Subject
Re: Nabokov an anti-Stratfordian? (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Wayne Daniels <wdaniels@gwmail.mtrl.toronto.on.ca>
Galya writes:
<He did enjoy, though, teasing people whom he didn't like
and who, he thought, took themselves entirely too solemnly as
"scholars." Pretending to entertain "heretical" thoughts about
authorships and making those scholars mad was, in all likelihood,
sheer fun.>
Something of that same playfulness can be seen in his portrait of
Pnin's colleague, the one who kept a diary full of gnomic entries,
confident of their eventually being deciphered and declared a work of
literary genius, which the narrator concedes might well be what
happens. This is at the expense, simultaneously, of literary
mediocrity, bogus scholarship, and the critical discernment of
posterity. But I think it was Matthew Arnold who remarked that
scholars tend to esteem authors in proportion to the amount of work
they've invested in them.
Best,
Wayne Daniels
Toronto Reference Library
Galya writes:
<He did enjoy, though, teasing people whom he didn't like
and who, he thought, took themselves entirely too solemnly as
"scholars." Pretending to entertain "heretical" thoughts about
authorships and making those scholars mad was, in all likelihood,
sheer fun.>
Something of that same playfulness can be seen in his portrait of
Pnin's colleague, the one who kept a diary full of gnomic entries,
confident of their eventually being deciphered and declared a work of
literary genius, which the narrator concedes might well be what
happens. This is at the expense, simultaneously, of literary
mediocrity, bogus scholarship, and the critical discernment of
posterity. But I think it was Matthew Arnold who remarked that
scholars tend to esteem authors in proportion to the amount of work
they've invested in them.
Best,
Wayne Daniels
Toronto Reference Library