Subject
Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the ca
non . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd) (fwd)
non . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd) (fwd)
From
Date
Body
------------------
Oh my. It seems that every time I take a swipe at the venerable Peck, some
representative of the class that Whitaker Chambers once called "the good
people, the nice people," rushes in and tries to make some kind of case for
the persecuted fellow. Ms. Tadevosyan's "didactic" post compels me to
amplify a few of my points.
"What the hell," she says, "let's pelt Peck with stones...or at least have
him forever banished from the land of critical literature for not providing
with substantial evidence with quotes and references to quantifiably justify
his claim that VN's works...should not be taught in their entirety." For
those of you coming in late, please note that Ms. Tadevosyan is being IRONIC
here. She DOES NOT believe that Mr. Peck's refusal to actually make his case
should prevent any of us from taking his case seriously. I don't know about
you, but when someone tells me that, all visible evidence to the contrary,
the sky is green, I'd really appreciate that person providing just a little
backup. And I have to reiterate: with regard to Nabokov-with regard to
almost anyone-Peck does not make his case. In VN's case, he merely sneers at
the "sterile invantions of late Nabokov" and calls for the removal of half
his oeuvre from the canon. Authors that Peck does spend more time with
(because you see, unlike Ms. Tadevosyan, I have had the misfortune of
reading a great deal of Mr. Peck's "literary criticism") don't get off
nearly so easily. For instance, in the case of the contemporary novelist
David Foster Wallace, Peck speculates that said author's work could be
improved if he submitted to a vigorous bout of anal sex. No, he's not
kidding, and yeah, he puts this suggestion in somewhat more vivid terms than
certain members of this forum might appreciate. But this is the kind of
mindset that Ms. Tadevosyan insists we must take seriously for no other
reason than (....now scanning Ms. Tadevosyan's post to see if she comes up
with any actual reason...), well, I guess, than the fact that she's
enlisting him in support of the idea that it might be good for "some of the
giants" to "move aside and make room for others"? That's not scholarship,
it's not criticism-it's whining. Which Peck himself is an expert at-here's a
quote to quantifiably justify my claim, taken from Peck's review of Rick
Moody's (admittedly awful) The Black Veil:
"I can think of no more urgent reason to write books today than out of an
overwhelming sense of despair at the state of the world. It is also the most
urgent reason to write book reviews. When I wrote my last review for this
magazine, anthrax was traveling through the U.S. Postal Service and smart
bombs were decimating Afghanistan; now we are waiting to find out if
Pakistan and India are going to fight the first tactical nuclear war. Global
warming, overpopulation, the worldwide AIDS epidemic, the ever-increasing
distance between supposedly democratic governments and their electorates,
the decimation of culture after culture by the relentless spread of the
Disneyfied garbage of the American entertainment complex, and the incredibly
sad, horrible, hopelessness-inducing fact that people still cannot say what
they really mean to each other after seven or so millennia of human
civilization: life really sucks right now."
Poor baby. And so articulate, too.
Peck is not a "snarling nonentity" because he doesn't share "our" passion
for VN (although if I were to address Ms. Tadevosyan directly, I might be
compelled to say something along the lines of "What do you mean WE.."); Peck
is a "snarling nonentity" because he is.(Hey, I just said what I meant!!!!)
Oh, and incidentally, teaching Lolita in a sexuality course is an abominable
idea. The book is literature: nothing more, nothing less.
GK
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:57 PM -0400
> From: Margarit Tadevosyan <tadevosy@bc.edu>
> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>,
> NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
> canon . COMMENT
>
> ------------------ How wonderful to see that the Nabokov community has
> stood up shoulder to shoulder in a patriotic defense against partial
> decanonization of VN's works! What the hell, let's pelt Peck with stones,
> let's assume that he is not even literate enough to read books (unlike us,
> of course), let alone understand them, before writing his worthless
> reviews. Or at least have him forever banished from the land of critical
> literature for not providing substantial evidence with quotes and
> references to quantifiably justify his claim that VN's works (along with
> other, rather worthy writers, whose decanonization has interestingly not
> outraged any of us, lovers of literature) should not be taught in their
> entirety. Or could we perhaps (oh, what outrage!) simply take this
> opportunity to question the process of canonization and wonder for a
> second
> how and why writers become canonized? How many wonderful books have fallen
> off the academic pages because of their inconvenient length or some unfor!
> tunate circumstance! How many books would have never become so popular
> had it not been for some sort of scandalous attention they received (think
> Madame Bovary, think Ulysses, and perhaps even Lolita!). Had it not been
> for the fatwa, would ANY non-specialized literature course ever teach
> Salman Rushdie? Why is it that we celebrate Joyce as one of the largest
> figures of high modernism but tend to ignore, for the most part, Gertrude
> Stein? Why does a class on sexuality necessarilty include Lolita (not
> that
> I wouldn't pick it if I were teaching a class with that title) but never
> Djuna Bharnes? Why are we so quick and so vicious in our judgment of Peck?
> Simply because he wants to open up space for other, less noticed and who
> knows, perhaps less worthy writers? On the other hand, how will we ever
> know if they are worthy or not if they never get any space or attention?
> Why are we so eager to call Peck a "snarling nonenntity" simply because he
> doesn't want to share our pass! ion for VN's works?
>
> I would hate to give off the wrong impression here or undermine my own
> interest in VN's works. We read, study, and teach literature not ONLY
> based on our VERY subjective personal preferences. After all, we are a
> community of people who study the humanities, where open opinions and
> critical suggestions matter so much more than quantitative or even
> qualitative analysis! If we have agreed to vote off writers who are not
> firmly on our list of most favorites and the people who do not share our
> opinions, if instead of thinking about literature as a body, as a history,
> as a system of some sort we indulge in idolatry of individual authors that
> allows no space for "dissidents", have we created an intellectual tyranny
> that I think VN condemned in his writing?
>
> I am half reluctant to post this message because of its didactic (very
> foreign to me) tone, but I want to share my opinion with others for a
> reason. Last semester I was teaching a course on the self-conscious
> novel,
> and after making a preliminary list of assigned texts, I realized that it
> was an exclusively white male modernist novel course (Joyce, Beckett,
> Faulkner, Nabokov, Bulgakov, etc.). Now perhaps because I am the child of
> the politically correct era, I wondered if modernism was really limited to
> this.... Of course, the truth is that it's not. Now do we REALLY want to
> cover Peck in mud for suggesting that some of the giants should move aside
> and make room for others?
>
> Thank you
> Margarit
> | On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:10:37 -0700
> | "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> | ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> | Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:26 AM -0400
> | From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
> | To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> | Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
> the
> ca | non (fwd)
> |
> | ------------------
> | > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
> | > nonentity?
> |
> | Because for some Peck is mandatory part of diversity of Nabokov's
> studies. | Until that kind of diversity is agreed to be wrong for this
> list Becks will | be showing up.
> | Or our Editir can qualify such unworthy material: Read Only, i.e. read
> but | do not comment.
> | Or you can press Del as I always do.
> |
> | George Shimanovich
> |
> | > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> | > Date: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:31 PM -0400
> | > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> | > To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum' <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> | > Subject: RE: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
> the ca | > non
> | >
> | > ------------------ Before getting too deep into which half of
> Nabokov's | > oeuvre Dale Peck would like to see removed from the canon,
> we should | > reflect that perhaps even he couldn't really tell us. His
> lack of | citation,
> | > which has been discussed here before, camoflauges what could be a
> | multitude
> | > of sins. Oh, to hell with it, I'll just come out and say it: I truly
> doubt | > that Peck has read, let alone digested, the entireity of VN's
> literary | > output. I rather doubt he's read everything VN wrote in
> English. Until | > persuaded otherwise, in fact, I should insist that
> Mr.
> Peck has read very | > little VN and even less worthwhile commentary on
> VN.
> | >
> | > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
> | > nonentity?
> | >
> | > GK
> | >
> | > > ----------
> | > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum on behalf of D. Barton
> Johnson
> | > > Reply To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> | > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:17 PM
> | > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> | > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and
> Nabokov
> from | > > the canon
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > ----- Original Message -----
> | > > From: Debby Coley
> | > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> | > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:40 PM
> | > > Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
> from
> the | > > canon
> | > >
> | > > I am a graduate student majoring in English, and in the upcoming
> fall | > > semester, I am taking one class titled, Sexuality and
> Literature, in | which
> | > > we will read Lolita. I am also taking a class focusing on works
> by
> | Joyce,
> | > > Woolf, and Thomas.
> | > > deborah coley
> | > >
> | > > "D. Barton Johnson" < chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > ----- Original Message -----
> | > > From: Rodney Welch
> | > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> | > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:11 AM
> | > > Subject: Re: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
> from | the
> | > > canon
> | > >
> | > > Message requiring your approval (94 lines)
> ------------------
> | > > I guess the question is: what is "canonical" where Nabokov
> is
> | > > concerned, and which half is Peck referring to? The general
> consensus | > > among those of us here, I'm guessing, would be that
> Nabokov's | masterpieces
> | > > are The Defense, Invitation to a Beheading, The Gift, Speak,
> Memory,
> | Pnin,
> | > > Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, and maybe a select group of the stories.
> Harold | > > Bloom selected only Lolita and Pale Fire for his Western
> Canon; Nabokov | > > himself said (if I recall correctly) that he'd only
> be remembered for | > > Lolita and his translation of Eugene Onegin.
> Where does Nabokov | generally
> | > > stand in academia nowadays -- has he been crowded out by all the
> | > > Fulmerfords?
> | > >
> | > > Rodney Welch
> | > > Columbia, SC
> | > > -----------------------------------------------------
> | > > EDNOTE. I suppose it depends on which academiac you ask. In
> my | > > highly prejudiced take he is up there with Joyce.
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > _____
> | > >
> | > > Do you Yahoo!?
> | > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> | > >
> | >
> | > ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > D. Barton Johnson
> | > NABOKV-L
> |
> |
> | ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
> |
> |
> |
> | D. Barton Johnson
> | NABOKV-L
>
> Margarit Tadevosyan
> English Department
> Boston College
> Carney Hall 237
> (617) 552-2725
>
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> NABOKV-L
>
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> NABOKV-L
>
>
Oh my. It seems that every time I take a swipe at the venerable Peck, some
representative of the class that Whitaker Chambers once called "the good
people, the nice people," rushes in and tries to make some kind of case for
the persecuted fellow. Ms. Tadevosyan's "didactic" post compels me to
amplify a few of my points.
"What the hell," she says, "let's pelt Peck with stones...or at least have
him forever banished from the land of critical literature for not providing
with substantial evidence with quotes and references to quantifiably justify
his claim that VN's works...should not be taught in their entirety." For
those of you coming in late, please note that Ms. Tadevosyan is being IRONIC
here. She DOES NOT believe that Mr. Peck's refusal to actually make his case
should prevent any of us from taking his case seriously. I don't know about
you, but when someone tells me that, all visible evidence to the contrary,
the sky is green, I'd really appreciate that person providing just a little
backup. And I have to reiterate: with regard to Nabokov-with regard to
almost anyone-Peck does not make his case. In VN's case, he merely sneers at
the "sterile invantions of late Nabokov" and calls for the removal of half
his oeuvre from the canon. Authors that Peck does spend more time with
(because you see, unlike Ms. Tadevosyan, I have had the misfortune of
reading a great deal of Mr. Peck's "literary criticism") don't get off
nearly so easily. For instance, in the case of the contemporary novelist
David Foster Wallace, Peck speculates that said author's work could be
improved if he submitted to a vigorous bout of anal sex. No, he's not
kidding, and yeah, he puts this suggestion in somewhat more vivid terms than
certain members of this forum might appreciate. But this is the kind of
mindset that Ms. Tadevosyan insists we must take seriously for no other
reason than (....now scanning Ms. Tadevosyan's post to see if she comes up
with any actual reason...), well, I guess, than the fact that she's
enlisting him in support of the idea that it might be good for "some of the
giants" to "move aside and make room for others"? That's not scholarship,
it's not criticism-it's whining. Which Peck himself is an expert at-here's a
quote to quantifiably justify my claim, taken from Peck's review of Rick
Moody's (admittedly awful) The Black Veil:
"I can think of no more urgent reason to write books today than out of an
overwhelming sense of despair at the state of the world. It is also the most
urgent reason to write book reviews. When I wrote my last review for this
magazine, anthrax was traveling through the U.S. Postal Service and smart
bombs were decimating Afghanistan; now we are waiting to find out if
Pakistan and India are going to fight the first tactical nuclear war. Global
warming, overpopulation, the worldwide AIDS epidemic, the ever-increasing
distance between supposedly democratic governments and their electorates,
the decimation of culture after culture by the relentless spread of the
Disneyfied garbage of the American entertainment complex, and the incredibly
sad, horrible, hopelessness-inducing fact that people still cannot say what
they really mean to each other after seven or so millennia of human
civilization: life really sucks right now."
Poor baby. And so articulate, too.
Peck is not a "snarling nonentity" because he doesn't share "our" passion
for VN (although if I were to address Ms. Tadevosyan directly, I might be
compelled to say something along the lines of "What do you mean WE.."); Peck
is a "snarling nonentity" because he is.(Hey, I just said what I meant!!!!)
Oh, and incidentally, teaching Lolita in a sexuality course is an abominable
idea. The book is literature: nothing more, nothing less.
GK
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:57 PM -0400
> From: Margarit Tadevosyan <tadevosy@bc.edu>
> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>,
> NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
> canon . COMMENT
>
> ------------------ How wonderful to see that the Nabokov community has
> stood up shoulder to shoulder in a patriotic defense against partial
> decanonization of VN's works! What the hell, let's pelt Peck with stones,
> let's assume that he is not even literate enough to read books (unlike us,
> of course), let alone understand them, before writing his worthless
> reviews. Or at least have him forever banished from the land of critical
> literature for not providing substantial evidence with quotes and
> references to quantifiably justify his claim that VN's works (along with
> other, rather worthy writers, whose decanonization has interestingly not
> outraged any of us, lovers of literature) should not be taught in their
> entirety. Or could we perhaps (oh, what outrage!) simply take this
> opportunity to question the process of canonization and wonder for a
> second
> how and why writers become canonized? How many wonderful books have fallen
> off the academic pages because of their inconvenient length or some unfor!
> tunate circumstance! How many books would have never become so popular
> had it not been for some sort of scandalous attention they received (think
> Madame Bovary, think Ulysses, and perhaps even Lolita!). Had it not been
> for the fatwa, would ANY non-specialized literature course ever teach
> Salman Rushdie? Why is it that we celebrate Joyce as one of the largest
> figures of high modernism but tend to ignore, for the most part, Gertrude
> Stein? Why does a class on sexuality necessarilty include Lolita (not
> that
> I wouldn't pick it if I were teaching a class with that title) but never
> Djuna Bharnes? Why are we so quick and so vicious in our judgment of Peck?
> Simply because he wants to open up space for other, less noticed and who
> knows, perhaps less worthy writers? On the other hand, how will we ever
> know if they are worthy or not if they never get any space or attention?
> Why are we so eager to call Peck a "snarling nonenntity" simply because he
> doesn't want to share our pass! ion for VN's works?
>
> I would hate to give off the wrong impression here or undermine my own
> interest in VN's works. We read, study, and teach literature not ONLY
> based on our VERY subjective personal preferences. After all, we are a
> community of people who study the humanities, where open opinions and
> critical suggestions matter so much more than quantitative or even
> qualitative analysis! If we have agreed to vote off writers who are not
> firmly on our list of most favorites and the people who do not share our
> opinions, if instead of thinking about literature as a body, as a history,
> as a system of some sort we indulge in idolatry of individual authors that
> allows no space for "dissidents", have we created an intellectual tyranny
> that I think VN condemned in his writing?
>
> I am half reluctant to post this message because of its didactic (very
> foreign to me) tone, but I want to share my opinion with others for a
> reason. Last semester I was teaching a course on the self-conscious
> novel,
> and after making a preliminary list of assigned texts, I realized that it
> was an exclusively white male modernist novel course (Joyce, Beckett,
> Faulkner, Nabokov, Bulgakov, etc.). Now perhaps because I am the child of
> the politically correct era, I wondered if modernism was really limited to
> this.... Of course, the truth is that it's not. Now do we REALLY want to
> cover Peck in mud for suggesting that some of the giants should move aside
> and make room for others?
>
> Thank you
> Margarit
> | On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:10:37 -0700
> | "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> | ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> | Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:26 AM -0400
> | From: George Shimanovich <gshiman@optonline.net>
> | To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> | Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
> the
> ca | non (fwd)
> |
> | ------------------
> | > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
> | > nonentity?
> |
> | Because for some Peck is mandatory part of diversity of Nabokov's
> studies. | Until that kind of diversity is agreed to be wrong for this
> list Becks will | be showing up.
> | Or our Editir can qualify such unworthy material: Read Only, i.e. read
> but | do not comment.
> | Or you can press Del as I always do.
> |
> | George Shimanovich
> |
> | > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> | > Date: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:31 PM -0400
> | > From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
> | > To: 'Vladimir Nabokov Forum' <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> | > Subject: RE: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from
> the ca | > non
> | >
> | > ------------------ Before getting too deep into which half of
> Nabokov's | > oeuvre Dale Peck would like to see removed from the canon,
> we should | > reflect that perhaps even he couldn't really tell us. His
> lack of | citation,
> | > which has been discussed here before, camoflauges what could be a
> | multitude
> | > of sins. Oh, to hell with it, I'll just come out and say it: I truly
> doubt | > that Peck has read, let alone digested, the entireity of VN's
> literary | > output. I rather doubt he's read everything VN wrote in
> English. Until | > persuaded otherwise, in fact, I should insist that
> Mr.
> Peck has read very | > little VN and even less worthwhile commentary on
> VN.
> | >
> | > Explain to me again why we're still spending time on this snarling
> | > nonentity?
> | >
> | > GK
> | >
> | > > ----------
> | > > From: Vladimir Nabokov Forum on behalf of D. Barton
> Johnson
> | > > Reply To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> | > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:17 PM
> | > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> | > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and
> Nabokov
> from | > > the canon
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > ----- Original Message -----
> | > > From: Debby Coley
> | > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> | > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:40 PM
> | > > Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
> from
> the | > > canon
> | > >
> | > > I am a graduate student majoring in English, and in the upcoming
> fall | > > semester, I am taking one class titled, Sexuality and
> Literature, in | which
> | > > we will read Lolita. I am also taking a class focusing on works
> by
> | Joyce,
> | > > Woolf, and Thomas.
> | > > deborah coley
> | > >
> | > > "D. Barton Johnson" < chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > ----- Original Message -----
> | > > From: Rodney Welch
> | > > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
> | > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:11 AM
> | > > Subject: Re: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov
> from | the
> | > > canon
> | > >
> | > > Message requiring your approval (94 lines)
> ------------------
> | > > I guess the question is: what is "canonical" where Nabokov
> is
> | > > concerned, and which half is Peck referring to? The general
> consensus | > > among those of us here, I'm guessing, would be that
> Nabokov's | masterpieces
> | > > are The Defense, Invitation to a Beheading, The Gift, Speak,
> Memory,
> | Pnin,
> | > > Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, and maybe a select group of the stories.
> Harold | > > Bloom selected only Lolita and Pale Fire for his Western
> Canon; Nabokov | > > himself said (if I recall correctly) that he'd only
> be remembered for | > > Lolita and his translation of Eugene Onegin.
> Where does Nabokov | generally
> | > > stand in academia nowadays -- has he been crowded out by all the
> | > > Fulmerfords?
> | > >
> | > > Rodney Welch
> | > > Columbia, SC
> | > > -----------------------------------------------------
> | > > EDNOTE. I suppose it depends on which academiac you ask. In
> my | > > highly prejudiced take he is up there with Joyce.
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > > _____
> | > >
> | > > Do you Yahoo!?
> | > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> | > >
> | >
> | > ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > D. Barton Johnson
> | > NABOKV-L
> |
> |
> | ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
> |
> |
> |
> | D. Barton Johnson
> | NABOKV-L
>
> Margarit Tadevosyan
> English Department
> Boston College
> Carney Hall 237
> (617) 552-2725
>
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> NABOKV-L
>
> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>
>
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> NABOKV-L
>
>