Subject
Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: Cathoxtoby@aol.com
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
In a message dated 05/02/2004 03:16:11 GMT Standard Time, chtodel@cox.net writes:
EDNOTE. I'm inclined to agree with your suspicion. "Acerbic"---NOT
"Aseptic." VN was, of course, among those Russians who regard Pushkin in
superlatives--although he faults for the occasional weak line.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (12
lines) ------------------
> I am just getting round to reading the Fall 2003 issue of the peerless
> __Hudson Review__. It contains an excellent article by Richard Pevear
> called 'The Presence of Pushkin'. Pevear refers to '...the common tendency
> among Russians to speak of Pushkin in superlatives--a feature found not
only
> in the poet's hagiographers, but also in__ the usually aseptic Nabokov
> [please visualize those words as italicized by me], the wry and witty
> Sinyavsky, the judicious D.S. Mirsky.'
>
> Now, I think I understand the point here; VN was rather chary of praise
for
> other writers. But 'aseptic'? That is not a quality I would ever think of
> predicating of VN. 'Acerbic', yes, and perhaps it's a misprint.
>
Don't you think you're being too charitable in assuming a misprint? I've encountered so many comments that VN is 'sterile' and 'cerebral' that it seems all too likely that 'aseptic' is intended. After all one can be acerbic about writers one doesn't like and still use superlatives about those one does. Whereas 'aseptic' would certainly not go with any show of passionate enthusiasm...
Catherine Oxtoby