Subject
Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel? rlskN
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alphonse Vinh" <AVinh@npr.org>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (73
lines) ------------------
> I love all Nabokov's novels and even his least-developed works bear his
> unique imprint. Of course, I have my own preferences--including novels
like
> "LOOK AT THE HARLEQUINS!" which is not necessarily considered amongst his
> major works. I reread LATH with unalloyed delight to borrow from Anthony
> Burgess.
>
> At any rate, to describe Nabokov, Glenn's phrase "least well-realised" is
a
> propos.
>
> I also think we can consider this model to describe his works:
>
> 1) The early works (1916-1939) belong to the "Young Master's Period"
> 2) The middle works (1940-1960) belong to "The Master's Period"
> 3) The late works (1961-1977) belong to "The Grand Master's Period"
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Alphonse
>
> Alphonse Vinh
> "Musings"
> http://www.npr.org/programs/musings
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel? rlskN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (31
> lines) ------------------
> > Granted, this comes from someone whose girlfriend said to him
> > (affectionately, I think) just this weekend, "I think that as far as
> you're
> > concerned, every writer who ever lived is overrated, except for
Nabokov,"
> > but I get queasy seeing the words "worst" and "Nabokov" in the same
> > sentence.Still, one must grow up, and it is true that not all N. opi are
> > created equal. I think while "Glory" certainly has the toughest time
> getting
> > off the ground than any other Nabokov novel, I think, once I substitute
> the
> > phrase "least well-realized" for "worst," that in my humble opinion "The
> > Real Life of Sebastian Knight" is just too damn precious to wholely get
> > across. And when I say "get across" I mean on the very demanding terms
> that
> > Nabokov set for himself. The book still blows away 90 percent of what is
> > termed "contemporary literature" these days...
> >
> > GK
> > > ----------
> > > From: D. Barton Johnson
> > > Reply To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:12 PM
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Subject: Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dane Gill" <pennyparkerpark@hotmail.com>
> > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:44 AM
> > > Subject: Worst Novel
> > > >
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (6
> > > lines) -------------------
> > > > My vote goes to Glory. Anyone else? Dane Gill
> > >
> >
From: "Alphonse Vinh" <AVinh@npr.org>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (73
lines) ------------------
> I love all Nabokov's novels and even his least-developed works bear his
> unique imprint. Of course, I have my own preferences--including novels
like
> "LOOK AT THE HARLEQUINS!" which is not necessarily considered amongst his
> major works. I reread LATH with unalloyed delight to borrow from Anthony
> Burgess.
>
> At any rate, to describe Nabokov, Glenn's phrase "least well-realised" is
a
> propos.
>
> I also think we can consider this model to describe his works:
>
> 1) The early works (1916-1939) belong to the "Young Master's Period"
> 2) The middle works (1940-1960) belong to "The Master's Period"
> 3) The late works (1961-1977) belong to "The Grand Master's Period"
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Alphonse
>
> Alphonse Vinh
> "Musings"
> http://www.npr.org/programs/musings
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel? rlskN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (31
> lines) ------------------
> > Granted, this comes from someone whose girlfriend said to him
> > (affectionately, I think) just this weekend, "I think that as far as
> you're
> > concerned, every writer who ever lived is overrated, except for
Nabokov,"
> > but I get queasy seeing the words "worst" and "Nabokov" in the same
> > sentence.Still, one must grow up, and it is true that not all N. opi are
> > created equal. I think while "Glory" certainly has the toughest time
> getting
> > off the ground than any other Nabokov novel, I think, once I substitute
> the
> > phrase "least well-realized" for "worst," that in my humble opinion "The
> > Real Life of Sebastian Knight" is just too damn precious to wholely get
> > across. And when I say "get across" I mean on the very demanding terms
> that
> > Nabokov set for himself. The book still blows away 90 percent of what is
> > termed "contemporary literature" these days...
> >
> > GK
> > > ----------
> > > From: D. Barton Johnson
> > > Reply To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:12 PM
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Subject: Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dane Gill" <pennyparkerpark@hotmail.com>
> > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:44 AM
> > > Subject: Worst Novel
> > > >
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (6
> > > lines) -------------------
> > > > My vote goes to Glory. Anyone else? Dane Gill
> > >
> >