Subject
Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel?
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (56
lines) ------------------
> It may sound like ducking the question, but I agree "worst" does sound
harsh
> -- if only because several Nabokov novels, in my experience, work better
the
> second or third time than the first.
>
> Interestingly, when I've heard certain of Nabokov's novels downgraded, it
> tends to be the ones that maybe work a little too well on the first
reading,
> that perhaps lack the intricacy we have come to expect. I remember Brian
> Boyd ranked "Laughter in the Dark" as among the least -- he found it a
> little too Hollywooden -- and if memory serves he, and other readers I
know,
> have a rather slighting opinion of "Bend Sinister."
>
> Nabokov himself, in a roundabout way, seemed just slightly condescending
> toward "King, Queen, Knave" in his introduction to that book. "Of all my
> novels this bright brute is the gayest," he wrote. (The quickest scan of
the
> introduction also reminds me that he rewrote parts of it, forty years
later
> -- Joyce Carol Oates was in the news last week for doing the same with her
> earlier novel "Earthly Pleasures," and for the same reasons: the older,
> wiser writer saw more possibilities than the younger self.)
>
> Personally, I like all of the above, if only because they all have a
strong
> narrative pull. The same goes for the stories -- amidst the more complex
> creations are a number that work on a more basic level, that read rather
> easily. "Cloud, Castle, Lake" or "The Aurelian" or "A Dashing Fellow" are
> not as tricky (I found them tricky, anyway) as "The Vane Sisters" or
"Lance"
> or "Ultima Thule."
>
> I've only read "Glory" once and yes, the ending rather eluded me; but I
> didn't think there was something about "Mary," either, the first time I
read
> it; I thought it was slight and precious. But, some years ago, Jeff
Edmunds
> and I went through it a few times and had a wonderful time, not only for
the
> story itself but all the little touches that were reflected in later
books.
> And it wasn't until I read "Despair" a second time that I saw it as a
comic
> masterpiece; I have a most unexpected source -- the actress Elizabeth
> Hurley, in an interview -- to thank for arriving at that insight.
>
> Rodney Welch
> Columbia, SC
>
>
>
> > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:30:38 -0700
> > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > Subject: Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (9
> > lines) -------------------
> >> Nabokov's worst novel is constantly written by his single line critics
to
> > no
> >> avail.
> >>
> >> George Shimanovich
>
From: "Rodney Welch" <rodney41@mindspring.com>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (56
lines) ------------------
> It may sound like ducking the question, but I agree "worst" does sound
harsh
> -- if only because several Nabokov novels, in my experience, work better
the
> second or third time than the first.
>
> Interestingly, when I've heard certain of Nabokov's novels downgraded, it
> tends to be the ones that maybe work a little too well on the first
reading,
> that perhaps lack the intricacy we have come to expect. I remember Brian
> Boyd ranked "Laughter in the Dark" as among the least -- he found it a
> little too Hollywooden -- and if memory serves he, and other readers I
know,
> have a rather slighting opinion of "Bend Sinister."
>
> Nabokov himself, in a roundabout way, seemed just slightly condescending
> toward "King, Queen, Knave" in his introduction to that book. "Of all my
> novels this bright brute is the gayest," he wrote. (The quickest scan of
the
> introduction also reminds me that he rewrote parts of it, forty years
later
> -- Joyce Carol Oates was in the news last week for doing the same with her
> earlier novel "Earthly Pleasures," and for the same reasons: the older,
> wiser writer saw more possibilities than the younger self.)
>
> Personally, I like all of the above, if only because they all have a
strong
> narrative pull. The same goes for the stories -- amidst the more complex
> creations are a number that work on a more basic level, that read rather
> easily. "Cloud, Castle, Lake" or "The Aurelian" or "A Dashing Fellow" are
> not as tricky (I found them tricky, anyway) as "The Vane Sisters" or
"Lance"
> or "Ultima Thule."
>
> I've only read "Glory" once and yes, the ending rather eluded me; but I
> didn't think there was something about "Mary," either, the first time I
read
> it; I thought it was slight and precious. But, some years ago, Jeff
Edmunds
> and I went through it a few times and had a wonderful time, not only for
the
> story itself but all the little touches that were reflected in later
books.
> And it wasn't until I read "Despair" a second time that I saw it as a
comic
> masterpiece; I have a most unexpected source -- the actress Elizabeth
> Hurley, in an interview -- to thank for arriving at that insight.
>
> Rodney Welch
> Columbia, SC
>
>
>
> > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:30:38 -0700
> > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > Subject: Fw: Nabokov's Worst Novel?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (9
> > lines) -------------------
> >> Nabokov's worst novel is constantly written by his single line critics
to
> > no
> >> avail.
> >>
> >> George Shimanovich
>