Subject
Fw: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
From
Date
Body
EDITOR's NOTE. Lepidoptereist Kurt Johnson, writer of the note below, is,
together with NYTimes science writter Steve Coates, author of NABOKOV's
BLUES, a popular science book reevaluting VN's importance of a scientist.
This volume, in addition to its own virtues, provides excellent background
(and companion) reading for the new Boyd-Pyle-Nabokov "NABOKOV's
BUTTERFLIES, that gathers together ALL butterflies in VN's writings. The two
books complement each other beautifully.
---------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (199
lines) ------------------
> There is something slightly missing, it seems, in a view of Nabokov's
> entomology that starts with ones own lack of interest in insects. Surely,
> it is natural for persons to not take a keen interest in things they find
> personally uninteresting. However, this misses an important point, when
it
> comes to Nabokov's entomology, and helps explain why certain of the
> scientific venues have published such perceptive reviews of this years'
> books on Nabokov's science. As Steve Coates is fond of saying at programs
> where we speak, we found that there was little in past and present
science,
> its history, themes and crises, that Vladimir Nabokov's own experience
with
> it did not elucidate in some meaningful way. Thus, a tremendous amount of
> science's own story and sociology is well told within Nabokov's own story.
> Some have said of Nabokov's Blues-- "It is also a history of
lepidopterology
> itself", "it is a primer on the environmental crisis and what's behind
it",
> "its an accounting of the transition between 19th and 20th Century
science",
> "its a candid expose' of the fruits of scientific infighting", etc.-- and,
> in this light, reviews in science publications have even argued about
> whether the rendering of Nabokov's story by us "fights valiantly on many
> fronts" re: the ecological crisis [Lancet] or evidences "axe grinding that
> is sometimes deafening" [HMS Beagle]. I imagine that some of this
> resonance-- where Nabokov's science seems to "touch a nerve" in some--
> results because Nabokov's Blues is a narrative. As such it has a chance
to
> create a rich "storied world" around Nabokov's science in the same way
that
> Stacy Schiff's Vera creates a rich "storied world" around Vera's
biography.
> The narrative makes the story a bit more than the sum of its factual
parts.
> This element is less possible in anthology. Thus we now interestingly
see
> the position in Scientific American and Natural History (and Doubleday's
> summer book club) that _Nabokov's Blues_ and _Nabokov's Butterflies_ are
good
> companions. In defense of Nabokov's Butterflies, perhaps a misfortune
built
> into anthologizing (especially when aimed at the laudable goal of
> completeness, as in this latter book) is that this sense of how Nabokov's
> own experience "meaningfully elucidates science" becomes less apparent.
> And, it is perhaps only this latter aspect-- Nabokov's own story
elucidating
> so many aspects of the scientific enterprise-- that stands somewhat
outside
> Prof. Brown's otherwise accurate view that without VN's literary
celebrity,
> there would be no story here. Truly, the many forgotten entomologists
(and
> other natural biologists) inculcated in Nabokov's quip "not one of them is
> mentioned in Webster" have themselves had experiences that meaningfully
> elucidate the scientific enterprise. It is simply that, lacking
celebrity,
> their stories would have had no interest to the commercial publishing
> business. Overall it seems, the books about Nabokov's science serve
several
> purposes, historically. For the literary community they mark, as Prof.
> Brown says, the end of thinking that Nabokov merely dabbled in with some
> "nature hobby" [butterflies] and require a recognition (as Prof. Brown
noted
> in his review of Nabokov's Blues) that science is an "indispensable side"
of
> Nabokov the man. For lepidopterists the books simply become "classics"
> about lepidopterists and their pursuits, able to be told because Nabokov
was
> such a celebrity and "created a market". For those seeking a message from
> it all for general science or its history (like the fans of S. J. Gould or
> E. O. Wilson or even these writers themselves) Nabokov's story serves up
> another awareness-- one with a direction of logic maybe a bit different
than
> that most apparent to persons in the arts. When a scientist looks at
> Nabokov's story in entomology, I think the logic is more like this: (1)
> Nabokov did some significant science; (2) it's a "given" that he was a
major
> literary figure; therefore, (3) the compelling lessons taught by his story
> regarding science and the doing of science are thus, thus and thus. For
> some non-scientists perhaps (and I take this view only from reading
various
> reviews) the logic is (1) it's a "given" that he was a major literary
> figure, (2) he did some credible science, (3) so what? / or "OK lets
quickly
> move on". Perhaps I am wrong. That leads me to ask, honestly, does
> anyone have a suggestion about what Nabokov's enterprise in science
> meaningfully elucidates about the arts? I think that would be an
> interesting question to explore.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@gte.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:45 AM
> Subject: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bouazza, Abdellah" <Abdellah.Bouazza@COMPAQ.COM>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (75
> > lines) ------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Mr Voss as far as the physical side of the book is
> concerned.
> > > However, I do not mind its heaviness nor its clinic
uncomfortability -I
> do
> > > not read such books in bed. Indeed, the margins are generously
wasteful,
> > > while the print size could have been eye-pleasingly larger. The poems
> > should
> > > have been printed spaciously, one poem per page, in order for the
reader
> > to
> > > "relax" in those literary glades. I always detested endnotes
especially
> > when
> > > they are as valuable as in this case.
> > > I don't think that this book should be read or is meant to be read
from
> > > beginning to end: I like to see it as a kind of Nabokovian
> encyclopaedia.
> > > Please, Mr Voss, let us not revert to that misplaced philantropism
that
> > > considers the "general reader" and the "common reader". I doubt
whether
> > > there is such a thing with more than a evanescent interest in Lolita's
> > > notoriety.
> > > As to its price, believe me, $ 45 is not that exorbitant as compared
to,
> > for
> > > example, "Nabokov and His Fiction: New Perspectives".
> > > To Mr Voss's cynical "Nabokov's chess next?", I would say: yes,
please,
> > why
> > > not?
> > >
> > > A. Bouazza.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@gte.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 6:53 PM
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Subject: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <Mvoscol@aol.com>
> > > >
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (28
> > > lines) ------------------
> > > > Thus far I have seen only two reviews of Boyd/Pyle's "Nabokov's
> > > Butterflies",
> > > > one in the Daily Telegraph (London) and the one in the New York
Times
> > > kindly
> > > > supplied by Kurt Johnson. These reviews have two things in common:
> they
> > > are
> > > > shortish and less than enthusiastic. And I think this should not
come
> > as
> > > > much of a surprise. What is the general reader to make of the book?
> > > Pages
> > > > upon pages of quotations from VN's published works ripped from their
> > > > contexts, scientific writings that would be of no interest
whatsoever
> to
> > > the
> > > > common reader had they been written by someone other than VN.
> Although
> > > one
> > > > might admire all the diligence and enthusiasm that went into the
> > > preparation
> > > > of VN's scientific papers and his meticulous drawings I doubt
whether
> > this
> > > > will make "Nabokov's Butterflies" a runaway bestseller. How about
the
> > > > "non-scientific" content? A good deal of that is composed of
recycled
> > > > extracts from books I have on my shelves anyway. What remains is
the
> > > > hitherto unpublished (non-scientific) material like the discarded
> second
> > > > addendum to "The Gift", some previously unpublished poems or poems
not
> > > > reprinted after their first publications (unfortunately not with the
> > > original
> > > > Russian en regard), excerpts from letters etc. $45 is quite a price
to
> > pay
> > > > for the privilege to have those. Moreover, the book is, in my
> opinion,
> > > not
> > > > really attractive physically. A heavy tome uncomfortable to read in
> > bed,
> > > > with wasteful margins, with photographs in the text not terribly
well
> > > > reproduced, with notes that are endnotes when they should be
footnotes
> > > etc.
> > > > Apparently the major publishing conglomerates fought shy of this
> > > compilation
> > > > (although the book has been bought in by Viking-Penguin's Bodley
Head
> > > imprint
> > > > in the United Kingdom). (I had never heard of "Beacon Press"
before.)
> > > No,
> > > > "Nabokov's Butterflies" is strictly for enthusiasts and completists.
> > > > "Nabobov's chess" next?
> > > >
> > > > Manfred Voss
>
together with NYTimes science writter Steve Coates, author of NABOKOV's
BLUES, a popular science book reevaluting VN's importance of a scientist.
This volume, in addition to its own virtues, provides excellent background
(and companion) reading for the new Boyd-Pyle-Nabokov "NABOKOV's
BUTTERFLIES, that gathers together ALL butterflies in VN's writings. The two
books complement each other beautifully.
---------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (199
lines) ------------------
> There is something slightly missing, it seems, in a view of Nabokov's
> entomology that starts with ones own lack of interest in insects. Surely,
> it is natural for persons to not take a keen interest in things they find
> personally uninteresting. However, this misses an important point, when
it
> comes to Nabokov's entomology, and helps explain why certain of the
> scientific venues have published such perceptive reviews of this years'
> books on Nabokov's science. As Steve Coates is fond of saying at programs
> where we speak, we found that there was little in past and present
science,
> its history, themes and crises, that Vladimir Nabokov's own experience
with
> it did not elucidate in some meaningful way. Thus, a tremendous amount of
> science's own story and sociology is well told within Nabokov's own story.
> Some have said of Nabokov's Blues-- "It is also a history of
lepidopterology
> itself", "it is a primer on the environmental crisis and what's behind
it",
> "its an accounting of the transition between 19th and 20th Century
science",
> "its a candid expose' of the fruits of scientific infighting", etc.-- and,
> in this light, reviews in science publications have even argued about
> whether the rendering of Nabokov's story by us "fights valiantly on many
> fronts" re: the ecological crisis [Lancet] or evidences "axe grinding that
> is sometimes deafening" [HMS Beagle]. I imagine that some of this
> resonance-- where Nabokov's science seems to "touch a nerve" in some--
> results because Nabokov's Blues is a narrative. As such it has a chance
to
> create a rich "storied world" around Nabokov's science in the same way
that
> Stacy Schiff's Vera creates a rich "storied world" around Vera's
biography.
> The narrative makes the story a bit more than the sum of its factual
parts.
> This element is less possible in anthology. Thus we now interestingly
see
> the position in Scientific American and Natural History (and Doubleday's
> summer book club) that _Nabokov's Blues_ and _Nabokov's Butterflies_ are
good
> companions. In defense of Nabokov's Butterflies, perhaps a misfortune
built
> into anthologizing (especially when aimed at the laudable goal of
> completeness, as in this latter book) is that this sense of how Nabokov's
> own experience "meaningfully elucidates science" becomes less apparent.
> And, it is perhaps only this latter aspect-- Nabokov's own story
elucidating
> so many aspects of the scientific enterprise-- that stands somewhat
outside
> Prof. Brown's otherwise accurate view that without VN's literary
celebrity,
> there would be no story here. Truly, the many forgotten entomologists
(and
> other natural biologists) inculcated in Nabokov's quip "not one of them is
> mentioned in Webster" have themselves had experiences that meaningfully
> elucidate the scientific enterprise. It is simply that, lacking
celebrity,
> their stories would have had no interest to the commercial publishing
> business. Overall it seems, the books about Nabokov's science serve
several
> purposes, historically. For the literary community they mark, as Prof.
> Brown says, the end of thinking that Nabokov merely dabbled in with some
> "nature hobby" [butterflies] and require a recognition (as Prof. Brown
noted
> in his review of Nabokov's Blues) that science is an "indispensable side"
of
> Nabokov the man. For lepidopterists the books simply become "classics"
> about lepidopterists and their pursuits, able to be told because Nabokov
was
> such a celebrity and "created a market". For those seeking a message from
> it all for general science or its history (like the fans of S. J. Gould or
> E. O. Wilson or even these writers themselves) Nabokov's story serves up
> another awareness-- one with a direction of logic maybe a bit different
than
> that most apparent to persons in the arts. When a scientist looks at
> Nabokov's story in entomology, I think the logic is more like this: (1)
> Nabokov did some significant science; (2) it's a "given" that he was a
major
> literary figure; therefore, (3) the compelling lessons taught by his story
> regarding science and the doing of science are thus, thus and thus. For
> some non-scientists perhaps (and I take this view only from reading
various
> reviews) the logic is (1) it's a "given" that he was a major literary
> figure, (2) he did some credible science, (3) so what? / or "OK lets
quickly
> move on". Perhaps I am wrong. That leads me to ask, honestly, does
> anyone have a suggestion about what Nabokov's enterprise in science
> meaningfully elucidates about the arts? I think that would be an
> interesting question to explore.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@gte.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:45 AM
> Subject: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bouazza, Abdellah" <Abdellah.Bouazza@COMPAQ.COM>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (75
> > lines) ------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Mr Voss as far as the physical side of the book is
> concerned.
> > > However, I do not mind its heaviness nor its clinic
uncomfortability -I
> do
> > > not read such books in bed. Indeed, the margins are generously
wasteful,
> > > while the print size could have been eye-pleasingly larger. The poems
> > should
> > > have been printed spaciously, one poem per page, in order for the
reader
> > to
> > > "relax" in those literary glades. I always detested endnotes
especially
> > when
> > > they are as valuable as in this case.
> > > I don't think that this book should be read or is meant to be read
from
> > > beginning to end: I like to see it as a kind of Nabokovian
> encyclopaedia.
> > > Please, Mr Voss, let us not revert to that misplaced philantropism
that
> > > considers the "general reader" and the "common reader". I doubt
whether
> > > there is such a thing with more than a evanescent interest in Lolita's
> > > notoriety.
> > > As to its price, believe me, $ 45 is not that exorbitant as compared
to,
> > for
> > > example, "Nabokov and His Fiction: New Perspectives".
> > > To Mr Voss's cynical "Nabokov's chess next?", I would say: yes,
please,
> > why
> > > not?
> > >
> > > A. Bouazza.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@gte.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 6:53 PM
> > > To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > Subject: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov's Butterflies
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <Mvoscol@aol.com>
> > > >
> > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (28
> > > lines) ------------------
> > > > Thus far I have seen only two reviews of Boyd/Pyle's "Nabokov's
> > > Butterflies",
> > > > one in the Daily Telegraph (London) and the one in the New York
Times
> > > kindly
> > > > supplied by Kurt Johnson. These reviews have two things in common:
> they
> > > are
> > > > shortish and less than enthusiastic. And I think this should not
come
> > as
> > > > much of a surprise. What is the general reader to make of the book?
> > > Pages
> > > > upon pages of quotations from VN's published works ripped from their
> > > > contexts, scientific writings that would be of no interest
whatsoever
> to
> > > the
> > > > common reader had they been written by someone other than VN.
> Although
> > > one
> > > > might admire all the diligence and enthusiasm that went into the
> > > preparation
> > > > of VN's scientific papers and his meticulous drawings I doubt
whether
> > this
> > > > will make "Nabokov's Butterflies" a runaway bestseller. How about
the
> > > > "non-scientific" content? A good deal of that is composed of
recycled
> > > > extracts from books I have on my shelves anyway. What remains is
the
> > > > hitherto unpublished (non-scientific) material like the discarded
> second
> > > > addendum to "The Gift", some previously unpublished poems or poems
not
> > > > reprinted after their first publications (unfortunately not with the
> > > original
> > > > Russian en regard), excerpts from letters etc. $45 is quite a price
to
> > pay
> > > > for the privilege to have those. Moreover, the book is, in my
> opinion,
> > > not
> > > > really attractive physically. A heavy tome uncomfortable to read in
> > bed,
> > > > with wasteful margins, with photographs in the text not terribly
well
> > > > reproduced, with notes that are endnotes when they should be
footnotes
> > > etc.
> > > > Apparently the major publishing conglomerates fought shy of this
> > > compilation
> > > > (although the book has been bought in by Viking-Penguin's Bodley
Head
> > > imprint
> > > > in the United Kingdom). (I had never heard of "Beacon Press"
before.)
> > > No,
> > > > "Nabokov's Butterflies" is strictly for enthusiasts and completists.
> > > > "Nabobov's chess" next?
> > > >
> > > > Manfred Voss
>