Subject
Fwd: BB responds to Michael Glynn RESPONDS RE "Pale Fire"
From
Date
Body
Responding to Michael Glynn's two points:
1) The point is that the importance of looks is not a cliché but a psychological
fact with powerful emotional resonance, and the cliché that annoyed Nabokov was
the converse claim that "looks don't matter."
2a) Of course Nabokov could have written "Pale Fire" to be ironic at Shade's
expense, but Michael Glynn has not offered any evidence that I can see to
support this. That's what I would expect: evidence, not conviction. The fact
that the poem becomes a good deal better the more one looks--better
architecturally and line by line--makes the case that the poem is intentionally
deficient harder to argue. Why would Nabokov have concealed strengths if his
purpose was to display weakness?
2b) My point about evaluation is simply this: if one cannot see the difference
in poetic quality between samples 1 and 3 and the "Pale Fire" passage
sandwiched between them, how can one evaluate a poem? What poetic qualities in
1 and 3 have I missed that could match the play of sound, word, image and idea
in the "Pale Fire" passage?
Brian Boyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf Of
Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Monday, 12 December 2005 5:25 a.m.
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Michael Glynn responds to Boyd RESPONDS RE "Pale Fire"
----- Forwarded message from michael.glynn@btinternet.com -----
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:36:07 -0000
From: michael glynn <michael.glynn@btinternet.com>
Reply-To: michael glynn <michael.glynn@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bOYD RESPONDS TO michael glynn RE poem "Pale Fire"
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Dear Sir
Brian Boyd remarks that:
1) "It is a biological, psychological and social fact that looks matter."
- Agreed. Absolutely. And I too am aware of a wealth of supporting empirical
evidence. However, I personally doubt that Nabokov's novel was informed by his
desire to promote biological, psychological and social facts of any kind. The
forum doesn't need me to rehearse Nabokov's views on received opinion,
orthodoxies and what Martin Amis in another context once referred to as 'herd
rectitude.' Nabokov was not wont to fall to his knees the minute someone
invoked psychological orthodoxy.
2) "Romantic love is trite, and death is trite, in Michael Glynn's terms."
-Misses the point, in my opinion. What is at issue is Nabokov's attitude to
'Shade's' poem. Nabokov treats Shade and 'his' conventional poem ironically in
my view. Brian Boyd fails to see how I can hold such a view and be able to
evaluate the poem. I do not personally see the poem in the way Brian Boyd does
but I quite accept his right to evaluate the poem, indeed I welcome and respect
his evaluations, even if I find those evaluations to be off-kilter.
Many thanks
Michael Glynn
----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----
1) The point is that the importance of looks is not a cliché but a psychological
fact with powerful emotional resonance, and the cliché that annoyed Nabokov was
the converse claim that "looks don't matter."
2a) Of course Nabokov could have written "Pale Fire" to be ironic at Shade's
expense, but Michael Glynn has not offered any evidence that I can see to
support this. That's what I would expect: evidence, not conviction. The fact
that the poem becomes a good deal better the more one looks--better
architecturally and line by line--makes the case that the poem is intentionally
deficient harder to argue. Why would Nabokov have concealed strengths if his
purpose was to display weakness?
2b) My point about evaluation is simply this: if one cannot see the difference
in poetic quality between samples 1 and 3 and the "Pale Fire" passage
sandwiched between them, how can one evaluate a poem? What poetic qualities in
1 and 3 have I missed that could match the play of sound, word, image and idea
in the "Pale Fire" passage?
Brian Boyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum [mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU] On Behalf Of
Donald B. Johnson
Sent: Monday, 12 December 2005 5:25 a.m.
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Michael Glynn responds to Boyd RESPONDS RE "Pale Fire"
----- Forwarded message from michael.glynn@btinternet.com -----
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:36:07 -0000
From: michael glynn <michael.glynn@btinternet.com>
Reply-To: michael glynn <michael.glynn@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bOYD RESPONDS TO michael glynn RE poem "Pale Fire"
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Dear Sir
Brian Boyd remarks that:
1) "It is a biological, psychological and social fact that looks matter."
- Agreed. Absolutely. And I too am aware of a wealth of supporting empirical
evidence. However, I personally doubt that Nabokov's novel was informed by his
desire to promote biological, psychological and social facts of any kind. The
forum doesn't need me to rehearse Nabokov's views on received opinion,
orthodoxies and what Martin Amis in another context once referred to as 'herd
rectitude.' Nabokov was not wont to fall to his knees the minute someone
invoked psychological orthodoxy.
2) "Romantic love is trite, and death is trite, in Michael Glynn's terms."
-Misses the point, in my opinion. What is at issue is Nabokov's attitude to
'Shade's' poem. Nabokov treats Shade and 'his' conventional poem ironically in
my view. Brian Boyd fails to see how I can hold such a view and be able to
evaluate the poem. I do not personally see the poem in the way Brian Boyd does
but I quite accept his right to evaluate the poem, indeed I welcome and respect
his evaluations, even if I find those evaluations to be off-kilter.
Many thanks
Michael Glynn
----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----