Subject
Fw: The Sterile later Inventions? Transparent Things & LATH
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "ken tapscott" <kentapscott@hotmail.com>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (28
lines) ------------------
> I reread a copy of _Transparent Things_ last year, for the first time
since
> about 1978; at the ripe old age of 47 I found it to be clever in
> construction, yes, but essentially pointless, an unnecessarily elaborate
> "joke" about a man who is endlessly described as boring, uninteresting,
and
> talentless. The other characters are equally unpleasant or outright
> repellent. Why did someone of Nabokov's talent waste his time on
characters
> which he was at great pains to indicate were uninteresting as human
beings?
> At least the monstrous Humbert, and N.'s other crazed figures, are
> _interesting_ and intelligent enough to seem compelling. I just don't
think
> _TT_ holds up after all this time.
>
> But regarding _Look at the Harlequins!_, which some have indicated is a
> minor Nabokov work, I can't agree. I've read that book about 5 times very
> closely, and there is just something about it which is haunting to me, in
> fact it seems to me to be the most mysterious of all of N's novels, or at
> least the one with the most mystery which I can't resolve. The
relationship
> between VV, the narrator-novelist, and Nabokov himself is as yet
> unexplicated. I am _convinced_ that, just as VV's novels appear to be pale
> imitations of Nabokov's works, that VV's own life is derived essentially
> from parodies of passages of Nabokov's own novels. There is something
about
> LATH that has that feeling of being right on the tip of my tongue, but I
> just can't figure it out. And the book is so crazy in tone and
> circumstances, that I can't help being fascinated by it.
>
------------------------------------------------
EDNOTE. Thanks to Ken Tapscott for his thoughtful remarks. I share his
fascination for LATH (about which I published two (mildly) contradictory
analyses). It is helpful to to keep in mind that it was, in part, VN's
response to Andrew Field's VN biography. See the Boyd article in BIBLion
(NYPL). TT is, I think, a very good tale and I offered a close reading of it
(and LATH) in Alexandrov's GARLAND Guide to VN. Perhaps this summer NABOKV-L
might try a "group-read" of one of these. Reactions?
From: "ken tapscott" <kentapscott@hotmail.com>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (28
lines) ------------------
> I reread a copy of _Transparent Things_ last year, for the first time
since
> about 1978; at the ripe old age of 47 I found it to be clever in
> construction, yes, but essentially pointless, an unnecessarily elaborate
> "joke" about a man who is endlessly described as boring, uninteresting,
and
> talentless. The other characters are equally unpleasant or outright
> repellent. Why did someone of Nabokov's talent waste his time on
characters
> which he was at great pains to indicate were uninteresting as human
beings?
> At least the monstrous Humbert, and N.'s other crazed figures, are
> _interesting_ and intelligent enough to seem compelling. I just don't
think
> _TT_ holds up after all this time.
>
> But regarding _Look at the Harlequins!_, which some have indicated is a
> minor Nabokov work, I can't agree. I've read that book about 5 times very
> closely, and there is just something about it which is haunting to me, in
> fact it seems to me to be the most mysterious of all of N's novels, or at
> least the one with the most mystery which I can't resolve. The
relationship
> between VV, the narrator-novelist, and Nabokov himself is as yet
> unexplicated. I am _convinced_ that, just as VV's novels appear to be pale
> imitations of Nabokov's works, that VV's own life is derived essentially
> from parodies of passages of Nabokov's own novels. There is something
about
> LATH that has that feeling of being right on the tip of my tongue, but I
> just can't figure it out. And the book is so crazy in tone and
> circumstances, that I can't help being fascinated by it.
>
------------------------------------------------
EDNOTE. Thanks to Ken Tapscott for his thoughtful remarks. I share his
fascination for LATH (about which I published two (mildly) contradictory
analyses). It is helpful to to keep in mind that it was, in part, VN's
response to Andrew Field's VN biography. See the Boyd article in BIBLion
(NYPL). TT is, I think, a very good tale and I offered a close reading of it
(and LATH) in Alexandrov's GARLAND Guide to VN. Perhaps this summer NABOKV-L
might try a "group-read" of one of these. Reactions?