tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post6941608157170959590..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: Bend SinisterD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-27145815170894341262012-03-25T20:32:19.425-04:002012-03-25T20:32:19.425-04:00Appreciate the analysis very much. You've hel...Appreciate the analysis very much. You've helped me clarify my own thoughts--no small achievement! Novel started almost as a farce (the bridge scene), and I've been struggling with the tone for the last fifty pages or so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-20893446029653064222011-08-17T08:29:39.663-04:002011-08-17T08:29:39.663-04:00I recently reread Bend Sinister (my thoughts here ...I recently reread Bend Sinister (my thoughts here http://prophesise.tumblr.com/post/8428012946/having-just-finished-rereading-bend-sinister-and) and found your post interesting, but I'd have to disagree with the last point.<br />1984 is a guidebook in methods of control, with freedom of thought being restricted through every aspect of society: from blatant terror through to more subtle manipulation of language (the medium of thought) and history (the context of thought). Using Winston's greatest fear to actually sever the bonds of human warmth with Julia is far more sinister than accidentally extinguishing the object of affection.Mark.http://www.playingincircles.bandcamp.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-52836723269100024332010-03-10T10:07:15.541-05:002010-03-10T10:07:15.541-05:00How does mere restatement strengthen a view or pro...<i>How does mere restatement strengthen a view or provide additional evidence for that view[?]</i><br /><br />OMG! You’re right! I provided no additional evidence.<br /><br />I did quote Adam Krug’s reason for refusing to sign the Ekwilist loyalty oath: “Legal documents excepted, and not all of them at that, I never have signed, nor ever shall sign, anything not written by myself.” And I did append a comment: “This is the heart of the case for freedom of speech: the irreplaceable good, the fugitive urgency, of individual expression.”<br /><br />But that is hardly evidence.<br /><br />And a little later I did show that “Krug resists the petty tyranny (and stupidity) of Ekwilist soldiers by means of a voluble individualism.”<br /><br />But that is hardly evidence either.<br /><br />And when his son is murdered by the State, I noted, “Krug plunges into insanity. His freedom of thought is taken away at last—by taking away the person who matters most to him.”<br /><br />But how could that possibly count as evidence? Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of art—three varieties of the same freedom—are all that stand between a man and madness. Yet this is merely to repeat myself, Snark-like.<br /><br />Finally, I actually use the word <i>because</i>, identifying an actual argument: “Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of art are the ultimate value, because they are the last refuge of resistance to the State.”<br /><br />More non-evidence!<br /><br />Thank Heaven for apologists for tyranny who read all the way to the end!D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-27704477914132210472010-03-10T09:37:17.972-05:002010-03-10T09:37:17.972-05:00You write:
“Freedom of speech, freedom of thought,...You write:<br />“Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of art”—three varieties of the same freedom. For Nabokov, there is no more ultimate value. Bend Sinister, his second English-language novel and first written in the United States, is intended to corroborate this fact."<br /><br />I wonder if it is entirely accurate to speak of corroboration in respect of oneself or in commenting on an author's consistency. How does mere restatement strengthen a view or provide additional evidence for that view. Is it the Snark Rule in operation - anything I say three times is true? <br /><br />'Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:<br />That alone should encourage the crew.<br />Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:<br />What I tell you three times is true.'michael reidynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-45816634081790785982010-02-23T20:07:40.117-05:002010-02-23T20:07:40.117-05:00Here is something almost completely off the subjec...Here is something almost completely off the subject: Did you know that Flannery O'Connor (as I just rediscovered while rereading Brad Gooch's biography of the Georgia writer) was particularly impressed with Nabokov, especially PNIN. I can hardly imagine two more different writers. Oh to have visited Milledgeville (GA) and to have had an opportunity to talk to O'Connor about Nabokov. The mind boggles at what she would have said. On the other hand, it is equally mind boggling to imagine Nabokov's take on O'Connor!<br /><br />By the way, I am now including THE REAL LIFE OF SEBASTIAN KNIGHT and BEND SINISTER on my list for my next library visit.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-68015383980692262872010-02-23T20:01:21.070-05:002010-02-23T20:01:21.070-05:00Thank you for highlighting Nabokov's novel, wh...Thank you for highlighting Nabokov's novel, which I must admit is one I still need to read. It strikes me, based on your comments, that the novel may be particularly appropriate for our own time; after all, "Nabokov understood that the State [by restricting freedoms] has a far more sinister weapon," and I--perhaps you too--worry about the ways in which Nabokov's understanding may be currently relevant.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.com