I found the story gratifying, particularly the peevish complaints of key characters animated by the plot. I shouted Whoah to the happy ending, which reminded me of The Lady with the Dog (by the Russian doctor with the pince-nez). The hassle you wished to avoid by delaying publication (if I understand right) makes sense but fits with the theme. The uncanny speech you refer to in comments reminds me the question of "telling it slant" and (angry, political) direct speech . In contrast, Nabokov's treatment of ghost (or phantom suggestions, unclear but pregnant possibilities merging with the other character's stresses) require labor and detective work that could be easily missed. It's so gratifying to perceive, but in fact I only read N's stories after I found out that there was a code. In one example, the code was an explicit first-letter-code within a sentence. In another, a ghost was a strange shadow. My instinct (and received opinion maybe) tells me telling it slant is better as art, but also that few to none these days will read it, and if they do, decode it. By "these days" I mean highly ideological, and also hyper-sensitive, radical, unreal, and enforced, touch points in your story. How to respond against jargon, lies, coercion and decline? It makes sense that a fictional academic character of the classic values would spell it out, even more so after death as a spirit literally or narratively. Nabokov loved Lady with the Dog. I hope you will safely publish the story on Kindle some day, before ghosthood. Thanks for posting it here. Woooooaaauuuuhh (ghost noise?)
Thank you! I would never do the code thing—"The Vane Sisters," right?—but then I could never be a lepidopterist or a chess master either. I did swipe a gag directly from Lolita in this story, from when the headmistress of the Beardsley School for Girls addresses Humbert by four different mistaken names in the course of one speech, as the student does re: Anna Wojtunik—except that in my story the names are meant to be at least vaguely suggestive-symbolic. (VN would group me with the fond-of-symbolism-and-ideas also-rans like Balzac, Dostoevsky, and Mann.)
I'm curious: do you count the manic-mastering-monologues as the leave of realism mentioned in the intro? I ask because only fantastical creatures of academe could speak that way, which would make for a subtle magical realism.
Thank you! I think of the monologues as an established "realist" convention since Dostoevsky and Mann. What I had in mind was more the hints of possession toward the end of the story, the sense that Anna is speaking eerily, uncannily through both Madison and especially Su-Yun—and, finally, through Murphy himself.
Not at all too satirical or mean-spirited. It’s after big enough game that it earns a right to some real punch.
Thank you, I appreciate it!
I found the story gratifying, particularly the peevish complaints of key characters animated by the plot. I shouted Whoah to the happy ending, which reminded me of The Lady with the Dog (by the Russian doctor with the pince-nez). The hassle you wished to avoid by delaying publication (if I understand right) makes sense but fits with the theme. The uncanny speech you refer to in comments reminds me the question of "telling it slant" and (angry, political) direct speech . In contrast, Nabokov's treatment of ghost (or phantom suggestions, unclear but pregnant possibilities merging with the other character's stresses) require labor and detective work that could be easily missed. It's so gratifying to perceive, but in fact I only read N's stories after I found out that there was a code. In one example, the code was an explicit first-letter-code within a sentence. In another, a ghost was a strange shadow. My instinct (and received opinion maybe) tells me telling it slant is better as art, but also that few to none these days will read it, and if they do, decode it. By "these days" I mean highly ideological, and also hyper-sensitive, radical, unreal, and enforced, touch points in your story. How to respond against jargon, lies, coercion and decline? It makes sense that a fictional academic character of the classic values would spell it out, even more so after death as a spirit literally or narratively. Nabokov loved Lady with the Dog. I hope you will safely publish the story on Kindle some day, before ghosthood. Thanks for posting it here. Woooooaaauuuuhh (ghost noise?)
Thank you! I would never do the code thing—"The Vane Sisters," right?—but then I could never be a lepidopterist or a chess master either. I did swipe a gag directly from Lolita in this story, from when the headmistress of the Beardsley School for Girls addresses Humbert by four different mistaken names in the course of one speech, as the student does re: Anna Wojtunik—except that in my story the names are meant to be at least vaguely suggestive-symbolic. (VN would group me with the fond-of-symbolism-and-ideas also-rans like Balzac, Dostoevsky, and Mann.)
It earns the name novelette!
I'm curious: do you count the manic-mastering-monologues as the leave of realism mentioned in the intro? I ask because only fantastical creatures of academe could speak that way, which would make for a subtle magical realism.
Thank you! I think of the monologues as an established "realist" convention since Dostoevsky and Mann. What I had in mind was more the hints of possession toward the end of the story, the sense that Anna is speaking eerily, uncannily through both Madison and especially Su-Yun—and, finally, through Murphy himself.
Hmm, that note on the monologues fits.
And I did note the possession at the podium, something subtle but also eerie. Nice!