Subject
Re: Nabokov and Stendhal (fwd)
Date
Body
^
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>
> Michael S Strickland <mstrickland@free.fr>
>
> Writing from behind the mask of Van Veen, Nabokov alluded to "that
> originality of literary style which constitutes the only real honesty of a
> writer." (Ada, part 3, chapter 4 [p. 370 of the Penguin paperback in front of
> me]) By this standard, the work of Stendahl is quite simply, regardless of
> whatever structural or philosophical virtues it may possess, dishonest; Le
> Rouge et le Noir reads like a mass-produced best-seller, not like a singular
> masterpiece.
No opinion of Van Veen should automatically be assumed to be an opinion
of Nabokov. Such assumptions are precisely what Nabokov himself
detested; and of course, we know what he thought of Van Veen as well.
More importantly, I doubt Nabokov could hold such an opinion. Originality
of writing style as the only real honesty of a writer? What about
Tolstoy, for instance? His writing style is forcefully un-original, and
has the striking feature of flowing like "plain Russian"; this has been
noted by many Russian critics and many more Russian readers (I beseech
anyone who's ready to answer that Tolstoy's simplicity is his originality
to avoid this particular bit of trite paradoxicality).
To a lesser degree, this applies to Bunin's prose (but then, Nabokov
preferred Bunin's most strikingly original poetry to his prose).
Dostoyevsky and Leskov, on the other hand, were singularly original
in their literary styles, and we know Nabokov's opinion about them...
If Le Rouge et le Noir reads like a mass-produced best-seller, then
so does Anna Karenina (of course, I disagree with both assertions).
So I don't think the originality issue has anything to do with Nabokov's
dismissal of Stendhal. As I tried to explain in a longish message sent
to this list about a year ago (which also cited Nabokov's opinion on
Stendhal), I think Nabokov was a pretty bad literary critic, who almost
never had anything coherent to say about why he badmouthed this or that
famous or unknown writer (when he *does* have something coherent to say,
as in the case of Dostoyevsky, then his critical writings are witty,
deep and important). Admirers of this genius among writers (and I
am definitely such an admirer myself) are often too easily intimidated
by his brash diatribes into believing that fanciful expressions of scorn
can replace real, thoughtful criticism. There are many writers whom
Nabokov dismissed without in any substantial way backing his opinion up
with real criticism, and Stendhal just happens to be among them. It's
a silly game writers love playing, and Nabokov was good at it.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>
> Michael S Strickland <mstrickland@free.fr>
>
> Writing from behind the mask of Van Veen, Nabokov alluded to "that
> originality of literary style which constitutes the only real honesty of a
> writer." (Ada, part 3, chapter 4 [p. 370 of the Penguin paperback in front of
> me]) By this standard, the work of Stendahl is quite simply, regardless of
> whatever structural or philosophical virtues it may possess, dishonest; Le
> Rouge et le Noir reads like a mass-produced best-seller, not like a singular
> masterpiece.
No opinion of Van Veen should automatically be assumed to be an opinion
of Nabokov. Such assumptions are precisely what Nabokov himself
detested; and of course, we know what he thought of Van Veen as well.
More importantly, I doubt Nabokov could hold such an opinion. Originality
of writing style as the only real honesty of a writer? What about
Tolstoy, for instance? His writing style is forcefully un-original, and
has the striking feature of flowing like "plain Russian"; this has been
noted by many Russian critics and many more Russian readers (I beseech
anyone who's ready to answer that Tolstoy's simplicity is his originality
to avoid this particular bit of trite paradoxicality).
To a lesser degree, this applies to Bunin's prose (but then, Nabokov
preferred Bunin's most strikingly original poetry to his prose).
Dostoyevsky and Leskov, on the other hand, were singularly original
in their literary styles, and we know Nabokov's opinion about them...
If Le Rouge et le Noir reads like a mass-produced best-seller, then
so does Anna Karenina (of course, I disagree with both assertions).
So I don't think the originality issue has anything to do with Nabokov's
dismissal of Stendhal. As I tried to explain in a longish message sent
to this list about a year ago (which also cited Nabokov's opinion on
Stendhal), I think Nabokov was a pretty bad literary critic, who almost
never had anything coherent to say about why he badmouthed this or that
famous or unknown writer (when he *does* have something coherent to say,
as in the case of Dostoyevsky, then his critical writings are witty,
deep and important). Admirers of this genius among writers (and I
am definitely such an admirer myself) are often too easily intimidated
by his brash diatribes into believing that fanciful expressions of scorn
can replace real, thoughtful criticism. There are many writers whom
Nabokov dismissed without in any substantial way backing his opinion up
with real criticism, and Stendhal just happens to be among them. It's
a silly game writers love playing, and Nabokov was good at it.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton