Subject
Re: Take-offs, Ripoffs, Homages, etc.
From
Date
Body
Dear List,
Whenever there are disagreements in the List, the debatable points end up misdirected (I would enjoy reading a detailed criticism of take-offs, ripoffs and homages to learn from the specialists and to be able to argue with them from my own area of expertise).
I believe it's against VN-L policies to address one particular participant only, and to quote his private email in full.
I hope Dr. Jay Livingston wouldn't have written such a disparaging comments about the List as a whole, had he been writing directly to the VN-L. He stated that "As for the reaction on the List to Moore's story -- mostly name-calling, not much analysis -- I'm not surprised. The List shares some similarity with fan clubs, so at times it seems like an Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee. "
I don't see myself as a member of any fan club, nor as belonging to an "Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee." ( I once vehemently opposed one such initiative by the eminent critic R.Rosenbaum). Nor did I indulge into "name-callings" after I merely expressed my disappointment with Lorrie Moore's "Referential.": after confessing that I couldn't read the entire text since it bored me (not being tied to any critical apparatus, I can allow myself this luxury). Her explanatory exercise ( if I und3erstood Fran Assa's comments) was uncalled for. The entire initiative fell flat of what I'd expect from any true Nabokov homage.
The fact that the article was posted in full seens to be common in the internet-blogs that echo and rebound various different writings and offer the needed references and URL. The VN-L, it seems, almost always avoids this present-day regular practice. What happened was simply an accidental slip, with no damage done. I don't see why it needed to be brought up again. Everyone could read the article in the New Yorker anyway.
Jansy Mello, 5 June, 2012.
-----Mensagem Original-----
De: Hyman, Eric
Para: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Enviada em: sábado, 2 de junho de 2012 14:11
Assunto: Re: [NABOKV-L] Take-offs, Ripoffs, Homages, etc.
Jay,
I agree with you. Beth Sweeney's apology made it seem like my remark about posting the full scan was harsher than I had intended. More importantly, Beth's posting omitted the rest of my comment, which is compatible with your remarks: I encouraged more discussion. I too was disappointed that the reaction to Moore's story was short on thoughtful analysis. I'll forward my original remark directly to you.
Eric Hyman
Professor of English
Interim Chair
Department of English
Butler 123
Fayetteville State University
1200 Murchison Road
Fayetteville, NC 28301-4252
(910) 672-1416
ehyman@uncfsu.edu
From: Jay Livingston [mailto:jl2109@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:57 AM
To: Hyman, Eric
Subject: Take-offs, Ripoffs, Homages, etc.
Dear Prof. Hyman,
In her apology for posting the scan of the full text of Lorrie Moore's "Referential," Ms Sweeney says that she thought the scan was only of the first paragraph. That's not as unlikely as it seems. I too had sent a reference to the story, but mine did have only the first paragraph (typed, not scanned). Ms. Sweeney went with the other one, maybe because mine contained a shamelessly self-serving link and reference to my own blog. That blogpost was about the problem of imitation, though it was more about the elements that influence our moral judgment. We punish our students' plagiarism, but we enjoy a good parody. The difference seems to be in our estimate of the author's intent -- if he or she makes it obvious what the source material is, it's OK. Obviously, Moore wasn't trying to fool anyone.
There was another New Yorker - New Yorker parallel-stories thing a few years ago, though nobody seemed to notice -- Kate Walbert's "Playdate" and Salinger's "Uncle Wiggly." But it was less obvious, and I'm still not sure whether it was a case of conscious homage or sub-conscious imitation/inspiration.
As for the reaction on the List to Moore's story -- mostly name-calling, not much analysis -- I'm not surprised. The List shares some similarity with fan clubs, so at times it seems like an Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee.
Jay Livingston
Google Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal" Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options Visit AdaOnline View NSJ Ada Annotations Temporary L-Soft Search the archive
All private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
Whenever there are disagreements in the List, the debatable points end up misdirected (I would enjoy reading a detailed criticism of take-offs, ripoffs and homages to learn from the specialists and to be able to argue with them from my own area of expertise).
I believe it's against VN-L policies to address one particular participant only, and to quote his private email in full.
I hope Dr. Jay Livingston wouldn't have written such a disparaging comments about the List as a whole, had he been writing directly to the VN-L. He stated that "As for the reaction on the List to Moore's story -- mostly name-calling, not much analysis -- I'm not surprised. The List shares some similarity with fan clubs, so at times it seems like an Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee. "
I don't see myself as a member of any fan club, nor as belonging to an "Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee." ( I once vehemently opposed one such initiative by the eminent critic R.Rosenbaum). Nor did I indulge into "name-callings" after I merely expressed my disappointment with Lorrie Moore's "Referential.": after confessing that I couldn't read the entire text since it bored me (not being tied to any critical apparatus, I can allow myself this luxury). Her explanatory exercise ( if I und3erstood Fran Assa's comments) was uncalled for. The entire initiative fell flat of what I'd expect from any true Nabokov homage.
The fact that the article was posted in full seens to be common in the internet-blogs that echo and rebound various different writings and offer the needed references and URL. The VN-L, it seems, almost always avoids this present-day regular practice. What happened was simply an accidental slip, with no damage done. I don't see why it needed to be brought up again. Everyone could read the article in the New Yorker anyway.
Jansy Mello, 5 June, 2012.
-----Mensagem Original-----
De: Hyman, Eric
Para: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Enviada em: sábado, 2 de junho de 2012 14:11
Assunto: Re: [NABOKV-L] Take-offs, Ripoffs, Homages, etc.
Jay,
I agree with you. Beth Sweeney's apology made it seem like my remark about posting the full scan was harsher than I had intended. More importantly, Beth's posting omitted the rest of my comment, which is compatible with your remarks: I encouraged more discussion. I too was disappointed that the reaction to Moore's story was short on thoughtful analysis. I'll forward my original remark directly to you.
Eric Hyman
Professor of English
Interim Chair
Department of English
Butler 123
Fayetteville State University
1200 Murchison Road
Fayetteville, NC 28301-4252
(910) 672-1416
ehyman@uncfsu.edu
From: Jay Livingston [mailto:jl2109@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:57 AM
To: Hyman, Eric
Subject: Take-offs, Ripoffs, Homages, etc.
Dear Prof. Hyman,
In her apology for posting the scan of the full text of Lorrie Moore's "Referential," Ms Sweeney says that she thought the scan was only of the first paragraph. That's not as unlikely as it seems. I too had sent a reference to the story, but mine did have only the first paragraph (typed, not scanned). Ms. Sweeney went with the other one, maybe because mine contained a shamelessly self-serving link and reference to my own blog. That blogpost was about the problem of imitation, though it was more about the elements that influence our moral judgment. We punish our students' plagiarism, but we enjoy a good parody. The difference seems to be in our estimate of the author's intent -- if he or she makes it obvious what the source material is, it's OK. Obviously, Moore wasn't trying to fool anyone.
There was another New Yorker - New Yorker parallel-stories thing a few years ago, though nobody seemed to notice -- Kate Walbert's "Playdate" and Salinger's "Uncle Wiggly." But it was less obvious, and I'm still not sure whether it was a case of conscious homage or sub-conscious imitation/inspiration.
As for the reaction on the List to Moore's story -- mostly name-calling, not much analysis -- I'm not surprised. The List shares some similarity with fan clubs, so at times it seems like an Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee.
Jay Livingston
Google Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal" Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options Visit AdaOnline View NSJ Ada Annotations Temporary L-Soft Search the archive
All private editorial communications are read by both co-editors.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/