Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. NABOKV-L thanks Richard Pevear for his clarification. And I do
agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: "richard pevear" <rpevear@hotmail.com>
To: <chtodel@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:06 AM
Subject: RE: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> Dear Mr. Johnson,
>
> I certainly meant "aseptic" and I meant it in its first meaning: "free of
> pathogenic organisms," i.e. organisms capable of causing disease, in this
> case, an attack of superlatives. You'll agree that Nabokov is usually
> "aseptic" in that sense.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Richard Pevear
>
>
> >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> >To: <rpevear@hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:44:22 -0800
> >
> >Dear Richard Pevear,
> > Your Pushkin article in the Hudson Review with its phrase "usually
> >aseptic Nabokov" has led a number of NABOKV-L subscribers to wonder
whether
> >"acerbic Nabokov" was intended. "aseptic does seem odd.
> >Best, D. Barton Johnson, Editor
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: D. Barton Johnson
> >To: nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu
> >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:38 AM
> >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> >
> >
> >
> >----- 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>
> > >
> >
> > > 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
> > f>or 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
> beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
>
>
agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: "richard pevear" <rpevear@hotmail.com>
To: <chtodel@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:06 AM
Subject: RE: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> Dear Mr. Johnson,
>
> I certainly meant "aseptic" and I meant it in its first meaning: "free of
> pathogenic organisms," i.e. organisms capable of causing disease, in this
> case, an attack of superlatives. You'll agree that Nabokov is usually
> "aseptic" in that sense.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Richard Pevear
>
>
> >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> >To: <rpevear@hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:44:22 -0800
> >
> >Dear Richard Pevear,
> > Your Pushkin article in the Hudson Review with its phrase "usually
> >aseptic Nabokov" has led a number of NABOKV-L subscribers to wonder
whether
> >"acerbic Nabokov" was intended. "aseptic does seem odd.
> >Best, D. Barton Johnson, Editor
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: D. Barton Johnson
> >To: nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu
> >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:38 AM
> >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> >
> >
> >
> >----- 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>
> > >
> >
> > > 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
> > f>or 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
> beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
>
>