Subject
Re: "Bush is reading Dostoyevsky,
but he should be reading Nabokov ... (fwd)
but he should be reading Nabokov ... (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Dave Andrews <davea@enteract.com>
I have to agree with Jerry. I understand Galya's rejoinder, but still, VN
has one of the most retrospective gazes in all of literature; and his notion
of Russia is in no wise modern. In my view, his mysticism is as strong (if
far more subtle) than Dostoyevsky's.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Galya Diment" <galya@u.washington.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: "Bush is reading Dostoyevsky, but he should be reading Nabokov
... (fwd)
> For my comment, see below. GD
>
> From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com>
>
> > "Bush is reading Dostoyevsky, but he should be reading Nabokov, because
> > that is where the future is, not the past," said Nina L. Khrushcheva, a
> > professor in international affairs at the New School University.
> ...
>
> Can anybody help me understand what she might have meant by this?
> Is she just seeing VN as a Westernizer? Or as more of a rationalist
> than Dostoyevsky? VN's fiction is by no means free of guilt-stricken
> madmen, and I wouldn't call his writing "forward-looking" either. Is
> there something specific about his writing that might makes it "where
> the future is"?
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman is currently reading _The Karamazov Brothers_ and
> suspecting that he got hold of the wrong translation.
>
>
>
> I think she just means that it should not be an author from the 19th
> century since Russia has changed since then -- and she is also looking
> for someone with a healthy distance from the Soviet era (again, since
> Russia has changed since then as well) -- so VN is good on that count.
>
> As to B. reading D., I suspect Condi Rice was as responsible for that
> soundbite as were Laura's literary tastes. Also convenient since Laura
> can distill it for him to a page and a half -- which, we are told, is
> Bush's preferred length for written briefings, no matter how complex the
> topic.
>
I have to agree with Jerry. I understand Galya's rejoinder, but still, VN
has one of the most retrospective gazes in all of literature; and his notion
of Russia is in no wise modern. In my view, his mysticism is as strong (if
far more subtle) than Dostoyevsky's.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Galya Diment" <galya@u.washington.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: "Bush is reading Dostoyevsky, but he should be reading Nabokov
... (fwd)
> For my comment, see below. GD
>
> From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com>
>
> > "Bush is reading Dostoyevsky, but he should be reading Nabokov, because
> > that is where the future is, not the past," said Nina L. Khrushcheva, a
> > professor in international affairs at the New School University.
> ...
>
> Can anybody help me understand what she might have meant by this?
> Is she just seeing VN as a Westernizer? Or as more of a rationalist
> than Dostoyevsky? VN's fiction is by no means free of guilt-stricken
> madmen, and I wouldn't call his writing "forward-looking" either. Is
> there something specific about his writing that might makes it "where
> the future is"?
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman is currently reading _The Karamazov Brothers_ and
> suspecting that he got hold of the wrong translation.
>
>
>
> I think she just means that it should not be an author from the 19th
> century since Russia has changed since then -- and she is also looking
> for someone with a healthy distance from the Soviet era (again, since
> Russia has changed since then as well) -- so VN is good on that count.
>
> As to B. reading D., I suspect Condi Rice was as responsible for that
> soundbite as were Laura's literary tastes. Also convenient since Laura
> can distill it for him to a page and a half -- which, we are told, is
> Bush's preferred length for written briefings, no matter how complex the
> topic.
>