Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alain Andreu" <AAndreu@ilm.pf>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (139
lines) ------------------
> Dear Mr Pevear,
>
> I have not read your article ,but the use of "aseptic" seems a bit odd
> for me, even in the biological sense, if we remember the VN's sentence in
> Strong Opinions "(...)le rire est le meilleur des pesticides" (taken from
> Intransigences, if my memory is correct.) Anyway I agree with you
> regarding the "attack of superlatives". In fact VN found H.James's style
> very proper and aseptic-
>
> Best,
>
> Alain ANDREU
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:10:13 -0800
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
>
>
From: "Alain Andreu" <AAndreu@ilm.pf>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (139
lines) ------------------
> Dear Mr Pevear,
>
> I have not read your article ,but the use of "aseptic" seems a bit odd
> for me, even in the biological sense, if we remember the VN's sentence in
> Strong Opinions "(...)le rire est le meilleur des pesticides" (taken from
> Intransigences, if my memory is correct.) Anyway I agree with you
> regarding the "attack of superlatives". In fact VN found H.James's style
> very proper and aseptic-
>
> Best,
>
> Alain ANDREU
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:10:13 -0800
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
>
>