Subject
Fw: Fw: The Gift ch4
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. NABOKV-L once again thanks Sergey Karpukhin (in far-off Irkutsk) for
a well-infomed and thoughtful contribution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergey Karpukhin" <shrewd@irk.ru>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (280
lines) ------------------
> A few comments on Mr Miale's questions. His remarks are perspicacious,
> his criticism is acute, and so have to be dealt with, to use George W.
> Bush's favourite phrase.
>
> As I take it, Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour has something to do with
> aristocratic hauteur which has become an essential part of his
personality.
> First, he sends his wife home without even so much as interrupting a
> conversation with two Cossacks. This, I think, is only to show how
childish,
> reckless (in a feminine way), and needlessly sentimental her trip was.
Then,
> the most important part, he overtakes her on her way home as she's on the
> point of bursting into tears, and they "part in an altogether different
> manner", so that she goes home cheerful and bright as before. This shows
> that Fyodor's father understood what really brought her here and
appreciated
> it. And she understood his "cold" words when he saw her pop out of a
> tarantass: Elizaveta Pavlovna herself says that there was something
> "indecent" in her escapade.
> I believe that Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour seems tyrannical only
when
> compared to Luzhin Senior's amorphous paternal feelings. I always
construed
> Fyodor's father "severities" as a sign of integrity, because they were
> invariably offset
> by his (almost heroic) dedication to his work. Konstantin Cherdyntsev
always
> seemed to me physically incapable of being mean and cruel, and that's what
> his wife and children loved him for. Maybe this is Russianness, or some
> other kind of subjective angle of vision, but Professor Preobrazhensky
from
> Bulgakov's "Heart of Dog" now comes to my mind as I'm trying to find a
> comparable personage in literature.
>
> As for Chernyshevsky, my understanding of the problem is that VN focused
on
> *Russian* history and literature. Chernyshevsky wasn't a Swede, he was
> Russian and his ideas were influential in Russia, not Sweden. And their
> influence in Russia was not altogether wholesome. As you probably know, VN
> wasn't writing a biography in earnest, he consciously used facts he needed
> to construct a work of art, not criticism. Fyodor was limbering up, but
> poetically and stylistically, not critically or academically. He didn't
> falsify facts, but he used them selectively in accordance with his
aesthetic
> purposes. I personally would agree with you that Chernyshevsky's role in
the
> development of Russian culture deserves more respect than Fyodor would
care
> to show. But it was Fyodor's choice to treat him the way he wanted to. And
> we should not deny him his choice, understanding that his purposes were
> primarily aesthetic.
> Besides, VN knew how to hate, as well as who to hate. (My dolzhny umet'
> nenavidet' [we must know how to hate] - I'm quoting from memory - was said
> in connection with the Russian revolution and the Soviets.) He hated the
> Soviets, and as the ulterior motive in Chapter 4 he tried to trace back
the
> roots of the Soviet zaraza [plague]. So even if in Sweden the similar
ideas
> produced enlightened capitalism, in Russia they made possible the Russian
> revolution.
>
> Incidentally, Andrey Bitov's clever novel "Pushkin House" began with
> Chernyshevsky (a citation from "Chto delat'" is an epigraph to the
Prologue
> of the novel), but shortly before completion Bitov was struck by "Dar"
[The
> Gift] and couldn't write for 6 months. As a result the book was finished
> under the strong influence of VN.
>
> Respectfully,
> Sergey Karpukhin
> www.the-nr.irk.ru
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
> ********************************************
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:47 AM
> Subject: Fw: The Gift ch4
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Walter Miale" <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: The Gift ch4
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (194
> > lines) ------------------
> > > >From: Walter Miale <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca
> > > >Subject: RE: The Gift ch4
> > >
> > > I very much enjoyed The Gift and the warm rays it shines on life. But
> > > I had trouble both with Chapter 2 --the tale of Fyodor's father, who
> > > appears to treat his wife despicably but with this not coloring in
> > > any visible way Fyodor's account of him-- and with what I think was a
> > > gross flaw in chapter 4, where Chernyshevsky is treated, as Boyd put
> > > it, as an intellectual bufoon, unworthy of being taken seriously. In
> > > my view, despite his being a klutzy and klunky writer, despite being
> > > put on a pedestal by Lenin and adopted as the fount of wisdom by
> > > generations of philistine commisars, Ch. had extraordinary redeeming
> > > qualities. He held not that writers and artists should be subservient
> > > to state power --on the contrary, his attitude toward state
> > > censorship was one of insolent defiance and wiley ingenuity-- but he
> > > did believe that aesthetic values should derive from the ethical. In
> > > this he may (or may not) have been wrong, but was his view
> > > contemptible?
> > >
> > > Chernyshevsky acted fearlessly and heroically in defiance of state
> > > authority, on behalf of the serfs, and in advocacy of democratic
> > > reforms, and then while in jail he wrote a book published at not
> > > inconsiderable risk to himself, in which he promulgated a vision of
> > > economic democracy that is far closer to Swedish cooperatives than to
> > > Soviet Communism. And indeed, he spent the rest of his life suffering
> > > the consequences.
> > >
> > > The nearsighted Nikolai Gavrilovich would barrel down the Nevsky
> > > Prospect, splunching and elbowing aside the insufferably proud. Me, I
> > > like the image, although Dostoyevsky's parody (in Notes from
> > > Underground) was sublime.
> > >
> > > Dear Dmitri Nabokov, I mean no disrespect to your father, to whom I
> > > owe countless hours of literary delight and reflection, but I think
> > > in the treatment of Chernyshevsky there was a good measure of blaming
> > > him for the crimes of others, including the very crimes of which he
> > > himself was victim, and I think that this, along with what appears to
> > > me an almost incoherent portrayal of Fyodor's attitude toward his
> > > father, detracts from an otherwise haunting and philosophical work of
> > > art.
> > >
> > > **********************************************************
> > > **********************************************************
> > >
> > > My first post on this subject (1/17/03):
> > >
> > > I have not re-read the novel, much less re-re-read it, but a
> > > difficulty I sometimes have with chess studies and problems is the
> > > suspicion that there is no solution. I'm afraid in this case there
> > > may be simple overlooktions on my part. In any case, I would be
> > > grateful for answers to at least some of the questions below.
> > >
> > > ********
> > >
> > > A little less than half way through Chapter Two of The Gift, the
> > > narrator tells of the time his mother on her own initiative undertook
> > > to journey two thousand miles across Russia and central Asia to join
> > > his father, and of how the moment his father saw her, he "slit his
> > > eyes, and in a horribly unexpected voice spoke three words: 'You go
> > > home,'" and turned around to continue his conversation with some
> > > Cossacks. Before his mother got very far, his father overtook her and
> > > they evidently exchanged embraces at least, but she continued home,
> > > apparently without a word of explanation of her husband's conduct,
> > > about which Fyodor registers no surprise or takes any further
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > This rather tyrannical behavior of his father toward his mother does
> > > not appear to color Fyodor's attitude toward him, which seems to be
> > > one of unqualified adulation. I don't know if Godunov-Cherdyntsev
> > > senior had a mistress in his tent at the time or what, but is the
> > > vehemence with which he excludes his wife from his life compatible
> > > with the honor his son ascribes to him? Why does Fyodor report the
> > > incident without comment or reflection?
> > >
> > > Eight or ten pages later, following a passage in which Fyodor says
> > > that his father had zero interest in ethnography and wouldn't go a
> > > short distance out of his way to visit Lhasa, which he referred to as
> > > "one more filthy little town," Fyodor, in a paragraph that begins
> > > with an account of his father's clock-stopping petulance, which could
> > > be triggered by a miscomputation by a steward or a flippant remark by
> > > a friend, writes, "He who in his time had slaughtered countless
> > > multitudes of birds. . . could not forgive me a Leshino sparrow
> > > wantonly shot down with a Montecristo rifle. . . . He. . .could not
> > > stand hypocrisy. . ." The irony here seems to be unmistakable, but as
> > > far as I can see, this is out of keeping with the tone of the chapter
> > > and with Fyodor's attitude of unmodulated reverence toward his
> > > father. In short, the reader perceives G-Ch senior's faults, which
> > > appear in the first instance to amount to knavery, as Fyodor recounts
> > > these happenings, even though Fyodor, as far as I can see, manifests
> > > no emotion concerning them. He actually describes his father in the
> > > paragraph cited as even tempered. What is VN doing? How "reliable" a
> > > narrator is Godunov with respect to his father? Does the novel,
> > > analagously to other of Nabokov's novels, manifest a moral viewpoint
> > > that is not shared by the fictive author? How to account for the
> > > dissonance? I have heard that G-Ch senior was one of Nabokov's
> > > favorite characters. But could he have admired the character's
> > > character?
> > >
> > > ********
> > >
> > > Why is the portrayal of Zina, who is so eccentral a focus of the
> > > novel, so blurry?
> > >
> > > ********
> > >
> > > Godunov-Cherdyntsev/Nabokov expresses a faint bit of respect for N.G.
> > > Chernyshevsky's humane instincts and disposition, but the portrayal
> > > overall is blistering. As Boyd puts it, "Fyodor treats Chernyshevsky
> > > as an intellectual buffoon whose ideas do not deserve the compliment
> > > of rational opposition." Of course Chernyshevsky the novelist and
> > > thinker was an easy target and, grandfather as he was (?) of
> > > socialist realism, a worthwhile target, but did he really deserve
> > > what Godunov and Nabokov heaped on him?
> > >
> > > Yes, not for nothing apparently was Chernyshevsky a favorite of
> > > Lenin; yes, he manifested pronounced strains of crackpotism--if
> > > G-Ch's account is correct; yes, his prose was klonky, not to say
> > > cringey, and in poetry he preferred (G-Ch tells us) double dactyls to
> > > iambs and trochees, and he didn't think much of Poushkin. If Ch
> > > really did not appreciate Poushkin, this was no doubt a manifestation
> > > of an impoverished aesthetic, but it was, wasn't it, an aesthetic
> > > that was altogether dominated by ethical values that the author(s) of
> > > the bio in The Gift did not share, such as the importance of
> > > cooperation to achieve social ends. Chernyshevsky did present his
> > > contemporaries with a vision, however ineptly drawn, of benevolent
> > > enterprise, of the founding of coops, a form of association that
> > > became the basis not of Soviet communism but of Swedish economic
> > > democracy, and he apparently acted selflessly and heroically to
> > > further social change in the early days of Alexander II and the great
> > > reforms of the era. --But how significant was his political activity?
> > > It is hard to tell from Nabokov's account, so light is it with regard
> > > to certain details, though heavy with ridicule. Was the general sense
> > > of Chernyshevsky as a hero and a saint (which led to so unfriendly a
> > > reception of the monograph and the novel) so far fetched? Was it
> > > mistaken? Did fate really bring such suffering to Chernyshevsky
> > > because he was so muddled, or was a more important factor his acute
> > > and courageous social conscience? Should we have expected Godunov and
> > > Nabokov to engage Chernyshevsky more on the latter's own terms? (For
> > > example: "Liberal landowners, liberal writers, liberal professors
> > > lull you with hopes in the progressive aims of our government.") Did
> > > the critics of Fyodor's monograph present an adequate defense of
> > > Chernyshevsky? Or did their failure to do so, along with a skewed
> > > depiction in the monograph, constitute a shortcoming of The Gift?
> > >
> > > Further, was Chernyshevsky's idea that art and poetry are keys to
> > > real life rather than things over and above it, as dense as the
> > > polemic of The Gift would have it? Does his view really denigrate
> > > art? For Chernyshevsky, beauty of form characterises an aim not only
> > > of art but of all human work. This brings to mind the epigram
> > > Marshall McLuhan attributed to a Balinese: We have no art. We do
> > > everything well. (Speaking of McLuhan, I'm reminded of his comment on
> > > some negative reviews of William Burroughs: "It is a little like
> > > trying to criticize the sartorial and verbal manifestations of a man
> > > who is knocking on the door to explain that flames are leaping from
> > > the roof of our home.")
> > >
> > > When, in a situation paralleling Fyodor's mother's journey,
> > > Chernyshevsky's wife traveled to Siberia to be with him he, like
> > > Fyodor's father on the outskirts of Tashkent, sent her home in short
> > > order--in this case after a four-day visit after a three-month trip;
> > > but this was for her own safety, not so that he could carry on
> > > carrying on. Godunov has no comment on this, except to emphasize
> > > "--four days, reader!--", which is still more comment than he makes
> > > on the c. four-hour visit and turnaround of his mother in the depths
> > > of Kazakhstan.
> > >
> > > Chernyshevsky's contemporary, Dostoyevsky, had long ago, in a
> > > hilarious parody, cut him to ribbons. Apparently that treatment,
> > > despite its severity, didn't "take", but did the beast really need
> > > another flogging?
> > >
> > > The Gift and Nabokov himself manifest(ed) an exemplary and inspiring
> > > attitude to the annoyances and bitter blows of fate. I can't say how
> > > likely it is that reading the novel will make one happy, but reading
> > > it does crystalize a sense of knowing "the secret" of happiness, no
> > > small thing, and the book dramatizes this knowledge artfully and
> > > artistically and perhaps, for all my doubts, happily. I do wonder
> > > about the limits of its attitude toward adversity: how would it apply
> > > to a more extreme situation, to concentration camp say --or plague--
> > > as opposed to exile? What might Jude the obscure done with Fyodor
> > > Konstantinovich's recipe for happiness? But more to the point here,
> > > don't we find in The Gift, despite its affirmation and uplift, a
> > > troubling appearance of the "civic cynicism" theme in the life of its
> > > author who, for all the compassion and decency embodied in his work,
> > > in his literary criticism, and in his life, seemed --correct me if I
> > > am mistaken-- to have little sense of how people working
> > > cooperatively could benefit the community or right the wrongs of
> > > society? In The Gift (and elsewhere), and not only in the portrait of
> > > Chernyshevsky but in the account of the silly union meeting and the
> > > passage in which Godunov laments the stupidity of having gone to it
> > > instead of spending the evening with his girlfriend, didn't Nabokov
> > > tend to disparage the notion --which is of the essence of democracy--
> > > that this is possible, and to convey his strong sense that trying to
> > > do so is an exercise in futility?
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
a well-infomed and thoughtful contribution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergey Karpukhin" <shrewd@irk.ru>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (280
lines) ------------------
> A few comments on Mr Miale's questions. His remarks are perspicacious,
> his criticism is acute, and so have to be dealt with, to use George W.
> Bush's favourite phrase.
>
> As I take it, Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour has something to do with
> aristocratic hauteur which has become an essential part of his
personality.
> First, he sends his wife home without even so much as interrupting a
> conversation with two Cossacks. This, I think, is only to show how
childish,
> reckless (in a feminine way), and needlessly sentimental her trip was.
Then,
> the most important part, he overtakes her on her way home as she's on the
> point of bursting into tears, and they "part in an altogether different
> manner", so that she goes home cheerful and bright as before. This shows
> that Fyodor's father understood what really brought her here and
appreciated
> it. And she understood his "cold" words when he saw her pop out of a
> tarantass: Elizaveta Pavlovna herself says that there was something
> "indecent" in her escapade.
> I believe that Konstantin Cherdyntsev's behaviour seems tyrannical only
when
> compared to Luzhin Senior's amorphous paternal feelings. I always
construed
> Fyodor's father "severities" as a sign of integrity, because they were
> invariably offset
> by his (almost heroic) dedication to his work. Konstantin Cherdyntsev
always
> seemed to me physically incapable of being mean and cruel, and that's what
> his wife and children loved him for. Maybe this is Russianness, or some
> other kind of subjective angle of vision, but Professor Preobrazhensky
from
> Bulgakov's "Heart of Dog" now comes to my mind as I'm trying to find a
> comparable personage in literature.
>
> As for Chernyshevsky, my understanding of the problem is that VN focused
on
> *Russian* history and literature. Chernyshevsky wasn't a Swede, he was
> Russian and his ideas were influential in Russia, not Sweden. And their
> influence in Russia was not altogether wholesome. As you probably know, VN
> wasn't writing a biography in earnest, he consciously used facts he needed
> to construct a work of art, not criticism. Fyodor was limbering up, but
> poetically and stylistically, not critically or academically. He didn't
> falsify facts, but he used them selectively in accordance with his
aesthetic
> purposes. I personally would agree with you that Chernyshevsky's role in
the
> development of Russian culture deserves more respect than Fyodor would
care
> to show. But it was Fyodor's choice to treat him the way he wanted to. And
> we should not deny him his choice, understanding that his purposes were
> primarily aesthetic.
> Besides, VN knew how to hate, as well as who to hate. (My dolzhny umet'
> nenavidet' [we must know how to hate] - I'm quoting from memory - was said
> in connection with the Russian revolution and the Soviets.) He hated the
> Soviets, and as the ulterior motive in Chapter 4 he tried to trace back
the
> roots of the Soviet zaraza [plague]. So even if in Sweden the similar
ideas
> produced enlightened capitalism, in Russia they made possible the Russian
> revolution.
>
> Incidentally, Andrey Bitov's clever novel "Pushkin House" began with
> Chernyshevsky (a citation from "Chto delat'" is an epigraph to the
Prologue
> of the novel), but shortly before completion Bitov was struck by "Dar"
[The
> Gift] and couldn't write for 6 months. As a result the book was finished
> under the strong influence of VN.
>
> Respectfully,
> Sergey Karpukhin
> www.the-nr.irk.ru
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
> ********************************************
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:47 AM
> Subject: Fw: The Gift ch4
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Walter Miale" <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: The Gift ch4
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (194
> > lines) ------------------
> > > >From: Walter Miale <wmiale@acbm.qc.ca
> > > >Subject: RE: The Gift ch4
> > >
> > > I very much enjoyed The Gift and the warm rays it shines on life. But
> > > I had trouble both with Chapter 2 --the tale of Fyodor's father, who
> > > appears to treat his wife despicably but with this not coloring in
> > > any visible way Fyodor's account of him-- and with what I think was a
> > > gross flaw in chapter 4, where Chernyshevsky is treated, as Boyd put
> > > it, as an intellectual bufoon, unworthy of being taken seriously. In
> > > my view, despite his being a klutzy and klunky writer, despite being
> > > put on a pedestal by Lenin and adopted as the fount of wisdom by
> > > generations of philistine commisars, Ch. had extraordinary redeeming
> > > qualities. He held not that writers and artists should be subservient
> > > to state power --on the contrary, his attitude toward state
> > > censorship was one of insolent defiance and wiley ingenuity-- but he
> > > did believe that aesthetic values should derive from the ethical. In
> > > this he may (or may not) have been wrong, but was his view
> > > contemptible?
> > >
> > > Chernyshevsky acted fearlessly and heroically in defiance of state
> > > authority, on behalf of the serfs, and in advocacy of democratic
> > > reforms, and then while in jail he wrote a book published at not
> > > inconsiderable risk to himself, in which he promulgated a vision of
> > > economic democracy that is far closer to Swedish cooperatives than to
> > > Soviet Communism. And indeed, he spent the rest of his life suffering
> > > the consequences.
> > >
> > > The nearsighted Nikolai Gavrilovich would barrel down the Nevsky
> > > Prospect, splunching and elbowing aside the insufferably proud. Me, I
> > > like the image, although Dostoyevsky's parody (in Notes from
> > > Underground) was sublime.
> > >
> > > Dear Dmitri Nabokov, I mean no disrespect to your father, to whom I
> > > owe countless hours of literary delight and reflection, but I think
> > > in the treatment of Chernyshevsky there was a good measure of blaming
> > > him for the crimes of others, including the very crimes of which he
> > > himself was victim, and I think that this, along with what appears to
> > > me an almost incoherent portrayal of Fyodor's attitude toward his
> > > father, detracts from an otherwise haunting and philosophical work of
> > > art.
> > >
> > > **********************************************************
> > > **********************************************************
> > >
> > > My first post on this subject (1/17/03):
> > >
> > > I have not re-read the novel, much less re-re-read it, but a
> > > difficulty I sometimes have with chess studies and problems is the
> > > suspicion that there is no solution. I'm afraid in this case there
> > > may be simple overlooktions on my part. In any case, I would be
> > > grateful for answers to at least some of the questions below.
> > >
> > > ********
> > >
> > > A little less than half way through Chapter Two of The Gift, the
> > > narrator tells of the time his mother on her own initiative undertook
> > > to journey two thousand miles across Russia and central Asia to join
> > > his father, and of how the moment his father saw her, he "slit his
> > > eyes, and in a horribly unexpected voice spoke three words: 'You go
> > > home,'" and turned around to continue his conversation with some
> > > Cossacks. Before his mother got very far, his father overtook her and
> > > they evidently exchanged embraces at least, but she continued home,
> > > apparently without a word of explanation of her husband's conduct,
> > > about which Fyodor registers no surprise or takes any further
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > This rather tyrannical behavior of his father toward his mother does
> > > not appear to color Fyodor's attitude toward him, which seems to be
> > > one of unqualified adulation. I don't know if Godunov-Cherdyntsev
> > > senior had a mistress in his tent at the time or what, but is the
> > > vehemence with which he excludes his wife from his life compatible
> > > with the honor his son ascribes to him? Why does Fyodor report the
> > > incident without comment or reflection?
> > >
> > > Eight or ten pages later, following a passage in which Fyodor says
> > > that his father had zero interest in ethnography and wouldn't go a
> > > short distance out of his way to visit Lhasa, which he referred to as
> > > "one more filthy little town," Fyodor, in a paragraph that begins
> > > with an account of his father's clock-stopping petulance, which could
> > > be triggered by a miscomputation by a steward or a flippant remark by
> > > a friend, writes, "He who in his time had slaughtered countless
> > > multitudes of birds. . . could not forgive me a Leshino sparrow
> > > wantonly shot down with a Montecristo rifle. . . . He. . .could not
> > > stand hypocrisy. . ." The irony here seems to be unmistakable, but as
> > > far as I can see, this is out of keeping with the tone of the chapter
> > > and with Fyodor's attitude of unmodulated reverence toward his
> > > father. In short, the reader perceives G-Ch senior's faults, which
> > > appear in the first instance to amount to knavery, as Fyodor recounts
> > > these happenings, even though Fyodor, as far as I can see, manifests
> > > no emotion concerning them. He actually describes his father in the
> > > paragraph cited as even tempered. What is VN doing? How "reliable" a
> > > narrator is Godunov with respect to his father? Does the novel,
> > > analagously to other of Nabokov's novels, manifest a moral viewpoint
> > > that is not shared by the fictive author? How to account for the
> > > dissonance? I have heard that G-Ch senior was one of Nabokov's
> > > favorite characters. But could he have admired the character's
> > > character?
> > >
> > > ********
> > >
> > > Why is the portrayal of Zina, who is so eccentral a focus of the
> > > novel, so blurry?
> > >
> > > ********
> > >
> > > Godunov-Cherdyntsev/Nabokov expresses a faint bit of respect for N.G.
> > > Chernyshevsky's humane instincts and disposition, but the portrayal
> > > overall is blistering. As Boyd puts it, "Fyodor treats Chernyshevsky
> > > as an intellectual buffoon whose ideas do not deserve the compliment
> > > of rational opposition." Of course Chernyshevsky the novelist and
> > > thinker was an easy target and, grandfather as he was (?) of
> > > socialist realism, a worthwhile target, but did he really deserve
> > > what Godunov and Nabokov heaped on him?
> > >
> > > Yes, not for nothing apparently was Chernyshevsky a favorite of
> > > Lenin; yes, he manifested pronounced strains of crackpotism--if
> > > G-Ch's account is correct; yes, his prose was klonky, not to say
> > > cringey, and in poetry he preferred (G-Ch tells us) double dactyls to
> > > iambs and trochees, and he didn't think much of Poushkin. If Ch
> > > really did not appreciate Poushkin, this was no doubt a manifestation
> > > of an impoverished aesthetic, but it was, wasn't it, an aesthetic
> > > that was altogether dominated by ethical values that the author(s) of
> > > the bio in The Gift did not share, such as the importance of
> > > cooperation to achieve social ends. Chernyshevsky did present his
> > > contemporaries with a vision, however ineptly drawn, of benevolent
> > > enterprise, of the founding of coops, a form of association that
> > > became the basis not of Soviet communism but of Swedish economic
> > > democracy, and he apparently acted selflessly and heroically to
> > > further social change in the early days of Alexander II and the great
> > > reforms of the era. --But how significant was his political activity?
> > > It is hard to tell from Nabokov's account, so light is it with regard
> > > to certain details, though heavy with ridicule. Was the general sense
> > > of Chernyshevsky as a hero and a saint (which led to so unfriendly a
> > > reception of the monograph and the novel) so far fetched? Was it
> > > mistaken? Did fate really bring such suffering to Chernyshevsky
> > > because he was so muddled, or was a more important factor his acute
> > > and courageous social conscience? Should we have expected Godunov and
> > > Nabokov to engage Chernyshevsky more on the latter's own terms? (For
> > > example: "Liberal landowners, liberal writers, liberal professors
> > > lull you with hopes in the progressive aims of our government.") Did
> > > the critics of Fyodor's monograph present an adequate defense of
> > > Chernyshevsky? Or did their failure to do so, along with a skewed
> > > depiction in the monograph, constitute a shortcoming of The Gift?
> > >
> > > Further, was Chernyshevsky's idea that art and poetry are keys to
> > > real life rather than things over and above it, as dense as the
> > > polemic of The Gift would have it? Does his view really denigrate
> > > art? For Chernyshevsky, beauty of form characterises an aim not only
> > > of art but of all human work. This brings to mind the epigram
> > > Marshall McLuhan attributed to a Balinese: We have no art. We do
> > > everything well. (Speaking of McLuhan, I'm reminded of his comment on
> > > some negative reviews of William Burroughs: "It is a little like
> > > trying to criticize the sartorial and verbal manifestations of a man
> > > who is knocking on the door to explain that flames are leaping from
> > > the roof of our home.")
> > >
> > > When, in a situation paralleling Fyodor's mother's journey,
> > > Chernyshevsky's wife traveled to Siberia to be with him he, like
> > > Fyodor's father on the outskirts of Tashkent, sent her home in short
> > > order--in this case after a four-day visit after a three-month trip;
> > > but this was for her own safety, not so that he could carry on
> > > carrying on. Godunov has no comment on this, except to emphasize
> > > "--four days, reader!--", which is still more comment than he makes
> > > on the c. four-hour visit and turnaround of his mother in the depths
> > > of Kazakhstan.
> > >
> > > Chernyshevsky's contemporary, Dostoyevsky, had long ago, in a
> > > hilarious parody, cut him to ribbons. Apparently that treatment,
> > > despite its severity, didn't "take", but did the beast really need
> > > another flogging?
> > >
> > > The Gift and Nabokov himself manifest(ed) an exemplary and inspiring
> > > attitude to the annoyances and bitter blows of fate. I can't say how
> > > likely it is that reading the novel will make one happy, but reading
> > > it does crystalize a sense of knowing "the secret" of happiness, no
> > > small thing, and the book dramatizes this knowledge artfully and
> > > artistically and perhaps, for all my doubts, happily. I do wonder
> > > about the limits of its attitude toward adversity: how would it apply
> > > to a more extreme situation, to concentration camp say --or plague--
> > > as opposed to exile? What might Jude the obscure done with Fyodor
> > > Konstantinovich's recipe for happiness? But more to the point here,
> > > don't we find in The Gift, despite its affirmation and uplift, a
> > > troubling appearance of the "civic cynicism" theme in the life of its
> > > author who, for all the compassion and decency embodied in his work,
> > > in his literary criticism, and in his life, seemed --correct me if I
> > > am mistaken-- to have little sense of how people working
> > > cooperatively could benefit the community or right the wrongs of
> > > society? In The Gift (and elsewhere), and not only in the portrait of
> > > Chernyshevsky but in the account of the silly union meeting and the
> > > passage in which Godunov laments the stupidity of having gone to it
> > > instead of spending the evening with his girlfriend, didn't Nabokov
> > > tend to disparage the notion --which is of the essence of democracy--
> > > that this is possible, and to convey his strong sense that trying to
> > > do so is an exercise in futility?
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>