<< Music, Religion | Front Page | Saturday Night Linkage: Give The People What They Want; or, Fun With Log Oddities >>
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Saturday Morning
Suppose that you could only own one of the Library of America editions. Which one would it be and why? (I don’t know if the Melville one is valuable, but please no.)
I’d probably go with this one.
Comments
Well, the Stevens is a good choice (hell, a great one)... but if you could have just one? It would have to be the American Poetry: Twentieth Century, Volume One: Henry Adams to Dorothy Parker. You’ve got Stevens, Pound, Eliot, Frost, Williams, Moore… plus the rest of the amazing American poets of that period (and: Don Marquis!). I’m as tempted as anyone at silly superlatives, but if there’s an essential volume, it has to be this one, no?
The big one-volume candidates would be the Emerson essay volume, the Whitman, and the Stevens. And is it just me, or is Stevens now the 20th C. American Poet--eclipsing Pound, Frost, Eliot?
I was surprised that H. P. Lovecraft made the cut. I was even more surprised that their collection of his work didn’t include _The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath_. If that’s how well they chose selections for the others, I don’t see why people would particularly want them.
That’s a lot from a little, Rich.
The two Gertrude Stein editions are abominations: the majority of the works she mentions writing in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (included) aren’t in there; nor is Everybody’s Autobiography, the sequel. How they can justify not including her entire while reprinting Roth’s old books mystifies me.
Nabokov, 1955-1962 and Faulkner, 1930-1935, are both pretty tough as well.
I think that’d still have to be Eliot, based on what I’m hearing on the street.
In terms of sheer pleasure from a single volume, I’d have to go with either:
Flannery O’Connor, *Collected Works*
-or-
Nathanael West, *Novels and Other Writing*
(But I’m envisioning some sort of desert island scenario)
For what it offers me in a format that is difficult to find elsewhere, I choose the JJ Audubon Writings and Drawings. Good editions of most of these authors are available somewhere, but it’s difficult to find a decent reading copy of Audubon that focuses on the writing.
Taking AWB’s approach, I’d say Henry Adams’s History of the United States is probably the most personally irreplaceable LoA volume(s) I own. But I’ve enjoyed dipping into or gulping from all the others, with the exception of Dashiell Hammett’s not-very-collected short fiction. Luther’s choices are among my favorites. And also—sorry, Jonathan—the Melville omnibuses.
Five minutes of incidental googling cannot verify the misspelling of Melville’s name in one LoA edition that I seem to remember. That’s what I was referring to, however potentially erroneous.
Why bother with the faux crypticism in the first place, Jonathan?
I prefer to describe it as echt pellucidity. Was it a Modern Library edition? I don’t know. But one of them misspelled his name on the cover, of that I’m more-or-less certain.
http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=34
That volume of Melville is in my university’s library. I don’t think it’s spelled wrong on the outside - it’s the title page. It’s the one containing Pierre and short fiction.
I’d have the Thurber.
Thanks, Laura. But remember that the question has two parts! You too, Blah.
Ok. Thurber, for the pictures.
Given my interest in history I’d go with France and England in North America: Volumes One and Two Francis Parkman
Regarding Lovecraft. Keep in mind the The Dreamquest of Unknown Kadath was different from his usual work. Were in not for his literary agent (then a young man around 20) it’s likely the novel would’ve ended up in storage, not to be seen for many a year. It was the agent who encouraged its completion, and got it published post mortem after Howard’s death from pancreatic cancer.
I know the man’s name, but bringing it up from memory is not working right now. I did meet him a couple of years ago at the San Diego Comic-Con, and that he died about a month after. He was a big name in the comic book business.
In any case, “Kadath” is an unusual work of Howard, and a rather personal one as well. Full of all sorts of odd allusions. It showed Lovecraft’s eclectic interests, and that he was a softy when it came to cats. All things considered, I can understand why they have yet to include “Kadath” on their list.
BTW, I think the fact The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath is still in print had a big influence on LOA’s decision. (Visited the Amazon.com site and did a search on “kadath")
I’m looking at a whole shelf-full of LoA books as I type (strictly; I looked at them fondly for a moment, and then I typed). They really are lovely books to read stuff in; lovely to look at, the right size and heft, good typeface, nice skinny paper.
But only one? Of the three Nabokov volumes I own it’s Novels 1969-74 that is the most thumbed and dogeared; but that’s only because Ada is in that vol, and it took me several goes and a great deal of shlepping the book around in my backpack and pocket to get through that novel. So if I could have only one, it would probably be the Nabokov 1955-62. For why? It’s got Lolita; it’s got Pale Fire and it’s got Pnin, all between the same two covers. Reason enough. If they’d stuffed in Speak Memory instead of the superfluous Lolita Screenplay then it would be the perfect book.
Putting Nabokov on one side for a mo; the Edgar Poe vol is pretty nifty; all the tales and all the poetry, plenty to keep you busy. I go to the Stevens volume a lot, but to the Ezra Pound volume hardly at all, maybe because the latter doesn’t have the Cantos in it.
Jonathan: ‘I think that’d still have to be Eliot.’ Eliot isn’t in the series, is he? Or did I miss something? (Is he forthcoming?)
I was replying to Mr. Turnipseed’s comment.
Ah! My misunderstanding.
I was prompted by desire, actually. Eliot (you’re right) surely is the major American poet of the last century. A LoA edition of his poems & plays, and another for his essays, would be excellent indeed.
I don’t understand—how can you simultaneously call Nabokov an American author and Eliot an American poet? Isn’t that kind of unfair to either Great Britain or Russia?
I don’t know about Nabokov, but Eliot was born in the United States. He later moved to England after a successful tour, becoming, as is sometimes the case, more British than the British.
Why don’t you look up Nabokov on wikipedia or something, mythusmage?
And what does Wikipedia have to say about Nabokov?
Rich; my natural inclination is that everybody’s English really, if you look close enough (even Nabokov lived in England for a while). You’re right it looks a little contradictory; but I suppose Eliot’s nationality isn’t an exclusive category ... teaching him on an American Lit course doesn’t preclude teaching him on anEng Lit course. Plus the LoA has form; they select from ‘Prufrock’ to ‘Burnt Norton’ in the American Poetry 1: Henry Adams to Dorothy Parker volume J. Turnipseed mentions at the front of this thread; and they include all Nabokov’s non-Russian novels in their three-volume edition.
Mythusmage; is there some reason why you can’t, or prefer not to, check out Wikipedia?
Adam, what occasions your animosity towards clues?
Mythusmage; I’m sorry, you’ve lost me. Believe me I harbour no animosity. How do you mean, clues?
Apropos of Adam’s question: worst rhetorical tendency ever is the old habit of Netrek players and other very-goddamn-uber-geeks to refer to knowledge as ‘clue,’ presumably derived from ‘get a clue’ interpreted as ‘acquire a single unit of clue,’ or ‘clueless’ as ‘without clue’ - also used in ‘cluedump.’
Maybe the second Nabokov volume, Lo/Pale Fire/Pnin, never mind that I’ve got 2/3 of it under separate covers anyhow. Though that ‘American Sermons’ volume looks nice - where else do you get material of that kind? Plus imagine the fun of reading it aloud in your best fire-and-brimstone voice alone on your desert island!