The Making of a Counter-Culture Icon: Henry Miller's Dostoevsky by Maria Bloshteyn

Abstract

558 Reviews of Houghton Osgood*s 1879 'Illustrated Edition* was intended to create a resem blance to such 'literary* works as those by Hawthorne, Longfellow, and Emerson (p. 138). IfHoughton Osgood turned Stowe*smelodrama into a good book, other less scrupulous publishers tried tomake it resemble theGood Book. Parfait gives some instances, such as the gilt edging of the large, heavy 1879 Riverside Press edition; or the invitation to the owner to complete the phrase 'This book is the property of. . .*on the front cover of J.S. Ogilvie*s 1928 'Special Theatre Edition*, which both nodded at the popular dramatized version of the text and asserted that owning thebook was more uplifting than reading it?which was just aswell, for the textwas incomplete (pp. 128, 165). Late in her lifeStowe gave some authority to a biblical interpretation by claiming that shewrote the text toGod*s dictation (p. 178). Parfait*s story of the publishing history of Uncle Tom's Cabin shows that Ker mode*s second definition of the classic isultimatelymore convincing. Her discussion of the protocols for reading the text reveal that ithas been read as both racist and anti-racist, realistic and sentimental, politically radical and conservative, a history or a sociology, both a testimony and propaganda. The only detectable error is the con sistentmisspelling of 'discreet*,in a tale of a protean text that is toldwith discretion. University of Exeter Robert Lawson-Peebles The Making of a Counter-Culture Icon: Henry Millers Dostoevsky. By Maria Bloshteyn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2007. xi+261 pp. ?40. ISBN 978-0-8020-9228-1. Early scholarship on Dostoevsky's American reception suffered from an overge neralization that grouped all non-Russian orWestern readers into a homogeneous category regardless of historical, cultural, political, or linguistic constraints. Yet with seminal publications by Stefan Klessmann, Horst-Jiirgen Gerigk, and J. Weisgerber, the field ofDostoevsky scholarship has grown to accommodate specialized studies demonstrating a heightened awareness of varied cultural and individual interpreta tions ofDostoevsky's texts. It is in this context of focused scholarship thatMaria Bloshteyn's monograph should be read.While there are many books and articles exploring Dostoevsky's influence on particular American authors, Bloshteyn's is the firstto examine the impact of Dostoevsky on Henry Miller in the context of his association with theVilla Seurat circle of the 1930s, particularly with Anai's Nin and Lawrence Durrell. Through Bloshteyn's accessible case study of intercultural appropriation' readers gain insight not only into the crafted, interpreted image of Dostoevsky and its implications for the Villa Seurat writers, but into the wider issues of cross-cultural textual transmission and the artistic benefits of transgressive interpretation (p. vii). Bloshteyn grounds her study ofMillers Dostoevsky in a brief analysis ofDos toevsky's international and American literary reception, asserting that Tew other writers have been subjected to such radical misreadings and had their ideological credo distorted to such a dramatic extent' (pp. 4-5). While she cautions against blanket theories of literary influence and appropriation that account for themul MLR, 104.2, 2009 559 titude of contradictory readings of Dostoevsky's texts, Bloshteyn acknowledges thatMiller's 'idiosyncratic understanding was actually a development of a well established American tradition of interpretingDostoevsky and his novels' (p. 23). With the publication of Constance Garnett's translations in the 1910s and 1920s, American writers found an ally inDostoevsky, equating his status as an outsider to theEuropean canon with their own literary marginalization and perceiving inDos toevsky a prophetic voice pronouncing the realities thatwere relevant to a post-war American culture. The interpretative framework of the opening three chapters does little to advance the scholarship on Dostoevsky as Bloshteyn poses more questions than she answers and situates herself within the context of critical trends. Yet, in her focused ap proach, she never loses sight ofMiller rather than Dostoevsky as her target and thus transitions effortlessly into the perceptive analysis that comprises the bulk of her study.Drawing on Miller's (and, to a lesser extent,Nin's and Durrell's) novels, letters,and criticism, Bloshteyn both alignsMiller with and differentiates him from traditional American interpretations.Whereas Miller, like his American contem poraries, privileged Dostoevsky's outsider status and perceived...