Comments on: “[T]here is decidedly no benefit to the fatherland…” http://www.bibliographing.com/2010/02/08/there-is-decidedly-no-benefit-to-the-fatherland/ or, writing about books Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:01:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Richard http://www.bibliographing.com/2010/02/08/there-is-decidedly-no-benefit-to-the-fatherland/comment-page-1/#comment-8092 Richard Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:33:47 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=2300#comment-8092 I love Nabokov's fiction and think his positive criticism, such as it is, is interesting and valuable, but find that there are numerous places "not to trust him". (May I point you to a post <a href="http://yolacrary.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-nature-of-strong-opinions-diary-of.html" rel="nofollow">I wrote</a> about Coetzee, in which Nabokov plays a key role?) Anyway, your blog is new to me. I keep meaning to read Gogol, if only because I've wanted to read Nabokov's study. Your posts have been helpful in that regard. I love Nabokov’s fiction and think his positive criticism, such as it is, is interesting and valuable, but find that there are numerous places “not to trust him”. (May I point you to a post I wrote about Coetzee, in which Nabokov plays a key role?)

Anyway, your blog is new to me. I keep meaning to read Gogol, if only because I’ve wanted to read Nabokov’s study. Your posts have been helpful in that regard.

]]> By: Amateur Reader http://www.bibliographing.com/2010/02/08/there-is-decidedly-no-benefit-to-the-fatherland/comment-page-1/#comment-7423 Amateur Reader Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:14:30 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=2300#comment-7423 I believe Nabokov's word for the Ukrainian tales is "trash" - I think that's from an interview, though, and not the book? VN had a thing, to use an elegant Nabokovian turn of phrase, a thing about local color writing. If there's a place not to trust him, it's there.* Oh, and women writers. Minor - ha ha - minor blind spot. Anyway, if we just followed VN's strictures - and he is really just trying to set apart the best of the best - we would only have about two dozen books to read, or two dozen not by VN. As I think over those books, though - you could do worse! * Although see p. 31 of <i>Nikolai Gogol</i> for his side of the argument. I believe Nabokov’s word for the Ukrainian tales is “trash” – I think that’s from an interview, though, and not the book?

VN had a thing, to use an elegant Nabokovian turn of phrase, a thing about local color writing. If there’s a place not to trust him, it’s there.* Oh, and women writers. Minor – ha ha – minor blind spot.

Anyway, if we just followed VN’s strictures – and he is really just trying to set apart the best of the best – we would only have about two dozen books to read, or two dozen not by VN.

As I think over those books, though – you could do worse!

* Although see p. 31 of Nikolai Gogol for his side of the argument.

]]> By: nicole http://www.bibliographing.com/2010/02/08/there-is-decidedly-no-benefit-to-the-fatherland/comment-page-1/#comment-7393 nicole Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:43:43 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=2300#comment-7393 Not yet, though I've thought about it and now that I've finally read all these stories I have to. But I keep being put off hearing VN only liked <em>The Inspector General</em>, <em>Dead Souls</em> and "The Overcoat," and dismissed the Ukrainian tales. They are not as good, but I wouldn't go around calling them juvenilia either. More Gogolian, yes, that is definitely true. And you're right about <em>Dead Souls</em> too. Not yet, though I’ve thought about it and now that I’ve finally read all these stories I have to. But I keep being put off hearing VN only liked The Inspector General, Dead Souls and “The Overcoat,” and dismissed the Ukrainian tales. They are not as good, but I wouldn’t go around calling them juvenilia either.

More Gogolian, yes, that is definitely true. And you’re right about Dead Souls too.

]]> By: Amateur Reader http://www.bibliographing.com/2010/02/08/there-is-decidedly-no-benefit-to-the-fatherland/comment-page-1/#comment-7392 Amateur Reader Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:35:51 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=2300#comment-7392 The St. Petersburg stories are not more Russian - they're more <i>Gogolian</i>. It's enough to make we wish that <i>Dead Souls</i> had been finished by the same writer. The Gogol who was actually writing it had unfortunately turned into someone else. The incineration of the manuscript suggests the confusion. Have you looked at VN's Gogol book? Not that it's the end-all of Gogol criticism, but it is a heck of a book in its own right. The St. Petersburg stories are not more Russian – they’re more Gogolian.

It’s enough to make we wish that Dead Souls had been finished by the same writer. The Gogol who was actually writing it had unfortunately turned into someone else. The incineration of the manuscript suggests the confusion.

Have you looked at VN’s Gogol book? Not that it’s the end-all of Gogol criticism, but it is a heck of a book in its own right.

]]>