Subject
Re: Linetskii review (fwd)
Date
Body
EDITORIAL NOTE. Sunny Otake, who is writing a doctoral dissertation on
Nabokov at the University of Washington, offers a review of Vadim
Linetskii's _<<Anti-Bakhtin>>-luchshaia kniga o Vladmimire Nabokove_ (St.
Petersburg, 1994). ["'Anti-Bakhtin'--The Best Book about Vladimir
Nabokov"]. As Ms. Otake remarks: "The book is enormously broad in scope
..... and the author's style is a bit hard to follow, with numerous asides
and even asides which interrupt asides, and it is at times rather
difficult to keep the thread of the argument from escaping one's grasp."
Having looked through the book myself, I can only affirm the accuracy of
Ms. Otake's observation. NABOKV-L is most grateful for Ms. Otake's
contribution.
-------------------------------
Each chapter of Linetskii's book is ostensibly devoted to a different
major theorist or idea, with the exception of the two forewords and the
introduction. The first foreword is a case of damning with faint praise,
while the second foreword is a quasi-romantic tribute to the author. The
introduction is a self-laudatory overview of literary theory of the past
decade. The first chapter consists of a comparison of _Otchaianie_ and
_Dar_, which are presented as literary doubles, the latter of which is
found to be the more mature, complete, fully-fleshed out of the two. The
author proposes that neither work is really about memory, because memory
is always self-deconstructive. Rather, the real subject matter of both
novels is an exploration of how deceptive memory can be.
The second chapter is similar in structure and aim to the first.
In it _Transparent Things_ is read as a paraphrase of _Priglashenie na
kazn'_. The message here (as proposed by Linetskii) is that the past
manifests itself through memory or dream to destroy or at least attempt
to destroy the hero. Both novels are found to be concerned primarily
with the transparency of the physical world and the failure of messages
to reach their audience. (The connection between these two points was
unclear.)
In chapter three Linetskii finds Nabokov's hostility toward Freud
to be perfectly understandable, owing to VN's narrow escape from a
totalitarian regime. Linetskii draws a connection between Freudian
theories and totalitarian regimes, arguing that the latter may be used to
greatly facilitate the establishment of such regimes. He proposes that
Nabokov must have reached the same conclusion and that this explains his
attitude. There follows a lengthy discussion of the implications of
Freudian theories in relation to those of Derrida and Bataille. Coming
back to Nabokov, Linetskii proposes that Nabokov employed frequent
juxtapositions of anagrams with "monogramizatsia", and that it is these
juxtapositions which give _Priglashenie na kazn'_ the constant feeling of
an objective truth which is about to be revealed to the reader. The
narrator of _The Real Life of Sebastian Knight_, because he confuses
'here' with 'there', is said to have created a text which is situated
'beyond the pleasure principle'. Linetskii concludes that Nabokov's work
in general, because of the frequent play with the concepts of 'here' and
'there' which it employs, is situated 'beyond the pleasure principle'.
The remaining chapters are much more concerned with major
theorists than they are with Nabokov. Each purports to be a revolution
in thinking about literature (as regards the place of parody, for
example, or in terms of theories of reading). I am not in a position to
say whether these chapters represent revolutions in critical theory or
not, since I myself have only just begun to study theory. Certainly the
chapter which claims to completely debunk Bakhtin presents nothing new;
the criticisms of heteroglossia and carnival which Linetskii offers are
the same as those which have been put forth elsewhere. The author is
undoubtedly a devoted follower of Derridean theory, for his main approach
is to offer deconstructions of the texts he encounters. Paul de Man is
also repeatedly invoked, appearing in almost every chapter. It is
interesting that so little attention is paid to other Russian Nnabokov
scholars. Passing mention is made of Zinaida Shakhovskaia in the
introduction, but the reader is hard pressed to find references to others.
Overall, the book gives the distinct impression that it is intended as a
vehicle for the transmission of the author's ideas about the major
theorists of this century, and not as a volume of substantive commentary
on Nabokov's work.
Nabokov at the University of Washington, offers a review of Vadim
Linetskii's _<<Anti-Bakhtin>>-luchshaia kniga o Vladmimire Nabokove_ (St.
Petersburg, 1994). ["'Anti-Bakhtin'--The Best Book about Vladimir
Nabokov"]. As Ms. Otake remarks: "The book is enormously broad in scope
..... and the author's style is a bit hard to follow, with numerous asides
and even asides which interrupt asides, and it is at times rather
difficult to keep the thread of the argument from escaping one's grasp."
Having looked through the book myself, I can only affirm the accuracy of
Ms. Otake's observation. NABOKV-L is most grateful for Ms. Otake's
contribution.
-------------------------------
Each chapter of Linetskii's book is ostensibly devoted to a different
major theorist or idea, with the exception of the two forewords and the
introduction. The first foreword is a case of damning with faint praise,
while the second foreword is a quasi-romantic tribute to the author. The
introduction is a self-laudatory overview of literary theory of the past
decade. The first chapter consists of a comparison of _Otchaianie_ and
_Dar_, which are presented as literary doubles, the latter of which is
found to be the more mature, complete, fully-fleshed out of the two. The
author proposes that neither work is really about memory, because memory
is always self-deconstructive. Rather, the real subject matter of both
novels is an exploration of how deceptive memory can be.
The second chapter is similar in structure and aim to the first.
In it _Transparent Things_ is read as a paraphrase of _Priglashenie na
kazn'_. The message here (as proposed by Linetskii) is that the past
manifests itself through memory or dream to destroy or at least attempt
to destroy the hero. Both novels are found to be concerned primarily
with the transparency of the physical world and the failure of messages
to reach their audience. (The connection between these two points was
unclear.)
In chapter three Linetskii finds Nabokov's hostility toward Freud
to be perfectly understandable, owing to VN's narrow escape from a
totalitarian regime. Linetskii draws a connection between Freudian
theories and totalitarian regimes, arguing that the latter may be used to
greatly facilitate the establishment of such regimes. He proposes that
Nabokov must have reached the same conclusion and that this explains his
attitude. There follows a lengthy discussion of the implications of
Freudian theories in relation to those of Derrida and Bataille. Coming
back to Nabokov, Linetskii proposes that Nabokov employed frequent
juxtapositions of anagrams with "monogramizatsia", and that it is these
juxtapositions which give _Priglashenie na kazn'_ the constant feeling of
an objective truth which is about to be revealed to the reader. The
narrator of _The Real Life of Sebastian Knight_, because he confuses
'here' with 'there', is said to have created a text which is situated
'beyond the pleasure principle'. Linetskii concludes that Nabokov's work
in general, because of the frequent play with the concepts of 'here' and
'there' which it employs, is situated 'beyond the pleasure principle'.
The remaining chapters are much more concerned with major
theorists than they are with Nabokov. Each purports to be a revolution
in thinking about literature (as regards the place of parody, for
example, or in terms of theories of reading). I am not in a position to
say whether these chapters represent revolutions in critical theory or
not, since I myself have only just begun to study theory. Certainly the
chapter which claims to completely debunk Bakhtin presents nothing new;
the criticisms of heteroglossia and carnival which Linetskii offers are
the same as those which have been put forth elsewhere. The author is
undoubtedly a devoted follower of Derridean theory, for his main approach
is to offer deconstructions of the texts he encounters. Paul de Man is
also repeatedly invoked, appearing in almost every chapter. It is
interesting that so little attention is paid to other Russian Nnabokov
scholars. Passing mention is made of Zinaida Shakhovskaia in the
introduction, but the reader is hard pressed to find references to others.
Overall, the book gives the distinct impression that it is intended as a
vehicle for the transmission of the author's ideas about the major
theorists of this century, and not as a volume of substantive commentary
on Nabokov's work.