Subject
Re: Nabokov and Stendhal (fwd)
Date
Body
EDITOR's NOTE. The general point of Peter Kartsev, Moscow film critic and
interpreter, is well-taken. I think, however, that some of VN's
off-the-cuff comments on various writers are based on
extra-literary considerations rather than deep knowledge. One of the
hazards of fame is that your flip opinions may be assigned more profundity
than warranted.
-------------------------
>From Peter Kartsev (petr@glas.apc.org)
In regard to the message quoted below: doesn't Mr. Vorobey know that it is
often a fallacy on the reader's part to blame the author for something the
reader fails to understand or finds incoherent? I believe there even
exists some minor Russian classic alluding to the same point with the sort
of blunt didacticism common among Russian classics.
I would not have asked this obvious question had Mr. Vorobey been less
insistent on repeating his rather simplistic views over and over again, ad
nauseam.
Peter.
> As I tried to explain in a longish message sent
> to this list about a year ago (which also cited Nabokov's opinion on
> Stendhal), I think Nabokov was a pretty bad literary critic, who almost
> never had anything coherent to say about why he badmouthed this or that
> famous or unknown writer (when he *does* have something coherent to say,
> as in the case of Dostoyevsky, then his critical writings are witty,
> deep and important). Admirers of this genius among writers (and I
> am definitely such an admirer myself) are often too easily intimidated
> by his brash diatribes into believing that fanciful expressions of scorn
> can replace real, thoughtful criticism. There are many writers whom
> Nabokov dismissed without in any substantial way backing his opinion up
> with real criticism, and Stendhal just happens to be among them. It's
> a silly game writers love playing, and Nabokov was good at it.
>
> --
> Anatoly Vorobey,
> mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
> "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
interpreter, is well-taken. I think, however, that some of VN's
off-the-cuff comments on various writers are based on
extra-literary considerations rather than deep knowledge. One of the
hazards of fame is that your flip opinions may be assigned more profundity
than warranted.
-------------------------
>From Peter Kartsev (petr@glas.apc.org)
In regard to the message quoted below: doesn't Mr. Vorobey know that it is
often a fallacy on the reader's part to blame the author for something the
reader fails to understand or finds incoherent? I believe there even
exists some minor Russian classic alluding to the same point with the sort
of blunt didacticism common among Russian classics.
I would not have asked this obvious question had Mr. Vorobey been less
insistent on repeating his rather simplistic views over and over again, ad
nauseam.
Peter.
> As I tried to explain in a longish message sent
> to this list about a year ago (which also cited Nabokov's opinion on
> Stendhal), I think Nabokov was a pretty bad literary critic, who almost
> never had anything coherent to say about why he badmouthed this or that
> famous or unknown writer (when he *does* have something coherent to say,
> as in the case of Dostoyevsky, then his critical writings are witty,
> deep and important). Admirers of this genius among writers (and I
> am definitely such an admirer myself) are often too easily intimidated
> by his brash diatribes into believing that fanciful expressions of scorn
> can replace real, thoughtful criticism. There are many writers whom
> Nabokov dismissed without in any substantial way backing his opinion up
> with real criticism, and Stendhal just happens to be among them. It's
> a silly game writers love playing, and Nabokov was good at it.
>
> --
> Anatoly Vorobey,
> mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
> "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton