Matt Roth [
to Jansy: "I wonder if you could explain your
comments below; I don't think I understand the nature of your objections. Are
you concerned that RR thinks too much of VN's writing? Is it distasteful in
any way to compare VN and Shakespeare? As for RR's point about revisions, I have
felt something very similar when looking at the Pale Fire manuscript. While I
respect the author-ity of the final, published versions of VN's books, I do
think that his manuscripts offer a window onto his creative process and, by
extension, his humanity. /// jansymello
<jansy@AETERN.US> wrote:Although I have felt something that gets close
to Rosenbaum's enthusiastic & wonderful descriptions of VN
magic ("the equivalent of the secret of lightining...akin to the secret code
of higher human consciousness..."), his comparison bt. saints and
their miracles ("it made them the palest of pale fire in
comparison...) or the pairing of Nabokov and
Shakespeare, strike me as being in very bad taste. As
was his praise of scrawls, revisions and corrections that would turn these
geniuses' efforts into a work "more perfect" because they reveal
"their humanity".]
JM:
Matt, part of my feeling about Rosenbaum's review derives from
something similar to what I learned about Ivan Krylov's fable in "The
cuckoo praises the rooster."*. By the way,
the Nabokov-Wilson's letters, which I'm greatly enjoying now,
carry smudges, corrections or foot-notes warning about scrawls.
As I see it they are as good a window into Nabokov's, and his
friend's, "humanity" ( whatever that means) as those in the mysterious TOoL
cards. Or, as those you encountered during your privileged viewing of
PF's manuscripts and which moved you into a realistic appraisal
of the dilemmas and indecisions that often overwhelm a
writer. I
may have misread R.R's very frank admission ( I quote: "I think Dmitri
appreciated my genuine empathy for his Hamlet-like dilemma. I think the claim
could be made that Slate saved Laura...But what of my reservations? My
late-breaking fealty to Nabokov's wishes? Could they be wiped out by this
generous gesture? In a word, yes... What may have tipped my thinking on the
subject was the sight of Nabokov's scrawl-outs... ") but I still must
wonder why was he moved only after seeing these specific scrawl-outs and
not those found in other VN revisions, second thoughts, strong
opinions?
I'm
happy that Rosenbaum encouraged Dmitri to save and publish the
manuscripts, I'm ever so thankful to him but, even so,
I
must confess that I resent the tone he used to dismiss other
writers in order to elevate VN's already obvious,and independent,
lofty brilliance (now I'm the one to apply romantic hyperboles) or
dismantled diverging critical perspectives to be able to pair VN and
Shakespeare. "Chacun
a son gout" and, as tastes go, I found RR's comparison distasteful to my
standards.I'm happy to have been able to speak about my personal tastes in
public, and to have stimulated you to show some of
yours.
And I don't believe in X-Men** so, for me, who reads VN with
love, awesome respect and enjoyment, it was rather embarassing to find
Rosenbaum's fantastic admission that: "even these writers shouldn't be
considered godlike figures from whom the muse poured forth perfection on the
first try..." I'm still hoping that he was, indeed, applying the "seven
ambiguities" in his review and, who knows, playing Kinbote here and
there...
.......................................................................................................................
* Nabokov
and Wilson Letters, page 100-101
**
- RR Quotes: " The
Dead Sea Scrawls, you might say, of the Nabokov canon...They were evidence of
the drama inherent in the creative process, a process whose heart is revision. I
devoted a substantial portion of The Shakespeare Wars to the scholarly
controversy over whether Shakespeare revised his play scripts. Ben Jonson
famously said that Shakespeare never "blotted out a line," but a substantial
case has been made in recent years that he did rewrite on occasion, sometimes
altering single words or phrases, sometimes making more substantial edits.
Shakespeare's revisions (and Nabokov's) matter for two reasons. Revision
indicated that even these writers shouldn't be considered godlike figures from
whom the muse poured forth perfection on the first try, but writers who are—in
some ways—like other writers, in at least this respect: They were subject to
second thoughts. And distinguishing what those second thoughts might have been
and why they focused on rethinking this or that word or phrase or scene offers a
window into the meaning of the work. But—and this is the second but not
secondary meaning of the blottings out—revisions also offer a window into the
humanity of the author. That even the greatest of geniuses (and yes, I believe
the term is valid for these two) were not superhuman; they live in the same
world of error and doubt that the rest of us inhabit. The fact that they think
they've made "mistakes" makes their work even more perfect than it would be if
they never blotted a line or scratched out a
word."