Subject
Re: "Laughter in the dark" in the Latest Nature Conservancy
magazine. (fwd)
magazine. (fwd)
Date
Body
Before we laugh ourselves off our high horse, lets read that passage in
Pnin again, slowly.
"Look, how pretty," said observant Chateau.
A score of small butterflies, all of one kind, were settled on a
damp patch of sand, their wings erect and closed, showing their pale
undersides with dark dots and tiny orange-rimmed peacock spots along the
hindwing margins; one of Pnin's shed rubbers disturbed some of them and,
revealing the celestial hue of their upper surface, they fluttered around
like blue snowflakes before settling again.
"Pity Vladimir Vladimirovich is not here," remarked Chateau. "He
would have told us alll about these enchanting insects."
"I have always had the impression that his entomology was merely a
pose."
"On, no," said Chateau. "You will lose it some day," he added,
pointing to the Greek Catholic cross on a golden chainlet that Pnin had
removed from his neck and hung on a twig. Its glint perplexed a cruising
dragonfly.
"Perhaps I would not mind losing it," said Pnin. "As you well
know, I wear it merely from sentimental reasons. And the sentiment is
becoming burdensome....."
Rubbers, of course, do mean "boots," but their appearance in this passage
is hardly inoccuous. Pnin, we should recall, is wearing rubber overshoes
as "a sensible precaution" (if one intends to walk through damp and,
perhaps, snake-infested grass.) The word apears in the paragraph in
question with a number of words that might accompany it in quite a
different sort of literature (erect, cock). The butterflies are "all of
one kind" [odnogo roda -- perhaps, with a nod to a secondary association
of "all of the same sex"]. The passage suggests a transplantation of
Pushkin's Tsar Nikita to American soil, birdies to small butterflies,
female to male. (In the midst of this lexical flora and fauna, "hue" may
not be a bilingual innocent).
Lets proceed. VV would have told us all about these enchanting insects.
Perhaps. But the next line "I have always had the impression that his
entomology was merely a pose" may, in THIS instance, be true, and the
scientists among us ought not to confuse disciplines here.
What follows? Immediately we have "'Oh, no," said Chateau. "You will
lose it some day," he added, pointing to the Greek Catholic cross." The
placement of the referent after the statement about loss sounds humorous
once the lexical focus has been (im)properly adjusted. Until we reach
"pointing to the Greek Catholic cross" the statement is not sufficiently
anchored to prevent misapplication. "Perhaps I would not mind losing
it," said Pnin -- continuing this line of thought. Chernyshevsky and the
great friend of his youth have a very similar discussion (not about
crosses) in the published diaries that Nabokov had read two decades
before.
I have bought Kurt Johnson's book and greatly look forward to reading
it over vacation. I expect he says something about differences between
literary and scientific interpretation. In any event, the above passage
seems to me a perfect example of where connotation and denotation part
ways.
I propose that the offended reader of NC be given a year's free
subscription to the Nabokovian -- along with membership in the Society.
E. Naiman
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Donald Barton Johnson wrote:
> The January-February 2000 issue of Nature Conservancy ("NC") magazine
> contains a letter from a woman who was offended, and also offended (she
> says) on behalf of her young son, that NC quoted the passage from PNIN
> concerning the "shed rubber" scaring up a cloud of Karner Blues. She
> appeared to be intimating (as the NC editor noted with his subtitle
> introducing the letter-- "Missed Quote") that Nabokov was littering the
> ground with prophylactics. The editor explained in his note that the
> reference was to "boots" or "overshoes" which were probably not "litter"
> since they would most likely be replaced on the foot after their temporary
> "shedding". He also speculated that its likely Nabokov was against
> littering. I replied with an email letter giving two very concise
> quotations of Nabokov condemning littering and got a response almost
> immediately from the NC editor that its likely that this further
> "vindication of Nabokov's ethics" will be run in their next issue. That was
> pretty funny and appears to strengthen the comments by all biographers of
> Nabokov that the sector of the public only identifying Nabokov with erotic
> subjects is apt to read that kind of thing into any mention of him, etc.
>
> Kurt Johnson
>
Pnin again, slowly.
"Look, how pretty," said observant Chateau.
A score of small butterflies, all of one kind, were settled on a
damp patch of sand, their wings erect and closed, showing their pale
undersides with dark dots and tiny orange-rimmed peacock spots along the
hindwing margins; one of Pnin's shed rubbers disturbed some of them and,
revealing the celestial hue of their upper surface, they fluttered around
like blue snowflakes before settling again.
"Pity Vladimir Vladimirovich is not here," remarked Chateau. "He
would have told us alll about these enchanting insects."
"I have always had the impression that his entomology was merely a
pose."
"On, no," said Chateau. "You will lose it some day," he added,
pointing to the Greek Catholic cross on a golden chainlet that Pnin had
removed from his neck and hung on a twig. Its glint perplexed a cruising
dragonfly.
"Perhaps I would not mind losing it," said Pnin. "As you well
know, I wear it merely from sentimental reasons. And the sentiment is
becoming burdensome....."
Rubbers, of course, do mean "boots," but their appearance in this passage
is hardly inoccuous. Pnin, we should recall, is wearing rubber overshoes
as "a sensible precaution" (if one intends to walk through damp and,
perhaps, snake-infested grass.) The word apears in the paragraph in
question with a number of words that might accompany it in quite a
different sort of literature (erect, cock). The butterflies are "all of
one kind" [odnogo roda -- perhaps, with a nod to a secondary association
of "all of the same sex"]. The passage suggests a transplantation of
Pushkin's Tsar Nikita to American soil, birdies to small butterflies,
female to male. (In the midst of this lexical flora and fauna, "hue" may
not be a bilingual innocent).
Lets proceed. VV would have told us all about these enchanting insects.
Perhaps. But the next line "I have always had the impression that his
entomology was merely a pose" may, in THIS instance, be true, and the
scientists among us ought not to confuse disciplines here.
What follows? Immediately we have "'Oh, no," said Chateau. "You will
lose it some day," he added, pointing to the Greek Catholic cross." The
placement of the referent after the statement about loss sounds humorous
once the lexical focus has been (im)properly adjusted. Until we reach
"pointing to the Greek Catholic cross" the statement is not sufficiently
anchored to prevent misapplication. "Perhaps I would not mind losing
it," said Pnin -- continuing this line of thought. Chernyshevsky and the
great friend of his youth have a very similar discussion (not about
crosses) in the published diaries that Nabokov had read two decades
before.
I have bought Kurt Johnson's book and greatly look forward to reading
it over vacation. I expect he says something about differences between
literary and scientific interpretation. In any event, the above passage
seems to me a perfect example of where connotation and denotation part
ways.
I propose that the offended reader of NC be given a year's free
subscription to the Nabokovian -- along with membership in the Society.
E. Naiman
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Donald Barton Johnson wrote:
> The January-February 2000 issue of Nature Conservancy ("NC") magazine
> contains a letter from a woman who was offended, and also offended (she
> says) on behalf of her young son, that NC quoted the passage from PNIN
> concerning the "shed rubber" scaring up a cloud of Karner Blues. She
> appeared to be intimating (as the NC editor noted with his subtitle
> introducing the letter-- "Missed Quote") that Nabokov was littering the
> ground with prophylactics. The editor explained in his note that the
> reference was to "boots" or "overshoes" which were probably not "litter"
> since they would most likely be replaced on the foot after their temporary
> "shedding". He also speculated that its likely Nabokov was against
> littering. I replied with an email letter giving two very concise
> quotations of Nabokov condemning littering and got a response almost
> immediately from the NC editor that its likely that this further
> "vindication of Nabokov's ethics" will be run in their next issue. That was
> pretty funny and appears to strengthen the comments by all biographers of
> Nabokov that the sector of the public only identifying Nabokov with erotic
> subjects is apt to read that kind of thing into any mention of him, etc.
>
> Kurt Johnson
>