Subject
Fw: Lolita's dates
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kiran Krishna" <kiran@Physics.usyd.edu.au>
.
----------------- Message requiring your approval (12
lines) ------------------
On the subject of inconsistencies in the dates in Lolita, is it possible
that they are neither authorial errors nor indications that Humbert "made
up" the visit to Dolly Schiller and the murder of Quilty? I note that
Humbert himself acknowledges (Part 2, Chapter 18, page 217, Annotated
Lolita) that he is "a murderer with a sensational but incomplete
memory". Of course, I find Prof. Boyd's theory as put forward in his paper
(http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/boyd1.htm) well-argued, but I
am rather reluctant to believe that Nabokov was as absent-minded as
suggested.
Kiran
------------------------------------------------
EDITOR's NOTE. Boyd's article on ZEMBLA is reprinted from NABOKOV STUDIES #2
and was a rebutal to two essays in the same issue. One argues that the
HH/Dolly meeting and the Q murder never happened (Dolinin) and the other
(Connolly) examines the implications of that theory for interpretation of
the novel. This set of articles are extremely important for Lolita studies
but have generally been overlooked by critics.
A question for Kiran Krishna: if the inconsistent dates "are neither
authorial errors nor indications" that HH fantasizes the visit and murder,
what options does that open? Simply alluding to HH's self-aknowledged
"incomplete memory" doesn't seem to lead to a solution.
From: "Kiran Krishna" <kiran@Physics.usyd.edu.au>
.
----------------- Message requiring your approval (12
lines) ------------------
On the subject of inconsistencies in the dates in Lolita, is it possible
that they are neither authorial errors nor indications that Humbert "made
up" the visit to Dolly Schiller and the murder of Quilty? I note that
Humbert himself acknowledges (Part 2, Chapter 18, page 217, Annotated
Lolita) that he is "a murderer with a sensational but incomplete
memory". Of course, I find Prof. Boyd's theory as put forward in his paper
(http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/boyd1.htm) well-argued, but I
am rather reluctant to believe that Nabokov was as absent-minded as
suggested.
Kiran
------------------------------------------------
EDITOR's NOTE. Boyd's article on ZEMBLA is reprinted from NABOKOV STUDIES #2
and was a rebutal to two essays in the same issue. One argues that the
HH/Dolly meeting and the Q murder never happened (Dolinin) and the other
(Connolly) examines the implications of that theory for interpretation of
the novel. This set of articles are extremely important for Lolita studies
but have generally been overlooked by critics.
A question for Kiran Krishna: if the inconsistent dates "are neither
authorial errors nor indications" that HH fantasizes the visit and murder,
what options does that open? Simply alluding to HH's self-aknowledged
"incomplete memory" doesn't seem to lead to a solution.