Subject
Kurt Johnson on Vladimir Nabokov & Stephen Goud
From
Date
Body
EDITOR'S Note: Kurt Johnson is the co-author of NABOKOV'S BLUES, a fine
piece of popu;ar science writing, much in the tradition of S. J. Gould.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Vladimir Nabokov& Stephen Goud
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:13:40 -0400
From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
To: "'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'" <NABOKV-@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
It is unfortunate that S.J.G. passed away before reay entering the
"center" of discussion about Nabokov and his butterflies. It has been
useful that Gould did enter this "fray" at least in this compilation and
the piece in "Vera's Butterflies"....I've toyed with dedicating an
eventual forthcoming version of the "long thing" I presented on Nabokov,
evolution and mimicry at the Harvard ALA more than a year ago, and still
might, because it IS helpful (re: attention to Nabokov's science) that
Dr. Gould added his views. However, I was always disappointed at the
failure of attempts to actually have him meet, dialogue, and actual
exchange with, literary scholars and scientists who were also studying
Nabokov's science intensely. I suggested this a number of times to
him, to no avail. Some of this has to do with the "class" structure of
the scientific community. There are "nobodies" and "somebodies" and
"people becoming somebodies", "people who never became anybody" etc.
(quite humorous) but the "pecking order" doesn't exactly allow for free
or commonplace exchange. I have a feeling that, given a few more years,
Dr. Gould might have been "into" that kind of an exchange as he saw the
issues developing. Certainly, anyone who attended the ALA meeting at
Cambridge (esp. with the input of Victoria Alexander on the teleology of
Nabokov's science) would have seen that arena developing
interestingly. So, the misfortune is that Gould entered the debate
really at arm's length, perhaps assuming that you could know everything
about Nabokov's science simply by being brilliant, a polymath in
science, and having purused Nabokov's work a bit. But much more would
have been gained by some face to face dialogues, or serious
correspondence, among those pursuing the same interest. So it goes,
but there is no doubt that much was gained by such a scientific
celebrity calling attention to Nabokov and his work. After all, most of
the pundits in Lepidoptery now cite Gould as being the one who settled
the matter of whether Nabokov was a "professional" or not, since he
"said so" in Vera's Butterflies. And such attributions have actually
changed MANY lepidopterists minds about the quality of Nabokov and his
work on bugs, more than reading Nabokov's Blues or Nabokov's
butterflies. This is because a significant percentage of working
lepidopterists have never read those books! (again, a sociological
oddity). There are actually major people in the Lepidoptera community
who speak about Nabokov at meetings etc. and have actually read neither
book. Thus, Gould's commentaries on Nabokov did have effect....a
reflection a bit of how advertising "works"-- if Oprah says that this
or that hair shampoo is best, so it is, etc. So, we are actually lucky
that Gould did delve into this subject before his untimely passing.
Especially if one is in ones late 50's or 60's one realizes that 60 was
far too young an age for someone so gifted to part the scene. I have
been quite surprised, and see it as a plus, that Gould's pieces on
Nabokov perhaps get more airplay than any of the books of the Nabokov
centenary. Its possible that, without them, the general myth of
Nabokov's "amateurism" (figuratively and literative) would not have been
as widely disspelled as its now seems to be.
Kurt Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@gte.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:25 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: [Fwd: Vladimir Nabokov& Stephen Goud
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Vladimir Nabokov's second career as a lepidopterist ...
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:41:00 -0400
From: "Sandy P. Klein" <spklein52@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: SPKlein52@HotMail.com
To:
CC:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/full-page?res=9800E3DF163AF93AA35755C0A9649C8B63
[The New York Times] BOOK REVIEW DESK
BOOKS IN BRIEF: NONFICTION
By Michael Scott Moore
I HAVE LANDED
The End of a Beginning
in Natural History.
By Stephen Jay Gould.
Harmony, $25.95.
The title of Stephen Jay Gould's 22nd book on natural science borrows a
phrase his grandfather scribbled in an English primer after he arrived
at Ellis Island: ''I have landed. Sept. 11, 1901.'' Last year Gould, an
evolutionary biologist at Harvard, ended an unbroken run of 300 columns
in Natural History magazine; ''I Have Landed'' would have been a simple
collection of his final essays if the World Trade Center had not
collapsed on the centennial of his grandfather's arrival; the weird
coincidence of dates inspired a handful of shorter pieces tacked onto
the end about Americanism, evil and the New York skyline. Gould's mind
likes to scurry into every corner of high and low culture. He
investigates Gilbert and Sullivan, myths of the Alamo, forgotten female
naturalists and Vladimir Nabokov's second career as a lepidopterist. But
he always returns to the theme of Darwinism. For Gould, the theory of
evolution offers a vision of an ancient and continuous ''tree of life,''
linking all creatures, and he applies this idea of continuity to his own
catholic interests. The Nabokov essay, for example, starts with a bland
debate over how the novelist's butterfly collecting and classifying
might have informed (or detracted from) his fiction; but the piece ends
with a fierce argument against the wall between literature and science
-- a wall that Gould, who died last month, spent a career trying to
topple. Michael Scott Moore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
piece of popu;ar science writing, much in the tradition of S. J. Gould.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Vladimir Nabokov& Stephen Goud
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:13:40 -0400
From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
To: "'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'" <NABOKV-@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
It is unfortunate that S.J.G. passed away before reay entering the
"center" of discussion about Nabokov and his butterflies. It has been
useful that Gould did enter this "fray" at least in this compilation and
the piece in "Vera's Butterflies"....I've toyed with dedicating an
eventual forthcoming version of the "long thing" I presented on Nabokov,
evolution and mimicry at the Harvard ALA more than a year ago, and still
might, because it IS helpful (re: attention to Nabokov's science) that
Dr. Gould added his views. However, I was always disappointed at the
failure of attempts to actually have him meet, dialogue, and actual
exchange with, literary scholars and scientists who were also studying
Nabokov's science intensely. I suggested this a number of times to
him, to no avail. Some of this has to do with the "class" structure of
the scientific community. There are "nobodies" and "somebodies" and
"people becoming somebodies", "people who never became anybody" etc.
(quite humorous) but the "pecking order" doesn't exactly allow for free
or commonplace exchange. I have a feeling that, given a few more years,
Dr. Gould might have been "into" that kind of an exchange as he saw the
issues developing. Certainly, anyone who attended the ALA meeting at
Cambridge (esp. with the input of Victoria Alexander on the teleology of
Nabokov's science) would have seen that arena developing
interestingly. So, the misfortune is that Gould entered the debate
really at arm's length, perhaps assuming that you could know everything
about Nabokov's science simply by being brilliant, a polymath in
science, and having purused Nabokov's work a bit. But much more would
have been gained by some face to face dialogues, or serious
correspondence, among those pursuing the same interest. So it goes,
but there is no doubt that much was gained by such a scientific
celebrity calling attention to Nabokov and his work. After all, most of
the pundits in Lepidoptery now cite Gould as being the one who settled
the matter of whether Nabokov was a "professional" or not, since he
"said so" in Vera's Butterflies. And such attributions have actually
changed MANY lepidopterists minds about the quality of Nabokov and his
work on bugs, more than reading Nabokov's Blues or Nabokov's
butterflies. This is because a significant percentage of working
lepidopterists have never read those books! (again, a sociological
oddity). There are actually major people in the Lepidoptera community
who speak about Nabokov at meetings etc. and have actually read neither
book. Thus, Gould's commentaries on Nabokov did have effect....a
reflection a bit of how advertising "works"-- if Oprah says that this
or that hair shampoo is best, so it is, etc. So, we are actually lucky
that Gould did delve into this subject before his untimely passing.
Especially if one is in ones late 50's or 60's one realizes that 60 was
far too young an age for someone so gifted to part the scene. I have
been quite surprised, and see it as a plus, that Gould's pieces on
Nabokov perhaps get more airplay than any of the books of the Nabokov
centenary. Its possible that, without them, the general myth of
Nabokov's "amateurism" (figuratively and literative) would not have been
as widely disspelled as its now seems to be.
Kurt Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@gte.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:25 PM
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Subject: [Fwd: Vladimir Nabokov& Stephen Goud
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Vladimir Nabokov's second career as a lepidopterist ...
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:41:00 -0400
From: "Sandy P. Klein" <spklein52@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: SPKlein52@HotMail.com
To:
CC:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/full-page?res=9800E3DF163AF93AA35755C0A9649C8B63
[The New York Times] BOOK REVIEW DESK
BOOKS IN BRIEF: NONFICTION
By Michael Scott Moore
I HAVE LANDED
The End of a Beginning
in Natural History.
By Stephen Jay Gould.
Harmony, $25.95.
The title of Stephen Jay Gould's 22nd book on natural science borrows a
phrase his grandfather scribbled in an English primer after he arrived
at Ellis Island: ''I have landed. Sept. 11, 1901.'' Last year Gould, an
evolutionary biologist at Harvard, ended an unbroken run of 300 columns
in Natural History magazine; ''I Have Landed'' would have been a simple
collection of his final essays if the World Trade Center had not
collapsed on the centennial of his grandfather's arrival; the weird
coincidence of dates inspired a handful of shorter pieces tacked onto
the end about Americanism, evil and the New York skyline. Gould's mind
likes to scurry into every corner of high and low culture. He
investigates Gilbert and Sullivan, myths of the Alamo, forgotten female
naturalists and Vladimir Nabokov's second career as a lepidopterist. But
he always returns to the theme of Darwinism. For Gould, the theory of
evolution offers a vision of an ancient and continuous ''tree of life,''
linking all creatures, and he applies this idea of continuity to his own
catholic interests. The Nabokov essay, for example, starts with a bland
debate over how the novelist's butterfly collecting and classifying
might have informed (or detracted from) his fiction; but the piece ends
with a fierce argument against the wall between literature and science
-- a wall that Gould, who died last month, spent a career trying to
topple. Michael Scott Moore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here