Subject
Re: "Sebastian" (as in Knight) (fwd)
Date
Body
EDITOR'S NOTE. Michael Suh sent NABOKV-L the posting below questioning the
validity/neccessity of notes like John Rea's recent Poe/Petersburg
explication. My response and his reply to it follow. These are questions
that every Nabokovian should ponder. When is a suspected subtext or
stylistic ploy Nabokov's own and when an invention of the reader.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:48:59 -0400
From: "Suh, Michael (M&C)" <MSuh@exchange.ML.com>
To: 'Donald Barton Johnson' <chtodel@humanitas.ucsb.edu>
Subject: RE: "Sebastian" (as in Knight) (fwd)
Dear Professor Johnson,
Thank you for your personal response.
I am quite aware that things like this are an important aspect of N's art
nor was I doubting in any way the mosaic. Rather it was the catching. Our
VN says in Strong Opinions that one of the talents that a critic must
possess is the ability to tell that what he discovers is not his own
footprint. Surely one can't _help_ finding it a little risible to discover
that Sebastian Knight is really Knight is absent or that Edgar and Virginia
Poe spent their honeymoon in a town called Penisburg. This sort of thing is
practically Freudian!
Of course one must catch as much as one can, but that doesn't mean that
everything one catches is a fish. I know an angler who once caught a shoe.
Sincerely,
Michael Suh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Barton Johnson [SMTP:chtodel@humanitas.ucsb.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 2:30 PM
> To: Suh, Michael (M&C)
> Subject: RE: "Sebastian" (as in Knight) (fwd)
>
> Dear Michael Suh,
> People who don't catch things like this are missing an important
> aspect of VN's art. They are part of the mosaic that makes up the whole.
> Best, Don
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> Department of Germanic, Slavic and Semitic Studies
> Phelps Hall
> University of California at Santa Barbara
> Santa Barbara, CA 93106
> Phone and Fax: (805) 687-1825
> Home Phone: (805) 682-4618
validity/neccessity of notes like John Rea's recent Poe/Petersburg
explication. My response and his reply to it follow. These are questions
that every Nabokovian should ponder. When is a suspected subtext or
stylistic ploy Nabokov's own and when an invention of the reader.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:48:59 -0400
From: "Suh, Michael (M&C)" <MSuh@exchange.ML.com>
To: 'Donald Barton Johnson' <chtodel@humanitas.ucsb.edu>
Subject: RE: "Sebastian" (as in Knight) (fwd)
Dear Professor Johnson,
Thank you for your personal response.
I am quite aware that things like this are an important aspect of N's art
nor was I doubting in any way the mosaic. Rather it was the catching. Our
VN says in Strong Opinions that one of the talents that a critic must
possess is the ability to tell that what he discovers is not his own
footprint. Surely one can't _help_ finding it a little risible to discover
that Sebastian Knight is really Knight is absent or that Edgar and Virginia
Poe spent their honeymoon in a town called Penisburg. This sort of thing is
practically Freudian!
Of course one must catch as much as one can, but that doesn't mean that
everything one catches is a fish. I know an angler who once caught a shoe.
Sincerely,
Michael Suh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Barton Johnson [SMTP:chtodel@humanitas.ucsb.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 2:30 PM
> To: Suh, Michael (M&C)
> Subject: RE: "Sebastian" (as in Knight) (fwd)
>
> Dear Michael Suh,
> People who don't catch things like this are missing an important
> aspect of VN's art. They are part of the mosaic that makes up the whole.
> Best, Don
>
> D. Barton Johnson
> Department of Germanic, Slavic and Semitic Studies
> Phelps Hall
> University of California at Santa Barbara
> Santa Barbara, CA 93106
> Phone and Fax: (805) 687-1825
> Home Phone: (805) 682-4618