Subject
Fw: Puzzlements regarding Godunov-Cherdintsev'Sr. in THE GIFT/Dar
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. I inadvertently omitted most of Walter Miale's list of
"puzzlements." I herewith apologize and run his text in full.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
To: <nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:01 PM
Subject: Fw: Puzzlements regarding Godunov-Cherdintsev'Sr. in THE GIFT/Dar
> EDNOTE. Walter Miale raises some interesting questions here. Fyodor's
> portrait of his father does seem inconsistent in spots. On the other hand,
> consistency is more a requirement of art than life. Comments?
> > From: Walter Miale <mailto:wm@greenworldcenter.org>
> > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003
> > Subject: Puzzlements regarding Dar
> >
> > 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 overlooked
options
> > 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. 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?
>
"puzzlements." I herewith apologize and run his text in full.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
To: <nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:01 PM
Subject: Fw: Puzzlements regarding Godunov-Cherdintsev'Sr. in THE GIFT/Dar
> EDNOTE. Walter Miale raises some interesting questions here. Fyodor's
> portrait of his father does seem inconsistent in spots. On the other hand,
> consistency is more a requirement of art than life. Comments?
> > From: Walter Miale <mailto:wm@greenworldcenter.org>
> > To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003
> > Subject: Puzzlements regarding Dar
> >
> > 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 overlooked
options
> > 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. 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?
>