Subject
Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. Mr. Peck is the shock-jock of literary criticism. He is witty and
ascerbic--as VN himself often was. Although I don't agree with DP about his
literary judgements, he is rather amusing. And, after all, there are many
kinds (or levels) of literature. The reader can choose whatever s/he finds
satisfying--and badmouth the rest. SO?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (64
lines) ------------------
>
> I'm happy for Mary Krimmel that she's so open-minded. I have long been
> familiar with Peck's whiny hysterics and reactionary aesthetic
> agenda-encapsulated in his assertion that "a deep sense of despair at the
> state of the world" is the best, no, the only, reason to write books or
even
> book reviews-and I regard it as not just anti-aesthetic bliss, but
anti-art
> itself. As far as Peck's concerned, a book is only good if it's
"important."
> What makes a book "important?" His saying so, as it happens. This is
bilge,
> and any praise of it is bilge, and Ms. Krimmel is quite welcome to it.
>
> GK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: 6/9/04 6:35 PM
> Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Krimmel" <mary@krimmel.net>
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (30
> lines) ------------------
> > Is Glenn Kenny serious? The Atlantic doesn't need me to defend it, but
> > that's because it isn't printing bilge. It printed a mostly
> informative,
> if
> > also rather laudatory, review of a "New and Notable" book, along with
> eight
> > other short reviews. In the same current issue it also reviews at
> greater
> > length five other books..
> >
> > A long time enjoyer of Nabokov's work and some of the other
> authors
> > and works that Peck mentions (Barth, Faulkner, Ulysses), I am eager to
> read
> > Hatchet Jobs. I suppose that few readers would agree with Peck in all
> of
> > his dislikes, but that many would agree with some. I could hardly read
> and
> > could not enjoy any Thomas Pynchon book I tried, ditto for DeLillo,
> whom I
> > intend to try once more. (Barthelme and Gaddis I haven't tried.)
> >
> > Reviews are intended to spark interest in their subjects. This
> one
> > succeeded with me and with Glenn Kenny, at least.
> >
> > Mary Krimmel
> >
> > >From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> > >.>
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (37
> > >lines) ------------------
> > > > Hard to believe The Atlantic is printing such bilgeâ?"the revenge
> of
> the
> > > > stupid really has infected almost every branch of literary
> discourse.
> > > >
> > > > GK
> >
> >
> >
> >
ascerbic--as VN himself often was. Although I don't agree with DP about his
literary judgements, he is rather amusing. And, after all, there are many
kinds (or levels) of literature. The reader can choose whatever s/he finds
satisfying--and badmouth the rest. SO?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (64
lines) ------------------
>
> I'm happy for Mary Krimmel that she's so open-minded. I have long been
> familiar with Peck's whiny hysterics and reactionary aesthetic
> agenda-encapsulated in his assertion that "a deep sense of despair at the
> state of the world" is the best, no, the only, reason to write books or
even
> book reviews-and I regard it as not just anti-aesthetic bliss, but
anti-art
> itself. As far as Peck's concerned, a book is only good if it's
"important."
> What makes a book "important?" His saying so, as it happens. This is
bilge,
> and any praise of it is bilge, and Ms. Krimmel is quite welcome to it.
>
> GK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: 6/9/04 6:35 PM
> Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Krimmel" <mary@krimmel.net>
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (30
> lines) ------------------
> > Is Glenn Kenny serious? The Atlantic doesn't need me to defend it, but
> > that's because it isn't printing bilge. It printed a mostly
> informative,
> if
> > also rather laudatory, review of a "New and Notable" book, along with
> eight
> > other short reviews. In the same current issue it also reviews at
> greater
> > length five other books..
> >
> > A long time enjoyer of Nabokov's work and some of the other
> authors
> > and works that Peck mentions (Barth, Faulkner, Ulysses), I am eager to
> read
> > Hatchet Jobs. I suppose that few readers would agree with Peck in all
> of
> > his dislikes, but that many would agree with some. I could hardly read
> and
> > could not enjoy any Thomas Pynchon book I tried, ditto for DeLillo,
> whom I
> > intend to try once more. (Barthelme and Gaddis I haven't tried.)
> >
> > Reviews are intended to spark interest in their subjects. This
> one
> > succeeded with me and with Glenn Kenny, at least.
> >
> > Mary Krimmel
> >
> > >From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> > >.>
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (37
> > >lines) ------------------
> > > > Hard to believe The Atlantic is printing such bilgeâ?"the revenge
> of
> the
> > > > stupid really has infected almost every branch of literary
> discourse.
> > > >
> > > > GK
> >
> >
> >
> >