Would turnabout be fair play? It is amusing to try to imagine a
Nabokovian dismissal of Nabokov himself, and uncritical criticism can
have its points, as SB remarks. However, if lacking humour or irony,
such dismissals tend to be antithetical to creativity and
community.
On the other hand "critical criticism" of the
"Titans" can be bracing, as exemplified say by Shaw on
Shakespeare or I.F. Stone on Plato and Socrates or Nabokov on
Cervantes. And there is such a thing as implied criticism.
The pleasure we take in put-downs is curious. When a reactionary
nut like Dostoyevsky (forgive me Fyodor Mikhailovich, I'm just having
some fun at your expense) lampoons a saint like Chernyshevsky, the
result can still be hilarious. (Though the laughter breaks when you
remember what that fearless abolitionist subsequently suffered at the
hands of the Tsar.)
Walter Miale
wm@greenworldcenter.org
It's bracing and it's fun when he
machineguns a literary
reputation, particularly on the occasions
when one happens to agree with
him, but...it is not our hero's most
endearing trait.
[[EDComment: Personally, and in
principle, I agree with this sentiment, although maybe "cheap
thrill" is overkill. ... I suspect there are a few
components to this practice of his: 1) authentic disagreement with the
general appraisal. 2) an authentic antipathy to "herd"
behaviors that blindly follow intellectual fashions 3) the
identification of a stylistic or ideological niche: no-one else was
doing this sort of Titan-bashing. To some extent, he was also
continuing the brutally honest tradition of his friend Yulii
Aikhenvald, whose highly critical "silhouette" of Belinsky
caused an uproar in the 1910s (cf. in this regard Fyodor's
Chernyshevski book in The Gift). On whether the trait is
endearing: I think all, or nearly all, would agree that in the main,
we turn to Nabokov for his artistry, for his scholarship, and for his
flashes of extroardinary insight--not for his Strong Opinions about
his less preferred predecessors. -SB]]