Subject
Fw: Puzzlements regarding Godunov-Cherdintsev'Sr. in THE GIFT/Dar
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
-----------------------
> Below I offer my opinions to three groups of questions by Mr. Miale
> following his first and final reading of 'Gift':
> o on lack of acceptable 'solution'
> o on lack of 'rational' treatment of Mr. Chernyshevsky the thinker
> o on the 'essence of democracy'
>
> Sincerely,
> George Shimanovich
> -----------------
> > > I have not re-read the novel, much less re-re-read it, but a
difficulty I
sometimes have with chess studies and problems is the suspicion that there
is no solution.
>
In any serious level in chess that is usually a sign of lack of one's
preparation. In the case of chess problems beginners are certainly
encouraged to revisit (or should one say reread?) the problem before making
their suspicions known.
>
> > > Godunov-Cherdyntsev/Nabokov expresses a faint bit of respect for N.G.
> > > Chernyshevsky's humane instincts and disposition, but the portrayal
> > overall is blistering. As Boyd puts it, "Fyodor treats Chernyshevsky as
an
> > > intellectual buffoon whose ideas do not deserve the compliment of
rational
> > > opposition." Of course Chernyshevsky the novelist and thinker was an
easy
> > > target and, grandfather as he was (?) of socialist realism, a
worthwhile
> > > target, but did he really deserve what Godunov and Nabokov heaped on
> him?
>
> As long as modern intellectuals of elitist breed heap on the rest of us
repackaged
> goods of Mr Chernyshevsky's making, exactly such passing treatment by Mr
> Nabokov rings the bell with grateful reader. That is one reason I
especially enjoy
> the detailed treatment of butterflies in unpublished fragment of Gift
(Father's Butterflies').
> It is not the author's fault that some want it otherwise.
>
>
> > > Chernyshevsky did present his contemporaries with a vision, however
> > > ineptly drawn, of benevolent enterprise, of the founding of coops, a
form
> > > of association that became the basis not of Soviet communism but of
Swedish
> > > economic democracy, and he apparently acted selflessly and heroically
to
> > > further social change in the early days of Alexander II and the great
> > > reforms of the era.
>
> Since you bring Swedish democracy into this let me reply:
> Today brave followers of Swedish model call other Europian countries to
> boycot Israel.
> As far as Gulag Swedes fall behind Soviet democracy but in virtual, white
> color, clean evil,
> I think, Swedish Socialists are far ahead.
>
>
> > >
> > > Chernyshevsky's contemporary, Dostoyevsky, had long ago, in a
hilarious
> > > parody, cut him to ribbons. Apparently that treatment, despite its
> > > severity, didn't "take", but did the beast really need another
flogging?
>
> You see, Nabokov's treatment took off. Didn't you notice?
>
>
> > > The Gift and Nabokov himself manifest(ed) an exemplary and inspiring
> > > attitude to the annoyances and bitter blows of fate. I can't say how
> > likely
> > > it is that reading the novel will make one happy, but reading it does
> > > crystalize a sense of knowing "the secret" of happiness, no small
thing,
> > > and the book dramatizes this knowledge artfully and artistically and
> > > perhaps, for all my doubts, happily. I do wonder about the limits of
its
> > > attitude toward adversity: how would it apply to a more extreme
> situation,
> > > to concentration camp say --or plague-- as opposed to exile? What
might
> > > Jude the Obscure done with Fyodor Konstantinovich's recipe for
> happiness?
> > > But more to the point here, don't we find in The Gift, despite its
> > > affirmation and uplift, a troubling appearance of the "civic cynicism"
> > > theme in the life of its author who, for all the compassion and
decency
> > > embodied in his work, in his literary criticism, and in his life,
seemed
> > > --correct me if I am mistaken-- to have little sense of how people
> working
> > > cooperatively could benefit the community or right the wrongs of
> society?
> > > In The Gift (and elsewhere), and not only in the portrait of
> Chernyshevsky
> > > but in the account of the silly union meeting and the passage in which
> > > Godunov laments the stupidity of having gone to it instead of spending
> the
> > > evening with his girlfriend, didn't Nabokov tend to disparage the
notion
> > > --which is of the essence of democracy-- that this is possible, and to
> > > convey his strong sense that trying to do so is an exercise in
futility?
>
> Democracy is not tyranny of majority and men are not angels as some of
your
> playfully made examples illustrate.
> To say that union meeting or any groupings of men is the essence of
> democracy is
> as silly as to say that poetry has keys to real life.
> Thanks to James Madison American democracy cultivates factions.
> Can't you live with the fact that Godunov-Cherdyntsev (and Nabokov)
> represent
> a faction, small but resilient?
>
>
From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
-----------------------
> Below I offer my opinions to three groups of questions by Mr. Miale
> following his first and final reading of 'Gift':
> o on lack of acceptable 'solution'
> o on lack of 'rational' treatment of Mr. Chernyshevsky the thinker
> o on the 'essence of democracy'
>
> Sincerely,
> George Shimanovich
> -----------------
> > > I have not re-read the novel, much less re-re-read it, but a
difficulty I
sometimes have with chess studies and problems is the suspicion that there
is no solution.
>
In any serious level in chess that is usually a sign of lack of one's
preparation. In the case of chess problems beginners are certainly
encouraged to revisit (or should one say reread?) the problem before making
their suspicions known.
>
> > > Godunov-Cherdyntsev/Nabokov expresses a faint bit of respect for N.G.
> > > Chernyshevsky's humane instincts and disposition, but the portrayal
> > overall is blistering. As Boyd puts it, "Fyodor treats Chernyshevsky as
an
> > > intellectual buffoon whose ideas do not deserve the compliment of
rational
> > > opposition." Of course Chernyshevsky the novelist and thinker was an
easy
> > > target and, grandfather as he was (?) of socialist realism, a
worthwhile
> > > target, but did he really deserve what Godunov and Nabokov heaped on
> him?
>
> As long as modern intellectuals of elitist breed heap on the rest of us
repackaged
> goods of Mr Chernyshevsky's making, exactly such passing treatment by Mr
> Nabokov rings the bell with grateful reader. That is one reason I
especially enjoy
> the detailed treatment of butterflies in unpublished fragment of Gift
(Father's Butterflies').
> It is not the author's fault that some want it otherwise.
>
>
> > > Chernyshevsky did present his contemporaries with a vision, however
> > > ineptly drawn, of benevolent enterprise, of the founding of coops, a
form
> > > of association that became the basis not of Soviet communism but of
Swedish
> > > economic democracy, and he apparently acted selflessly and heroically
to
> > > further social change in the early days of Alexander II and the great
> > > reforms of the era.
>
> Since you bring Swedish democracy into this let me reply:
> Today brave followers of Swedish model call other Europian countries to
> boycot Israel.
> As far as Gulag Swedes fall behind Soviet democracy but in virtual, white
> color, clean evil,
> I think, Swedish Socialists are far ahead.
>
>
> > >
> > > Chernyshevsky's contemporary, Dostoyevsky, had long ago, in a
hilarious
> > > parody, cut him to ribbons. Apparently that treatment, despite its
> > > severity, didn't "take", but did the beast really need another
flogging?
>
> You see, Nabokov's treatment took off. Didn't you notice?
>
>
> > > The Gift and Nabokov himself manifest(ed) an exemplary and inspiring
> > > attitude to the annoyances and bitter blows of fate. I can't say how
> > likely
> > > it is that reading the novel will make one happy, but reading it does
> > > crystalize a sense of knowing "the secret" of happiness, no small
thing,
> > > and the book dramatizes this knowledge artfully and artistically and
> > > perhaps, for all my doubts, happily. I do wonder about the limits of
its
> > > attitude toward adversity: how would it apply to a more extreme
> situation,
> > > to concentration camp say --or plague-- as opposed to exile? What
might
> > > Jude the Obscure done with Fyodor Konstantinovich's recipe for
> happiness?
> > > But more to the point here, don't we find in The Gift, despite its
> > > affirmation and uplift, a troubling appearance of the "civic cynicism"
> > > theme in the life of its author who, for all the compassion and
decency
> > > embodied in his work, in his literary criticism, and in his life,
seemed
> > > --correct me if I am mistaken-- to have little sense of how people
> working
> > > cooperatively could benefit the community or right the wrongs of
> society?
> > > In The Gift (and elsewhere), and not only in the portrait of
> Chernyshevsky
> > > but in the account of the silly union meeting and the passage in which
> > > Godunov laments the stupidity of having gone to it instead of spending
> the
> > > evening with his girlfriend, didn't Nabokov tend to disparage the
notion
> > > --which is of the essence of democracy-- that this is possible, and to
> > > convey his strong sense that trying to do so is an exercise in
futility?
>
> Democracy is not tyranny of majority and men are not angels as some of
your
> playfully made examples illustrate.
> To say that union meeting or any groupings of men is the essence of
> democracy is
> as silly as to say that poetry has keys to real life.
> Thanks to James Madison American democracy cultivates factions.
> Can't you live with the fact that Godunov-Cherdyntsev (and Nabokov)
> represent
> a faction, small but resilient?
>
>