Subject
Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the ca
non . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd) (fwd) (fwd)
non . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd) (fwd) (fwd)
From
Date
Body
------------------
This is all rather interesting. Peck always starts a fight (his intention
I'm sure).But I'd just like to comment on one thing said by Margarit
Tadevosyan. The white male thing.I think it's safe to say that you picked
your authors based on their talents rather than their race or gender? If
this is so, what does race or gender have to do with it? These so called
"giants" are what they are because of their work not because they're white
men. As much as I enjoyed the rest of your posting, I was totally turned
off with that PC BS.
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
> ca non . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd) (fwd)
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:29:02 -0700
>
> ------------------
> 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
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht
tp://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L
This is all rather interesting. Peck always starts a fight (his intention
I'm sure).But I'd just like to comment on one thing said by Margarit
Tadevosyan. The white male thing.I think it's safe to say that you picked
your authors based on their talents rather than their race or gender? If
this is so, what does race or gender have to do with it? These so called
"giants" are what they are because of their work not because they're white
men. As much as I enjoyed the rest of your posting, I was totally turned
off with that PC BS.
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@gss.ucsb.edu>
> Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Re: Fw: Dale Peck---drop half of Faulkner and Nabokov from the
> ca non . COMMENT (fwd) (fwd) (fwd)
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:29:02 -0700
>
> ------------------
> 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
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht
tp://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
D. Barton Johnson
NABOKV-L