Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: The Gift ch4
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. I agree with Irena Ksiezopolska. One of the major themes of THE GIFT
is VN's rumination on what went wrong in the history of Russian culture. He
finds the answer in the sixties of the XIXth century when Chernyshevsky's
_What is to be Done?_ was written--a book that became a sacred text for the
Russian intelligentsia and eventually led to the rules of Socialist Realism
as the official doctrine. Much of the chapter's significance is lost on
readers not steeped in Russian cultural history.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Irena Ksiezopolska" <irenaks@poczta.onet.pl>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (380
lines) ------------------
>
>
> I wanted to add a comment to the recent Gift discussion. To me the chapter
4
> worked as a key to the novel: its circular structure (beginning and ending
> with the sonnet) reflects the structure of the novel. There are other
> circles: Fiodor's poetry - built around his childhood, then his unwritten
> biography of his father, enclosing the unfulfilled dreams and naturally
> ending in a dream, then the whole book ends with the "i nie konchajetsia
> stroka" - pointing to another circle. Unending lines - circles - in the
> structure of the novel and the stories it tells are to me the best thing
> about The Gift. I don't know how it reads in English, but in Russian it's
> marvelous, though it does feel somewhat uneven. I think VN actually
intended
> this effect.
>
>
>
> Also, having been forced to read Chto Delat' in primary school, I enjoyed
> the chapter tremendously - suddenly the most boring figure of my childhood
> became a bit more lovable...
>
>
> Regards,
> Irena
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 5:53 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: The Gift ch4
>
>
> > EDNOTE. NABOKV-L once again thanks Sergey Karpukhin (in far-off Irkutsk)
> for
> > a well-infomed and thoughtful contribution.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sergey Karpukhin" <shrewd@irk.ru>
> >
> > >
> > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (280
> > lines) ------------------
> > > A few comments on Mr Miale's questions. His remarks are perspicacious,
> > > his criticism is acute, and so have to be dealt with, to use George W.
> > > Bush's favourite phrase.
> > >
> > > As I take it, Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour has something to do
> with
> > > aristocratic hauteur which has become an essential part of his
> > personality.
> > > First, he sends his wife home without even so much as interrupting a
> > > conversation with two Cossacks. This, I think, is only to show how
> > childish,
> > > reckless (in a feminine way), and needlessly sentimental her trip was.
> > Then,
> > > the most important part, he overtakes her on her way home as she's on
> the
> > > point of bursting into tears, and they "part in an altogether
different
> > > manner", so that she goes home cheerful and bright as before. This
shows
> > > that Fyodor's father understood what really brought her here and
> > appreciated
> > > it. And she understood his "cold" words when he saw her pop out of a
> > > tarantass: Elizaveta Pavlovna herself says that there was something
> > > "indecent" in her escapade.
> > > I believe that Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour seems tyrannical
only
> > when
> > > compared to Luzhin Senior's amorphous paternal feelings. I always
> > construed
> > > Fyodor's father "severities" as a sign of integrity, because they were
> > > invariably offset
> > > by his (almost heroic) dedication to his work. Konstantin Cherdyntsev
> > always
> > > seemed to me physically incapable of being mean and cruel, and that's
> what
> > > his wife and children loved him for. Maybe this is Russianness, or
some
> > > other kind of subjective angle of vision, but Professor Preobrazhensky
> > from
> > > Bulgakov's "Heart of Dog" now comes to my mind as I'm trying to find a
> > > comparable personage in literature.
> > >
> > > As for Chernyshevsky, my understanding of the problem is that VN
focused
> > on
> > > *Russian* history and literature. Chernyshevsky wasn't a Swede, he was
> > > Russian and his ideas were influential in Russia, not Sweden. And
their
> > > influence in Russia was not altogether wholesome. As you probably
know,
> VN
> > > wasn't writing a biography in earnest, he consciously used facts he
> needed
> > > to construct a work of art, not criticism. Fyodor was limbering up,
but
> > > poetically and stylistically, not critically or academically. He
didn't
> > > falsify facts, but he used them selectively in accordance with his
> > aesthetic
> > > purposes. I personally would agree with you that Chernyshevsky's role
in
> > the
> > > development of Russian culture deserves more respect than Fyodor would
> > care
> > > to show. But it was Fyodor's choice to treat him the way he wanted to.
> And
> > > we should not deny him his choice, understanding that his purposes
were
> > > primarily aesthetic.
> > > Besides, VN knew how to hate, as well as who to hate. (My dolzhny
umet'
> > > nenavidet' [we must know how to hate] - I'm quoting from memory - was
> said
> > > in connection with the Russian revolution and the Soviets.) He hated
the
> > > Soviets, and as the ulterior motive in Chapter 4 he tried to trace
back
> > the
> > > roots of the Soviet zaraza [plague]. So even if in Sweden the similar
> > ideas
> > > produced enlightened capitalism, in Russia they made possible the
> Russian
> > > revolution.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, Andrey Bitov's clever novel "Pushkin House" began with
> > > Chernyshevsky (a citation from "Chto delat'" is an epigraph to the
> > Prologue
> > > of the novel), but shortly before completion Bitov was struck by "Dar"
> > [The
> > > Gift] and couldn't write for 6 months. As a result the book was
finished
> > > under the strong influence of VN.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > > Sergey Karpukhin
> > > www.the-nr.irk.ru
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > > ********************************************
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:47 AM
> > > Subject: Fw: The Gift ch4
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Walter Miale" <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca>
> > > > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:09 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: The Gift ch4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (194
> > > > lines) ------------------
> > > > > >From: Walter Miale <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca
> > > > > >Subject: RE: The Gift ch4
> > > > >
> > > > > I very much enjoyed The Gift and the warm rays it shines on life.
> But
> > > > > I had trouble both with Chapter 2 --the tale of Fyodor's father,
> who
> > > > > appears to treat his wife despicably but with this not coloring in
> > > > > any visible way Fyodor's account of him-- and with what I think
was
> a
> > > > > gross flaw in chapter 4, where Chernyshevsky is treated, as Boyd
put
> > > > > it, as an intellectual bufoon, unworthy of being taken seriously.
In
> > > > > my view, despite his being a klutzy and klunky writer, despite
being
> > > > > put on a pedestal by Lenin and adopted as the fount of wisdom by
> > > > > generations of philistine commisars, Ch. had extraordinary
redeeming
> > > > > qualities. He held not that writers and artists should be
> subservient
> > > > > to state power --on the contrary, his attitude toward state
> > > > > censorship was one of insolent defiance and wiley ingenuity-- but
he
> > > > > did believe that aesthetic values should derive from the ethical.
In
> > > > > this he may (or may not) have been wrong, but was his view
> > > > > contemptible?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chernyshevsky acted fearlessly and heroically in defiance of state
> > > > > authority, on behalf of the serfs, and in advocacy of democratic
> > > > > reforms, and then while in jail he wrote a book published at not
> > > > > inconsiderable risk to himself, in which he promulgated a vision
of
> > > > > economic democracy that is far closer to Swedish cooperatives than
> to
> > > > > Soviet Communism. And indeed, he spent the rest of his life
> suffering
> > > > > the consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > The nearsighted Nikolai Gavrilovich would barrel down the Nevsky
> > > > > Prospect, splunching and elbowing aside the insufferably proud.
Me,
> I
> > > > > like the image, although Dostoyevsky's parody (in Notes from
> > > > > Underground) was sublime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Dmitri Nabokov, I mean no disrespect to your father, to whom
I
> > > > > owe countless hours of literary delight and reflection, but I
think
> > > > > in the treatment of Chernyshevsky there was a good measure of
> blaming
> > > > > him for the crimes of others, including the very crimes of which
he
> > > > > himself was victim, and I think that this, along with what appears
> to
> > > > > me an almost incoherent portrayal of Fyodor's attitude toward his
> > > > > father, detracts from an otherwise haunting and philosophical work
> of
> > > > > art.
> > > > >
> > > > > **********************************************************
> > > > > **********************************************************
> > > > >
> > > > > My first post on this subject (1/17/03):
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not re-read the novel, much less re-re-read it, but a
> > > > > difficulty I sometimes have with chess studies and problems is the
> > > > > suspicion that there is no solution. I'm afraid in this case there
> > > > > may be simple overlooktions on my part. In any case, I would be
> > > > > grateful for answers to at least some of the questions below.
> > > > >
> > > > > ********
> > > > >
> > > > > A little less than half way through Chapter Two of The Gift, the
> > > > > narrator tells of the time his mother on her own initiative
> undertook
> > > > > to journey two thousand miles across Russia and central Asia to
join
> > > > > his father, and of how the moment his father saw her, he "slit his
> > > > > eyes, and in a horribly unexpected voice spoke three words: 'You
go
> > > > > home,'" and turned around to continue his conversation with some
> > > > > Cossacks. Before his mother got very far, his father overtook her
> and
> > > > > they evidently exchanged embraces at least, but she continued
home,
> > > > > apparently without a word of explanation of her husband's conduct,
> > > > > about which Fyodor registers no surprise or takes any further
> > > > > interest.
> > > > >
> > > > > This rather tyrannical behavior of his father toward his mother
does
> > > > > not appear to color Fyodor's attitude toward him, which seems to
be
> > > > > one of unqualified adulation. I don't know if Godunov-Cherdyntsev
> > > > > senior had a mistress in his tent at the time or what, but is the
> > > > > vehemence with which he excludes his wife from his life compatible
> > > > > with the honor his son ascribes to him? Why does Fyodor report the
> > > > > incident without comment or reflection?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eight or ten pages later, following a passage in which Fyodor says
> > > > > that his father had zero interest in ethnography and wouldn't go a
> > > > > short distance out of his way to visit Lhasa, which he referred to
> as
> > > > > "one more filthy little town," Fyodor, in a paragraph that begins
> > > > > with an account of his father's clock-stopping petulance, which
> could
> > > > > be triggered by a miscomputation by a steward or a flippant remark
> by
> > > > > a friend, writes, "He who in his time had slaughtered countless
> > > > > multitudes of birds. . . could not forgive me a Leshino sparrow
> > > > > wantonly shot down with a Montecristo rifle. . . . He. . .could
not
> > > > > stand hypocrisy. . ." The irony here seems to be unmistakable, but
> as
> > > > > far as I can see, this is out of keeping with the tone of the
> chapter
> > > > > and with Fyodor's attitude of unmodulated reverence toward his
> > > > > father. In short, the reader perceives G-Ch senior's faults, which
> > > > > appear in the first instance to amount to knavery, as Fyodor
> recounts
> > > > > these happenings, even though Fyodor, as far as I can see,
manifests
> > > > > no emotion concerning them. He actually describes his father in
the
> > > > > paragraph cited as even tempered. What is VN doing? How "reliable"
a
> > > > > narrator is Godunov with respect to his father? Does the novel,
> > > > > analagously to other of Nabokov's novels, manifest a moral
viewpoint
> > > > > that is not shared by the fictive author? How to account for the
> > > > > dissonance? I have heard that G-Ch senior was one of Nabokov's
> > > > > favorite characters. But could he have admired the character's
> > > > > character?
> > > > >
> > > > > ********
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is the portrayal of Zina, who is so eccentral a focus of the
> > > > > novel, so blurry?
> > > > >
> > > > > ********
> > > > >
> > > > > Godunov-Cherdyntsev/Nabokov expresses a faint bit of respect for
> N.G.
> > > > > Chernyshevsky's humane instincts and disposition, but the
portrayal
> > > > > overall is blistering. As Boyd puts it, "Fyodor treats
Chernyshevsky
> > > > > as an intellectual buffoon whose ideas do not deserve the
compliment
> > > > > of rational opposition." Of course Chernyshevsky the novelist and
> > > > > thinker was an easy target and, grandfather as he was (?) of
> > > > > socialist realism, a worthwhile target, but did he really deserve
> > > > > what Godunov and Nabokov heaped on him?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, not for nothing apparently was Chernyshevsky a favorite of
> > > > > Lenin; yes, he manifested pronounced strains of crackpotism--if
> > > > > G-Ch's account is correct; yes, his prose was klonky, not to say
> > > > > cringey, and in poetry he preferred (G-Ch tells us) double dactyls
> to
> > > > > iambs and trochees, and he didn't think much of Poushkin. If Ch
> > > > > really did not appreciate Poushkin, this was no doubt a
> manifestation
> > > > > of an impoverished aesthetic, but it was, wasn't it, an aesthetic
> > > > > that was altogether dominated by ethical values that the author(s)
> of
> > > > > the bio in The Gift did not share, such as the importance of
> > > > > cooperation to achieve social ends. Chernyshevsky did present his
> > > > > contemporaries with a vision, however ineptly drawn, of benevolent
> > > > > enterprise, of the founding of coops, a form of association that
> > > > > became the basis not of Soviet communism but of Swedish economic
> > > > > democracy, and he apparently acted selflessly and heroically to
> > > > > further social change in the early days of Alexander II and the
> great
> > > > > reforms of the era. --But how significant was his political
> activity?
> > > > > It is hard to tell from Nabokov's account, so light is it with
> regard
> > > > > to certain details, though heavy with ridicule. Was the general
> sense
> > > > > of Chernyshevsky as a hero and a saint (which led to so unfriendly
a
> > > > > reception of the monograph and the novel) so far fetched? Was it
> > > > > mistaken? Did fate really bring such suffering to Chernyshevsky
> > > > > because he was so muddled, or was a more important factor his
acute
> > > > > and courageous social conscience? Should we have expected Godunov
> and
> > > > > Nabokov to engage Chernyshevsky more on the latter's own terms?
> (For
> > > > > example: "Liberal landowners, liberal writers, liberal professors
> > > > > lull you with hopes in the progressive aims of our government.")
Did
> > > > > the critics of Fyodor's monograph present an adequate defense of
> > > > > Chernyshevsky? Or did their failure to do so, along with a skewed
> > > > > depiction in the monograph, constitute a shortcoming of The Gift?
> > > > >
> > > > > Further, was Chernyshevsky's idea that art and poetry are keys to
> > > > > real life rather than things over and above it, as dense as the
> > > > > polemic of The Gift would have it? Does his view really denigrate
> > > > > art? For Chernyshevsky, beauty of form characterises an aim not
only
> > > > > of art but of all human work. This brings to mind the epigram
> > > > > Marshall McLuhan attributed to a Balinese: We have no art. We do
> > > > > everything well. (Speaking of McLuhan, I'm reminded of his comment
> on
> > > > > some negative reviews of William Burroughs: "It is a little like
> > > > > trying to criticize the sartorial and verbal manifestations of a
man
> > > > > who is knocking on the door to explain that flames are leaping
from
> > > > > the roof of our home.")
> > > > >
> > > > > When, in a situation paralleling Fyodor's mother's journey,
> > > > > Chernyshevsky's wife traveled to Siberia to be with him he, like
> > > > > Fyodor's father on the outskirts of Tashkent, sent her home in
short
> > > > > order--in this case after a four-day visit after a three-month
trip;
> > > > > but this was for her own safety, not so that he could carry on
> > > > > carrying on. Godunov has no comment on this, except to emphasize
> > > > > "--four days, reader!--", which is still more comment than he
makes
> > > > > on the c. four-hour visit and turnaround of his mother in the
depths
> > > > > of Kazakhstan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chernyshevsky's contemporary, Dostoyevsky, had long ago, in a
> > > > > hilarious parody, cut him to ribbons. Apparently that treatment,
> > > > > despite its severity, didn't "take", but did the beast really need
> > > > > another flogging?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Gift and Nabokov himself manifest(ed) an exemplary and
inspiring
> > > > > attitude to the annoyances and bitter blows of fate. I can't say
how
> > > > > likely it is that reading the novel will make one happy, but
reading
> > > > > it does crystalize a sense of knowing "the secret" of happiness,
no
> > > > > small thing, and the book dramatizes this knowledge artfully and
> > > > > artistically and perhaps, for all my doubts, happily. I do wonder
> > > > > about the limits of its attitude toward adversity: how would it
> apply
> > > > > to a more extreme situation, to concentration camp say --or
plague--
> > > > > as opposed to exile? What might Jude the obscure done with Fyodor
> > > > > Konstantinovich's recipe for happiness? But more to the point
here,
> > > > > don't we find in The Gift, despite its affirmation and uplift, a
> > > > > troubling appearance of the "civic cynicism" theme in the life of
> its
> > > > > author who, for all the compassion and decency embodied in his
work,
> > > > > in his literary criticism, and in his life, seemed --correct me if
I
> > > > > am mistaken-- to have little sense of how people working
> > > > > cooperatively could benefit the community or right the wrongs of
> > > > > society? In The Gift (and elsewhere), and not only in the portrait
> of
> > > > > Chernyshevsky but in the account of the silly union meeting and
the
> > > > > passage in which Godunov laments the stupidity of having gone to
it
> > > > > instead of spending the evening with his girlfriend, didn't
Nabokov
> > > > > tend to disparage the notion --which is of the essence of
> democracy--
> > > > > that this is possible, and to convey his strong sense that trying
to
> > > > > do so is an exercise in futility?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
is VN's rumination on what went wrong in the history of Russian culture. He
finds the answer in the sixties of the XIXth century when Chernyshevsky's
_What is to be Done?_ was written--a book that became a sacred text for the
Russian intelligentsia and eventually led to the rules of Socialist Realism
as the official doctrine. Much of the chapter's significance is lost on
readers not steeped in Russian cultural history.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Irena Ksiezopolska" <irenaks@poczta.onet.pl>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (380
lines) ------------------
>
>
> I wanted to add a comment to the recent Gift discussion. To me the chapter
4
> worked as a key to the novel: its circular structure (beginning and ending
> with the sonnet) reflects the structure of the novel. There are other
> circles: Fiodor's poetry - built around his childhood, then his unwritten
> biography of his father, enclosing the unfulfilled dreams and naturally
> ending in a dream, then the whole book ends with the "i nie konchajetsia
> stroka" - pointing to another circle. Unending lines - circles - in the
> structure of the novel and the stories it tells are to me the best thing
> about The Gift. I don't know how it reads in English, but in Russian it's
> marvelous, though it does feel somewhat uneven. I think VN actually
intended
> this effect.
>
>
>
> Also, having been forced to read Chto Delat' in primary school, I enjoyed
> the chapter tremendously - suddenly the most boring figure of my childhood
> became a bit more lovable...
>
>
> Regards,
> Irena
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 5:53 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: The Gift ch4
>
>
> > EDNOTE. NABOKV-L once again thanks Sergey Karpukhin (in far-off Irkutsk)
> for
> > a well-infomed and thoughtful contribution.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sergey Karpukhin" <shrewd@irk.ru>
> >
> > >
> > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (280
> > lines) ------------------
> > > A few comments on Mr Miale's questions. His remarks are perspicacious,
> > > his criticism is acute, and so have to be dealt with, to use George W.
> > > Bush's favourite phrase.
> > >
> > > As I take it, Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour has something to do
> with
> > > aristocratic hauteur which has become an essential part of his
> > personality.
> > > First, he sends his wife home without even so much as interrupting a
> > > conversation with two Cossacks. This, I think, is only to show how
> > childish,
> > > reckless (in a feminine way), and needlessly sentimental her trip was.
> > Then,
> > > the most important part, he overtakes her on her way home as she's on
> the
> > > point of bursting into tears, and they "part in an altogether
different
> > > manner", so that she goes home cheerful and bright as before. This
shows
> > > that Fyodor's father understood what really brought her here and
> > appreciated
> > > it. And she understood his "cold" words when he saw her pop out of a
> > > tarantass: Elizaveta Pavlovna herself says that there was something
> > > "indecent" in her escapade.
> > > I believe that Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour seems tyrannical
only
> > when
> > > compared to Luzhin Senior's amorphous paternal feelings. I always
> > construed
> > > Fyodor's father "severities" as a sign of integrity, because they were
> > > invariably offset
> > > by his (almost heroic) dedication to his work. Konstantin Cherdyntsev
> > always
> > > seemed to me physically incapable of being mean and cruel, and that's
> what
> > > his wife and children loved him for. Maybe this is Russianness, or
some
> > > other kind of subjective angle of vision, but Professor Preobrazhensky
> > from
> > > Bulgakov's "Heart of Dog" now comes to my mind as I'm trying to find a
> > > comparable personage in literature.
> > >
> > > As for Chernyshevsky, my understanding of the problem is that VN
focused
> > on
> > > *Russian* history and literature. Chernyshevsky wasn't a Swede, he was
> > > Russian and his ideas were influential in Russia, not Sweden. And
their
> > > influence in Russia was not altogether wholesome. As you probably
know,
> VN
> > > wasn't writing a biography in earnest, he consciously used facts he
> needed
> > > to construct a work of art, not criticism. Fyodor was limbering up,
but
> > > poetically and stylistically, not critically or academically. He
didn't
> > > falsify facts, but he used them selectively in accordance with his
> > aesthetic
> > > purposes. I personally would agree with you that Chernyshevsky's role
in
> > the
> > > development of Russian culture deserves more respect than Fyodor would
> > care
> > > to show. But it was Fyodor's choice to treat him the way he wanted to.
> And
> > > we should not deny him his choice, understanding that his purposes
were
> > > primarily aesthetic.
> > > Besides, VN knew how to hate, as well as who to hate. (My dolzhny
umet'
> > > nenavidet' [we must know how to hate] - I'm quoting from memory - was
> said
> > > in connection with the Russian revolution and the Soviets.) He hated
the
> > > Soviets, and as the ulterior motive in Chapter 4 he tried to trace
back
> > the
> > > roots of the Soviet zaraza [plague]. So even if in Sweden the similar
> > ideas
> > > produced enlightened capitalism, in Russia they made possible the
> Russian
> > > revolution.
> > >
> > > Incidentally, Andrey Bitov's clever novel "Pushkin House" began with
> > > Chernyshevsky (a citation from "Chto delat'" is an epigraph to the
> > Prologue
> > > of the novel), but shortly before completion Bitov was struck by "Dar"
> > [The
> > > Gift] and couldn't write for 6 months. As a result the book was
finished
> > > under the strong influence of VN.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > > Sergey Karpukhin
> > > www.the-nr.irk.ru
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
****************************************************************************
> > > ********************************************
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:47 AM
> > > Subject: Fw: The Gift ch4
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Walter Miale" <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca>
> > > > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:09 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: The Gift ch4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (194
> > > > lines) ------------------
> > > > > >From: Walter Miale <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca
> > > > > >Subject: RE: The Gift ch4
> > > > >
> > > > > I very much enjoyed The Gift and the warm rays it shines on life.
> But
> > > > > I had trouble both with Chapter 2 --the tale of Fyodor's father,
> who
> > > > > appears to treat his wife despicably but with this not coloring in
> > > > > any visible way Fyodor's account of him-- and with what I think
was
> a
> > > > > gross flaw in chapter 4, where Chernyshevsky is treated, as Boyd
put
> > > > > it, as an intellectual bufoon, unworthy of being taken seriously.
In
> > > > > my view, despite his being a klutzy and klunky writer, despite
being
> > > > > put on a pedestal by Lenin and adopted as the fount of wisdom by
> > > > > generations of philistine commisars, Ch. had extraordinary
redeeming
> > > > > qualities. He held not that writers and artists should be
> subservient
> > > > > to state power --on the contrary, his attitude toward state
> > > > > censorship was one of insolent defiance and wiley ingenuity-- but
he
> > > > > did believe that aesthetic values should derive from the ethical.
In
> > > > > this he may (or may not) have been wrong, but was his view
> > > > > contemptible?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chernyshevsky acted fearlessly and heroically in defiance of state
> > > > > authority, on behalf of the serfs, and in advocacy of democratic
> > > > > reforms, and then while in jail he wrote a book published at not
> > > > > inconsiderable risk to himself, in which he promulgated a vision
of
> > > > > economic democracy that is far closer to Swedish cooperatives than
> to
> > > > > Soviet Communism. And indeed, he spent the rest of his life
> suffering
> > > > > the consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > The nearsighted Nikolai Gavrilovich would barrel down the Nevsky
> > > > > Prospect, splunching and elbowing aside the insufferably proud.
Me,
> I
> > > > > like the image, although Dostoyevsky's parody (in Notes from
> > > > > Underground) was sublime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Dmitri Nabokov, I mean no disrespect to your father, to whom
I
> > > > > owe countless hours of literary delight and reflection, but I
think
> > > > > in the treatment of Chernyshevsky there was a good measure of
> blaming
> > > > > him for the crimes of others, including the very crimes of which
he
> > > > > himself was victim, and I think that this, along with what appears
> to
> > > > > me an almost incoherent portrayal of Fyodor's attitude toward his
> > > > > father, detracts from an otherwise haunting and philosophical work
> of
> > > > > art.
> > > > >
> > > > > **********************************************************
> > > > > **********************************************************
> > > > >
> > > > > My first post on this subject (1/17/03):
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not re-read the novel, much less re-re-read it, but a
> > > > > difficulty I sometimes have with chess studies and problems is the
> > > > > suspicion that there is no solution. I'm afraid in this case there
> > > > > may be simple overlooktions on my part. In any case, I would be
> > > > > grateful for answers to at least some of the questions below.
> > > > >
> > > > > ********
> > > > >
> > > > > A little less than half way through Chapter Two of The Gift, the
> > > > > narrator tells of the time his mother on her own initiative
> undertook
> > > > > to journey two thousand miles across Russia and central Asia to
join
> > > > > his father, and of how the moment his father saw her, he "slit his
> > > > > eyes, and in a horribly unexpected voice spoke three words: 'You
go
> > > > > home,'" and turned around to continue his conversation with some
> > > > > Cossacks. Before his mother got very far, his father overtook her
> and
> > > > > they evidently exchanged embraces at least, but she continued
home,
> > > > > apparently without a word of explanation of her husband's conduct,
> > > > > about which Fyodor registers no surprise or takes any further
> > > > > interest.
> > > > >
> > > > > This rather tyrannical behavior of his father toward his mother
does
> > > > > not appear to color Fyodor's attitude toward him, which seems to
be
> > > > > one of unqualified adulation. I don't know if Godunov-Cherdyntsev
> > > > > senior had a mistress in his tent at the time or what, but is the
> > > > > vehemence with which he excludes his wife from his life compatible
> > > > > with the honor his son ascribes to him? Why does Fyodor report the
> > > > > incident without comment or reflection?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eight or ten pages later, following a passage in which Fyodor says
> > > > > that his father had zero interest in ethnography and wouldn't go a
> > > > > short distance out of his way to visit Lhasa, which he referred to
> as
> > > > > "one more filthy little town," Fyodor, in a paragraph that begins
> > > > > with an account of his father's clock-stopping petulance, which
> could
> > > > > be triggered by a miscomputation by a steward or a flippant remark
> by
> > > > > a friend, writes, "He who in his time had slaughtered countless
> > > > > multitudes of birds. . . could not forgive me a Leshino sparrow
> > > > > wantonly shot down with a Montecristo rifle. . . . He. . .could
not
> > > > > stand hypocrisy. . ." The irony here seems to be unmistakable, but
> as
> > > > > far as I can see, this is out of keeping with the tone of the
> chapter
> > > > > and with Fyodor's attitude of unmodulated reverence toward his
> > > > > father. In short, the reader perceives G-Ch senior's faults, which
> > > > > appear in the first instance to amount to knavery, as Fyodor
> recounts
> > > > > these happenings, even though Fyodor, as far as I can see,
manifests
> > > > > no emotion concerning them. He actually describes his father in
the
> > > > > paragraph cited as even tempered. What is VN doing? How "reliable"
a
> > > > > narrator is Godunov with respect to his father? Does the novel,
> > > > > analagously to other of Nabokov's novels, manifest a moral
viewpoint
> > > > > that is not shared by the fictive author? How to account for the
> > > > > dissonance? I have heard that G-Ch senior was one of Nabokov's
> > > > > favorite characters. But could he have admired the character's
> > > > > character?
> > > > >
> > > > > ********
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is the portrayal of Zina, who is so eccentral a focus of the
> > > > > novel, so blurry?
> > > > >
> > > > > ********
> > > > >
> > > > > Godunov-Cherdyntsev/Nabokov expresses a faint bit of respect for
> N.G.
> > > > > Chernyshevsky's humane instincts and disposition, but the
portrayal
> > > > > overall is blistering. As Boyd puts it, "Fyodor treats
Chernyshevsky
> > > > > as an intellectual buffoon whose ideas do not deserve the
compliment
> > > > > of rational opposition." Of course Chernyshevsky the novelist and
> > > > > thinker was an easy target and, grandfather as he was (?) of
> > > > > socialist realism, a worthwhile target, but did he really deserve
> > > > > what Godunov and Nabokov heaped on him?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, not for nothing apparently was Chernyshevsky a favorite of
> > > > > Lenin; yes, he manifested pronounced strains of crackpotism--if
> > > > > G-Ch's account is correct; yes, his prose was klonky, not to say
> > > > > cringey, and in poetry he preferred (G-Ch tells us) double dactyls
> to
> > > > > iambs and trochees, and he didn't think much of Poushkin. If Ch
> > > > > really did not appreciate Poushkin, this was no doubt a
> manifestation
> > > > > of an impoverished aesthetic, but it was, wasn't it, an aesthetic
> > > > > that was altogether dominated by ethical values that the author(s)
> of
> > > > > the bio in The Gift did not share, such as the importance of
> > > > > cooperation to achieve social ends. Chernyshevsky did present his
> > > > > contemporaries with a vision, however ineptly drawn, of benevolent
> > > > > enterprise, of the founding of coops, a form of association that
> > > > > became the basis not of Soviet communism but of Swedish economic
> > > > > democracy, and he apparently acted selflessly and heroically to
> > > > > further social change in the early days of Alexander II and the
> great
> > > > > reforms of the era. --But how significant was his political
> activity?
> > > > > It is hard to tell from Nabokov's account, so light is it with
> regard
> > > > > to certain details, though heavy with ridicule. Was the general
> sense
> > > > > of Chernyshevsky as a hero and a saint (which led to so unfriendly
a
> > > > > reception of the monograph and the novel) so far fetched? Was it
> > > > > mistaken? Did fate really bring such suffering to Chernyshevsky
> > > > > because he was so muddled, or was a more important factor his
acute
> > > > > and courageous social conscience? Should we have expected Godunov
> and
> > > > > Nabokov to engage Chernyshevsky more on the latter's own terms?
> (For
> > > > > example: "Liberal landowners, liberal writers, liberal professors
> > > > > lull you with hopes in the progressive aims of our government.")
Did
> > > > > the critics of Fyodor's monograph present an adequate defense of
> > > > > Chernyshevsky? Or did their failure to do so, along with a skewed
> > > > > depiction in the monograph, constitute a shortcoming of The Gift?
> > > > >
> > > > > Further, was Chernyshevsky's idea that art and poetry are keys to
> > > > > real life rather than things over and above it, as dense as the
> > > > > polemic of The Gift would have it? Does his view really denigrate
> > > > > art? For Chernyshevsky, beauty of form characterises an aim not
only
> > > > > of art but of all human work. This brings to mind the epigram
> > > > > Marshall McLuhan attributed to a Balinese: We have no art. We do
> > > > > everything well. (Speaking of McLuhan, I'm reminded of his comment
> on
> > > > > some negative reviews of William Burroughs: "It is a little like
> > > > > trying to criticize the sartorial and verbal manifestations of a
man
> > > > > who is knocking on the door to explain that flames are leaping
from
> > > > > the roof of our home.")
> > > > >
> > > > > When, in a situation paralleling Fyodor's mother's journey,
> > > > > Chernyshevsky's wife traveled to Siberia to be with him he, like
> > > > > Fyodor's father on the outskirts of Tashkent, sent her home in
short
> > > > > order--in this case after a four-day visit after a three-month
trip;
> > > > > but this was for her own safety, not so that he could carry on
> > > > > carrying on. Godunov has no comment on this, except to emphasize
> > > > > "--four days, reader!--", which is still more comment than he
makes
> > > > > on the c. four-hour visit and turnaround of his mother in the
depths
> > > > > of Kazakhstan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chernyshevsky's contemporary, Dostoyevsky, had long ago, in a
> > > > > hilarious parody, cut him to ribbons. Apparently that treatment,
> > > > > despite its severity, didn't "take", but did the beast really need
> > > > > another flogging?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Gift and Nabokov himself manifest(ed) an exemplary and
inspiring
> > > > > attitude to the annoyances and bitter blows of fate. I can't say
how
> > > > > likely it is that reading the novel will make one happy, but
reading
> > > > > it does crystalize a sense of knowing "the secret" of happiness,
no
> > > > > small thing, and the book dramatizes this knowledge artfully and
> > > > > artistically and perhaps, for all my doubts, happily. I do wonder
> > > > > about the limits of its attitude toward adversity: how would it
> apply
> > > > > to a more extreme situation, to concentration camp say --or
plague--
> > > > > as opposed to exile? What might Jude the obscure done with Fyodor
> > > > > Konstantinovich's recipe for happiness? But more to the point
here,
> > > > > don't we find in The Gift, despite its affirmation and uplift, a
> > > > > troubling appearance of the "civic cynicism" theme in the life of
> its
> > > > > author who, for all the compassion and decency embodied in his
work,
> > > > > in his literary criticism, and in his life, seemed --correct me if
I
> > > > > am mistaken-- to have little sense of how people working
> > > > > cooperatively could benefit the community or right the wrongs of
> > > > > society? In The Gift (and elsewhere), and not only in the portrait
> of
> > > > > Chernyshevsky but in the account of the silly union meeting and
the
> > > > > passage in which Godunov laments the stupidity of having gone to
it
> > > > > instead of spending the evening with his girlfriend, didn't
Nabokov
> > > > > tend to disparage the notion --which is of the essence of
> democracy--
> > > > > that this is possible, and to convey his strong sense that trying
to
> > > > > do so is an exercise in futility?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>