BTW: VN's explicit opinions about psychoanalysis were apparently
informed only by his contact with Freud's very early writings and,
probably, by the "utilitarian Freudians". Therefore, as I see it, he
actually was a true Freudian inspite of himself.
I couldn't agree more, Jansy. Clearly (from my recent re-reading of Lolita and "Signs and Symbols"--most of the rest of his work I read many years ago and re-read from time to time) Nabokov had a good deal of what can now be known as contemporary psychoanalytic knowledge drawn from various schools, and is a "true Freudian" (since that is the phrase you used) in the most contemporary sense combining progressive interpretations of psychoanalytic knowledge, but he did insist on separating literature from science, or on vexing and playing with that question, enchantingly adding humor and philosophy to his magical fairy tales. I think he was making fun of anti-Freudians as well as certain kinds of Freudians he had in mind (probably mainly popularized vulgarized notions of them), and of didactic writers. The fairy tales that he was after are not inconsistent with embodying such psychoanalytic and other knowledge in literature, and the ascription "Freudian" seems dated. It seems strange to me that anyone might say "I am not a Freudian" and "I love VN." It seems strange to go to the trouble to say "I am not a Freudian" unless one is not up-to-date with psychoanalysis. It's an old-fashioned idea of what psychoanalytic thought really is, and an old-fashioned idea, extremely inappropriate, that psychoanalytic knowledge is incompatible with enchanting literature. It seems important to see how psychoanalytic thought understands and encourages creativity in a way that is quite compatible with VN's work. I think Jansy can explain this better than I.
Barrie Karp
NYC