. "1) The title
> is
> > > identical, and the heroine has the same name. 2) She is very young.
3)
> > She
> > > is the daughter of a figure who lets a room by the sea (lake), where
the
> > > narrator wants to take a break. 4) She has an affair with the
narrator
> > and
> > > seduces him. 5) She is, like the later nymphet, half-demon and
> > half-child.
> > > 6) The finale is a grotesque, dream-like murder scene. 7) Nabokov's
> > Lolita
> > > dies after giving birth to a daughter; Lichberg's Lola is murdered
after
> > the
> > > birth of her daughter."
> > >
> > > Now the important thing to grasp is that only specific agreements
count,
> > and
> > > an open list of unspecific ones doesn't. This is so because otherwise
> you
> > > could produce any number of agreements at will just by slackening or
> > > tightening the criteria of what you want to count as one. Here there
is
> > just
> > > one specific agreement, #1, the name 'Lolita'. This is impressive and
> > > suggestive, but not very much so, for 'Lolita' is not Lichberg's
> invention
> > > but a fairly common Spanish appellation known to everybody, deriving
> from
> > > 'Dolores' via 'Lola'. All the other agreements are not specific
details
> > but
> > > unspecific jumbles of what you may, or may not, consider
"resemblances".
> > > Take #2 : "Both girls are very young" -- sure, young they are, but
there
> > is
> > > an all-important difference : Nabokov's narrator was tormented by
Lolita
> > > being still a child (yes, sorry, of 12;5) while Lichberg's did not
worry
> a
> > > bit over her age. As Humbert explains, one or two years make all the
> > > difference for a lover of nymphets. Or #4 : "She has an affair with
the
> > > narrator" -- in what love-story doesn't some woman have an affair with
> > some
> > > man? Or #7 : "birth-daughter-homicide" -- but Nabokov's Humbert kills
> not
> > > Lolita but his rival Quilty, and it is not Lichberg's Lolita who had
> been
> > > killed in the story's past but her mother. I suppose the agreement
> > between
> > > a small and crooked Spanish harbour inn and a white-frame home in
> suburban
> > > America is that both are buildings, and the one between the
> Mediterranean
> > > and a New England lake is that both are water. So this composite
> > agreement
> > > #3 reads, "man meets girl in residence of one of her parents and
located
> > > near some kind of water". What kind of agreements are these? Well,
> they
> > > are unspecific and accordingly uncompelling. Without the 'Lolita'
> > > agreement, you might not consider them agreements at all. In this
> fashion
> > > one could link almost everything to almost everything. If Mr. Maar
had
> > come
> > > up with only one additional specific agreement (say if Lichberg's
> narrator
> > > had a nasty double name like Heinz Heinz), he would have persuaded me.
> As
> > > it stands, I continue to consider his case utterly unconvincing. What
I
> > > find exasperating, however, is something else. Even if it could be
> > > substantiated that Nabokov in fact knew Lichberg's story, there would
be
> > > little insight to be gained from a discovery of this sort. Nabokov
was
> a
> > > most avid reader, and in all of his works there are countless overt
and
> > > covert literary echos. A Lichberg echo in Lolita would be just one
> more,
> > > and
> > > not a significant one. It wouldn't matter.
> > >
> > > Dr. Dieter E. Zimmer
> > > Claudiusstrasse 6
> > > Berlin
> > >
> > >
>