Subject
Fwd: Nabokov proposed a false antithesis,
or a distinction without a difference ...
or a distinction without a difference ...
From
Date
Body
----- Forwarded message from spklein52@hotmail.com -----
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 16:17:20 -0400
From: "Sandy P. Klein" <spklein52@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: SPKlein52@HotMail.com
Subject: Nabokov proposed a false antithesis, or a distinction without
a difference ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/hitchens[1] A Doomed Young
Man
Atlantic Online - USA
... he point to be marked in a study of A Hero of Our Time," observed
VLADIMIR NABOKOV, "is that, though of tremendous and at times somewhat
morbid interest to the ... [2] The Atlantic Monthly | June 2005
Books & Critics Books
A Doomed Young Man
No, he was not Byron. But he certainly tried
by Christopher Hitchens
..... A Hero of Our Time
by Mikhail Lermontov, translated by Hugh Aplin
Hesperus/Trafalgar
_ he point to be marked in a study of A Hero of Our Time_," observed
Vladimir Nabokov, "is that, though of tremendous and at times somewhat
morbid interest to the sociologist, the 'time' is of less interest to
the student of literature than the 'hero.'" With this
characteristically lofty rulingwhich helped introduce his own
co-translation of the novel in 1958Nabokov proposed a false
antithesis, or a distinction without a difference. The "student of
literature" must needs be to some extent a student of history, if not
exactly of "sociology." Much of the fascination that the book
continues to exert is owing to its context, and none of the editions
I possess, including Paul Foote's 1966 translation and now this very
deft version by Hugh Aplin, has failed to include quite a deal of
background material without which Mikhail Lermontov's brief,
intricate masterpiece is difficult to appreciate. These five nicely
chiseled stories, giving _Rashomon_-like perspectives on the short
life of a doomed young man, are in a most intriguing way "of their
time."
The equally pleasurable elements of time and heroism are in fact
united in the most common description of the novel and its author:
both are referred to as "Byronic." And the similitude is fair in
either case. Early Russian literature was intimately connected to the
Europeanizing and liberal tendency of the "Decembrist" revolution of
1825, which was enthusiastically supported by Pushkin and his
inheritor Lermontov. And the debt of those rebels to Byron's
inspiration was almost cultish in its depth and degree. Lermontov
even published a short poem in 1832 titled "No, I'm Not Byron." In it
he wrote,
Links:
------
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/hitchens
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/
----- End forwarded message -----
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 16:17:20 -0400
From: "Sandy P. Klein" <spklein52@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: SPKlein52@HotMail.com
Subject: Nabokov proposed a false antithesis, or a distinction without
a difference ...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/hitchens[1] A Doomed Young
Man
Atlantic Online - USA
... he point to be marked in a study of A Hero of Our Time," observed
VLADIMIR NABOKOV, "is that, though of tremendous and at times somewhat
morbid interest to the ... [2] The Atlantic Monthly | June 2005
Books & Critics Books
A Doomed Young Man
No, he was not Byron. But he certainly tried
by Christopher Hitchens
..... A Hero of Our Time
by Mikhail Lermontov, translated by Hugh Aplin
Hesperus/Trafalgar
_ he point to be marked in a study of A Hero of Our Time_," observed
Vladimir Nabokov, "is that, though of tremendous and at times somewhat
morbid interest to the sociologist, the 'time' is of less interest to
the student of literature than the 'hero.'" With this
characteristically lofty rulingwhich helped introduce his own
co-translation of the novel in 1958Nabokov proposed a false
antithesis, or a distinction without a difference. The "student of
literature" must needs be to some extent a student of history, if not
exactly of "sociology." Much of the fascination that the book
continues to exert is owing to its context, and none of the editions
I possess, including Paul Foote's 1966 translation and now this very
deft version by Hugh Aplin, has failed to include quite a deal of
background material without which Mikhail Lermontov's brief,
intricate masterpiece is difficult to appreciate. These five nicely
chiseled stories, giving _Rashomon_-like perspectives on the short
life of a doomed young man, are in a most intriguing way "of their
time."
The equally pleasurable elements of time and heroism are in fact
united in the most common description of the novel and its author:
both are referred to as "Byronic." And the similitude is fair in
either case. Early Russian literature was intimately connected to the
Europeanizing and liberal tendency of the "Decembrist" revolution of
1825, which was enthusiastically supported by Pushkin and his
inheritor Lermontov. And the debt of those rebels to Byron's
inspiration was almost cultish in its depth and degree. Lermontov
even published a short poem in 1832 titled "No, I'm Not Byron." In it
he wrote,
Links:
------
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/hitchens
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/
----- End forwarded message -----