Subject
Re: "Bush is reading Dostoyevsky,
but he should be reading Nabokov ... (fwd)
but he should be reading Nabokov ... (fwd)
From
Date
Body
I respond below. GD
From: Jennifer Donna Parsons <jdparsons@shaw.ca>
I think Galya probably has it right re intent with that remark, but
agree with Dave Andrews that to view VN's writing as somehow
representing "the way of the future" for anything culturally, socially
or politically is a bit funny in light of his dim views on
"progressiveness."
------------
I should have specified that Nina Kh. is probably using VN more as a
symbol than anything else -- I am not even convinced she necessarily read
him or read him much. There is just that sense that VN is somehow "cool,"
and that he definitely represents a bridge between the pre-revolutionary
Russia and the West. And that's how people like her want Russia to
be seen these days, sort of the best of precisely these two worlds. GD
Galya Diment wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
From: Jennifer Donna Parsons <jdparsons@shaw.ca>
I think Galya probably has it right re intent with that remark, but
agree with Dave Andrews that to view VN's writing as somehow
representing "the way of the future" for anything culturally, socially
or politically is a bit funny in light of his dim views on
"progressiveness."
------------
I should have specified that Nina Kh. is probably using VN more as a
symbol than anything else -- I am not even convinced she necessarily read
him or read him much. There is just that sense that VN is somehow "cool,"
and that he definitely represents a bridge between the pre-revolutionary
Russia and the West. And that's how people like her want Russia to
be seen these days, sort of the best of precisely these two worlds. GD
Galya Diment wrote:
>
> 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.
> >