Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: VN Bibliography: Bitov & Nabokov Return-Path: Received: from chtodel (1Cust46.tnt5.santa-barbara.ca.da.uu.net [63.14.6.46]) by smtp1.gte.net with SMTP for ; id QAA05113 Sun, 30 May 1999 16:59:14 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <001901beaae7$d1485b60$2e060e3f@chtodel> From: "D. Barton Johnson" To: "N" Subject: VN Bibliography: Bitov & Nabokov Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 14:59:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01BEAAAD.100E7680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BEAAAD.100E7680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marina L. Von Hirsch. LITERATURE AS COMMENTARY IN ANDREI BITOV'S PROSE: = THE NABOKOV LINK. PhD. Dissertation Florida State University. Spring = 1997. Andrei Bitov, born 1937, is perhaps Russia's greatest writer of his = generation. Although loosely linked with the "young prose" movement of = the Sixties, he, then and now, stood alone as a somehow Proustian = author, writing (and rewriting) his complex, introspective prose. In = both Russia and the West he is best known for his novel PUSHKIN HOUSE = which was finished in 1971 but first published by Ardis in 1978 in the = U.S. It appeared in Russia only in 1989.=20 Bitov "discovered" Nabokov in 1970 and that discovery had profound = reverberations in his own work. Marina von Hirsch provides the following = abstract of her study: "This dissertation is a comparative study which examines the = central role that the discourse of literary commentary plays in the sui = generis prose fiction of the contemporary Russian writer Andrei Bitov, = and explores the affinites and differences of Bitov's literary discourse = with that of Vladimir Nabokov. The study demonstrates that commentary serves Bitov as the medium = for his philosophical thought, and as a means for exploring new = techniques which are integral both to the structure and the meaning of = his metafictional prose. This examination of Nabokov's and Bitv's methods of incorporating = the traditionally critical discourse of commentary within the discourse = of prose fiction demonstrates that the major point of contact between = Bitov and Nabokov lies in the symbiosis of art and criticism that = occurs in their fiction and in the ability of their critical writing to = include creative and imaginative elements. Their novels can be defined = as fictional intersections, where the roads of philosophy, criticism, = theory, and imagination merge. However, to achieve this effect, the two = writers implemented different methods and techniques, as this study has = also indicated. The comparative examination of Bitov's and Nabokov's methods of = incorporating commentary in their fiction has revealed that the two = writers often pursued different goals, thus demonstrating by subjective = acts of individual creation their sui generis conceptions of novelistic = vision and unique outlooks on life and art."=20 The study consists of four chapters plus an Introduction and = Conclusion. Chapter I discusses "Literary Roots, Historical Background, = & Cultural Milieu." The second -- "Bitov and Nabokov; Nabokov in Bitov." = Three -- "Literature as Commentary versus Commentary as Literature. Four = -- "Crossing the Boundaries: Commentary Modes and Subgenres." I found this work to be most informative in several respects. While = Bitov's early, meandering stories held little appeal for me, I was much = taken with his PUSHKIN HOUSE and planned to write something about its = many intimate connections with Nabokov, especially THE GIFT -- the = identity of theme (Russian literature), the mise en abysme structure, = etc. Reading Ellen Chances and Sven Spieker's recent books on Bitov, I = realized how little I really know about Bitov's oeuvre and my ambition = faded. Also, I confess that I failed to keep up with Bitov's work while = Chances and Spieker focused mostly on the early and middle work.=20 Marina von Hirsch provides an excellent overview of Bitov's literary = biography including near current work. The greatest strength of study, = however, is its survey of Bitov on VN and VN in Bitov. I also find the = author's general argument that internal (and sometimes external) = [auto-]commentary on their own work is a structural feature that, to a = large extent, unites their approach to literature.=20 Perhaps the greatest service a work of criticism can perform is to = inspire the reader to read and reread an author. I plan to add all of = the later Bitov to my reading list. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BEAAAD.100E7680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Marina L. Von Hirsch. LITERATURE AS = COMMENTARY=20 IN ANDREI BITOV'S PROSE: THE NABOKOV LINK.  PhD. Dissertation = Florida State=20 University. Spring 1997.
 
Andrei Bitov, born 1937, is perhaps Russia's = greatest =20 writer of his generation. Although loosely linked with the "young=20 prose" movement of the Sixties, he, then and now, stood alone as a = somehow=20 Proustian author, writing (and rewriting) his complex, introspective = prose. In=20 both Russia and the West he is best known for his novel PUSHKIN HOUSE = which was=20 finished in 1971 but first published by Ardis in 1978 in the U.S. It = appeared in=20 Russia only in 1989.
 
Bitov "discovered" Nabokov in 1970 and = that=20 discovery had profound reverberations in his own work. Marina von Hirsch = provides the following abstract of her study:
 
     = "This=20 dissertation is a comparative study which examines the central role that = the=20 discourse of literary commentary plays in the sui generis prose fiction = of the=20 contemporary Russian writer Andrei Bitov, and explores the affinites and = differences of Bitov's literary discourse with that of Vladimir=20 Nabokov.
    The study demonstrates that = commentary=20 serves Bitov as the medium for his philosophical thought, and as a means = for=20 exploring new techniques which are integral both to the structure and = the=20 meaning of his metafictional prose.
    This examination of Nabokov's and = Bitv's=20 methods of incorporating the traditionally critical discourse of = commentary=20 within the discourse of prose fiction demonstrates that the major point = of=20 contact between Bitov  and Nabokov lies in the symbiosis of art and = criticism that occurs in their fiction and in the ability of their = critical=20 writing to include creative and imaginative elements. Their novels can = be=20 defined as fictional intersections, where the roads of philosophy, = criticism,=20 theory, and imagination merge. However, to achieve this effect, the two = writers=20 implemented different methods and techniques, as this study has also=20 indicated.
    The comparative examination of = Bitov's and=20 Nabokov's methods of incorporating commentary in their fiction has = revealed that=20 the two writers often pursued different goals, thus demonstrating by = subjective=20 acts of individual creation their sui generis conceptions of novelistic = vision=20 and unique outlooks on life and art." 
 
    The study  consists of four = chapters=20 plus an Introduction and Conclusion. Chapter I discusses "Literary = Roots,=20 Historical Background, & Cultural Milieu." The second -- = "Bitov=20 and Nabokov; Nabokov in Bitov." Three -- "Literature as = Commentary=20 versus Commentary as Literature. Four -- "Crossing the Boundaries:=20 Commentary Modes and Subgenres."
 
    I found this work to be most = informative in=20 several respects. While Bitov's early, meandering stories held little = appeal for=20 me, I was much taken with his PUSHKIN HOUSE and planned to write = something about=20 its many intimate connections with Nabokov, especially THE GIFT -- the = identity=20 of theme (Russian literature), the mise en abysme structure, etc. = Reading Ellen=20 Chances and Sven Spieker's recent books on Bitov, I realized how little = I really=20 know about Bitov's oeuvre and my ambition faded. Also, I confess that I = failed=20 to keep up with Bitov's work while Chances and Spieker focused mostly on = the=20 early and middle work.
 
    Marina von Hirsch provides an = excellent=20 overview of Bitov's literary biography including near current work. The = greatest=20 strength of  study, however, is its survey of Bitov on VN and VN in = Bitov.=20 I also find the author's general argument that internal (and sometimes = external)=20 [auto-]commentary on their own work is a structural feature that, to a = large=20 extent, unites their approach to literature. 
 
    Perhaps the greatest service a = work of=20 criticism can perform is to inspire the reader to read and reread an = author. I=20 plan to add all of the later Bitov to my  reading = list.   =20
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BEAAAD.100E7680--