To
tomato, ( I guess),
I have continued to try to track down just who it was, exactly, who said what, exactly, about VN and pedophilia.
Re the "who," google searches for Centerwall, B. Centerwall, and B. S. Centerwall have turned up a number of individuals (related, I would guess) who wrote on topics such as TV, violence, guns and early theatre, in addition to the Nabokov article. The psychiatrist among them appears to be this gentleman:
psychiatrist
with a condensed professional biography that can be found here:
credentials
In trying to discover exactly what Dr. Centerwall said directly, I have not yet turned up a text of his article. The closest I have been able to come is to this journal abstract, professionally-written by Gonchar:
Abstract
My own skepticism remains at the same high levels as before.
Gonchar's statement that Centerwall
"...convincingly argues that Nabokov was a conscious pedophile .."
is
not the same as
...proof that Nabokov was an actual pedophile ...
or even
...proof that Nabokov was a conscious pedophile ...
and the claim that Nabokov
"...acted out his perverse impulses through his writing."
is
not the same as saying
...actually committed pedophilic acts.
In fact, nobody, but
nobody, (including Centerwall) claims that VN engaged in any pedophilic acts.
It is also ridiculous in the extreme to remark adversely that, when VN wrote about pedophilia in his fictional characters, the descriptions agreed with what is known about pedophilia. VN was known as a careful observer and researcher and the agreement is not surprising for a careful author. Knowledge of criminality is not the same as being a criminal, as seems too obvious to point out.
It also seems to stretch credulity to refer to "genetic" origins for the perversion, and to further suggest that because Nabokov was the victim of his uncle (if he was) then he himself became a similar victimizer.
It is also worth noting that the phrase "was a conscious pedophile," as presented in the abstract, became "was a closet pedophile" when someone else referred to the article, and became "was a pedophile" when the article was offered in this thread by yourself. Thus do rumors grow and spread.
But enough! The original article is not yet at hand for examination. If you,
tomato, could present a link to the full original article, then we all could see directly how the good Doctor formed his opinions.
Barring that, I have little more to say,
Discussing second-hand opinions is an exercise in futility, IMO,
Peder
Lots of times I don't. 
