Subject
Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
canon . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd)
canon . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd)
From
Date
Body
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:18 PM -0700
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
canon . COMMENT (fwd)
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:57 PM -0400
From: Margarit Tadevosyan <tadevosy@bc.edu>
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>,
NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
canon . COMMENT
------------------ How wonderful to see that the Nabokov community has
stood up shoulder to shoulder in a patriotic defense against partial
decanonization of VN's works! What the hell, let's pelt Peck with stones,
let's assume that he is not even literate enough to read books (unlike us,
of course), let alone understand them, before writing his worthless
reviews. Or at least have him forever banished from the land of critical
literature for not providing substantial evidence with quotes and
references to quantifiably justify his claim that VN's works (along with
other, rather worthy writers, whose decanonization has interestingly not
outraged any of us, lovers of literature) should not be taught in their
entirety. Or could we perhaps (oh, what outrage!) simply take this
opportunity to question the process of canonization and wonder for a second
how and why writers become canonized? How many wonderful books have fallen
off the academic pages because of their inconvenient length or some unfor!
tunate circumstance! How many books would have never become so popular
had it not been for some sort of scandalous attention they received (think
Madame Bovary, think Ulysses, and perhaps even Lolita!). Had it not been
for the fatwa, would ANY non-specialized literature course ever teach
Salman Rushdie? Why is it that we celebrate Joyce as one of the largest
figures of high modernism but tend to ignore, for the most part, Gertrude
Stein? Why does a class on sexuality necessarilty include Lolita (not that
I wouldn't pick it if I were teaching a class with that title) but never
Djuna Bharnes? Why are we so quick and so vicious in our judgment of Peck?
Simply because he wants to open up space for other, less noticed and who
knows, perhaps less worthy writers? On the other hand, how will we ever
know if they are worthy or not if they never get any space or attention?
Why are we so eager to call Peck a "snarling nonenntity" simply because he
doesn't want to share our pass! ion for VN's works?
I would hate to give off the wrong impression here or undermine my own
interest in VN's works. We read, study, and teach literature not ONLY
based on our VERY subjective personal preferences. After all, we are a
community of people who study the humanities, where open opinions and
critical suggestions matter so much more than quantitative or even
qualitative analysis! If we have agreed to vote off writers who are not
firmly on our list of most favorites and the people who do not share our
opinions, if instead of thinking about literature as a body, as a history,
as a system of some sort we indulge in idolatry of individual authors that
allows no space for "dissidents", have we created an intellectual tyranny
that I think VN condemned in his writing?
I am half reluctant to post this message because of its didactic (very
foreign to me) tone, but I want to share my opinion with others for a
reason. Last semester I was teaching a course on the self-conscious novel,
and after making a preliminary list of assigned texts, I realized that it
was an exclusively white male modernist novel course (Joyce, Beckett,
Faulkner, Nabokov, Bulgakov, etc.). Now perhaps because I am the child of
the politically correct era, I wondered if modernism was really limited to
this.... Of course, the truth is that it's not. Now do we REALLY want to
cover Peck in mud for suggesting that some of the giants should move aside
and make room for others?
Thank you
Margarit
| On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:10:37 -0700
| "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
| ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
| Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:26 AM -0400
| From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
| To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
| Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
ca | non (fwd)
|
| ------------------
| > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
| > nonentity?
|
| Because for some Peck is mandatory part of diversity of Nabokov's
studies. | Until that kind of diversity is agreed to be wrong for this
list Becks will | be showing up.
| Or our Editir can qualify such unworthy material: Read Only, i.e. read
but | do not comment.
| Or you can press Del as I always do.
|
| George Shimanovich
|
| > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
| > Date: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:31 PM -0400
| > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
| > To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum' <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
| > Subject: RE: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
the ca | > non
| >
| > ------------------ Before getting too deep into which half of
Nabokov's | > oeuvre Dale Peck would like to see removed from the canon,
we should | > reflect that perhaps even he couldn't really tell us. His
lack of | citation,
| > which has been discussed here before, camoflauges what could be a
| multitude
| > of sins. Oh, to hell with it, I'll just come out and say it: I truly
doubt | > that Peck has read, let alone digested, the entireity of VN's
literary | > output. I rather doubt he's read everything VN wrote in
English. Until | > persuaded otherwise, in fact, I should insist that Mr.
Peck has read very | > little VN and even less worthwhile commentary on
VN.
| >
| > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
| > nonentity?
| >
| > GK
| >
| > > ----------
| > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum on behalf of D. Barton Johnson
| > > Reply To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
| > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:17 PM
| > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
| > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
from | > > the canon
| > >
| > >
| > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > From: Debby Coley
| > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
| > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:40 PM
| > > Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
the | > > canon
| > >
| > > I am a graduate student majoring in English, and in the upcoming
fall | > > semester, I am taking one class titled, Sexuality and
Literature, in | which
| > > we will read Lolita. I am also taking a class focusing on works by
| Joyce,
| > > Woolf, and Thomas.
| > > deborah coley
| > >
| > > "D. Barton Johnson" < chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > From: Rodney Welch
| > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
| > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:11 AM
| > > Subject: Re: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
from | the
| > > canon
| > >
| > > Message requiring your approval (94 lines) ------------------
| > > I guess the question is: what is "canonical" where Nabokov is
| > > concerned, and which half is Peck referring to? The general
consensus | > > among those of us here, I'm guessing, would be that
Nabokov's | masterpieces
| > > are The Defense, Invitation to a Beheading, The Gift, Speak, Memory,
| Pnin,
| > > Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, and maybe a select group of the stories.
Harold | > > Bloom selected only Lolita and Pale Fire for his Western
Canon; Nabokov | > > himself said (if I recall correctly) that he'd only
be remembered for | > > Lolita and his translation of Eugene Onegin.
Where does Nabokov | generally
| > > stand in academia nowadays -- has he been crowded out by all the
| > > Fulmerfords?
| > >
| > > Rodney Welch
| > > Columbia, SC
| > > -----------------------------------------------------
| > > EDNOTE. I suppose it depends on which academiac you ask. In
my | > > highly prejudiced take he is up there with Joyce.
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > _____
| > >
| > > Do you Yahoo!?
| > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
| > >
| >
| > ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
| >
| >
| >
| > D. Barton Johnson
| > NABOKV-L
|
|
| ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
|
|
|
| D. Barton Johnson
| NABOKV-L
Margarit Tadevosyan
English Department
Boston College
Carney Hall 237
(617) 552-2725
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:18 PM -0700
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
canon . COMMENT (fwd)
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:57 PM -0400
From: Margarit Tadevosyan <tadevosy@bc.edu>
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>,
NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
canon . COMMENT
------------------ How wonderful to see that the Nabokov community has
stood up shoulder to shoulder in a patriotic defense against partial
decanonization of VN's works! What the hell, let's pelt Peck with stones,
let's assume that he is not even literate enough to read books (unlike us,
of course), let alone understand them, before writing his worthless
reviews. Or at least have him forever banished from the land of critical
literature for not providing substantial evidence with quotes and
references to quantifiably justify his claim that VN's works (along with
other, rather worthy writers, whose decanonization has interestingly not
outraged any of us, lovers of literature) should not be taught in their
entirety. Or could we perhaps (oh, what outrage!) simply take this
opportunity to question the process of canonization and wonder for a second
how and why writers become canonized? How many wonderful books have fallen
off the academic pages because of their inconvenient length or some unfor!
tunate circumstance! How many books would have never become so popular
had it not been for some sort of scandalous attention they received (think
Madame Bovary, think Ulysses, and perhaps even Lolita!). Had it not been
for the fatwa, would ANY non-specialized literature course ever teach
Salman Rushdie? Why is it that we celebrate Joyce as one of the largest
figures of high modernism but tend to ignore, for the most part, Gertrude
Stein? Why does a class on sexuality necessarilty include Lolita (not that
I wouldn't pick it if I were teaching a class with that title) but never
Djuna Bharnes? Why are we so quick and so vicious in our judgment of Peck?
Simply because he wants to open up space for other, less noticed and who
knows, perhaps less worthy writers? On the other hand, how will we ever
know if they are worthy or not if they never get any space or attention?
Why are we so eager to call Peck a "snarling nonenntity" simply because he
doesn't want to share our pass! ion for VN's works?
I would hate to give off the wrong impression here or undermine my own
interest in VN's works. We read, study, and teach literature not ONLY
based on our VERY subjective personal preferences. After all, we are a
community of people who study the humanities, where open opinions and
critical suggestions matter so much more than quantitative or even
qualitative analysis! If we have agreed to vote off writers who are not
firmly on our list of most favorites and the people who do not share our
opinions, if instead of thinking about literature as a body, as a history,
as a system of some sort we indulge in idolatry of individual authors that
allows no space for "dissidents", have we created an intellectual tyranny
that I think VN condemned in his writing?
I am half reluctant to post this message because of its didactic (very
foreign to me) tone, but I want to share my opinion with others for a
reason. Last semester I was teaching a course on the self-conscious novel,
and after making a preliminary list of assigned texts, I realized that it
was an exclusively white male modernist novel course (Joyce, Beckett,
Faulkner, Nabokov, Bulgakov, etc.). Now perhaps because I am the child of
the politically correct era, I wondered if modernism was really limited to
this.... Of course, the truth is that it's not. Now do we REALLY want to
cover Peck in mud for suggesting that some of the giants should move aside
and make room for others?
Thank you
Margarit
| On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:10:37 -0700
| "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
| ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
| Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:26 AM -0400
| From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
| To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
| Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
ca | non (fwd)
|
| ------------------
| > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
| > nonentity?
|
| Because for some Peck is mandatory part of diversity of Nabokov's
studies. | Until that kind of diversity is agreed to be wrong for this
list Becks will | be showing up.
| Or our Editir can qualify such unworthy material: Read Only, i.e. read
but | do not comment.
| Or you can press Del as I always do.
|
| George Shimanovich
|
| > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
| > Date: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:31 PM -0400
| > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
| > To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum' <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
| > Subject: RE: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
the ca | > non
| >
| > ------------------ Before getting too deep into which half of
Nabokov's | > oeuvre Dale Peck would like to see removed from the canon,
we should | > reflect that perhaps even he couldn't really tell us. His
lack of | citation,
| > which has been discussed here before, camoflauges what could be a
| multitude
| > of sins. Oh, to hell with it, I'll just come out and say it: I truly
doubt | > that Peck has read, let alone digested, the entireity of VN's
literary | > output. I rather doubt he's read everything VN wrote in
English. Until | > persuaded otherwise, in fact, I should insist that Mr.
Peck has read very | > little VN and even less worthwhile commentary on
VN.
| >
| > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
| > nonentity?
| >
| > GK
| >
| > > ----------
| > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum on behalf of D. Barton Johnson
| > > Reply To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
| > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:17 PM
| > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
| > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
from | > > the canon
| > >
| > >
| > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > From: Debby Coley
| > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
| > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:40 PM
| > > Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
the | > > canon
| > >
| > > I am a graduate student majoring in English, and in the upcoming
fall | > > semester, I am taking one class titled, Sexuality and
Literature, in | which
| > > we will read Lolita. I am also taking a class focusing on works by
| Joyce,
| > > Woolf, and Thomas.
| > > deborah coley
| > >
| > > "D. Barton Johnson" < chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > From: Rodney Welch
| > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
| > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:11 AM
| > > Subject: Re: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
from | the
| > > canon
| > >
| > > Message requiring your approval (94 lines) ------------------
| > > I guess the question is: what is "canonical" where Nabokov is
| > > concerned, and which half is Peck referring to? The general
consensus | > > among those of us here, I'm guessing, would be that
Nabokov's | masterpieces
| > > are The Defense, Invitation to a Beheading, The Gift, Speak, Memory,
| Pnin,
| > > Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, and maybe a select group of the stories.
Harold | > > Bloom selected only Lolita and Pale Fire for his Western
Canon; Nabokov | > > himself said (if I recall correctly) that he'd only
be remembered for | > > Lolita and his translation of Eugene Onegin.
Where does Nabokov | generally
| > > stand in academia nowadays -- has he been crowded out by all the
| > > Fulmerfords?
| > >
| > > Rodney Welch
| > > Columbia, SC
| > > -----------------------------------------------------
| > > EDNOTE. I suppose it depends on which academiac you ask. In
my | > > highly prejudiced take he is up there with Joyce.
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > _____
| > >
| > > Do you Yahoo!?
| > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
| > >
| >
| > ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
| >
| >
| >
| > D. Barton Johnson
| > NABOKV-L
|
|
| ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
|
|
|
| D. Barton Johnson
| NABOKV-L
Margarit Tadevosyan
English Department
Boston College
Carney Hall 237
(617) 552-2725
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L