Speaking of consistency I would like to quote from Fyodor’s dialog with Koncheyev which IMO is central piece of Dar (chapter 5). After listening to Koncheev’s critique of his works (“First, an excessive trust in words … Fifthly and finally, you sometimes say things chiefly calculated to prick your contemporaries, but any woman will tell you …”) Fyodor says this in his reply:
“But besides the defects you have noted in my book, I am aware of at least three more – they, perhaps, are the most important of all. Only I’ll never tell you them – and they won’t be there in my next book.”
To accuse VN in lack of consistency without proof is worse then professing writer’s admiration beyond his merit. Consistency is not a whim but form of addiction practiced by better writers.
Speaking of VN and “defects” I would love someone to write of how VN’s style evolved from “The Gift” to “Ada”. Or, may be, I should just reread both.
- George Shimanovich
-------- Original Message --------
|
Subject: |
Re: [ NABOKOV-LIST].artists don't have to be consistent...or do they? |
|
Date: |
Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:18:15 -0700 |
|
From: |
Laurence Hochard <laurence.hochard@HOTMAIL.FR> |
|
To: |
|
|
CC: |
Laurence Hochard <laurence.hochard@HOTMAIL. |
Jansy: "Novelists don't need to be consistent"
JA: "I agree artists don't have to be consistent."
and other comments to the same effect i've read on this forum and elsewhere.
LH: I don't agree!
Great artists are great precisely because they are able to build
fictionnaly, aesthetically, philosophically... coherent and consistent
worlds.
And it is the critic's task to unravel, explain, bring to light the deep
coherence of the artist's work.What makes an artist like VN seem
inconsistent is that the coherence of his work lies deeper than the
ordinary coherence of ordinary thought: this is what makes it so intriguing
and fascinating.
For example, VN's attitude toward Darwinism (a subject which has been
discussed recently) is NOT prisoner of the present day alternative:
evolutionism versus intelligent design.I think it might be more interesting
to consider it in the light of Nietzsche's criticism of utilitarianism.
Another example is VN's lifelong denounciation of Freud's psychoanalysis:
I've read countless comments to the effect that his views were some kind of
whim, as great artists are wont to have and which can therefore be
generously forgiven and henceforth disregarded by the "serious"
critic.
But no ! VN's opposition to psychoanalysis is grounded and deeply
consistent with the rest of his work and is even instrumental in the very
structure of many of his stories.
Of course, a critic or a reader, even one who loves VN's fiction, is
entirely free to disagree with VN's view of psychoanalysis or any other
subject provided he fights it with arguments instead of being content with
dismissing it as "inconsistent".
Laurence Hochard