Subject
Fw: pynchon-l-digest V2 #3385 PALE FIRE
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. For the curious: Basically I edit the NABOKV-L replays of the the
PyNCHON-L PALE FIRE discussion only to the extent of deleting postings that
do not deal with Nabokov----and also, occasionally, postings that are
"non-substantive." The final message in this digest is a thoughtful
comparison of the two lists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:10:43 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> MalignD wrote:
>
> <<Beauty plus Pity. That is as close as we get to a definition of Art.>>
>
>
> >Not so shameless as to let this stand as perhaps being understood as your
own, are you?
>
> Oh, careless me.
>
> Malign, D. "David Daiches' Fallacy Of the Distinction Between the
> Intellectual Fallacy, Where the Most 'real' Fact About Men and Women Are
> Considered To Be Their States Of Mind, Rather Than Of Heart," Manhattan
> Quarterly, XXIX (1994), 210-99.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:15:04 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> MalignD@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I must say that I find the caption of this string depressing, the idea
> > that one needs characters that are likeable, that one can identify
> > with, that one can "care" about.
> >
> > Kinbote is pretty richly on the page: witty, appalling,
> > narcissisitic, delusional, grandiose, a ping-pong enthusiast -- not
> > enough for you?
> >
> > Not to pick unnecessarily on TP, but to offer an example to hand: did
> > you find yourselves "caring" about either of those two-dimensional
> > effigies, Mason or Dixon?
>
> Not me. I don't care about anything. But I must say, it's a wonderful
> old thread ... the idea that a reader might care about a character in a
> fiction. In fact, N talks about it in his lectures. And so do most
> people who talk seriously about the art of fiction. So what's your
> problem?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:30:31 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:58:16 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why I care about Kinbote!
>
> >>>And please let's not forget how it tingles our spine! Oooooo, boy!
> Real shivery!<<<
>
> These posts just seem silly in light of the excellent discussions going
on.
> It's only going to get better as we get into Vineland and Pale Fire. Any
> hope that your obsession with David Morris and childish putdowns will let
up
> soon?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:08:31 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> "Learn to distinguish banality. Remember that mediocrity thrives on
'ideas.'
> Beware of the modish message. Ask yourself if the symbol you have detected
> is not your own footprint. Ignore allegories. By all means place the 'how'
> above the 'what' but do not let it be confused with the 'so what.' Rely on
> the sudden erection of your small dorsal hairs. Do not drag in Freud at
this
> point. All the rest depends on personal talent." - Vladimir Nabokov
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> See here:
>
> For a literary standard by which we can measure Pynchon
> in this book we must turn to Nabokov, the master of fictional
> chess, magus of Anti-Terra, mirror world to our own, the
> realist-surrealist of fabulous skills. The operative emotion
> in Nabokov's work is nostalgia, a melting sentimental remembrance
> of Russian things past, which is converted into the total
> intellectual possession of a compensatory (and grander) verbal
> world, combining past, present and future, ruled by its only
> creator, the omnipotent author. (In its more grandiose and
> querulous manifestations, such as "Ada" and the recent gray
> conceit "Transparent Things," Nabokov's self-preservative
> and self- celebrating elaborations are repellently narcissistic.)
>
> (From Locke's NYT Book Review of GR-)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-rainbow.html
>
> It's their different reactions to nostalgia, after all, that seems
> to be one of the more interesting lines of comparison between
> P &N.
>
> respectfully
>
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:39:19 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon....?
>
> My thoughts on a topic that keeps popping up....
>
> With all due respect to Doug and SlothEnvyPride, I for one feel no
> obligation to continually link Pale Fire to Pynchon during this reading.
>
> There is a substantial number of people on this list who wish to read Pale
> Fire. To believe that we have to labor to make arbitrary connections to
> Pynchon in order to please a vocal minority is misguided. When functioning
> well, this list supports some rather intelligent, witty, and creative
> dialogue. As a literary community tied together by a shared love of
Pynchon
> - -- and all the literary tastes he represents -- I think that a group
reading
> of Pale Fire gives us a chance to renew our vitality, to apply our amassed
> intellect, crankiness, and imagination in a different but related field.
> Policing the discussion so that all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions
> connect directly to Pynchon is a limitation that defuses any real freedom
of
> communication. It dampens the expression of ideas, and it does a
disservice
> to the people on the list. To engage in a literary discussion of this
nature
> - -- well, that's part of the reason we all joined the List, magnetized by
the
> promise of Pynchon's prose. Obviously we all have some common passions for
> literature; and those passions are restless, searching, and free: we are
not
> robots programmed to connect everything to Pynchon. In fact, I think the
> last week or so of PF "preliminary" has been one of the better discussions
> we've had in a while. (And again, thanks to Jasper for really getting the
> ball rolling.)
>
> So again, I ask you few dissenters, please stop wasting bandwidth by
> insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP connection. For my own part, I find
> it bitterly frustrating; it only deflates my enthusiasm for both the
> discussion and the List in general. I invite you take part in the PF
> discussion on its own merits, or allow us to continue without censure. If
> this annoys you, you can always filter out posts beginning with NPPF.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:59:33 -0500
> From: Mondegreen <gwf@greenworldcenter.org>
> Subject: Pynchon-l and Nabokv-l lists
>
> "I come not to bother, but to annoy."
> Jesus, in The Gospel According to Saint Eureen
>
> The digests of the Pynchon-l list are being posted on the Nabokov-l list
> for the duration of the Pale Fire discussion, and this intersection of the
> lists prompts a comparison.
>
> The Nabokov list must have a higher ratio of professionals to amateurs,
> there no doubt being more Nabokov professionals than Pynchon
professionals,
> and so it has more queries and responses of a technical scholarly nature.
> It also naturally has an international makeup and cosmopolitan flavor.
>
> The Nabokov list is moderated, co-moderated actually, by two
professionals,
> i.e. professors of literature, who have Nabokov's writings as a specialty.
> They're critics. Good ones.
>
> The Nabokov forum has a dress code. Being moderated, it has no flames,
> which is refreshing. (What are all they all about??) But the Nabokov list
> also lacks free-ranging discussion, and the ambience is therefore more
> impersonal and uh stiff. No horsing around. No getting to know each other
> as people over a beer at the end of the day. The professionals are (I
think
> this is fair, yes?) wary and, speaking for myself at least, so therefore
> are the amateurs. Subscribing is not like sitting around in the
> neighborhood pub or cafИ, but attending or participating in an academic
> forum.
>
> A significant shortcoming, in my view, of the requirement to keep posts
> sqarely on-topic is the result that the Nabokov forum cannot function as a
> civic space. In these parlous times, with intelligent civic discussion
> systematically excluded from the mass media, and, let's face it, with Big
> Brother already here, in my opinion we should be using any and every
> opportunity to nurture and enliven our civic life.
>
> The civic role of author and critic was an issue of some interest to
> Vladimir Nabokov who --and please correct me if I am wrong, someone--
> however seemed to lack a sense of how citizens, acting in concert, can
> bring their humane convictions to bear on the state, or work for the
common
> good. (No doubt Nabokov's limited civic-mindedness was due in part to the
> calamitous result of the Russian revolution.) Still, political themes were
> central to some of Nabokov's novels. The exclusion of "political" posts by
> one of the narrators of the Nabokov list, who even declined to post an
> essay by his co-moderator on Nabokov and Politics, may be in keeping with
> Nabokov's own inclinations toward avoidance of "politics", but the result
> is to exclude an area of significance to Nabokov studies and, more
> seriously, to keep the list and its discussion disjuncted, in a way, from
> the real world.
>
> Anyway, to summarize: over there, where the average age of the posters is
> no doubt older than it is here, the ground rules favor more dignity but
> less fun. AFAIAC both is better.
>
> Mondegreen
> "Gladly, the cross-eyed bear..."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3385
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.
PyNCHON-L PALE FIRE discussion only to the extent of deleting postings that
do not deal with Nabokov----and also, occasionally, postings that are
"non-substantive." The final message in this digest is a thoughtful
comparison of the two lists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "pynchon-l-digest" <owner-pynchon-l-digest@waste.org>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:10:43 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> MalignD wrote:
>
> <<Beauty plus Pity. That is as close as we get to a definition of Art.>>
>
>
> >Not so shameless as to let this stand as perhaps being understood as your
own, are you?
>
> Oh, careless me.
>
> Malign, D. "David Daiches' Fallacy Of the Distinction Between the
> Intellectual Fallacy, Where the Most 'real' Fact About Men and Women Are
> Considered To Be Their States Of Mind, Rather Than Of Heart," Manhattan
> Quarterly, XXIX (1994), 210-99.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:15:04 -0400
> From: Terrance <lycidas2@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why care about Kinbote?
>
> MalignD@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I must say that I find the caption of this string depressing, the idea
> > that one needs characters that are likeable, that one can identify
> > with, that one can "care" about.
> >
> > Kinbote is pretty richly on the page: witty, appalling,
> > narcissisitic, delusional, grandiose, a ping-pong enthusiast -- not
> > enough for you?
> >
> > Not to pick unnecessarily on TP, but to offer an example to hand: did
> > you find yourselves "caring" about either of those two-dimensional
> > effigies, Mason or Dixon?
>
> Not me. I don't care about anything. But I must say, it's a wonderful
> old thread ... the idea that a reader might care about a character in a
> fiction. In fact, N talks about it in his lectures. And so do most
> people who talk seriously about the art of fiction. So what's your
> problem?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:30:31 -0500
> From: "Tim Strzechowski" <dedalus204@comcast.net>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:58:16 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF -- Why I care about Kinbote!
>
> >>>And please let's not forget how it tingles our spine! Oooooo, boy!
> Real shivery!<<<
>
> These posts just seem silly in light of the excellent discussions going
on.
> It's only going to get better as we get into Vineland and Pale Fire. Any
> hope that your obsession with David Morris and childish putdowns will let
up
> soon?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:08:31 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keithsz@concentric.net>
> Subject: Re: NPPF - preliminary
>
> "Learn to distinguish banality. Remember that mediocrity thrives on
'ideas.'
> Beware of the modish message. Ask yourself if the symbol you have detected
> is not your own footprint. Ignore allegories. By all means place the 'how'
> above the 'what' but do not let it be confused with the 'so what.' Rely on
> the sudden erection of your small dorsal hairs. Do not drag in Freud at
this
> point. All the rest depends on personal talent." - Vladimir Nabokov
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> See here:
>
> For a literary standard by which we can measure Pynchon
> in this book we must turn to Nabokov, the master of fictional
> chess, magus of Anti-Terra, mirror world to our own, the
> realist-surrealist of fabulous skills. The operative emotion
> in Nabokov's work is nostalgia, a melting sentimental remembrance
> of Russian things past, which is converted into the total
> intellectual possession of a compensatory (and grander) verbal
> world, combining past, present and future, ruled by its only
> creator, the omnipotent author. (In its more grandiose and
> querulous manifestations, such as "Ada" and the recent gray
> conceit "Transparent Things," Nabokov's self-preservative
> and self- celebrating elaborations are repellently narcissistic.)
>
> (From Locke's NYT Book Review of GR-)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-rainbow.html
>
> It's their different reactions to nostalgia, after all, that seems
> to be one of the more interesting lines of comparison between
> P &N.
>
> respectfully
>
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:39:19 -0400
> From: The Great Quail <quail@libyrinth.com>
> Subject: NPPF -- no need to relate to Pynchon....?
>
> My thoughts on a topic that keeps popping up....
>
> With all due respect to Doug and SlothEnvyPride, I for one feel no
> obligation to continually link Pale Fire to Pynchon during this reading.
>
> There is a substantial number of people on this list who wish to read Pale
> Fire. To believe that we have to labor to make arbitrary connections to
> Pynchon in order to please a vocal minority is misguided. When functioning
> well, this list supports some rather intelligent, witty, and creative
> dialogue. As a literary community tied together by a shared love of
Pynchon
> - -- and all the literary tastes he represents -- I think that a group
reading
> of Pale Fire gives us a chance to renew our vitality, to apply our amassed
> intellect, crankiness, and imagination in a different but related field.
> Policing the discussion so that all Pale Fire and Nabokov discussions
> connect directly to Pynchon is a limitation that defuses any real freedom
of
> communication. It dampens the expression of ideas, and it does a
disservice
> to the people on the list. To engage in a literary discussion of this
nature
> - -- well, that's part of the reason we all joined the List, magnetized by
the
> promise of Pynchon's prose. Obviously we all have some common passions for
> literature; and those passions are restless, searching, and free: we are
not
> robots programmed to connect everything to Pynchon. In fact, I think the
> last week or so of PF "preliminary" has been one of the better discussions
> we've had in a while. (And again, thanks to Jasper for really getting the
> ball rolling.)
>
> So again, I ask you few dissenters, please stop wasting bandwidth by
> insisting on the necessity for a VN/TP connection. For my own part, I find
> it bitterly frustrating; it only deflates my enthusiasm for both the
> discussion and the List in general. I invite you take part in the PF
> discussion on its own merits, or allow us to continue without censure. If
> this annoys you, you can always filter out posts beginning with NPPF.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> - --Quail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:59:33 -0500
> From: Mondegreen <gwf@greenworldcenter.org>
> Subject: Pynchon-l and Nabokv-l lists
>
> "I come not to bother, but to annoy."
> Jesus, in The Gospel According to Saint Eureen
>
> The digests of the Pynchon-l list are being posted on the Nabokov-l list
> for the duration of the Pale Fire discussion, and this intersection of the
> lists prompts a comparison.
>
> The Nabokov list must have a higher ratio of professionals to amateurs,
> there no doubt being more Nabokov professionals than Pynchon
professionals,
> and so it has more queries and responses of a technical scholarly nature.
> It also naturally has an international makeup and cosmopolitan flavor.
>
> The Nabokov list is moderated, co-moderated actually, by two
professionals,
> i.e. professors of literature, who have Nabokov's writings as a specialty.
> They're critics. Good ones.
>
> The Nabokov forum has a dress code. Being moderated, it has no flames,
> which is refreshing. (What are all they all about??) But the Nabokov list
> also lacks free-ranging discussion, and the ambience is therefore more
> impersonal and uh stiff. No horsing around. No getting to know each other
> as people over a beer at the end of the day. The professionals are (I
think
> this is fair, yes?) wary and, speaking for myself at least, so therefore
> are the amateurs. Subscribing is not like sitting around in the
> neighborhood pub or cafИ, but attending or participating in an academic
> forum.
>
> A significant shortcoming, in my view, of the requirement to keep posts
> sqarely on-topic is the result that the Nabokov forum cannot function as a
> civic space. In these parlous times, with intelligent civic discussion
> systematically excluded from the mass media, and, let's face it, with Big
> Brother already here, in my opinion we should be using any and every
> opportunity to nurture and enliven our civic life.
>
> The civic role of author and critic was an issue of some interest to
> Vladimir Nabokov who --and please correct me if I am wrong, someone--
> however seemed to lack a sense of how citizens, acting in concert, can
> bring their humane convictions to bear on the state, or work for the
common
> good. (No doubt Nabokov's limited civic-mindedness was due in part to the
> calamitous result of the Russian revolution.) Still, political themes were
> central to some of Nabokov's novels. The exclusion of "political" posts by
> one of the narrators of the Nabokov list, who even declined to post an
> essay by his co-moderator on Nabokov and Politics, may be in keeping with
> Nabokov's own inclinations toward avoidance of "politics", but the result
> is to exclude an area of significance to Nabokov studies and, more
> seriously, to keep the list and its discussion disjuncted, in a way, from
> the real world.
>
> Anyway, to summarize: over there, where the average age of the posters is
> no doubt older than it is here, the ground rules favor more dignity but
> less fun. AFAIAC both is better.
>
> Mondegreen
> "Gladly, the cross-eyed bear..."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pynchon-l-digest V2 #3385
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to waste@waste.org
> with "unsubscribe pynchon-l-digest" in the message body.