Subject
: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
.>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (203
lines) ------------------
> One can at least say that VN's style is not 'ascetic', a term one might
> apply to Hemingway or, a fortiori, to Raymond Carver.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:49 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@brturbo.com>
> > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (165
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Prions? You mean, then, "a prioni reason" ?
> > >
> > > If one considers that " answers are the diseases of questions" ( I
> don´t
> > > remember who I am quoting but here I´m using a translation from the
> > French
> > > by W.R.Bion, a pscyhoanalyst) "superlatives" may be considered
> > infectious
> > > when they express an affective state with no backing by critical
> thought.
> > >
> > > I never considered VN an "aseptic" writer. Acerbic, yes.
> > > I still have to look up what "styptic" means.
> > >
> > > Jansy
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 3:41 PM
> > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (122
> > > > lines) ------------------
> > > > > Superlatives are pathogens? Well, I suppose if something as
unlikely
> > as
> > > > > prions can cause disease, there is no a priori reason why
> superlatives
> > > > could
> > > > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about 'styptic'?
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:10 AM
> > > > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > EDNOTE. NABOKV-L thanks Richard Pevear for his clarification.
And
> I
> > > do
> > > > > > agree.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "richard pevear" <rpevear@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > To: <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:06 AM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Johnson,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I certainly meant "aseptic" and I meant it in its first
meaning:
> > > > "free
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > pathogenic organisms," i.e. organisms capable of causing
> disease,
> > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > case, an attack of superlatives. You'll agree that Nabokov is
> > > usually
> > > > > > > "aseptic" in that sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours truly,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Pevear
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > > > > > >To: <rpevear@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > > > >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:44:22 -0800
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Dear Richard Pevear,
> > > > > > > > Your Pushkin article in the Hudson Review with its
phrase
> > > > "usually
> > > > > > > >aseptic Nabokov" has led a number of NABOKV-L subscribers to
> > wonder
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > >"acerbic Nabokov" was intended. "aseptic does seem odd.
> > > > > > > >Best, D. Barton Johnson, Editor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: D. Barton Johnson
> > > > > > > >To: nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu
> > > > > > > >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:38 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: Cathoxtoby@aol.com
> > > > > > > >To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > > > > > >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:30 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In a message dated 05/02/2004 03:16:11 GMT Standard Time,
> > > > > chtodel@cox.net
> > > > > > > >writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > EDNOTE. I'm inclined to agree with your suspicion.
> > > "Acerbic"---NOT
> > > > > > > > "Aseptic." VN was, of course, among those Russians who
> regard
> > > > > Pushkin
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > superlatives--although he faults for the occasional weak
> line.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am just getting round to reading the Fall 2003 issue
of
> > the
> > > > > > peerless
> > > > > > > > > __Hudson Review__. It contains an excellent article by
> > > Richard
> > > > > > Pevear
> > > > > > > > > called 'The Presence of Pushkin'. Pevear refers to
'...the
> > > > common
> > > > > > > >tendency
> > > > > > > > > among Russians to speak of Pushkin in superlatives--a
> > feature
> > > > > found
> > > > > > > >not
> > > > > > > > >only in the poet's hagiographers, but also in__ the
> usually
> > > > > aseptic
> > > > > > > >Nabokov
> > > > > > > > > [please visualize those words as italicized by me], the
> wry
> > > and
> > > > > > witty
> > > > > > > > > Sinyavsky, the judicious D.S. Mirsky.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, I think I understand the point here; VN was rather
> > chary
> > > of
> > > > > > > >praise
> > > > > > > > f>or other writers. But 'aseptic'? That is not a quality
I
> > > would
> > > > > ever
> > > > > > > >think of
> > > > > > > > > predicating of VN. 'Acerbic', yes, and perhaps it's a
> > > misprint.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Don't you think you're being too charitable in assuming a
> > misprint?
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > >encountered so many comments that VN is 'sterile' and
> 'cerebral'
> > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >seems all too likely that 'aseptic' is intended. After all
one
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > > > >acerbic about writers one doesn't like and still use
> superlatives
> > > > about
> > > > > > > >those one does. Whereas 'aseptic' would certainly not go with
> any
> > > > show
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >passionate enthusiasm...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Catherine Oxtoby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's
> Day -
> > > and
> > > > > > > beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
.>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (203
lines) ------------------
> One can at least say that VN's style is not 'ascetic', a term one might
> apply to Hemingway or, a fortiori, to Raymond Carver.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 8:49 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jansy Berndt de Souza Mello" <jansy@brturbo.com>
> > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (165
> > lines) ------------------
> > > Prions? You mean, then, "a prioni reason" ?
> > >
> > > If one considers that " answers are the diseases of questions" ( I
> don´t
> > > remember who I am quoting but here I´m using a translation from the
> > French
> > > by W.R.Bion, a pscyhoanalyst) "superlatives" may be considered
> > infectious
> > > when they express an affective state with no backing by critical
> thought.
> > >
> > > I never considered VN an "aseptic" writer. Acerbic, yes.
> > > I still have to look up what "styptic" means.
> > >
> > > Jansy
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 3:41 PM
> > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (122
> > > > lines) ------------------
> > > > > Superlatives are pathogens? Well, I suppose if something as
unlikely
> > as
> > > > > prions can cause disease, there is no a priori reason why
> superlatives
> > > > could
> > > > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about 'styptic'?
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > > > To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:10 AM
> > > > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic? Richard Pevear replies
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > EDNOTE. NABOKV-L thanks Richard Pevear for his clarification.
And
> I
> > > do
> > > > > > agree.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "richard pevear" <rpevear@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > To: <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:06 AM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Johnson,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I certainly meant "aseptic" and I meant it in its first
meaning:
> > > > "free
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > pathogenic organisms," i.e. organisms capable of causing
> disease,
> > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > case, an attack of superlatives. You'll agree that Nabokov is
> > > usually
> > > > > > > "aseptic" in that sense.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours truly,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard Pevear
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > > > > > > >To: <rpevear@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > > > >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:44:22 -0800
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Dear Richard Pevear,
> > > > > > > > Your Pushkin article in the Hudson Review with its
phrase
> > > > "usually
> > > > > > > >aseptic Nabokov" has led a number of NABOKV-L subscribers to
> > wonder
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > >"acerbic Nabokov" was intended. "aseptic does seem odd.
> > > > > > > >Best, D. Barton Johnson, Editor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: D. Barton Johnson
> > > > > > > >To: nabokv-l@listserv.ucsb.edu
> > > > > > > >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:38 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Fw: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >From: Cathoxtoby@aol.com
> > > > > > > >To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > > > > > > >Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:30 AM
> > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Fw: Is VN 'aseptic?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In a message dated 05/02/2004 03:16:11 GMT Standard Time,
> > > > > chtodel@cox.net
> > > > > > > >writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > EDNOTE. I'm inclined to agree with your suspicion.
> > > "Acerbic"---NOT
> > > > > > > > "Aseptic." VN was, of course, among those Russians who
> regard
> > > > > Pushkin
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > superlatives--although he faults for the occasional weak
> line.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am just getting round to reading the Fall 2003 issue
of
> > the
> > > > > > peerless
> > > > > > > > > __Hudson Review__. It contains an excellent article by
> > > Richard
> > > > > > Pevear
> > > > > > > > > called 'The Presence of Pushkin'. Pevear refers to
'...the
> > > > common
> > > > > > > >tendency
> > > > > > > > > among Russians to speak of Pushkin in superlatives--a
> > feature
> > > > > found
> > > > > > > >not
> > > > > > > > >only in the poet's hagiographers, but also in__ the
> usually
> > > > > aseptic
> > > > > > > >Nabokov
> > > > > > > > > [please visualize those words as italicized by me], the
> wry
> > > and
> > > > > > witty
> > > > > > > > > Sinyavsky, the judicious D.S. Mirsky.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, I think I understand the point here; VN was rather
> > chary
> > > of
> > > > > > > >praise
> > > > > > > > f>or other writers. But 'aseptic'? That is not a quality
I
> > > would
> > > > > ever
> > > > > > > >think of
> > > > > > > > > predicating of VN. 'Acerbic', yes, and perhaps it's a
> > > misprint.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Don't you think you're being too charitable in assuming a
> > misprint?
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > >encountered so many comments that VN is 'sterile' and
> 'cerebral'
> > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >seems all too likely that 'aseptic' is intended. After all
one
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > > > >acerbic about writers one doesn't like and still use
> superlatives
> > > > about
> > > > > > > >those one does. Whereas 'aseptic' would certainly not go with
> any
> > > > show
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >passionate enthusiasm...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Catherine Oxtoby
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's
> Day -
> > > and
> > > > > > > beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>