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, January 18, 2008

Value-Judgment Friday

Posted by Jonathan Goodwin on 01/18/08 at 01:34 PM

Seems like a great idea for a recurring feature, doesn’t it? Anyway, here’s Ron Rosenbaum, writing about whether Nabokov’s “The Original of Laura” should be burned: “Think of that: the final ‘distillation’ of the work of perhaps the greatest, certainly the most complex, writer of the past century."

1) Perhaps the greatest?

2) Certainly the most complex?

I don’t like to argue about #1. Let’s try the other. Did Nabokov write anything as complex as a Harry Stephen Keeler novel? Not in terms of plot. Did he openly disdain the most obvious counterexample, even if you somehow agree that he was #1 equivalent with Joyce? Yes. Would anyone care to argue that one of Nabokov’s works is more complex than Finnegans Wake? What are other complexity contenders for those in #1 set with Nabokov, however you choose to construe that? 


Comments

It sounds as if he is saying the Nabokov himself is the most complex writer. That he was complex. Impossible to determine of course.

Is complexity a virtue in either the personal or the literary case? It definitely would make me think twice before answering a personal ad where the person says he/she is complex but as a spectator of someone’s life through biography, etc. I guess I sort of appreciate it.

Come to think of it I’m not even sure what complexity means when it comes to novels. Sentence structure? Plot? Pnin is complex isn’t it but how do you decide when one novel is more complex than another?

By ozma on 01/18/08 at 05:28 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Algorithmically.

By Jonathan Goodwin on 01/18/08 at 05:35 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Others who could lay claim to the complexity title, whatever that is, would include Faulkner, Gaddis and Pynchon.  And Gene Wolfe.

By on 01/18/08 at 05:53 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I’m a Gene Wolfe booster. But nothing of his is really in the same category as Finnegans Wake, I don’t think. Faulkner, Gaddis, or Pynchon either. Perhaps Rosenbaum tacitly assumed that Joyce was off the table when he made the comment, or perhaps it was Slate-mandated contrarianism, which you may remember from such gems as Saletan on Rushton and any of the Hitchens columns.

By Jonathan Goodwin on 01/18/08 at 05:56 PM | Permanent link to this comment

All depends on what “complex” means.  Ron Silliman’s poetry, insofar as every single sentence extends its meanings in completely different direction, would ultimately be more complicated than Nabokov, maybe even Joyce.  But then again, just because a piece of IKEA furniture is difficult to assemble doesn’t mean it’s a great piece of furniture.

By on 01/18/08 at 11:07 PM | Permanent link to this comment

As a nihilist, I find this question difficult. For us, burning books and manuscripts is always a good thing, but then, defying the express wishes of a snooty perfectionist would be a good thing too. Choices, choices.

I’m surprised that Kafka was not mentioned. A lot of his best stuff was supposed to be burned (by Max Brod, I think), though as I remember, Born told Kafka that he wouldn’t do it and that Kafka should find another executor.

Someone who started young and modelled on “Finnegans Wake” could probably out-complex Joyce (by working in Hebrew and Chinese script, for example), but why?

By John Emerson on 01/19/08 at 08:18 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Georges Perec’s Life: A User’s Manual? I am about halfway through it (in the translation) but it is currently taking a long, long rest from its labors on the floor next to my bed. Reawakening not assured.

I’m thinking Ada might be the most “complex” of Nabakov’s works. Although in the spirit of William Goldman I offer the following “good parts” abridgement: I You We fucked my cousin half-sister sister. Prepare to die.

By on 01/23/08 at 01:46 AM | Permanent link to this comment

As a major thinker and critic I agree with all of the above that all writers are awesome and sooper dooper complixated as long as they are in fulfillment of the criteria of being white and man.

By on 01/23/08 at 02:21 AM | Permanent link to this comment

This leads us to far more fruitful territory - which books ought to have been burned? And in a marvellous twist of serendipity, the answer (search your hearts) has been mentioned; Finnegan’s Wake.

By on 01/23/08 at 12:21 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I wonder if what Mr. Rosenbaum is implying is to the degree that the readings of Nabokov are so heavily psychologized, evidenced by his reference to “Lolitology,” elevates the complexity of his work to its supposed labyrinthine heights. As the layers of analysis as a result get encrusted on the text itself, we read back into Nabokov all of this sedimented psychological inquiry.

Of course, Rosenbaum seems to think this state lamentable especially in the case of Lolita. It is unlikely, I would hold, that it could be possible to state so unironically Nabokov’s superior complexity without the legacy and controversy attendant to that novel.

By Ahmad Ragab on 01/24/08 at 03:28 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Somebodycat misspelled ‘lolology’.

Bakhtin’s writings were more usefully burnt.

By nnyhav on 01/24/08 at 04:18 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Nabokov’s work was intermittently wonderful (sometimes top-heavy; is “Ada” really “all that”?), but he wasn’t a superbeing, with access to divine currents beyond our ken. I’m sure the “Laura” text will be interesting to trainspotting completists, but heaping more paper on the apocrypha pile won’t change much.

Someone should do a study, btw, on how the “religion gene” applies to the study of literature. How much are we willing to pay for a Nabokov/Hemingway/Joyce relic… such as a toenail? Personally speaking, the (author-intentionally) published books are quite enough to keep me happy. Some more than others.

By Steven Augustine on 01/27/08 at 07:50 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Okay Derek, how about Barnes? Stein? Marguerite Young? Or for personal complexity, Gayl Jones?

By on 02/04/08 at 05:05 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: