Subject
Re: [Fwd: dismissiveness]
From
Date
Body
Would turnabout be fair play? It is amusing to try to imagine a
Nabokovian dismissal of Nabokov himself, and uncritical criticism can
have its points, as SB remarks. However, if lacking humour or irony,
such dismissals tend to be antithetical to creativity and community.
On the other hand "critical criticism" of the "Titans" can be
bracing, as exemplified say by Shaw on Shakespeare or I.F. Stone on
Plato and Socrates or Nabokov on Cervantes. And there is such a thing
as implied criticism.
The pleasure we take in put-downs is curious. When a reactionary nut
like Dostoyevsky (forgive me Fyodor Mikhailovich, I'm just having
some fun at your expense) lampoons a saint like Chernyshevsky, the
result can still be hilarious. (Though the laughter breaks when you
remember what that fearless abolitionist subsequently suffered at the
hands of the Tsar.)
Walter Miale
wm@greenworldcenter.org
>It's bracing and it's fun when he machineguns a literary
>reputation, particularly on the occasions when one happens to agree with
>him, but...it is not our hero's most endearing trait.
>
>[[EDComment: Personally, and in principle, I agree with this
>sentiment, although maybe "cheap thrill" is overkill. ... I
>suspect there are a few components to this practice of his: 1)
>authentic disagreement with the general appraisal. 2) an authentic
>antipathy to "herd" behaviors that blindly follow intellectual
>fashions 3) the identification of a stylistic or ideological niche:
>no-one else was doing this sort of Titan-bashing. To some extent,
>he was also continuing the brutally honest tradition of his friend
>Yulii Aikhenvald, whose highly critical "silhouette" of Belinsky
>caused an uproar in the 1910s (cf. in this regard Fyodor's
>Chernyshevski book in The Gift). On whether the trait is endearing:
>I think all, or nearly all, would agree that in the main, we turn to
>Nabokov for his artistry, for his scholarship, and for his flashes
>of extroardinary insight--not for his Strong Opinions about his less
>preferred predecessors. -SB]]
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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
Nabokovian dismissal of Nabokov himself, and uncritical criticism can
have its points, as SB remarks. However, if lacking humour or irony,
such dismissals tend to be antithetical to creativity and community.
On the other hand "critical criticism" of the "Titans" can be
bracing, as exemplified say by Shaw on Shakespeare or I.F. Stone on
Plato and Socrates or Nabokov on Cervantes. And there is such a thing
as implied criticism.
The pleasure we take in put-downs is curious. When a reactionary nut
like Dostoyevsky (forgive me Fyodor Mikhailovich, I'm just having
some fun at your expense) lampoons a saint like Chernyshevsky, the
result can still be hilarious. (Though the laughter breaks when you
remember what that fearless abolitionist subsequently suffered at the
hands of the Tsar.)
Walter Miale
wm@greenworldcenter.org
>It's bracing and it's fun when he machineguns a literary
>reputation, particularly on the occasions when one happens to agree with
>him, but...it is not our hero's most endearing trait.
>
>[[EDComment: Personally, and in principle, I agree with this
>sentiment, although maybe "cheap thrill" is overkill. ... I
>suspect there are a few components to this practice of his: 1)
>authentic disagreement with the general appraisal. 2) an authentic
>antipathy to "herd" behaviors that blindly follow intellectual
>fashions 3) the identification of a stylistic or ideological niche:
>no-one else was doing this sort of Titan-bashing. To some extent,
>he was also continuing the brutally honest tradition of his friend
>Yulii Aikhenvald, whose highly critical "silhouette" of Belinsky
>caused an uproar in the 1910s (cf. in this regard Fyodor's
>Chernyshevski book in The Gift). On whether the trait is endearing:
>I think all, or nearly all, would agree that in the main, we turn to
>Nabokov for his artistry, for his scholarship, and for his flashes
>of extroardinary insight--not for his Strong Opinions about his less
>preferred predecessors. -SB]]
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
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