I appreciate Stephen Blackwell's contribution to the Nabokov-Freud thread. In fact, I owe Stephen an apology for not referring, in my own recent message on this topic, to Chapter 4 of The Quill and the Scalpel, which is the fullest account I've seen of the Freudian presence--and absence--across a wide range of VN's works. My oversight was the result of forgetfulness, not design. I read Stephen's book when it first came out more than a year ago, but it's only in the last month that I came across the essays by Durantaye and Shute, to which I did refer.

Stephen reminds us of how far back the public excitement over Freud goes and of the power of the popularized version. I also find convincing his idea of a parallel between VN's views of Chernyshevsky and of Freud, with both of them representing "scientific" progress. But although Stephen's claims for VN's skepticism and sense of human limitations is very appealing to me, one might still be tempted to turn the argument around. If VN was as invested in the hope of an Otherworld as many of his interpreters claim, then the secularism of the two movements--socialism and psychoanalysis--may have been threatening to him on a level deeper even than politics. In this regard, it is surely significant that VN begins Speak, Memory with an account of the lengths he has gone--“Short of suicide, I have tried everything”--in search of eternity and that, at the end of his third paragraph, he curtly dismisses Freud as a crank. This from a writer who, long after the educated public had outgrown its interest in the occult, was still (according to Michael Maar) taking seriously the dream theories of J.W. Dunne. 

In my opinion, one’s reading of Pale Fire is the crucial test case. Is the book an expression of skepticism or a profession of faith? If forced to say one or the other, I have always leaned toward the first of these alternatives, largely because that’s where the comedy is richest, darkest, and deepest. Yet, under the onslaught of the metaphysicians, I have sometimes found my resolve weakening. In the last few days, though, I discovered new support for my old view--and, I believe, for Stephen’s view--as I browsed, online, the book by Thomas Karshan (mentioned previously by Stan), Vladimir Nabokov and the Art of Play, whose aim is to update the meta-fictionism of Appel in a more scholarly and sophisticated manner. According to Karshan (p. 206), it is not only Nabokov but Shade himself who rejects a metaphysics more akin (in my opinion) to the writings of Blavatsky and her ilk than to that of any reputable philosopher. 

In any case, it is a virtue of Stephen’s chapter that he provides a number of plausible reasons why VN reacted so strongly against Freud and that he shows how this reaction is reflected in various of VN’s works. It is essential reading for anyone interested in this important topic.

I also recommend Jansy’s paper, “Lolita: Freudians, Keep Out,” to which she recently provided the link: 

http://www.aetern.us/article95.html

Jansy, who is friendly to both VN and Freud, gives several examples in which the ideas of the two men are not in conflict and may actually converge. 

For a good brief account of Freud’s visit to the U.S. and of the current status of his theories in this country, go here:

THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

When Freud Came to America

http://chronicle.com/article/Freuds-Visit-to-Clark-U/48424/

Jim Twiggs