Subject
Fw: Fw: Fw: Nabokov and Borges
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Bouazza" <mushtary@yahoo.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (79
lines) ------------------
> In response to Peter Hayes query, I will attempt to clarify VN's apt
> metaphor re Borges, or better say, to show how I always understood it.
> Borges is mostly writing about books and providing synopses of wonderful
> plots, contents, philosophies etc.ect...to such an extent that the reader
> feels the urge to consult those inexisting books. After a while, Borges
> tends to be repititious and his "formulae" predictable. In other words,
> Borges provides a facade to a "structure" but seems to be unable to set up
> that structure himself. I vividly recall an interview/article where Borges
> talked about "the novel I will never write" and proceeds to recount its
> intriguing plot -only to leave the reader in utter disappointment, for
he'll
> never read that novel!
>
> A. Bouazza.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:46 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Nabokov and Borges
>
>
> > EDNOTE. The redoubtable Mary Belliino provides the documented answers re
> VN
> > & BB
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mary Bellino" <iambe@rcn.com>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (42
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Nabokov had this to say on Borges in 1969:
> > >
> > > "At first, Vera and I were delighted by reading him. We felt
> > > we were on a portico, but we have learned that there was no house."
> > >
> > > Source is the TIME magazine article of May 23, 1969, p. 83.
> > > The "interview" that appears in SO (pp. 120-30 of the
> > > Vintage edition) was never published in full in TIME (that I
> > > can make out) but rather consists of Nabokov's written
> > > responses to questions that were telexed to him before the
> > > interview by two TIME reporters. Perhaps not surprisingly,
> > > there is no mention of Borges in this SO "interview," and VN
> > > pointedly avoids answering a direct question about Norman
> > > Mailer--whereas in the TIME article he cheerfully admits
> > > that he "detests everything in Amreican life that [Mailer]
> > > stands for" and as a bonus throws in a devastating appraisal
> > > of Philip Roth.
> > >
> > > As Sweeney suggests, the SO mentions of Borges are by no
> > > means as damning as the TIME statement, but I would argue
> > > that if read sequentially they do indicate a "waning" of
> > > admiration. In particular the statement on 184 seems very
> > > ambiguous, and that on 289-90 can only be described as dismissive.
> > >
> > > Can anyone with a closer knowledge of VN's biography shed
> > > any light on the relationship between the SO "interview" and
> > > the quotes in the TIME article, and on VN's decision to let
> > > the TIME quotes stand? Surely he must have approved the TIME galleys.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Susan Elizabeth Sweeney" <ssweeney@holycross.edu>
> > > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:58 AM
> > > > Subject: Nabokov and Borges
> > > >
> > > > > Hello to Brian and others,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not so sure that Nabokov's admiration of Borges waned in any
> way.
> > While Nabokov vociferously resisted any intimations that he had been
> > influenced by anyone, including Borges (one of those people whose names
> > "always begin with a B" to whom he was compared), his comments on
Borges's
> > "miniature labyrinths" in SO are consistently approving. The
> "good-natured
> > > anagram" in ADA is, at heart, a considerable compliment,
> > > since Osberg becomes the Antiterran author of LOLITA.
>
From: "A. Bouazza" <mushtary@yahoo.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (79
lines) ------------------
> In response to Peter Hayes query, I will attempt to clarify VN's apt
> metaphor re Borges, or better say, to show how I always understood it.
> Borges is mostly writing about books and providing synopses of wonderful
> plots, contents, philosophies etc.ect...to such an extent that the reader
> feels the urge to consult those inexisting books. After a while, Borges
> tends to be repititious and his "formulae" predictable. In other words,
> Borges provides a facade to a "structure" but seems to be unable to set up
> that structure himself. I vividly recall an interview/article where Borges
> talked about "the novel I will never write" and proceeds to recount its
> intriguing plot -only to leave the reader in utter disappointment, for
he'll
> never read that novel!
>
> A. Bouazza.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:46 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Nabokov and Borges
>
>
> > EDNOTE. The redoubtable Mary Belliino provides the documented answers re
> VN
> > & BB
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mary Bellino" <iambe@rcn.com>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (42
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Nabokov had this to say on Borges in 1969:
> > >
> > > "At first, Vera and I were delighted by reading him. We felt
> > > we were on a portico, but we have learned that there was no house."
> > >
> > > Source is the TIME magazine article of May 23, 1969, p. 83.
> > > The "interview" that appears in SO (pp. 120-30 of the
> > > Vintage edition) was never published in full in TIME (that I
> > > can make out) but rather consists of Nabokov's written
> > > responses to questions that were telexed to him before the
> > > interview by two TIME reporters. Perhaps not surprisingly,
> > > there is no mention of Borges in this SO "interview," and VN
> > > pointedly avoids answering a direct question about Norman
> > > Mailer--whereas in the TIME article he cheerfully admits
> > > that he "detests everything in Amreican life that [Mailer]
> > > stands for" and as a bonus throws in a devastating appraisal
> > > of Philip Roth.
> > >
> > > As Sweeney suggests, the SO mentions of Borges are by no
> > > means as damning as the TIME statement, but I would argue
> > > that if read sequentially they do indicate a "waning" of
> > > admiration. In particular the statement on 184 seems very
> > > ambiguous, and that on 289-90 can only be described as dismissive.
> > >
> > > Can anyone with a closer knowledge of VN's biography shed
> > > any light on the relationship between the SO "interview" and
> > > the quotes in the TIME article, and on VN's decision to let
> > > the TIME quotes stand? Surely he must have approved the TIME galleys.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Susan Elizabeth Sweeney" <ssweeney@holycross.edu>
> > > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:58 AM
> > > > Subject: Nabokov and Borges
> > > >
> > > > > Hello to Brian and others,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not so sure that Nabokov's admiration of Borges waned in any
> way.
> > While Nabokov vociferously resisted any intimations that he had been
> > influenced by anyone, including Borges (one of those people whose names
> > "always begin with a B" to whom he was compared), his comments on
Borges's
> > "miniature labyrinths" in SO are consistently approving. The
> "good-natured
> > > anagram" in ADA is, at heart, a considerable compliment,
> > > since Osberg becomes the Antiterran author of LOLITA.
>