Subject
Re: TT-4 Answer to Mary Krimmel (fwd) (fwd)
From
Date
Body
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:53 PM -0400
From: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Re: TT-4 Answer to Mary Krimmel (fwd)
Mary Krimmel- [I assume the second , unsigned note is yours]
S: As Nabokov could breath life into the most bizarre characters and from
wildly disorienting points of view, this deadness in TT seems remarkable.
Is it a consequence of the explanatory omniscience of the narrators and the
lack of human doubt in the characters?
M: Do you think so (that the deadness is a consequence...)?
S: A working-hypothesis.
M: Thinking about the remarkable deadness in TT, do you find it also in R
either as the narrator or as a character in the story?
S: R might be understood as the termination of previous Ns and Vs, as in
V??R. As with other Nabokov narrators, he is primarily a character who
may, from time to time, be a vehicle for Nabokovs own opinions, although
not necessarily. Yes, as a consciousness, I find him more interesting and
lively than HP and AC.
M: Is it possible that embodied beings are more lifeless in the perception
of the spirits than their fellow spirits are? I realize that Armande and
Hugh's father are spirits at the time of the narration, but they are
presented in the time before they died.
S: Certainly, although I see no evidence for this. If I understand the
conceit properly, the spirits can appreciate contemporaneously the flow of
all past moments, with this moment moving forward as future becomes
present. R. and the author seem fondly tolerant of HP, who I also read as
dead in CH 1, which "follows" CH 26 in spirit [and re-reading] time.
-Sandy Drescher
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:53 PM -0400
From: Alexander Drescher <bunsan@direcway.com>
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Re: TT-4 Answer to Mary Krimmel (fwd)
Mary Krimmel- [I assume the second , unsigned note is yours]
S: As Nabokov could breath life into the most bizarre characters and from
wildly disorienting points of view, this deadness in TT seems remarkable.
Is it a consequence of the explanatory omniscience of the narrators and the
lack of human doubt in the characters?
M: Do you think so (that the deadness is a consequence...)?
S: A working-hypothesis.
M: Thinking about the remarkable deadness in TT, do you find it also in R
either as the narrator or as a character in the story?
S: R might be understood as the termination of previous Ns and Vs, as in
V??R. As with other Nabokov narrators, he is primarily a character who
may, from time to time, be a vehicle for Nabokovs own opinions, although
not necessarily. Yes, as a consciousness, I find him more interesting and
lively than HP and AC.
M: Is it possible that embodied beings are more lifeless in the perception
of the spirits than their fellow spirits are? I realize that Armande and
Hugh's father are spirits at the time of the narration, but they are
presented in the time before they died.
S: Certainly, although I see no evidence for this. If I understand the
conceit properly, the spirits can appreciate contemporaneously the flow of
all past moments, with this moment moving forward as future becomes
present. R. and the author seem fondly tolerant of HP, who I also read as
dead in CH 1, which "follows" CH 26 in spirit [and re-reading] time.
-Sandy Drescher
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L