Stan Kelly-Bootle [ to
JM's Lacan uses the model of Achilles and Briseida (a slave-girl, or the
tortoise...) representing infinite regress to explain how, according to his
theory, men and women can never ever really meet in a (symbolic, ie, a
verbalizable) sexual embrace.]" Perhaps ‘the enslaved-QUEEN,’
rather than ‘a slave-girl,’ better describes Briseis (later spelling,
Briseida)..It’s depressing that Lacan can shamelessly deploy his mathematical
ignorance with such pseudo-paradoxical nonsense. The Hare does catch the
Tortoise; and, barring a Lacanian Virgin-Birth, his parents did manage a real,
verbalizable [sic] sexual embrace!
JM: I won't swallow your bait and
go on about Lacan's borromean torus with its three
dimensions (symbolic-real-imaginary)*.
Luzhin
Senior thought that Sasha's solitary pursuits derived from
the simple allure of lurid images, even though his occupation can
still be considered as erotic by its compulsiveness and so much
more.
Will there ever be an end to readers's
attempts to "explain" Nabokov's allure?**
.........................................................................................
* - Post-coital verbalizations (will it be great?Yes, it
was great) have nothing to do with Lacan's "symbolic." Our EDs
will be wise to curtail any efforts which shy away from
Nabokoviana.
Btw, Lacan wrote extensively about James Joyce (
"Le Sint'homme") and the writer Borges, about Zenon in "Achilles
and the Tortoise."
** - In his postface to "Lolita" Nabokov started to
distinguish between pornographic writing and the erotic in art.
But he didn't say it all.
Errata: Instead of Quixote, please read
Cervantes; instead of loast, last in my previous posting (and when I
mentioned my "ineptness," I should have written "ineptitude"
instead.)