Subject
Fw: ARE they sterile? Let's be honest...
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (112
lines) ------------------
> As per Rodney Welch's query, it's interesting. Here's the rub-what he
calls
> the "scattershot" attack of Peck. That's exactly the word. He never cites
a
> passage, never dissects a sentence. He thinks that just by saying
> "sterile"-that is, just by HE, Dale Peck, saying "sterile"-he validates
his
> point. Why is Welch trying to do his work for him? Why is he asking us to?
>
> GK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: 6/9/04 7:03 PM
> Subject: Fw: ARE they sterile? Let's be honest...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (58
> lines) ------------------
>
> > Maybe this is as good a time as any to ask the group whether Dale
> Peck's
> cranky, scattershot attack doesn't score a few points. No one who has
> read
> Faulkner can deny there are incomprehensible rambles (although why he
> restricted this comment to his late career is a mystery) and I
> personally
> think DeLillo highly overrated -- although I'll keep Gravity's Rainbow,
> Mason & Dixon, and the divine Ulysses, thank you very much. But while
> I'm
> not sure exactly what Peck means by "late," I think you have to be a
> highly
> committed or possibly career Nabokovian to enjoy "Transparent Things"
> and
> (especially) "Look at the Harlequins," which cannot be said of their
> predecessors (although some might include "Ada" in this group). I think
> of
> them as the least of his books; some readers consign the bottom rungs to
> "Bend Sinister" or "Laughter in the Dark," but both of those have a
> compelling narrative drive that his last two novels simply do not.
> >
> > Rodney Welch
> > Columbia, SC
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > Sent: Jun 8, 2004 11:20 AM
> > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> > .>
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (37
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Hard to believe The Atlantic is printing such bilge?the revenge of
> the
> > > stupid really has infected almost every branch of literary
> discourse.
> > >
> > > GK
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Sent: 6/7/04 11:40 PM
> > > Subject: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> > >
> > > <http://www.theatlantic.com/images/logotop.gif>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hatchet Jobs,
> > >
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1565848748/theatlanticmonthA/ref
> > > =nosim/> by Dale Peck (New Press). In these essays Peck rightly
> > > eviscerates contemporary "bombastic and befuddled" literary
> novelists
> > > who have defined and adhere to "a tradition that has grown
> increasingly
> > > esoteric and exclusionary, falsely intellectual and alienating to
> the
> > > mass of readers." He excoriates the McSweeney's crowd and "the
> > > ridiculous dithering of John Barth ... [and] the reductive cardboard
> > > constructions of Donald Barthelme," and would excise from the modern
> > > canon "nearly all of Gaddis, Pynchon, DeLillo," and?while he's at
> > > it?"the diarrheic flow of words that is Ulysses ... the
> incomprehensible
> > > ramblings of late Faulkner and the sterile inventions of late
> Nabokov."
> > > He correctly maintains that in writing "for one another rather than
> some
> > > more or less common reader," th! ese writers have created a
> situation in
> > > which "the members of the educated bourgeoisie ... are sick and
> tired of
> > > feeling like they've somehow failed the modern novel." In his
> meticulous
> > > attention to diction, his savage wit, his exact and rollicking
> prose,
> > > his fierce devotion to stylistic and intellectual precision, and?of
> > > course?his disdain for pseudo-intellectual flatulence, Peck is
> Mencken's
> > > heir (although he's got to curb his lazy use of expletives). He
> writes
> > > that this collection marks the end of his hatchet jobs. For the sake
> of
> > > the republic of letters, he'd better change his mind.
> > > <<logotop.gif>>
> >
> >
> >
From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (112
lines) ------------------
> As per Rodney Welch's query, it's interesting. Here's the rub-what he
calls
> the "scattershot" attack of Peck. That's exactly the word. He never cites
a
> passage, never dissects a sentence. He thinks that just by saying
> "sterile"-that is, just by HE, Dale Peck, saying "sterile"-he validates
his
> point. Why is Welch trying to do his work for him? Why is he asking us to?
>
> GK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: 6/9/04 7:03 PM
> Subject: Fw: ARE they sterile? Let's be honest...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (58
> lines) ------------------
>
> > Maybe this is as good a time as any to ask the group whether Dale
> Peck's
> cranky, scattershot attack doesn't score a few points. No one who has
> read
> Faulkner can deny there are incomprehensible rambles (although why he
> restricted this comment to his late career is a mystery) and I
> personally
> think DeLillo highly overrated -- although I'll keep Gravity's Rainbow,
> Mason & Dixon, and the divine Ulysses, thank you very much. But while
> I'm
> not sure exactly what Peck means by "late," I think you have to be a
> highly
> committed or possibly career Nabokovian to enjoy "Transparent Things"
> and
> (especially) "Look at the Harlequins," which cannot be said of their
> predecessors (although some might include "Ada" in this group). I think
> of
> them as the least of his books; some readers consign the bottom rungs to
> "Bend Sinister" or "Laughter in the Dark," but both of those have a
> compelling narrative drive that his last two novels simply do not.
> >
> > Rodney Welch
> > Columbia, SC
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > Sent: Jun 8, 2004 11:20 AM
> > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> > .>
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (37
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Hard to believe The Atlantic is printing such bilge?the revenge of
> the
> > > stupid really has infected almost every branch of literary
> discourse.
> > >
> > > GK
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Sent: 6/7/04 11:40 PM
> > > Subject: the sterile inventions of late Nabokov
> > >
> > > <http://www.theatlantic.com/images/logotop.gif>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hatchet Jobs,
> > >
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1565848748/theatlanticmonthA/ref
> > > =nosim/> by Dale Peck (New Press). In these essays Peck rightly
> > > eviscerates contemporary "bombastic and befuddled" literary
> novelists
> > > who have defined and adhere to "a tradition that has grown
> increasingly
> > > esoteric and exclusionary, falsely intellectual and alienating to
> the
> > > mass of readers." He excoriates the McSweeney's crowd and "the
> > > ridiculous dithering of John Barth ... [and] the reductive cardboard
> > > constructions of Donald Barthelme," and would excise from the modern
> > > canon "nearly all of Gaddis, Pynchon, DeLillo," and?while he's at
> > > it?"the diarrheic flow of words that is Ulysses ... the
> incomprehensible
> > > ramblings of late Faulkner and the sterile inventions of late
> Nabokov."
> > > He correctly maintains that in writing "for one another rather than
> some
> > > more or less common reader," th! ese writers have created a
> situation in
> > > which "the members of the educated bourgeoisie ... are sick and
> tired of
> > > feeling like they've somehow failed the modern novel." In his
> meticulous
> > > attention to diction, his savage wit, his exact and rollicking
> prose,
> > > his fierce devotion to stylistic and intellectual precision, and?of
> > > course?his disdain for pseudo-intellectual flatulence, Peck is
> Mencken's
> > > heir (although he's got to curb his lazy use of expletives). He
> writes
> > > that this collection marks the end of his hatchet jobs. For the sake
> of
> > > the republic of letters, he'd better change his mind.
> > > <<logotop.gif>>
> >
> >
> >