A few samples:
Victor Fet: I vehemently protest the title of this
(otherwise interesting) Alexander Nemser* review. Whatever one's literary
persuasion is, Nemser has no right to compare Nabokov to (historical) Count
Dracula even in jest.
Steve Diedrich: ...The title may not have been
Nemser's. The titles of articles in magazines and newspapers are often by
an editor, not by the auther of the article.
Hafid
Bouazza:Nemser would have been more daring and, indeed, more
interesting, if he would have given us his own translations of the poems he
cites. Nabokov wrote: "My method may be wrong but it is a method, and a genuine
critic's job should have been to examine the method itself instead
of crossly fishing out of my pond some of the oddities with which I had
deliberately stocked it." Furthermore: I can't help thinking that Nemser has
been heavily influenced by Brian Boyd's criticism of Nabokov's Onegin
translation.
Gavriel Shapiro: ...When discussing
Nabokov’s method of literal translation, Mr. Nemser should have been examining
the method itself, instead of, in Nabokov’s own prophetic words, “crossly
fishing out of my pond some of the oddities with which I had deliberately
stocked it” (SO 252). In addition, Mr. Nemser’s claim that Nabokov’s style lacks
melodiousness, in his words, “produces the effect of a strange harmony,” betrays
his tin ear...
B.Boyd: And this particular title has become a cliche
for magazine editors looking for a header for any negative piece on Nabokov.
Reading the fist sentence of the review, with its sour tone and its errors,
would have been enough to give the editor the cue.
David
Powelstock:The lack of any apparent relevance of this garish and
frivolous title to an otherwise serious and intelligent review would seem to
support Steve's supposition. It's hard to imagine that Mr. Nemser would write
such a careful piece then excrete such a stinker of a title onto it. If this is
an editor's title, it is Mr. Nemser who has the most cause to
protest.
S. Shvabrin: "Careful"? Mr. Nemser is very
careful indeed in his avoidance of any substantiation of his claim [...] Mr.
Nemser is careful not to give away too much."Intelligent"? Perhaps, if we take
it to mean "clever" or "sly."[..] It will not be surprising that this
critique, which in time Mr. Nemser may deeply regret writing, will become his
own nemesis.
Carolyn Kunin: After all the brouhaha
lately regarding the Nemser article I read it and find it flawless
[...]Nabokov was not without fault and his inability to translate Evgeny Onegin
is his greatest failure[...] I'd like to remind all the horror-stricken that
Nabokov invented Van the Impaler and the obscene images he created in Ada are
far worse than Nemser's or the editors' of The New Republic[...] I do wish that
the idolatry of Nabokov would take a rest so that a reasoned appraisal could
begin - - at least on this List.
JM: A passionate debate is not
enemical to a "reasoned appraisal"... should there be more than two
participants in it. Otherwise I agree with C.Kunin's conclammation
towards more objective praise and criticism. To appreciate and love
Nabokov's writings, "idolatry" is not really
needed...
It is important to realize, as she reminds us,
that Nabokov invented 'Van the Impaler', although this designation, plus the
obscene imagery, serves to a structural purpose that is absent in Nemser's
( or the editor's) title. Therefore Victor Fet has a point when he
protests about this garish bad jest.