-------- Original Message --------
Subject: more and final 'fatally flawed'?
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:10:43 -0800
From: Carolyn Kunin <chaiselongue@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: Stephen Blackwell <sblackwe@utk.edu>


Dear Mr Katsell, Sergei Soloviev, Alexey and others,

Thank you all for a stimulating discussion on the question of Derzhavin's last words and for correcting my mis-translation of "ruina chti." I am obviously not in any position to defend Markov's "proof"  but I do remember his claim. I would also like to thank the half dozen or so of those who sent encouraging words.

Mr Katsell,

Could my use of the word "flawless"  be anything but hyperbole? Since my original wording wasn't clear, let me put it this way - -  I wish to express as vociferously and forcefully as possible my full and total agreement with Mr Nemser. I  do not doubt that, as  you claim,  "Boyd and Shvabrin did some hard, serious work putting together Verses and Versions" - - that it would have pleased Nabokov is neither here nor there. And God knows "hard and serious work" is no proof of quality. But it's not the quality of V & V that was really my point, but the quality of Nabokov's translations.

Let's look at the following quatrain quoted by Mr Nemser in his review:

Of the four-foot iambus I've grown 
       tired. 
     In it writes everyone. To boys this 
       plaything 
     'Tis high time to abandon ...

This translation half-apes poetry (why not "I've grown tired of the four-foot iambus"?), it half-apes rhyme (grown, everone, abandon) and half-apes Pushkinian enjambement. Is this any way to translate the untranslatable Pushkin?  Didn't Nabokov himself describe his translation as "monkey's chatter, the poet's head upon a platter"? Nemser, myself and others only beg to agree.

It reminds me that there is actually quite a bit of evidence that Nabokov's facility with English had an interesting way of occasionally disappearing. Has no one postulated that this might explain his refusal to be interviewed ad libitum?  More than a few passages in the essays on literature are awkwardly expressed, and the level of literary criticism they proffer is on the whole amateurish. The real usefulness they present is to those of us trying to understand Nabokov himself. Well, that's my opinion - -  don't all hit me at once!

I will continue to remind the List that Nabokov is not above criticism and I will continue to protest indignant bad-mouthing of anyone who dares to point out a foible, and I will continue to remain now and forever the fatally flawed

Carolyn Kunin

Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.