Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Friday, December 01, 2006

Nabokov: Butterflies, Darwin, Mimesis

Posted by Amardeep Singh on 12/01/06 at 01:58 PM

From Nabokov’s Speak, Memory:

“The mysteries of mimicry had a special attraction for me. Its phenomena showed an artistic perfection usually associated with man-wrought things. Consider the imitation of oozing poison by bubblelike macules on a wing (complete with pseudo-refraction) or by glossy yellow knobs on a chrysalis ("Don’t eat me--I have already been squashed, sampled and rejected"). Consider the tricks of an acrobatic caterpillar (of the Lobster Moth) which in infancy looks like bird’s dung, but after molting develops scrabbly hymenopteroid appendages and baroque characteristics, allowing the extraordinary fellow to play two parts at once (like the actor in Oriental shows who becomes a pair of intertwisted wrestlers): that of a writhing larva and that of a big ant seemingly harrowing it. When a certain moth resembles a certain wasp in shape and color, it also walks and moves its antennae in a waspish, unmothlike manner. When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. “Natural Selection,” in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of “the struggle for life” when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator’s power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the nonutilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception.”


My students, I was happy to see, were a little shocked that someone with Nabokov’s way of seeing things would say something that might even remotely be construed as Intelligent Design-ish. And indeed, Darwinian natural selection, as I understand it, does have a fine explanation for the “miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior”: any mutant variety that doesn’t exhibit perfect imitation is going to get eaten.

I tried to deflect the conversation onto Nabokov’s real point here, which begins with the principle that art requires a kind of heroic, almost obsessive attention to mimesis. You put way more effort into representing the world in your art than your predator (or reader) is likely to ever notice. Secondly, the quality that makes your labor “art” comes from the excess, which is, like the butterfly that looks like a leaf with “grub-bored holes,” also always in some sense deceptive ("an intricate enchantment and deception"). If art is both mimetic and deceptive, perhaps Nabokov is trying to say that mimesis itself is always primarily deceptive, not duplicative. You make a butterfly that looks amazingly like a leaf, but you don’t attempt to clone the genetic structure of the leaf itself. Indeed, in some sense you don’t care about the leaf per se (i.e., the fabric of reality) at all. 


Comments

One association with this: you can have distance created just by duplication, at which point mimesis becomes something else. I’ve been working on this with my students, because we’re reading a story called “At The Tolstoy Museum” by Donald Barthelme. In the story, Barthelme “mimes” visitors attending a museum and bursting into tears at Tolstoy’s authority. However, it is impossible to read about them doing this without laughing, simply because we’re seeing them from the outside. Mimesis creates a mirroring that is deceptive because, in the act of duplication, we end up outside of both instantiations (just as Speak, Memory is outside of both Nabokov’s art and his natural science collections).

By Joseph Kugelmass on 12/01/06 at 03:38 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"My students ... were a little shocked that someone with Nabokov’s way of seeing things would say something that might even remotely be construed as Intelligent Design-ish.

I’m a little surprised they’re surprised.  Nabokov was always a God-ist, after all.  (I don’t hold it against him.  Several great writers were.) The self-penned epigraph at the beginning of Invitation to a Beheading goes: “Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels”

By Adam Roberts on 12/01/06 at 03:50 PM | Permanent link to this comment

See “Nabokov, Teleology, and Insect Mimicry"</a>, Victoria N. Alexander, Nabokov Studies 7 (2003): synopis, fullpdf

By nnyhav on 12/01/06 at 05:36 PM | Permanent link to this comment

This is so strange. I myself am writing about Nabokov and mimicry and butterflies at this very moment, and ... well, this is just incredibly convenient. Thanks for the paper link, nnyhav. That promises to be just bloody helpful is all I can say.

The Tolstoy Museum is great, too. All those pictures of Tolstoy, ma.

By John Holbo on 12/01/06 at 09:30 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"And indeed, Darwinian natural selection, as I understand it, does have a fine explanation for the “miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior”: any mutant variety that doesn’t exhibit perfect imitation is going to get eaten.”

It’s weird to see this offered as a refutation of Nabokov’s comments: the very excerpt you’re quoting addresses this objection with “...far in excess of a predator’s power of appreciation.” If it can be shown that the predators meant to be fooled by mimicry aren’t capable of distinguishing differences already on much cruder levels than those offered by those butterflies, than indeed it’s difficult to see how natural selection alone could have produced such perfect mimicry. I don’t know whether Nabokov is right in claiming this to be the case. Probably he isn’t. But his is a subtler and more nuanced argument than you take it to be, by offering an elementary and obvious objection which is taken care of in Nabokov’s argument.

By Anatoly on 12/01/06 at 10:22 PM | Permanent link to this comment

If art is both mimetic and deceptive, perhaps Nabokov is trying to say that mimesis itself is always primarily deceptive, not duplicative. You make a butterfly that looks amazingly like a leaf, but you don’t attempt to clone the genetic structure of the leaf itself.

Have you read Gombrich? Art and Illusion is the full-scale exposition, but he advanced the idea in the title essay of the collection Meditations on a Hobbyhorse (1963): “...substitution may precede portrayal, and creation communication” (p. 5). Gombrich goes on to suggest that this might give us a way to think about the origins of language rather than mimesis or “emotive interjection.”

We might term it the ‘niam-niam’ theory postulating the primitive hunter lying awake through hungry winter nights anbd making the sound of eating, not for communication but as a substitute for eating—being joined, perhaps, by a ritualistic chorus trying to conjure up the phantasm of food.

By Bill Benzon on 12/02/06 at 05:20 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Nabakov’s attitude is much like Nietzsche’s idea of a surplus or excess, opposed to the various naturalistic ideas that humans are just surviving, responding to forces, or attaining equilibrium.

By John Emerson on 12/02/06 at 04:15 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"My students, I was happy to see, were a little shocked...

To realize that a man who spent his life as an inventor of seductive fictions was capable of being seduced?  That’s like being surprised that a man who likes to drink sometimes enjoys being drunk.

I tried to deflect the conversation onto Nabokov’s real point here...

The author’s intention is not the only point of interest. You’re reading back into what you imagine to be the man. Better to read the words on the page; then infer back to what the author may have wanted to be, as well as what he may apparently have been.  You choose to discuss intention in others I think because that choice reflects on your preference for not questioning your own.

Art mimetic as a goal?  Then every snapshot would be art. Mimetic art uses subject matter as a form. I would hazard that “subtlety, exuberance, and luxury” were of more importance to Nabokov than mimesis itself.  He was a figurative artist not a mechanical device -though his tastes ran towards a jeweler’s decadence (he was the end of a line after all.)

“I’m a little surprised they’re surprised.  Nabokov was always a God-ist, after all.  (I don’t hold it against him.  Several great writers were.)” [sic!]

By Seth Edenbaum on 12/02/06 at 04:43 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Bill, I’m glad Gombrich’s “niam-niam” jargon didn’t catch on, but I like the gait of his hobbyhorse.

Amardeep, I’ve read that passage without thinking Intelligent Designer thoughts. Nabokov’s explicit point isn’t that a superior conscious being with peculiar priorities must have deliberately crafted these insects, but that pure live-or-die utilitarianism isn’t enough to explain the apparent “exuberance” of their design. (This isn’t to say that Nabokov didn’t believe in a peculiarly prioritized Hand o’ God, but it does duck the question of what precisely Nabokov believed, which I think is in line with Nabokov’s preferences.)

By Ray Davis on 12/02/06 at 06:45 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Secondly, the quality that makes your labor “art” comes from the excess, which is, like the butterfly that looks like a leaf with “grub-bored holes,” also always in some sense deceptive

I’m interested in the fact that deception comes so insistently to the fore as the other of mimicry. Equally persuasive to me would be a gloss of this passage foregrounding mimicry in a utilizable/excessive continuum. Nabokov seems as interested in an economy of reading/writing as in its capacity for verisimilitude, and seems to say mimesis is always deceptive, and always unrecoverable as reality, or un-utilizable.

By on 12/02/06 at 07:06 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Versimilitude, properly speaking, is irrelevant in nature since what has a behavioral effect is not the “reality” but the sign. It benefits the butterly to be realerthan real. I recall an experiment involving a species of fish whose males are aroused by the sight of a hump on the back of the female. It turned out that actual females could not compete with wooden decoys with impossibly big humps.

When somebody told Ed Bundy that the breasts on the nudie bar girls were artificial, he replied, “So what?” Same idea. There’s a Niezsche quote to the same effect, but I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

By Jim Harrison on 12/02/06 at 10:06 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Perhaps, Jim, you’re thinking of Tinbergen’s classic work on the three-spined stickleback.

By Bill Benzon on 12/03/06 at 04:34 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: