Subject
JM responds to Marshal Zeringue's question about what VN might
have said
have said
From
Date
Body
Dear List,
M. Zeringue, whose chief comment comes right after a sentence he quoted
from
G. Lewis-Kraus*, wrote:
"What struck me about Lewis-Kraus's argument--which seems compelling to
me
if the debate is faithfully characterized--is that it's the sort of
thing
Lolita's author would say himself. At least, I think that's what Nabokov
would have said about politics and literature, based on my reading of
Lolita
(and its siblings) when I was in graduate school in Virginia. I'll check
with some experts to see if I've got that right."
Jansy Mello:
Although I'm no "expert" I venture to say that if VN were alive today he
would have experienced the world as it is now and, therefore, we can
have no
idea about how this additional time might have changed his points of
view
concerning art & politics, or art&criticism.
We know, from reading his own words, that VN didn't think "great
literature
is there to make you feel better, regardless ..." ( one of the
criticisms
directed against Nafisi by L-Kraus).
VN wrote: " I cannot imagine myself writing a letter-to-the-editor in
reply
to an unfavorable review...My inventions, my circles, my special islands
are
infinitely safe from exasperated reader. Nor have I ever yielded to the
wild
desire to thank a benevolent critic..." and, finally: "Unlike my novels,
EO
possesses an ethical side, moral and human elements." Cf. "Reply to My
Critics", Section on "Articles" in "Strong Opinions".
If M. Zeringue believes, with L-K, that the fingers "on the triggers of
those targeted nuclear warheads couldn't possibly care about what either
of
them has to say.", then I don't see what's the point of his question.
L-K's arguments insist not only that Nafisi's book is not great
literature,
but that her book was not politically motivated in favor of America .
According to L-K, Hamid Dabashi's attack on Nafisi arose from his
intention
"to take action against American imperialist aggression" after he became
"alarmed by Seymour Hersh's New Yorker story about an alleged
administration
plan to use targeted nuclear strikes against Iran".
Are we being invited to take sides here, in the VN-List?
Jansy
..........................................................................
From D.B. Johnson, in July 16, 2003 we received a message from Eric Yost
with the subject: "McNab spotted in Iran apparently", with the
reference:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&s=ozick072103
A short commentary was added: The Rule of the Bus, by Cynthia Ozick
[excerpt]
In her covert seminar, Nafisi's retort to these depredations was
literary
generalship. Her allies were Nabokov, Fitzgerald, James, and
Austen--each of
whom yields a powerful refraction of internal freedom and cultural
despotism, of autonomy and usurpation. "The desperate truth of Lolita's
story is not the rape of a twelve-year-old by a dirty old man," Nafisi
argues, "but the confiscation of one individual's life by another....
Nabokov, through his portrayal of Humbert, had exposed all solipsists
who
take over other people's lives."
In September 13,2003, we received from: Sandy P. Klein a message with
the
subject: "Nafisi's choice of Nabokov as an author to study is only
partly
...". with an added address:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1039915,00.html
In November 30, 2006 Subject: [NABOKV-L] Query: VN's take on the
argument
over Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran
M. Zeringue adds his blog post:
http://americareads.blogspot.com/2006/11/reading-lolita-in-charlottesville.h
tml
He asked: I wonder if the List has thoughts on the question of what VN
might
have said?
In December 01, 2006 Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Query: VN's take on the
argument over Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran
[EDNOTE. Jim Twiggs sends a link to the Slate essay mentioned in
Marshal
Zeringue's post. SES]
PAWN OF THE NEOCONS? THE DEBATE OVER READING LOLITA IN TEHRAN, by
Gideon
Lewis-Kraus
http://www.slate.com/id/2154700/?nav=tap3
* - Excerpt from the article by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (Nov. 30, 2006) " ...
Hamid Dabashi, a scholar of Iranian studies and comparative literature,
chose a peculiar antagonist: Azar Nafisi... A less-than-coherent
pastiche of
stock anti-war sentiment, strategic misreading, and childish calumny,
Dabashi's essay accuses Nafisi..."
"... The book's failure, however, is not political - as Dabashi insists
-
but literary...Nafisi does not offer the political message Dabashi
thinks
she does - that American freedom and culture are better than Iranian
oppression and backwardness. Rather, she extends a more therapeutic
solace:
Great literature is there to make you feel better, regardless of how
oppressive the political world can be...
In the end, Dabashi must conspire with Nafisi to make the book more
important that it is: The besieged Nafisi gets to preserve her fantasy
that
removing her veil to read Austen in her home was not only
therapeutically
powerful but politically noble, and Dabashi gets to preserve his fantasy
that criticizing Nafisi makes him a usefully engaged intellectual. But
those
whose fingers are on the triggers of those targeted nuclear warheads
couldn't possibly care about what either of them has to say."
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
M. Zeringue, whose chief comment comes right after a sentence he quoted
from
G. Lewis-Kraus*, wrote:
"What struck me about Lewis-Kraus's argument--which seems compelling to
me
if the debate is faithfully characterized--is that it's the sort of
thing
Lolita's author would say himself. At least, I think that's what Nabokov
would have said about politics and literature, based on my reading of
Lolita
(and its siblings) when I was in graduate school in Virginia. I'll check
with some experts to see if I've got that right."
Jansy Mello:
Although I'm no "expert" I venture to say that if VN were alive today he
would have experienced the world as it is now and, therefore, we can
have no
idea about how this additional time might have changed his points of
view
concerning art & politics, or art&criticism.
We know, from reading his own words, that VN didn't think "great
literature
is there to make you feel better, regardless ..." ( one of the
criticisms
directed against Nafisi by L-Kraus).
VN wrote: " I cannot imagine myself writing a letter-to-the-editor in
reply
to an unfavorable review...My inventions, my circles, my special islands
are
infinitely safe from exasperated reader. Nor have I ever yielded to the
wild
desire to thank a benevolent critic..." and, finally: "Unlike my novels,
EO
possesses an ethical side, moral and human elements." Cf. "Reply to My
Critics", Section on "Articles" in "Strong Opinions".
If M. Zeringue believes, with L-K, that the fingers "on the triggers of
those targeted nuclear warheads couldn't possibly care about what either
of
them has to say.", then I don't see what's the point of his question.
L-K's arguments insist not only that Nafisi's book is not great
literature,
but that her book was not politically motivated in favor of America .
According to L-K, Hamid Dabashi's attack on Nafisi arose from his
intention
"to take action against American imperialist aggression" after he became
"alarmed by Seymour Hersh's New Yorker story about an alleged
administration
plan to use targeted nuclear strikes against Iran".
Are we being invited to take sides here, in the VN-List?
Jansy
..........................................................................
From D.B. Johnson, in July 16, 2003 we received a message from Eric Yost
with the subject: "McNab spotted in Iran apparently", with the
reference:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&s=ozick072103
A short commentary was added: The Rule of the Bus, by Cynthia Ozick
[excerpt]
In her covert seminar, Nafisi's retort to these depredations was
literary
generalship. Her allies were Nabokov, Fitzgerald, James, and
Austen--each of
whom yields a powerful refraction of internal freedom and cultural
despotism, of autonomy and usurpation. "The desperate truth of Lolita's
story is not the rape of a twelve-year-old by a dirty old man," Nafisi
argues, "but the confiscation of one individual's life by another....
Nabokov, through his portrayal of Humbert, had exposed all solipsists
who
take over other people's lives."
In September 13,2003, we received from: Sandy P. Klein a message with
the
subject: "Nafisi's choice of Nabokov as an author to study is only
partly
...". with an added address:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1039915,00.html
In November 30, 2006 Subject: [NABOKV-L] Query: VN's take on the
argument
over Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran
M. Zeringue adds his blog post:
http://americareads.blogspot.com/2006/11/reading-lolita-in-charlottesville.h
tml
He asked: I wonder if the List has thoughts on the question of what VN
might
have said?
In December 01, 2006 Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Query: VN's take on the
argument over Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran
[EDNOTE. Jim Twiggs sends a link to the Slate essay mentioned in
Marshal
Zeringue's post. SES]
PAWN OF THE NEOCONS? THE DEBATE OVER READING LOLITA IN TEHRAN, by
Gideon
Lewis-Kraus
http://www.slate.com/id/2154700/?nav=tap3
* - Excerpt from the article by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (Nov. 30, 2006) " ...
Hamid Dabashi, a scholar of Iranian studies and comparative literature,
chose a peculiar antagonist: Azar Nafisi... A less-than-coherent
pastiche of
stock anti-war sentiment, strategic misreading, and childish calumny,
Dabashi's essay accuses Nafisi..."
"... The book's failure, however, is not political - as Dabashi insists
-
but literary...Nafisi does not offer the political message Dabashi
thinks
she does - that American freedom and culture are better than Iranian
oppression and backwardness. Rather, she extends a more therapeutic
solace:
Great literature is there to make you feel better, regardless of how
oppressive the political world can be...
In the end, Dabashi must conspire with Nafisi to make the book more
important that it is: The besieged Nafisi gets to preserve her fantasy
that
removing her veil to read Austen in her home was not only
therapeutically
powerful but politically noble, and Dabashi gets to preserve his fantasy
that criticizing Nafisi makes him a usefully engaged intellectual. But
those
whose fingers are on the triggers of those targeted nuclear warheads
couldn't possibly care about what either of them has to say."
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm