Subject
Fw: NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (104
lines) ------------------
> I must say, overall, this is a disappointingly short review of such a vast
> book (not to mention the vastness of its content). It seems to reflect a
> lack of resonance by the NYTBR with what Beacon/Penguin have called the
> "literary event" that Nabokov's Butterflies represents. As well, the
> reviewer seems to be one who herself is not particularly interested in the
> wonderful "digging in" process Nabophiles are enjoying with this book.
At
> bottom, I think that in all the NYTimes reviews of Nabokov events and
books
> this year there has been a tendency to be dismissive and not take the
> content serioiusly, or, to pick reviewers (perhaps quite by accident of
> course) who themselves did not resonate with the material. An amusing
> comment on this came from a source I will not name, but one close to
> Nabokovia-- the opinion that some of these reviewers mistake their lack of
> knowledge for perspective. Personally, I would have expected a full
review
> of this book (not a Books in Brief) and one with lots of quotations
showing
> various aspects of Lepidopterology in Nabokov's life and fiction. Perhaps
> we have not really yet succeeded in getting the message across [to some]
> that Nabokov was indeed a serious scientist, or perhaps this simply has
> little significance to some still totally immersed in his literary legacy.
> We hear there is a dual Nabokov's Butterflies/Nabokov's Blues commentary
in
> the works for a Sunday Wall Street Journal. It will be instructive to
see
> whether that reviewer has a wider vision of the material. As I stated on
> Nabokov-on-line once before, I found it interesting that some of the most
> far-reachingly perceptive reviews of Nabokov's Blues came in the
scientific
> and medical journals. Thus, there WERE reviewers out there "up" to the
> task.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@GTE.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:08 AM
> Subject: Fw: NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
> >
> > Here is the NY Times Book Review of Nabokov's Butterflies (there is
> > one glitch in this download, as it was sent me...so I can't cure
> it...seems
> > like word jumble or words missing).
> > >
> > > May 7, 2000, Sunday Late Edition
> > >
> > > Section: 7 Page: 22 Column:
> > >
> > > Books in Brief: Nonfiction
> > >
> > > By Laurie Adlerstein
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nabokov's Butterflies
> > >
> > > Unpublished and Uncollected Writings.
> > >
> > > Edited by Brian Boyd
> > >
> > > and Robert Michael Pyle.
> > >
> > > Beacon, $45.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vladimir Nabokov's lecture on ''The Metamorphosis'' begins
> > with a discussion of the type of insect into
> > which Gregor Samsa had been transformed. Nabokov reveled
> > in reconstructing the fictional worlds only
> > hinted at in works of fiction; in this case,
> > lepidopterological expertise incited him to attempt entomological
> > identification. Even Nabokov, however, might tire of a
> > collection noting every time a moth flits by a lamp
> > in Nabokov's writings. Brian Boyd, the author of a
> > two-volume biography of Nabokov, and Robert
> > Michael Pyle, who has written six books about butterflies, have also
> > included an exhaustive assortment of scientific writings,
correspondence,
> > poetry and interviews. In solid, if verbose, introductions, the editors
> > trumpet Nabokov's scientific legacy and its relevance. His research in
> > butterfly morphology led to a revolutionary reclassification of Blues,
> which
> > remains influential. Nabokov's diction, notes of nostalgia and
> > aper-->us warrant his advice to Edmund Wilson on wading through one of
> his
> > papers on lepidoptera:
> > ''Try reading it between the descriptions.'' (Unlike much of his
> > correspondence, Nabokov's letters to
> > Wilson neither lapse into technical terminology nor
> > condescend.) Particularly entertaining are Nabokov's
> > sallies against publishers -- his projected ''Butterflies
> > of Europe'' and a study of butterflies in Western art
> > never reached fruition. Presumably, the prosaic poems bear the bruises
> of
> > translation from the Russian by Nabokov's son, Dmitri. With few
> exceptions,
> > the excerpts from longer fiction falter out of context; Nabokov's
> > butterflies were meant to flutter by fully conceived fictional worlds.
> > ''Nabokov's Butterflies'' juxtaposes science and art, but cannot
> integrate
> > them.
> >
> > Laurie Adlerstein
> >
> > Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
>
From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (104
lines) ------------------
> I must say, overall, this is a disappointingly short review of such a vast
> book (not to mention the vastness of its content). It seems to reflect a
> lack of resonance by the NYTBR with what Beacon/Penguin have called the
> "literary event" that Nabokov's Butterflies represents. As well, the
> reviewer seems to be one who herself is not particularly interested in the
> wonderful "digging in" process Nabophiles are enjoying with this book.
At
> bottom, I think that in all the NYTimes reviews of Nabokov events and
books
> this year there has been a tendency to be dismissive and not take the
> content serioiusly, or, to pick reviewers (perhaps quite by accident of
> course) who themselves did not resonate with the material. An amusing
> comment on this came from a source I will not name, but one close to
> Nabokovia-- the opinion that some of these reviewers mistake their lack of
> knowledge for perspective. Personally, I would have expected a full
review
> of this book (not a Books in Brief) and one with lots of quotations
showing
> various aspects of Lepidopterology in Nabokov's life and fiction. Perhaps
> we have not really yet succeeded in getting the message across [to some]
> that Nabokov was indeed a serious scientist, or perhaps this simply has
> little significance to some still totally immersed in his literary legacy.
> We hear there is a dual Nabokov's Butterflies/Nabokov's Blues commentary
in
> the works for a Sunday Wall Street Journal. It will be instructive to
see
> whether that reviewer has a wider vision of the material. As I stated on
> Nabokov-on-line once before, I found it interesting that some of the most
> far-reachingly perceptive reviews of Nabokov's Blues came in the
scientific
> and medical journals. Thus, there WERE reviewers out there "up" to the
> task.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@GTE.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:08 AM
> Subject: Fw: NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
> >
> > Here is the NY Times Book Review of Nabokov's Butterflies (there is
> > one glitch in this download, as it was sent me...so I can't cure
> it...seems
> > like word jumble or words missing).
> > >
> > > May 7, 2000, Sunday Late Edition
> > >
> > > Section: 7 Page: 22 Column:
> > >
> > > Books in Brief: Nonfiction
> > >
> > > By Laurie Adlerstein
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nabokov's Butterflies
> > >
> > > Unpublished and Uncollected Writings.
> > >
> > > Edited by Brian Boyd
> > >
> > > and Robert Michael Pyle.
> > >
> > > Beacon, $45.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vladimir Nabokov's lecture on ''The Metamorphosis'' begins
> > with a discussion of the type of insect into
> > which Gregor Samsa had been transformed. Nabokov reveled
> > in reconstructing the fictional worlds only
> > hinted at in works of fiction; in this case,
> > lepidopterological expertise incited him to attempt entomological
> > identification. Even Nabokov, however, might tire of a
> > collection noting every time a moth flits by a lamp
> > in Nabokov's writings. Brian Boyd, the author of a
> > two-volume biography of Nabokov, and Robert
> > Michael Pyle, who has written six books about butterflies, have also
> > included an exhaustive assortment of scientific writings,
correspondence,
> > poetry and interviews. In solid, if verbose, introductions, the editors
> > trumpet Nabokov's scientific legacy and its relevance. His research in
> > butterfly morphology led to a revolutionary reclassification of Blues,
> which
> > remains influential. Nabokov's diction, notes of nostalgia and
> > aper-->us warrant his advice to Edmund Wilson on wading through one of
> his
> > papers on lepidoptera:
> > ''Try reading it between the descriptions.'' (Unlike much of his
> > correspondence, Nabokov's letters to
> > Wilson neither lapse into technical terminology nor
> > condescend.) Particularly entertaining are Nabokov's
> > sallies against publishers -- his projected ''Butterflies
> > of Europe'' and a study of butterflies in Western art
> > never reached fruition. Presumably, the prosaic poems bear the bruises
> of
> > translation from the Russian by Nabokov's son, Dmitri. With few
> exceptions,
> > the excerpts from longer fiction falter out of context; Nabokov's
> > butterflies were meant to flutter by fully conceived fictional worlds.
> > ''Nabokov's Butterflies'' juxtaposes science and art, but cannot
> integrate
> > them.
> >
> > Laurie Adlerstein
> >
> > Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
>