Subject
Response to Margarit Tadevosyan on Peck
From
Date
Body
Why so many objective, even handed children of politically correct era
happen to be teachers of modern literature? And why they express themselves
in such a vague language? Is it because the era comes to the end?
One needs to be engaging, interesting to varant response from people whom
you, Margaret, snobishly call patriotic defenders of cannon.
And thanks G-d, for those 'exclusively white males'. Damn it, you nailed it,
Margaret.
George Shimanovich
> ---------- 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
NABOKV-L
happen to be teachers of modern literature? And why they express themselves
in such a vague language? Is it because the era comes to the end?
One needs to be engaging, interesting to varant response from people whom
you, Margaret, snobishly call patriotic defenders of cannon.
And thanks G-d, for those 'exclusively white males'. Damn it, you nailed it,
Margaret.
George Shimanovich
> ---------- 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
NABOKV-L