Former postings: ...............................................................................
1. (Jansy): ... and this is not the same as
practicing "doublespeak"...
2. (G.Shimanovich): No, it is, and
here is why. I view 'demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and "victim' as
conscious attempt to blur reality of the novel. There is nothing in common
between Orwell and VN but Orwell allows non-passionate (cursive mine) assessment
of that kind of the criticism(...) Some texts offer difficulty which makes it
even more important to tame them. So, in same way as passage from Declaration of
Independence could be swallowed in the single word crimethink, one may approach
difficult Lolita with pervertvictimlove. (I do it only to reply to Jancy and
Mrs. Dawson - it has absolutely nothing to do with VN) (...)
..............................................................
Continuing with the
discussion:
Dear G.Shimanovich,
Iīm afraid I didnīt fully understand your
arguments.
In the first paragraph of your answer I found what I
took to be your criticism concerning Dr.Dawsonīs dissertation, that it aimed
at a 'demolition of the stereotypes of "pervert" and "victim' as conscious
attempt to blur reality of the novel". And yet, a little further on you
employed Orwellīs invention of "doublespeak" to ironize what would have
been as to " approach difficult Lolita with pervertvictimlove".
I understand that Dr.Dawson was not trying to
demolish the categories comprised by the concepts "pervert"
or "victim", but to study cultural stereotypes that alter these
concepts and turn society blind to all the other complexities that
come under these words.
I also donīt see how her dissertation
could be understood as an approach to Nabokovīs novel in
order to reduce it
to "pervertvictimlove".
Her scope seemed to me less
ambitious than that since I could
see no intention to reduce VNīs entire novel to fit
into that issue.
To give you an example of what I mean: Once
I read a dissertation about the meaning of "heavenīs
spite" in Hamlet. The author illustrated how that word had radically
changed from Elizabethan days to ours because the religious view that lay
behind its use had altered. His argument was that it was important to
understand more about Elizabethan customs and practices to realize what the
poet was saying by "spite" and obviously was not reducing Hamlet to a
"spite" issue but on how to read Shakespeare correctly.
And thatīs how I also
understood Dr.Dawsonīs project ( but I havenīt read her full work to
be sure, of course )
Jansy