Subject
Fw: ARE they sterile? Let's be honest...
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. An eloquent statement from Phil Howerton (who cannot [justly] be
accused of being a literary professional--but just a good reader). Much the
same can be said for Mary Krimmel.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Howerton" <phil@carolina.rr.com>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (123
lines) ------------------
>
> I suppose one definiton of sterile is simply "non-fertile." Nabokov
plowed
> many different fields, wrote many different kinds of novels, some of which
> appeal to some and others to others. As a layman, I haven't the knowledge
> or the ability to fully appreciate some of his works, but that's a far cry
> from assuming or going around saying that they are "sterile." I believe I
> have read almost everything he published and I have never found any of his
> writing boring or uninteresting, regardless of its sometime difficulties.
> Or, for that matter, untouching. I know little about poetry and nothing
> about Russian poetry, but I was absorbed years ago by his commentary to
> Eugene Onegin, which I thought was hilariously entertaining. Personally,
I
> find him about as sterile as a bull elephant.
>
> A famous writer, I forget who, once wrote to the effect that if we had a
> keen vision and feeling for all ordinary human life it would be like
hearing
> the grass grow and the squirrel's heartbeat and we should die of that roar
> which lies on the other side of silence. Nabokov spent a lifetime
listening
> to and describing that heartbeat, those faint whisperings.
>
> Mr. Peck needs to fine tune his stethescope a mite.
>
> Phil
>
> Judge Philip F. Howerton, Jr.
> 2812 Sunset Drive
> Charlotte, NC 28209
>
> "To be proud, to be brave, to be free." Vladimir Nabokov
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:03 PM
> Subject: Fw: ARE they sterile? Let's be honest...
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (58
> > lines) ------------------
> >
> > > Maybe this is as good a time as any to ask the group whether Dale
Peck's
> > cranky, scattershot attack doesn't score a few points. No one who has
read
> > Faulkner can deny there are incomprehensible rambles (although why he
> > restricted this comment to his late career is a mystery) and I
personally
> > think DeLillo highly overrated -- although I'll keep Gravity's Rainbow,
> > Mason & Dixon, and the divine Ulysses, thank you very much. But while
I'm
> > not sure exactly what Peck means by "late," I think you have to be a
> highly
> > committed or possibly career Nabokovian to enjoy "Transparent Things"
and
> > (especially) "Look at the Harlequins," which cannot be said of their
> > predecessors (although some might include "Ada" in this group). I think
of
> > them as the least of his books; some readers consign the bottom rungs to
> > "Bend Sinister" or "Laughter in the Dark," but both of those have a
> > compelling narrative drive that his last two novels simply do not.
> > >
> > > Rodney Welch
> > > Columbia, SC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > Sent: Jun 8, 2004 11:20 AM
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> > > .>
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (37
> > > lines) ------------------
> > > > Hard to believe The Atlantic is printing such bilge?the revenge of
> the
> > > > stupid really has infected almost every branch of literary
discourse.
> > > >
> > > > GK
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > > Sent: 6/7/04 11:40 PM
> > > > Subject: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.theatlantic.com/images/logotop.gif>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hatchet Jobs,
> > > >
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1565848748/theatlanticmonthA/ref
> > > > =nosim/> by Dale Peck (New Press). In these essays Peck rightly
> > > > eviscerates contemporary "bombastic and befuddled" literary
novelists
> > > > who have defined and adhere to "a tradition that has grown
> increasingly
> > > > esoteric and exclusionary, falsely intellectual and alienating to
the
> > > > mass of readers." He excoriates the McSweeney's crowd and "the
> > > > ridiculous dithering of John Barth ... [and] the reductive cardboard
> > > > constructions of Donald Barthelme," and would excise from the modern
> > > > canon "nearly all of Gaddis, Pynchon, DeLillo," and?while he's at
> > > > it?"the diarrheic flow of words that is Ulysses ... the
> incomprehensible
> > > > ramblings of late Faulkner and the sterile inventions of late
> Nabokov."
> > > > He correctly maintains that in writing "for one another rather than
> some
> > > > more or less common reader," th! ese writers have created a
situation
> in
> > > > which "the members of the educated bourgeoisie ... are sick and
tired
> of
> > > > feeling like they've somehow failed the modern novel." In his
> meticulous
> > > > attention to diction, his savage wit, his exact and rollicking
prose,
> > > > his fierce devotion to stylistic and intellectual precision, and?of
> > > > course?his disdain for pseudo-intellectual flatulence, Peck is
> Mencken's
> > > > heir (although he's got to curb his lazy use of expletives). He
writes
> > > > that this collection marks the end of his hatchet jobs. For the sake
> of
> > > > the republic of letters, he'd better change his mind.
> > > > <<logotop.gif>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
accused of being a literary professional--but just a good reader). Much the
same can be said for Mary Krimmel.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Howerton" <phil@carolina.rr.com>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (123
lines) ------------------
>
> I suppose one definiton of sterile is simply "non-fertile." Nabokov
plowed
> many different fields, wrote many different kinds of novels, some of which
> appeal to some and others to others. As a layman, I haven't the knowledge
> or the ability to fully appreciate some of his works, but that's a far cry
> from assuming or going around saying that they are "sterile." I believe I
> have read almost everything he published and I have never found any of his
> writing boring or uninteresting, regardless of its sometime difficulties.
> Or, for that matter, untouching. I know little about poetry and nothing
> about Russian poetry, but I was absorbed years ago by his commentary to
> Eugene Onegin, which I thought was hilariously entertaining. Personally,
I
> find him about as sterile as a bull elephant.
>
> A famous writer, I forget who, once wrote to the effect that if we had a
> keen vision and feeling for all ordinary human life it would be like
hearing
> the grass grow and the squirrel's heartbeat and we should die of that roar
> which lies on the other side of silence. Nabokov spent a lifetime
listening
> to and describing that heartbeat, those faint whisperings.
>
> Mr. Peck needs to fine tune his stethescope a mite.
>
> Phil
>
> Judge Philip F. Howerton, Jr.
> 2812 Sunset Drive
> Charlotte, NC 28209
>
> "To be proud, to be brave, to be free." Vladimir Nabokov
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:03 PM
> Subject: Fw: ARE they sterile? Let's be honest...
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (58
> > lines) ------------------
> >
> > > Maybe this is as good a time as any to ask the group whether Dale
Peck's
> > cranky, scattershot attack doesn't score a few points. No one who has
read
> > Faulkner can deny there are incomprehensible rambles (although why he
> > restricted this comment to his late career is a mystery) and I
personally
> > think DeLillo highly overrated -- although I'll keep Gravity's Rainbow,
> > Mason & Dixon, and the divine Ulysses, thank you very much. But while
I'm
> > not sure exactly what Peck means by "late," I think you have to be a
> highly
> > committed or possibly career Nabokovian to enjoy "Transparent Things"
and
> > (especially) "Look at the Harlequins," which cannot be said of their
> > predecessors (although some might include "Ada" in this group). I think
of
> > them as the least of his books; some readers consign the bottom rungs to
> > "Bend Sinister" or "Laughter in the Dark," but both of those have a
> > compelling narrative drive that his last two novels simply do not.
> > >
> > > Rodney Welch
> > > Columbia, SC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > Sent: Jun 8, 2004 11:20 AM
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> > > .>
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (37
> > > lines) ------------------
> > > > Hard to believe The Atlantic is printing such bilge?the revenge of
> the
> > > > stupid really has infected almost every branch of literary
discourse.
> > > >
> > > > GK
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > > Sent: 6/7/04 11:40 PM
> > > > Subject: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.theatlantic.com/images/logotop.gif>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hatchet Jobs,
> > > >
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1565848748/theatlanticmonthA/ref
> > > > =nosim/> by Dale Peck (New Press). In these essays Peck rightly
> > > > eviscerates contemporary "bombastic and befuddled" literary
novelists
> > > > who have defined and adhere to "a tradition that has grown
> increasingly
> > > > esoteric and exclusionary, falsely intellectual and alienating to
the
> > > > mass of readers." He excoriates the McSweeney's crowd and "the
> > > > ridiculous dithering of John Barth ... [and] the reductive cardboard
> > > > constructions of Donald Barthelme," and would excise from the modern
> > > > canon "nearly all of Gaddis, Pynchon, DeLillo," and?while he's at
> > > > it?"the diarrheic flow of words that is Ulysses ... the
> incomprehensible
> > > > ramblings of late Faulkner and the sterile inventions of late
> Nabokov."
> > > > He correctly maintains that in writing "for one another rather than
> some
> > > > more or less common reader," th! ese writers have created a
situation
> in
> > > > which "the members of the educated bourgeoisie ... are sick and
tired
> of
> > > > feeling like they've somehow failed the modern novel." In his
> meticulous
> > > > attention to diction, his savage wit, his exact and rollicking
prose,
> > > > his fierce devotion to stylistic and intellectual precision, and?of
> > > > course?his disdain for pseudo-intellectual flatulence, Peck is
> Mencken's
> > > > heir (although he's got to curb his lazy use of expletives). He
writes
> > > > that this collection marks the end of his hatchet jobs. For the sake
> of
> > > > the republic of letters, he'd better change his mind.
> > > > <<logotop.gif>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>