Subject
Fw: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov'sButterflies
From
Date
Body
----------
> From: Kurt Johnson <belina@dellnet.com>
> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov'sButterflies
> Date: Saturday, May 20, 2000 1:49 PM
>
>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (71 lines)
------------------
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@GTE.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:05 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov'sButterflies
>
> "No doubt there would be, had I been altogether serious when I wrote what
I
> > wrote. But I wasn't, you see. Perhaps I ought to start using smiley
> faces."
> Wayne Daniels
>
> From Kurt Johnson
> Actually, I had a feeling you were being a bit tougue in cheek;
nonetheless,
> shots from the hip do emanate from some inherent urge/ point of view etc.
> But, all is forgiven, since I understand you were not being altogether
> serious and, in the same vein, I also enjoy "Who's going to do Nabokov's
> Chess, or Nabokov's Birds". A "starter" for addressing the larger issue
I
> raised comes from a somewhat equally curious source: Richard Conniff in
> his NYTBR review of Nabokov's Blues (Jan. 20). To whatever extent Mr.
> Conniff seemed to us "off" the mark with some of his comments (see our
> letter to the NYTBR editor published in the following issue [for
instance,
> Mr. Conniff centered nearly completely on details of taxonomy and hardly
> mentioned our writing on Nabokov's biography and the role of butterflies
in
> his writing] ), he is "right on" with the following statement, which
ended
> his review. It makes for a good "starter" answer to the question I
posed
> at the end of my comment of May 18.
>
> "...for Nabokov, butterflies helped shape "a habitual way of looking at
the
> world" that was ultimately conducive to great literature and great
> lepidoptery alike."
>
> Richard Conniff, NYTBR, Jan. 20, p. 18
>
>
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wayne Daniels" <wdaniels@tpl.toronto.on.ca>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (11
> > 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.
> > >
> > > No doubt there would be, had I been altogether serious when I wrote
what
> I
> > wrote. But I wasn't, you see. Perhaps I ought to start using smiley
faces.
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > So do I. In fact I said something not unlike it in an earlier post,
> > implying that the connection needed to be made before the entomological
> > writings could be assumed to be of much interest to the non-scientific
> > reader.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Wayne Daniels
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Kurt Johnson <belina@dellnet.com>
> To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov'sButterflies
> Date: Saturday, May 20, 2000 1:49 PM
>
>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (71 lines)
------------------
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@GTE.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:05 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov'sButterflies
>
> "No doubt there would be, had I been altogether serious when I wrote what
I
> > wrote. But I wasn't, you see. Perhaps I ought to start using smiley
> faces."
> Wayne Daniels
>
> From Kurt Johnson
> Actually, I had a feeling you were being a bit tougue in cheek;
nonetheless,
> shots from the hip do emanate from some inherent urge/ point of view etc.
> But, all is forgiven, since I understand you were not being altogether
> serious and, in the same vein, I also enjoy "Who's going to do Nabokov's
> Chess, or Nabokov's Birds". A "starter" for addressing the larger issue
I
> raised comes from a somewhat equally curious source: Richard Conniff in
> his NYTBR review of Nabokov's Blues (Jan. 20). To whatever extent Mr.
> Conniff seemed to us "off" the mark with some of his comments (see our
> letter to the NYTBR editor published in the following issue [for
instance,
> Mr. Conniff centered nearly completely on details of taxonomy and hardly
> mentioned our writing on Nabokov's biography and the role of butterflies
in
> his writing] ), he is "right on" with the following statement, which
ended
> his review. It makes for a good "starter" answer to the question I
posed
> at the end of my comment of May 18.
>
> "...for Nabokov, butterflies helped shape "a habitual way of looking at
the
> world" that was ultimately conducive to great literature and great
> lepidoptery alike."
>
> Richard Conniff, NYTBR, Jan. 20, p. 18
>
>
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wayne Daniels" <wdaniels@tpl.toronto.on.ca>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (11
> > 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.
> > >
> > > No doubt there would be, had I been altogether serious when I wrote
what
> I
> > wrote. But I wasn't, you see. Perhaps I ought to start using smiley
faces.
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > So do I. In fact I said something not unlike it in an earlier post,
> > implying that the connection needed to be made before the entomological
> > writings could be assumed to be of much interest to the non-scientific
> > reader.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Wayne Daniels
> > >
>
>
>
>
>