Subject
Fw: Boyd on Comments on NY Times Review: Nabokov'sButterflies
From
Date
Body
----------
> From: Brian Boyd <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (39 lines)
------------------
> From Brian Boyd:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
> >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.
>
> May I just say in response to Kurt Johnson's and Wayne Daniels's
comments,
> that I try my hardest to answer the question of the relationship between
> Nabokov's science and his art in my introduction to _Nabokov's
Butterflies_,
> and in the quite different introduction to "Father's Butterflies" in the
April
> issue of The Atlantic, not of course that there isn't much more to be
said. I
> don't think Nabokov's art explains anything much in his science (except
> perhaps that the dedication, the intelligence, the memory, the curiosity,
and
> the eye for detail and pattern evident in his art explain why someone who
> devoted the equivalent of only about three years of research time to
> butterflies could have also made innovative and durable contributions to
this
> field), but his science does explain certain unique features of his art,
as I
> have tried to show at some length.
>
> I have also asked in more general terms the question of the relationship
> between literary and scientific discovery, with some reference to VN (as
well
> as to graffiti and Shakespeare) in "Literature and Discovery" in
_Philosophy
> and Literature_ 23 (1999), 274-94, and am working on a book that
considers the
> origins of art in the light of (evolutionary) science, and the role of
art in
> the origins of science and of science in the development of art.
>
> Frankly I find it puzzling that reviewers and readers can be intensely
> interested in one of the two most amazing achievements of the human
creative
> imagination (art) and not in the other (science), or in the creativity of
> nature that gave rise to them both. And that some readers find nothing
> revealing in the range and development and local aptness of Nabokov's use
of
> Lepidoptera in his fiction. Believe me, the revelations are there, and I
hope
> my introductions help point to some of the ways they can be reached.
>
> Brian Boyd
> From: Brian Boyd <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (39 lines)
------------------
> From Brian Boyd:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kurt Johnson" <belina@dellnet.com>
> >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.
>
> May I just say in response to Kurt Johnson's and Wayne Daniels's
comments,
> that I try my hardest to answer the question of the relationship between
> Nabokov's science and his art in my introduction to _Nabokov's
Butterflies_,
> and in the quite different introduction to "Father's Butterflies" in the
April
> issue of The Atlantic, not of course that there isn't much more to be
said. I
> don't think Nabokov's art explains anything much in his science (except
> perhaps that the dedication, the intelligence, the memory, the curiosity,
and
> the eye for detail and pattern evident in his art explain why someone who
> devoted the equivalent of only about three years of research time to
> butterflies could have also made innovative and durable contributions to
this
> field), but his science does explain certain unique features of his art,
as I
> have tried to show at some length.
>
> I have also asked in more general terms the question of the relationship
> between literary and scientific discovery, with some reference to VN (as
well
> as to graffiti and Shakespeare) in "Literature and Discovery" in
_Philosophy
> and Literature_ 23 (1999), 274-94, and am working on a book that
considers the
> origins of art in the light of (evolutionary) science, and the role of
art in
> the origins of science and of science in the development of art.
>
> Frankly I find it puzzling that reviewers and readers can be intensely
> interested in one of the two most amazing achievements of the human
creative
> imagination (art) and not in the other (science), or in the creativity of
> nature that gave rise to them both. And that some readers find nothing
> revealing in the range and development and local aptness of Nabokov's use
of
> Lepidoptera in his fiction. Believe me, the revelations are there, and I
hope
> my introductions help point to some of the ways they can be reached.
>
> Brian Boyd