Subject
Re: Kubrick's LO. (fwd)
Date
Body
From: ValSyl@aol.com
As an amateur, I try to stay out of the fray, but certain remarks made by
Matt Morris of Forsyth Technical Community College cry out for an attempt at
a reasoned response.
Diff'rent folks like diff'rent strokes. Lumping all of Kubrick's films into
one trash can is an example of the kind of free-wheeling generalization which
might, itself, strike some readers as _poshlost_. The extreme vitriol
embodied in his dismissal of various Kubrick films reads at a very high
pitch, almost a shriek. Are we to wipe all favorable impressions of these
movies from our minds, and fall into lock-step behind Mr. Morris, who alone
can lead us out of the woods? Sheesh ... I don't think that's what he wants,
but it sure comes across that way.
More disturbing, and sadder, is his attempt to gibe at Thomas Pynchon, and to
somehow imply that "good Nabokovians" are -- what exactly? Ubermenschen und
uberfrauen? (sorry, I don't know how to get the umlauts in email) Inherently
superior, a predestined elite? This may come as a surprise to Mr. Morris,
but I for one have found it possible to enjoy Pynchon and Nabokov, Rushdie,
Byatt, Aksyonov, Robertson Davies, Joyce, Twain, Jose Donoso -- and those are
just the first two shelves, I'm sure we all have our favorites. Perhaps it
bears repeating: there has been more than one great novelist in history.
One person's _poshlust_ is another's poesy.
Mr. Morris' post was an unfair attack, shallow and shrill. If there were
such a thing as a "good Nabokovian," he or she would not go around indulging
in this pathetic and somewhat Kinbotian folly. GoshDARN that noisy amusement
park! Place must be full of Pynchonites!
Sylvia Weiser Wendel
As an amateur, I try to stay out of the fray, but certain remarks made by
Matt Morris of Forsyth Technical Community College cry out for an attempt at
a reasoned response.
Diff'rent folks like diff'rent strokes. Lumping all of Kubrick's films into
one trash can is an example of the kind of free-wheeling generalization which
might, itself, strike some readers as _poshlost_. The extreme vitriol
embodied in his dismissal of various Kubrick films reads at a very high
pitch, almost a shriek. Are we to wipe all favorable impressions of these
movies from our minds, and fall into lock-step behind Mr. Morris, who alone
can lead us out of the woods? Sheesh ... I don't think that's what he wants,
but it sure comes across that way.
More disturbing, and sadder, is his attempt to gibe at Thomas Pynchon, and to
somehow imply that "good Nabokovians" are -- what exactly? Ubermenschen und
uberfrauen? (sorry, I don't know how to get the umlauts in email) Inherently
superior, a predestined elite? This may come as a surprise to Mr. Morris,
but I for one have found it possible to enjoy Pynchon and Nabokov, Rushdie,
Byatt, Aksyonov, Robertson Davies, Joyce, Twain, Jose Donoso -- and those are
just the first two shelves, I'm sure we all have our favorites. Perhaps it
bears repeating: there has been more than one great novelist in history.
One person's _poshlust_ is another's poesy.
Mr. Morris' post was an unfair attack, shallow and shrill. If there were
such a thing as a "good Nabokovian," he or she would not go around indulging
in this pathetic and somewhat Kinbotian folly. GoshDARN that noisy amusement
park! Place must be full of Pynchonites!
Sylvia Weiser Wendel