Subject
Fwd: Re: Dolinin's article on "Signs & Symbols"
From
Date
Body
Thanks very much to Jansy for the Freud reference. It reminded me of
Johathan Culler's classical article on American narratological
discussions, where he also refers to Freud to prove that "fabula" is a
"tropological construction" determined by requirements of significance,
rather than a representation of given events.
Marina Grishakova
Donald B. Johnson wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>I enjoyed Marina Grishakova´s rich commentary about the contrasts
>that are created by VN´s parallel plots and which may appear as
>"implicit/explicit" or as "siuzhet" and "fabula" oppositions. I valued her
>suggestion in particular ( if I understood her argument correctly ) that the
>establishment of such oppositions makes it harder to follow what, in VN, are
>preferently "changes of places" : that inside ( hidden) or outside (
>revealed ) plots are not to be taken as clear cut contrasts but, perhaps,
>behaving as objects placed on a Moebius strip.
>I´m not only refering to the merging of figure/background as in Topology,
>but thinking also of Bach´s point/counterpoint techniques and Escher´s
>drawings ( Cf. D.Hofstadter´s Pulitzer winning " Goedel,Escher,Bach: an
>eternal golden braid")
>
>Perhaps "the Viennese delegation" should remain quiet, but I wish to bring
>up Freud´s work on the "manifest and latent meaning of dreams" and his
>theory that any dreams´s umbelical point is not "analysable" & thus all
>dream interpretation tends to infinity.
>Jansy
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:42 PM
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Dolinin's article on "Signs & Symbols"
>
>
>
>
>>Dear Don and list,
>>
>>I've read A. Dolinin's article on "Signs and Symbols" on Zembla and have
>>a few remarks concerning this interesting reading of the story as
>>another version of the "otherworld message" (among similar messages,
>>abounding in Nabokov's fiction).
>>
>>A. Dolinin's reading is based on the Russian Formalists's distinction
>>between the "siuzhet" and "fabula", which means that the hidden, "main"
>>story (i.e. "fabula") is the "true" story, or, otherwise, "the sum total
>>of interconnected textual events (or motifs) in chronological and causal
>>order". First, the very relevance of the distinction has been put
>>under question many times by now. Could it be that Nabokov's story just
>>exemplifies the dichotomy? Second, Russian Formalists' views on siuzhet
>>and fabula are more complicated and less clear than Tomahsevsky's
>>pedagogical definition.
>>
>>I used V. Shklovsky's article "Roman tajn" (The Mystery Novel) in my
>>own text on Nabokov's visual poetics (Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, N
>>54, 2002, pp. ; the early version www.ruthenia.ru/document/404860.html
>><http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/404860.html>) to explain the relations
>>between the "implicit" and the "explicit" story (the stories which often
>>change places) in Nabokov's mature fiction. According to Shklovsky,
>>multiple divergencies and convergencies in parallel PLOT LINES produce
>>a "mystery" in the mystery novel (e.g. in Radcliffe or in Dickens). The
>>denouement reveals the whole network of these connections.
>>
>>There is a similar construction in many Nabokov's texts, yet the final
>>"explanation" or "fabula" is missing, whereas the classical mystery or
>>detective novel discloses at least some part of the "fabula". Actually a
>>text, which would reveal "the sum total of interconnected textual
>>events (or motifs) in chronological and causal order", does not exist in
>>the world literature.
>>
>>Of course, the "hidden story" has a special status thanks to its
>>implicit nature. Bitsilli and E. Naiman call it "allegory", G.
>>Barabtarlo calls it "an invisible over-plot", P. Tammi and L. Toker
>>speak of the author's control over the text (or, following in D. Cohn's
>>footsteps, the "struggle over narrative control"), I wrote about the
>>metanarrative status of the hidden plot line. Yet I don't think the
>>critics who "deny the existence of the main story of question its
>>relevance" are absolutely wrong: an uncertainty and oscillation between
>>several plot lines make a charm of Nabokov's fiction. By the way, the
>>very narrative form of the "circle" Nabokov mentions in his letter to K.
>>A. White points at the potential "infinity" of reading.
>>
>>What is wrong, I think, is an intention to produce a "monopolistic
>>interpretation". Thus, according to Dolinin, "the idea of seeing a
>>model for the reader's response in the boy's pan-semiotic approach to
>>reality [...] should be rejected from the very start" since "referential
>>mania" is limited to natural phenomena (clouds, trees, sun flecks,
>>pools, air, mountains) and random artifacts (glass surfaces, coats in
>>store windows) but "excludes real people from the conspiracy". This kind
>>of "pan-semiotic" interpretation has a long tradition. I don't see why
>>should it be rejected. I've touched upon a possibility of reading "Signs
>>and Symbols" in the light of the "Umwelt" theory in my article on the
>>observer (Sign Systems Studies 30.2). The "Umwelt" (as well as Leibniz'
>>/monad/) is a closed individual world inaccessible to other similar
>>worlds (i.e. beings): the surrounding world enters the Umwelt only in
>>the semiotic guise,i.e. the difference between "natural" and the
>>"unnatural" is erased.
>>In conclusion: I think reading is a "jouissance" and knowledge grows
>>through accumulation.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Marina Grishakova,
>>Tartu University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Donald B. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>EDNOTE. "Signs & Symbols" has been the topic of more articles than any
>>>
>>>
>other VN
>
>
>>>story. Now Alexander Dolinin, one of Nabokov's most acute scholars,
>>>
>>>
>offers a
>
>
>>>new treatment. Highly recommended.
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>----- Forwarded message from chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu -----
>>> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:46:31 -0800
>>> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>Quoting Jeff Edmunds <jhe2@psulias.psu.edu>:
>>>
>>>)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>------------------
>>>>From Jeff Edmunds <jhe2@psulias.psu.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>Dolinin, Alexander. "The Signs and Symbols in Nabokov's 'Signs and
>>>>
>>>>
>Symbols.'"
>
>
>>>>See the news page for the link.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
>>>>
>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
----- End forwarded message -----
Johathan Culler's classical article on American narratological
discussions, where he also refers to Freud to prove that "fabula" is a
"tropological construction" determined by requirements of significance,
rather than a representation of given events.
Marina Grishakova
Donald B. Johnson wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>I enjoyed Marina Grishakova´s rich commentary about the contrasts
>that are created by VN´s parallel plots and which may appear as
>"implicit/explicit" or as "siuzhet" and "fabula" oppositions. I valued her
>suggestion in particular ( if I understood her argument correctly ) that the
>establishment of such oppositions makes it harder to follow what, in VN, are
>preferently "changes of places" : that inside ( hidden) or outside (
>revealed ) plots are not to be taken as clear cut contrasts but, perhaps,
>behaving as objects placed on a Moebius strip.
>I´m not only refering to the merging of figure/background as in Topology,
>but thinking also of Bach´s point/counterpoint techniques and Escher´s
>drawings ( Cf. D.Hofstadter´s Pulitzer winning " Goedel,Escher,Bach: an
>eternal golden braid")
>
>Perhaps "the Viennese delegation" should remain quiet, but I wish to bring
>up Freud´s work on the "manifest and latent meaning of dreams" and his
>theory that any dreams´s umbelical point is not "analysable" & thus all
>dream interpretation tends to infinity.
>Jansy
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:42 PM
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Dolinin's article on "Signs & Symbols"
>
>
>
>
>>Dear Don and list,
>>
>>I've read A. Dolinin's article on "Signs and Symbols" on Zembla and have
>>a few remarks concerning this interesting reading of the story as
>>another version of the "otherworld message" (among similar messages,
>>abounding in Nabokov's fiction).
>>
>>A. Dolinin's reading is based on the Russian Formalists's distinction
>>between the "siuzhet" and "fabula", which means that the hidden, "main"
>>story (i.e. "fabula") is the "true" story, or, otherwise, "the sum total
>>of interconnected textual events (or motifs) in chronological and causal
>>order". First, the very relevance of the distinction has been put
>>under question many times by now. Could it be that Nabokov's story just
>>exemplifies the dichotomy? Second, Russian Formalists' views on siuzhet
>>and fabula are more complicated and less clear than Tomahsevsky's
>>pedagogical definition.
>>
>>I used V. Shklovsky's article "Roman tajn" (The Mystery Novel) in my
>>own text on Nabokov's visual poetics (Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, N
>>54, 2002, pp. ; the early version www.ruthenia.ru/document/404860.html
>><http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/404860.html>) to explain the relations
>>between the "implicit" and the "explicit" story (the stories which often
>>change places) in Nabokov's mature fiction. According to Shklovsky,
>>multiple divergencies and convergencies in parallel PLOT LINES produce
>>a "mystery" in the mystery novel (e.g. in Radcliffe or in Dickens). The
>>denouement reveals the whole network of these connections.
>>
>>There is a similar construction in many Nabokov's texts, yet the final
>>"explanation" or "fabula" is missing, whereas the classical mystery or
>>detective novel discloses at least some part of the "fabula". Actually a
>>text, which would reveal "the sum total of interconnected textual
>>events (or motifs) in chronological and causal order", does not exist in
>>the world literature.
>>
>>Of course, the "hidden story" has a special status thanks to its
>>implicit nature. Bitsilli and E. Naiman call it "allegory", G.
>>Barabtarlo calls it "an invisible over-plot", P. Tammi and L. Toker
>>speak of the author's control over the text (or, following in D. Cohn's
>>footsteps, the "struggle over narrative control"), I wrote about the
>>metanarrative status of the hidden plot line. Yet I don't think the
>>critics who "deny the existence of the main story of question its
>>relevance" are absolutely wrong: an uncertainty and oscillation between
>>several plot lines make a charm of Nabokov's fiction. By the way, the
>>very narrative form of the "circle" Nabokov mentions in his letter to K.
>>A. White points at the potential "infinity" of reading.
>>
>>What is wrong, I think, is an intention to produce a "monopolistic
>>interpretation". Thus, according to Dolinin, "the idea of seeing a
>>model for the reader's response in the boy's pan-semiotic approach to
>>reality [...] should be rejected from the very start" since "referential
>>mania" is limited to natural phenomena (clouds, trees, sun flecks,
>>pools, air, mountains) and random artifacts (glass surfaces, coats in
>>store windows) but "excludes real people from the conspiracy". This kind
>>of "pan-semiotic" interpretation has a long tradition. I don't see why
>>should it be rejected. I've touched upon a possibility of reading "Signs
>>and Symbols" in the light of the "Umwelt" theory in my article on the
>>observer (Sign Systems Studies 30.2). The "Umwelt" (as well as Leibniz'
>>/monad/) is a closed individual world inaccessible to other similar
>>worlds (i.e. beings): the surrounding world enters the Umwelt only in
>>the semiotic guise,i.e. the difference between "natural" and the
>>"unnatural" is erased.
>>In conclusion: I think reading is a "jouissance" and knowledge grows
>>through accumulation.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Marina Grishakova,
>>Tartu University
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Donald B. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>EDNOTE. "Signs & Symbols" has been the topic of more articles than any
>>>
>>>
>other VN
>
>
>>>story. Now Alexander Dolinin, one of Nabokov's most acute scholars,
>>>
>>>
>offers a
>
>
>>>new treatment. Highly recommended.
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>----- Forwarded message from chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu -----
>>> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:46:31 -0800
>>> From: "Donald B. Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>Quoting Jeff Edmunds <jhe2@psulias.psu.edu>:
>>>
>>>)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>------------------
>>>>From Jeff Edmunds <jhe2@psulias.psu.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>Dolinin, Alexander. "The Signs and Symbols in Nabokov's 'Signs and
>>>>
>>>>
>Symbols.'"
>
>
>>>>See the news page for the link.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
>>>>
>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>----- End forwarded message -----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
----- End forwarded message -----