Bruce Stone: [To JM's "it's easier to identify some of the instances in which Nabokov describes this mechanism, as in a painting, than how he works it into the structure of a paragraph or an entire chapter ...I haven't yet managed to find the main ugly and mangled verbal blurbs which a convex surface, or a particular perspective, would organize and reveal as a beautiful image, as suggested by VN... happens in Lolita ("a beautiful puzzle")....] "It seems to me that this technique, or motif, surfaces explicitly at several points in Lolita: the letter from Dolly Schiller has shape-shifting penmanship (H initially believes it to be from Rita's mother), and Humbert describes his voyeuristic experiences in which the image of the nymphet resolves into, or reveals itself to be, a man in an undershirt reading the newspaper. Of course, the notion of anamorphism, or distorted perception, seems to inhere in the novel even more broadly. H claims that the very act of perceiving a nymphet requires a kind of "focal adjustment." But perhaps this is too obvious, and you're looking for different kinds of anamorphism, more subtly encoded into the texts. If this is the case, then maybe the tone shifts that signal the interjections (incompletely masked) of John Ray, or Nabokov himself, are relevant here."

JM: You brought up some interesting examples of anamorphosis as a motif (such as calling attention to H's claims about the "focal adjustment" that enables him to see the nymphet in Dolores Haze). Inspite of my curiosity, I'm not truly competent to explore when a narrator's subjection to the rules of anamorphic logic will operate as a watermark, or signature. I tend to agree with your idea that to examine "the tone shifts that signal the interjections".of JR, or Nabokov, are relevant, if we want to identify a special image that'll give meaning to a particular quest (such as John Ray's intromissions in HH's confessions and his role in the novel)

You wrote that "Ultimately, the novel is engineered to conceal as much as it reveals, to leave readers with errata and aporia, error and uncertainty—fundamental conditions of Nabokov's aesthetic."* and I happily agree. As I see it (somewhere in SO, VN admitted that his universe expands like a spiral), there is no definitive overall conclusion to be achieved in his novels because, if there was one, it would smother its constant growth and irradiations. Probably VN's employ of various kinds of anamorphism in his writings will offer us the enormous satisfaction of facing an enormous collection of elaborate pictures and...partial conclusions.

I think this is one of your points: "When Humbert...waxes philosophical on the nature of literary characters, he emphasizes their "stability of type", their ontological fixity, in order to describe a peculiarly limited view of human behavior and potential: Whatever evolution this or that popular character has gone through between the book covers, his fate is fixed in our minds, and, similarly, we expect our friends to follow this or that logical and conventional pattern we have fixed for them. In this sentiment, Humbert appears to be equating fate and character, again mistaking the self-service of his imagination for a grasp of the real, and this myopic vision fails him at least twice in the novel ...Even so, Humbert's assessment might be true of the literary examples he discusses, King Lear and Emma Bovary; their personas might change dramatically between readings, but their fates remain immutable. For Nabokov's fiction, however, it appears that this axiom no longer applies." I can easily call to mind VN's insistence on durable pigments, eternity and immortality but, right now, I cannot remember one instance of his search for infinity (perhaps, in an oblique way, Sudarg of Bokay's crystal "triptyich of bottomless light" in Pale Fire) - and it's with an offer of infinity that I associate Nabokov's writings.

When you added: "For Nabokov's characters, fate isn't necessarily fixed or inalterable; even the inevitability of death becomes, for them, eerily negotiable." you outlined the limits of what happens with Nabokov's characters within his fictional work. However, when you accept that John Ray Jr., or Nabokov, is/are constantly intervening and thereby inviting the attentive reader to interact with them, you may be extending this mutability and lack of stability, or the lack of determinism, to what takes place metafictionally, that is, to the world of the readers. But I may have confused the issues!