Against the use of dictionaries and other extraneous materials

[Paul Mackin]

On Apr 29, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Keith McMullen wrote:

> He may be an exception, but Nabokov is a notable one.


The connections Nabokov makes are breathtaking.

Who knows how  he does it?

Take an example from (group read) Pale Fire. At  a certain point in  
the proceedings, because
of the locale,  a Browning allusion is appropriate.  So the child  
walking in the woods relates the
interesting and fairly relevant fact that "here papa pisses,"  
recalling Browning's "Pippa Passes."

We can certainly imagine  N. combing through his Complete Works of  
Browning to find the perfect
tie in.  Or, perhaps the creative process in this case was more  
spontaneous. Not entirely unconscious,
of course, but tending in that direction. .  He already knows as much  
Browning as he  needs,
so that the play on words just more or  less comes to him. He's an  
English prof after all.

So many of N's connections are not merely two--sided.  They may be  
distributed throughout the
work. Only the subconscious mind, unguidable  by any conscious  
methodology, can handle the complexity.

Seems  plausible to me  anyway.

But, yes, certainly, as  you say, there are exceptions to the general  
formulation I was trying to lay down.

.




>
> paul.mackin at verizon.net wrote:
>
>> using a dictionary  in the creative process of expressing   
>> actions, thoughts,
>> feelings, desires. (this goes for interpreting as well as expressing)
>>
>> I can't envision a novelist doing much of.
>