Subject
Re: Response to Margarit Tadevosyan on Peck (fwd)
From
Date
Body
------------------ There is something called "a pecking order" even in the
animal kingdom... I suggest we try to discover how it could be put to work
for us, too. Feminist causes or anti-causes, whining prejudices or
politically correct reasoning should not deter us from expressing our
minds, but I suggest we strive to reach some kind of "non exclusively
white-male" classificatory systems of thought. Perhaps artistic merit
could function as our cannon? Wit, perhaps? Grace, certainly.
Jansy
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Response to Margarit Tadevosyan on Peck
> 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
>
>
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
animal kingdom... I suggest we try to discover how it could be put to work
for us, too. Feminist causes or anti-causes, whining prejudices or
politically correct reasoning should not deter us from expressing our
minds, but I suggest we strive to reach some kind of "non exclusively
white-male" classificatory systems of thought. Perhaps artistic merit
could function as our cannon? Wit, perhaps? Grace, certainly.
Jansy
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Response to Margarit Tadevosyan on Peck
> 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
>
>
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L