[quetzalcoatl]

Christopher Plummer plays Nabokov in a reconstruction of his famous Cornell lecture.

[youtube]boSFjzWJXcU[/youtube]

Necessarily a lot of Nobokov's words have been pruned, but still very intersting:

"...another poor fellow is turned into a beetle (Kafka's "The Metamorphosis)—so what? There is no rational answer to "so what." We can take the story apart, we can find out how the bits fit, how one part of the pattern responds to the other; but you have to have in you some cell, some gene, some germ that will vibrate in answer to sensations that you can neither define, nor dismiss. Beauty plus pity—that is the closest we can get to a definition of art. Where there is beauty there is pity for the simple reason that beauty must die: beauty always dies, the manner dies with the matter, the world dies with the individual. If Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" strikes anyone as something more than an entomological fantasy, then I congratulate him on having joined the ranks of good and great readers..."

[Potemkin]

I read Nabokov's lectures on literature back in my twenties. He was one of the best literary critics I have ever read. One of my favourite parts was when he emphasised the fact that it is just as important for great readers to exist as well as great writers. Without the former, the latter cannot exist.

[Ambroise]

He was one of the best literary critics I have ever read. One of my favourite parts was when he emphasised the fact that it is just as important for great readers to exist as well as great writers. Without the former, the latter cannot exist.

That reminds me of certain things Gore Vidal said on the subject:

"You hear all this whining going on, 'Where are our great writers?' The thing I might feel doleful about is: Where are the readers?"

"All these literary prizes should go to the readers: 'Nobel Prize for the best reader in Milwaukee.' And you know, we must honor them because they are so few."

In any case, I agree with Nabokov's insight.

[Potemkin]

Indeed, and there is also the point that every great writer begins as a great reader. There is a shortage of great writers precisely and only because there is a shortage of great readers. This, it seems to me, is what Nabokov was trying to do with his Lectures on Literature - to teach his students how to be good readers.

[Kropotkin]

I can't imagine - well, I can, but it frightens me to do so - how anyone could dismiss The Metamorphosis as "entomological fantasy." It's one of the most unsettling and terrifying books I've ever read, parts of it left my soul in shreds.

[Rainbow Crow]

The rational answer to "so what" is "you're a douche."

[Scott7]

I can't imagine - well, I can, but it frightens me to do so - how anyone could dismiss The Metamorphosis as "entomological fantasy." It's one of the most unsettling and terrifying books I've ever read, parts of it left my soul in shreds.

I don't believe you

[Scott7]

Guy seems quite pretentious to me

[Potemkin]

I can't imagine - well, I can, but it frightens me to do so - how anyone could dismiss The Metamorphosis as "entomological fantasy." It's one of the most unsettling and terrifying books I've ever read, parts of it left my soul in shreds.

Most people are philistines, Kropotkin. See immediately above for further details.

[SolarCross]

Most people are philistines, Kropotkin. See immediately above for further details.

Most lefties are elitist. See all your posts for further details. People don't read books because cinema is better.

[Potemkin]

Most lefties are elitist. See all your posts for further details.

I am opposed to social and economic elitism, but I am very much in favour of intellectual elitism. After all, if you want someone to lift a heavy rock, who are you going to ask to do it - some weedy guy who weighs only 150 lbs dripping wet, or some guy who lifts weights and is built like a brick shithouse? Obviously the latter, which is, of course, physical elitism. The same logic applies to intellectual work. Some people are just better at thinking than others, just as some people are better at lifting heavy rocks than others.

People don't read books because cinema is better.

Speaking as someone who has a doctorate in Film Studies from Edinburgh University, I would say that intelligent people usually both read books and watch movies. Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.

[SolarCross]

I am opposed to social and economic elitism, but I am very much in favour of intellectual elitism. After all, if you want someone to lift a heavy rock, who are you going to ask to do it - some weedy guy who weighs only 150 lbs dripping wet, or some guy who lifts weights and is built like a brick shithouse? Obviously the latter, which is, of course, physical elitism. The same logic applies to intellectual work. Some people are just better at thinking than others, just as some people are better at lifting heavy rocks than others.

If having those do what they they best able to do is elitism, then why oppose economic / social elitism any more than intellectual and physical elitism? Seems like a double standard. Anyway I don't want to derail the thread.

[Potemkin]

If having those do what they they best able to do is elitism, then why oppose economic / social elitism any more than intellectual and physical elitism? Seems like a double standard. Anyway I don't want to derail the thread.

You are quite right - after all, everyone knows what geniuses the British Royal Family are, and how they don't live at taxpayer expense, and of course not forgetting the sterling work the titled aristocracy have done expanding the forces of production in British society rather than simply swanning around attending fashionable soirees and balls or huntin' shootin' and fishin' on their vast estates like a bunch of over-privileged parasites. I take my hat off to them!

[SolarCross]

You are quite right - after all, everyone knows what geniuses the British Royal Family are, and how they don't live at taxpayer expense, and of course not forgetting the sterling work the titled aristocracy have done expanding the forces of production in British society rather than simply swanning around attending fashionable soirees and balls or huntin' shootin' and fishin' on their vast estates like a bunch of over-privileged parasites. I take my hat off to them!

Well opposing that kind of elitism I can understand, but lefties mostly whine about capitalists, entrepreneurs and investors.. Aren't they doing what they are best able to do? You may very well have a Phd in going to the movies but could you produce a movie that was worth more to the punters than it cost to make?

[Potemkin]

You may very well have a Phd in going to the movies but could you produce a movie that was worth more to the punters than it cost to make?

The question of every petty bourgeois philistine the world over: yes, but can you make any money from it?

[SolarCross]

The question of every petty bourgeois philistine the world over: yes, but can you make any money from it?

Well of course your delicate self-esteem must come first before the punter's pleasure. Are they not just philistines who are not intellectually convoluted enough to appreciate your genius, why care about them?

[JRS1]

I can't imagine - well, I can, but it frightens me to do so - how anyone could dismiss The Metamorphosis as "entomological fantasy." It's one of the most unsettling and terrifying books I've ever read, parts of it left my soul in shreds.

It bored me half to death.