Subject
Re: FW: George Steiner's New Yorker article debunking Nabokov
(fwd)
(fwd)
Date
Body
From: Wayne Daniels <wdaniels@nypl.north-york.on.ca>
>Steiner uses his December 10, 1990 NYer review of the first volume of
>Boyd's biography to take some cracks at the biographee, suggesting (among
>many other things) that Nabokov's is a "complicated, uneven, fundamentally
>problematic body of work . . . an achievement that deliberately demands to
>be regarded as major but much of whose spell intimates marginality and the
>arcane charms of the 'minor classic.'" The review appears on pp. 153-8.
From the critic who warmly praises the unreadable Thomas Bernhard,
this comes very ill indeed. Such nonsense.
Cheers,
Wayne Daniels
Rosencrantz: What are you playing at?
Guildenstern: Words, words. They're all we have to go on.
>Steiner uses his December 10, 1990 NYer review of the first volume of
>Boyd's biography to take some cracks at the biographee, suggesting (among
>many other things) that Nabokov's is a "complicated, uneven, fundamentally
>problematic body of work . . . an achievement that deliberately demands to
>be regarded as major but much of whose spell intimates marginality and the
>arcane charms of the 'minor classic.'" The review appears on pp. 153-8.
From the critic who warmly praises the unreadable Thomas Bernhard,
this comes very ill indeed. Such nonsense.
Cheers,
Wayne Daniels
Rosencrantz: What are you playing at?
Guildenstern: Words, words. They're all we have to go on.