Subject
Fwd: Re: what a pure, gentle, funny, utterly normal man he was
From
Date
Body
----- Forwarded message from t@tbolt.com -----
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:40:49 -0400
From: Thomas Bolt <t@tbolt.com>
Reply-To: t@tbolt.com
Subject: Re: what a pure, gentle, funny, utterly normal man he was
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
1)
A responsible discussion of the relationship between any artist
and her or his works would have to begin with a deep and nuanced
understanding of how the creative process actually operates.
That's the price of admission. Assumptions about one-to-one
relationships between author and material are often crude,
cheap, and irrational--at times to such an extent that a living
author might sue for libel. More often they are simply silly.
You do not find such relationships even in the works of authors
who seem to want them (Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac).
A scholar aware of the limitations of her or his knowledge and
methods might say we owe the existence of Othello, in part, to
source material, including John Pory's translation of Leo
Africanus' A Geographical History of Africa (1600) and Cinthio's
Italian novella The Hecatommithi (1565). And yet for all we
know, and can know, Othello the *character* may have sprung
from the comjunction of a writing deadline, a memory of an old
Stratford playmate, an intimate knowledge of Burbage's voice, a
case of indigestion from a meal at the Swan with Two Necks, a
glimpse of Abdul Guahid the Barbary ambassador, a game of
skittles with the Dark Lady's cousin, a bit of court gossip old
enough to be put to use, the chance combination of two or three
words that reacted on the Shakespearean apparatus in order to
precipitate Othello.
Was Shakespeare crypto-Moorish? Did he strangle women in his
spare time (why then, all that childhood business about the
gloves)? Just how negative WAS his capability?
I think Louise said it best:
To An Artist, To Take Heart
Slipping in blood, by his own hand, through pride
Hamlet, Othello, Coriolanus fall.
Upon his bed, however, Shakespeare died,
Having endured them all.
--Louise Bogan (1897-1970)
2)
The reader of an imaginative work participates thoroughly in
imagining the work's characters. To whom, then, is the reader
who then cries "Pervert!" really speaking? I think Stephen said
it best:
The sage lectured brilliantly.
Before him, two images:
"Now this one is a devil,
And this one is me."
He turned away.
Then a cunning pupil
Changed the positions.
Turned the sage again:
"Now this one is a devil,
And this one is me."
The pupils sat, all grinning,
And rejoiced in the game.
But the sage was a sage.
--Stephen Crane (1871 - 1900)
How very like the experience of reading LOLITA.
~ Tom
"D. Barton Johnson" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carolyn Kunin
> To: D. Barton JohnsonSent: Monday, September 19, 2005 5:31
> PMSubject: Re: what a pure, gentle, funny, utterly normal man
> he was
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carolyn Kunin
> <mailto:chaiselongue@earthlink.net>
> To: D. Barton Johnson <mailto:chtodel@cox.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:44 AM
> Subject: FW: what a pure, gentle, funny, utterly
> normal man he was
>
>
>
> Dear Dmitri,
>
> I was very glad to read both your letter to Don and
> his reply. And if any of my comments recently have
> added in any way to your distress I beg your
> forgiveness. Your description of your father was a
> tonic: what a pure, gentle, funny, utterly normal
> man he was.
>
> I have no doubt that if I had met him, this is the
> person I should have met. He was after all the
> creator of Pnin, and for that alone should be
> remembered with gratitude forever.
>
> But he also created Pnin's destroyer. He created
> Lolita, but he also created Humbert & Quilty. He
> created Aqua, but he also created Marina who
> probably murdered her, not to mention Vaniada. His
> ability to imagine evil, especially sexual evil, is
> so fiendishly good, is it any wonder it gives some
> of us pause?
>
> The "porno-graph record" as you so wittily call it,
> was an aspect of your father's work too. It just
> strikes me as odd (at least it strikes me now, since
> the subject was recently thrust unwanted upon us)
> that this aspect of your father's work has not - -
> so far as I can recall - - been addressed by any of
> his serious critics. Or am I mistaken?
>
> It does seem that, perhaps just for the reason that
> his serious critics have chosen to ignore this
> aspect of his work, that it has taken on the quality
> of an elephant in the room. Someone points to it,
> and we are all surprise and shock. Elephant? what
> elephant?
>
> But the pornographic aspect is there still and all.
> Maybe you are correct, and it is the virtuosity of
> your father's imagination that explains its force.
> His brilliant portrayal of the insane homosexual
> Kinbote never for a moment caused me to think he
> might himself be either homosexual or insane. No
> one who takes him seriously can possibly confuse him
> with pervert Humbert.
>
> But there do seem to be some things about Nabokov we
> still don't know.
>
> freundliche Grüsse von Deine
> Carolyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- End forwarded message -----