Vladimir Nabokov’s Hand-Drawn Sketches of Mind-Bending Chess Problems

20100602_nabokov_chess

Most of us strive to achieve some kind of distinction—or competence—in one, often quite nar­row, field. And for some of us, the path to suc­cess involves leav­ing behind many a path not tak­en. Child­hood pur­suits like bal­let, for exam­ple, the high jump, the trum­pet, act­ing, etc. become hazy mem­o­ries of for­mer selves as we grow old­er and busier. But if you have the for­mi­da­ble will and intel­lect of émi­gré Russ­ian nov­el­ist Vladimir Nabokov, you see no need to aban­don your beloved avo­ca­tions sim­ply because you are one of the 20th cen­tu­ry’s most cel­e­brat­ed writers—in both Russ­ian and Eng­lish. No indeed. You also go on to become a cel­e­brat­ed ama­teur lep­i­dopter­ist (see his but­ter­fly draw­ings here), earn­ing dis­tinc­tion as cura­tor of lep­i­doptera at Har­vard’s Muse­um of Com­par­a­tive Zool­o­gy and orig­i­na­tor of an evo­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry of but­ter­fly migra­tion. And as if that were not enough, you spend your spare time for­mu­lat­ing com­pli­cat­ed chess prob­lems, earn­ing such a rep­u­ta­tion that you are invit­ed in 1970 to join the Amer­i­can chess team to cre­ate prob­lems for inter­na­tion­al com­pe­ti­tions.

Nabokov Chess Problem

Nabokov was not eas­i­ly impressed by oth­er writ­ers or sci­en­tists, but he held chess play­ers in espe­cial­ly high regard. His “heroes include a chess grand­mas­ter,” writes Nabokov schol­ar Janet Gezari, “and a chess prob­lem com­pos­er…; chess games occur in sev­er­al of the nov­els; and chess and chess prob­lem lan­guage and imagery reg­u­lar­ly put his read­ers’ chess knowl­edge to the test.” His third nov­el, 1930’s The Defense, cen­ters on a chess mas­ter dri­ven to despair by his genius, a char­ac­ter based on real grand­mas­ter Curt von Bardeleben. For Nabokov, the skill and inge­nu­ity required for com­pos­ing chess prob­lems par­al­leled that required for great writ­ing: “The strain on the mind is for­mi­da­ble,” he wrote in his mem­oir Speak, Mem­o­ry, “the ele­ment of time drops out of one’s con­scious­ness.” Puz­zling out chess prob­lems and solu­tions, he wrote, “demand from the com­pos­er the same virtues that char­ac­ter­ize all worth­while art: orig­i­nal­i­ty, inven­tion, con­cise­ness, har­mo­ny, com­plex­i­ty and splen­did insincerity”—all qual­i­ties, we’d have to agree, of Nabokov’s fine­ly wrought fic­tions.

Nabokov Chess Game

In 1970, Nabokov pub­lished Poems and Prob­lems, a col­lec­tion of thir­ty-nine Russ­ian poems, with Eng­lish trans­la­tions, four­teen Eng­lish poems, and eigh­teen chess prob­lems, with solu­tions. He had pur­sued this pas­sion since his teens, and pub­lished near­ly three dozen chess prob­lems in his life­time. At the top of the post, see one of them, “Mate in 2,” sketched out in Nabokov’s hand (try to solve it your­self here). Below it, see anoth­er of the author’s chess prob­lem sketch­es, and in the pho­to above, see Nabokov absorbed in a chess game with his wife.

Though it may seem that Nabokov had lim­it­less ener­gy and time to devote to his extra-lit­er­ary pur­suits, he also wrote with regret about the price he paid for his obses­sion: “the pos­ses­sive haunt­ing of my mind,” as he called it, “with carved pieces or their intel­lec­tu­al coun­ter­parts swal­lowed up so much time dur­ing my most pro­duc­tive and fruit­ful years, time which I could have bet­ter spent on lin­guis­tic adven­tures.” Like the lep­i­dopter­ists still mar­veling over Nabokov’s con­tri­bu­tions to that field, the chess lovers who encounter his prob­lems, and his inge­nious use of the game in fic­tion, would hard­ly agree that his pur­suit of chess was fruit­less or unpro­duc­tive.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mar­cel Duchamp, Chess Enthu­si­ast, Cre­at­ed an Art Deco Chess Set That’s Now Avail­able via 3D Print­er

Vladimir Nabokov’s Delight­ful But­ter­fly Draw­ings

Vladimir Nabokov Cre­ates a Hand-Drawn Map of James Joyce’s Ulysses

Vladimir Nabokov Names the Great­est (and Most Over­rat­ed) Nov­els of the 20th Cen­tu­ry

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Two Gentlemen of Lebowski: What If The Bard Wrote The Big Lebowski?

We live in an age of mash ups. A few years ago some mal­con­tent came up with Pride and Prej­u­dice and Zom­bies. Our cities are teem­ing with food trucks hawk­ing Kore­an tacos and ramen burg­ers. And chess box­ing is appar­ent­ly a thing. So per­haps it isn’t sur­pris­ing that some evil genius would merge the most quotable movie of the past 20 years, The Big Lebows­ki, with William Shake­speare.

The result­ing book, writ­ten by Adam Bertoc­ci, is called Two Gen­tle­men of Lebows­ki, and it does a sur­pris­ing­ly good job of cap­tur­ing the lan­guage of the Bard while stay­ing true to the orig­i­nal movie. The author report­ed­ly wrote the first draft of the book in a sin­gle sleep­less week­end. An impres­sive feat that the author dis­miss­es in an inter­view with CNN that you can see above.

“Any­body could, giv­en the lack of a social life,” dead­pans Bertoc­ci, “take a week­end with a movie they admired and an author that they knew well and make a sim­i­lar­ly lengthy mash up of it.”

In Bertocci’s fevered rework­ing (read the first 3 scenes for free here), the Dude is recast as The Knave. His bel­liger­ent best friend is Sir Wal­ter of Poland. The hap­less Don­nie is Sir Don­ald of Greece. Knox Har­ring­ton, Mauve’s grat­ing­ly gig­gly con­cep­tu­al artist friend, is in this ver­sion a tapes­try artist. And of course, Da Fino, the PI, who shad­ows the Dude in the movie, is list­ed sim­ply as Broth­er Sea­mus.

But where Bertoc­ci real­ly shines is in his clever appro­pri­a­tion of Shake­speare­an lan­guage. The film’s copi­ous pro­fan­i­ty has been replaced with more Bard-wor­thy epi­thets like “rash egg” or “var­let.” The word “ver­i­ly” pep­pers the Knave’s dia­logue as the word “like” pep­pers the Dude’s. And when Wal­ter wax­es poet­ic about the rules of bowl­ing, he does so in iambic pen­tame­ter.

To get a sense of the dif­fer­ences, com­pare the clip above from the movie with the Bard-ofied text of the same scene below.

THE KNAVE’s house. Enter THE KNAVE, car­ry­ing parcels, and BLANCHE and WOO. They fight.

BLANCHE
Whith­er the mon­ey, Lebows­ki? Faith, we are as ser­vants to Bon­nie;
promised by the lady good that thou in turn were good for’t.

WOO
Bound in hon­our, we must have our bond; cursed be our tribe
if we for­give thee.

BLANCHE
Let us soak him in the cham­ber-pot, so as to turn his head.

WOO
Aye, and see what vapouris­es; then he will see what is foul.

They insert his head into the cham­ber-pot.

BLANCHE
What dread­ful noise of waters in thine ears! Thou hast cool’d
thy head; think now upon dri­er mat­ters.

WOO
Speak now on ducats else again we’ll thee duck­est; whith­er the
mon­ey, Lebows­ki?

THE KNAVE
Faith, it awaits down there some­place; prithee let me glimpse
again.

WOO
What, thou rash egg! Thus will we drown thine excla­ma­tions.

They again insert his head into the cham­ber-pot.

BLANCHE
Tri­fle not with the fury of two des­per­ate men. Long has thy
wife sealed a bond with Jaques Tree­horn; as blood is to blood,
sure­ly thou owest to Jaques Tree­horn in rec­om­pense.

WOO
Rise, and speak wise­ly, man—but hark;
I see thy rug, as woven i’the Ori­ent,
A trea­sure from abroad. I like it not.
I’ll stain it thus; to dead­beats ever thus.

He stains the rug.

THE KNAVE
Sir, prithee nay!

BLANCHE
Now thou seest what hap­pens, Lebows­ki, when the agree­ments
of hon­ourable busi­ness stand com­pro­mised. If thou wouldst
treat mon­ey as water, flow­ing as the gen­tle rain from heav­en,
why, then thou know­est water begets water; it will be a watery
grave your rug, drown’d in the weep­ing brook. Pray remem­ber,
Lebows­ki.

THE KNAVE
Thou err’st; no man calls me Lebows­ki. Hear right­ly, man!—for
thou hast got the wrong man. I am the Knave, man; Knave in
nature as in name.

BLANCHE
Thy name is Lebows­ki. Thy wife is Bon­nie.

THE KNAVE
Zounds, man. Look at these unwor­thi­est hands; no gaudy gold
pro­fanes my lit­tle hand. I have no hon­our to con­tain the ring. I
am a bach­e­lor in a wilder­ness. Behold this place; are these the
tow­ers where one may glimpse Geof­frey, the mar­ried man? Is
this a court where mis­tress­es of com­mon sense are hid? Not for
me to hang my bugle in an invis­i­ble baldric, sir; I am loath to
take a wife, or she to take me until men be made of some oth­er
met­tle than earth. Hark, the lid of my cham­ber-pot be lift­ed!

Per­son­al­ly, I’m hop­ing that the Globe The­atre stages a ver­sion of this.

While you are wait­ing for that to hap­pen, you can see anoth­er scene from Two Gen­tle­men from Lebows­ki above where The Knave and Sir Wal­ter com­mis­er­ate about a rug, which was besmirched by a “most mis­er­able tide.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Big Lebows­ki Reimag­ined as a Clas­sic 8‑Bit Video Game

Watch the Coen Broth­ers’ TV Com­mer­cials: Swiss Cig­a­rettes, Gap Jeans, Tax­es & Clean Coal

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

An Animated Hunter S. Thompson Talks with Studs Terkel About the Hell’s Angels & The Outlaw Life

Blank on Blank returns with an ani­ma­tion of anoth­er lost inter­view from the Studs Terkel Radio Archive. This time, they’re breath­ing new life into a con­ver­sa­tion Terkel had with Hunter S. Thomp­son in 1967 — soon after HST pub­lished his ground­break­ing piece of Gonzo jour­nal­ism: Hell’s Angels: The Strange and Ter­ri­ble Saga of the Out­law Motor­cy­cle Gangs. The book, built upon the foun­da­tions of a 1965 arti­cle Thomp­son wrote for The Nation (read it online here) gave us a glimpse inside “a world most of us would nev­er dare encounter,” wrote The New York Times in its orig­i­nal review. Thomp­son tells Terkel what he learned from that (some­times har­row­ing) expe­ri­ence above. You can hear the com­plete Terkel-Thomp­son inter­view here.

Relat­ed Con­tent

Hunter S. Thomp­son Gets Con­front­ed by The Hell’s Angels

Free Online: Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Read 18 Lost Sto­ries From Hunter S. Thompson’s For­got­ten Stint As a For­eign Cor­re­spon­dent

 

Harper Lee Gets a Request for a Photo; Offers Important Life Advice Instead (2006)

Harper Lee

Harp­er Lee wrote To Kill a Mock­ing­bird in 1960. More than a half decade lat­er, the nov­el remains one of the most wide­ly-read books in Amer­i­can class­rooms. And stu­dents still write the 89-year-old author, request­ing pho­tographs and auto­graphs.

Occa­sion­al­ly, they get a lit­tle more than they bar­gained for. Take, for exam­ple, a stu­dent named “Jere­my,” who wrote Lee in 2006 and request­ed a pho­to. In return, he got some­thing more valu­able and endur­ing: some pithy life advice. The let­ter Harp­er sent to Jere­my reads as fol­lows:

06/07/06

Dear Jere­my

I don’t have a pic­ture of myself, so please accept these few lines:

As you grow up, always tell the truth, do no harm to oth­ers, and don’t think you are the most impor­tant being on earth. Rich or poor, you then can look any­one in the eye and say, “I’m prob­a­bly no bet­ter than you, but I’m cer­tain­ly your equal.”

(Signed, ‘Harp­er Lee’)

Lee’s sec­ond nov­el, Go Set a Watch­man, was just released last week — 55 years after her debut. You can read the first chap­ter (and also hear Reese With­er­spoon read it aloud) here.

via Let­ters of Note

Fol­low us on Face­book, Twit­ter, Google Plus and LinkedIn and share intel­li­gent media with your friends. And if you want to make sure that our posts def­i­nite­ly appear in your Face­book news­feed, just fol­low these sim­ple steps.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Stephen King Writes A Let­ter to His 16-Year-Old Self: “Stay Away from Recre­ation­al Drugs”

Harp­er Lee on the Joy of Read­ing Real Books: “Some Things Should Hap­pen On Soft Pages, Not Cold Met­al”

74 Essen­tial Books for Your Per­son­al Library: A List Curat­ed by Female Cre­atives

A 68 Hour Playlist of Shakespeare’s Plays Being Performed by Great Actors: Gielgud, McKellen & More

A cou­ple of years ago we pub­lished a post on “what Shake­speare sound­ed like to Shake­speare” which high­light­ed some promi­nent lin­guists’ attempts to recre­ate the Eliz­a­bethan speech pat­terns and accents of the play­wright’s day. There may be some small debate about whether or not they suc­ceed­ed, but we’ll nev­er know for cer­tain since his day is long behind us.

In some ways, the nature of Shake­speare’s lan­guage may have been more French, or more Lati­nate, or more Sax­on, than the Eng­lish we speak today—depending on the pro­por­tion of region­alisms com­min­gling in any giv­en play, like char­ac­ters in a nation­al bazaar.

Our cur­rent ver­sion of the lan­guage may have absorbed anoth­er four hun­dred years of glob­al influ­ence, but in the process it has also become more homog­e­nized and stan­dard­ized. Shake­speare’s lan­guage was both more provin­cial and more riotous­ly diverse–in spelling and pronunciation–than many kinds of Eng­lish we speak today.

Per­haps this is one rea­son we think of Shake­speare as a uni­ver­sal poet—the het­ero­doxy of his speech, and hence a vari­abil­i­ty of char­ac­ters found in few oth­er lit­er­a­tures. Even his stock types seem to have indi­vid­ual voic­es. The degree of inter­play between high and low speech—city and coun­try, com­ic and trag­ic, lyric and prosaic—may be why near­ly every world lan­guage has found a way to adapt his work, accent­ing some qual­i­ties and mut­ing oth­ers. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can see for your­self at the MIT Glob­al Shake­speare’s Video & Per­for­mance Archive, which hosts dozens of Shake­speare stag­ings in dozens of lan­guages, like the mes­mer­iz­ing Japan­ese Lear above, or the heartrac­ing­ly intense one-woman clip from the Argen­tine Ham­let la meta­mor­pho­sis at the top, a melo­dra­mat­ic pro­duc­tion that would thrill David Lynch. Addi­tion­al­ly, the data­base aggre­gates “essays and meta­da­ta pro­vid­ed by schol­ars and edu­ca­tors in the field” of inter­na­tion­al Shake­speare stud­ies.

Even among the thou­sands of Eng­lish-lan­guage adap­ta­tions of Shake­speare’s work we find an inter­na­tion­al diver­si­ty of speech. The Spo­ti­fy playlist above, brought to us by Ulysses Clas­si­cal (mak­ers of the Stan­ley Kubrick Playlist), presents a huge col­lec­tion of record­ed Shake­speare plays and poems, as well as the scores and inci­den­tal music for Eng­lish-lan­guage pro­duc­tions. The actors represented–Sirs Giel­gud, Olivi­er, and McK­ellen, Derek Jaco­bi, Edith Evans–are most­ly Eng­lish stage roy­al­ty, but we also have Welsh poet Dylan Thomas and actor Richard Bur­ton, and Amer­i­cans Paul Robe­son, Ros­alind Rus­sell, and Orson Welles. The val­ue of such a col­lec­tion is inestimable–68 hours of Shake­speare read and per­formed by some of the world’s finest actors. But it is indeed a spe­cif­ic slice of the world. Even in Eng­lish it feels (for­give the puns) that all the world could be rep­re­sent­ed here, doing Shake­speare in every kind of Eng­lish around the globe. Per­haps such a glob­al approach to teach­ing Shake­speare in Eng­lish would add nuance to debates about whether his work is still rel­e­vant in Amer­i­can high school and col­lege class­rooms. In any case, there seem to be few bar­ri­ers to actors and direc­tors for approach­ing Shake­speare with new trans­la­tions and with fresh eyes, ears, and cos­tumes, again and again.

You can access the Spo­ti­fy playlist on the web here. If you need to down­load Spo­ti­fy, find it here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Read All of Shakespeare’s Plays Free Online, Cour­tesy of the Fol­ger Shake­speare Library

Free Online Shake­speare Cours­es: Primers on the Bard from Oxford, Har­vard, Berke­ley & More

Orson Welles’ Radio Per­for­mances of 10 Shake­speare Plays

1,000 Free Audio Books: Down­load Great Books for Free

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness.

Lewis Carroll’s Classic Story, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Told in Sand Animation

Here at Open Cul­ture, the 150th anniver­sary cel­e­bra­tion of Lewis Car­rol­l’s Alice’s Adven­tures in Won­der­land keeps going and going, because, well, who knows what form the inter­net will have tak­en by the time of the 200th? It might well bear more of a resem­blance to the log­i­cal-yet-illog­i­cal real­i­ty in which the sto­ry’s title char­ac­ter finds her­self than any of the things we’ve yet used, or imag­ined. You may laugh, but Lewis Car­rol­l’s ideas have long drawn the fas­ci­na­tion of pro­gram­mers, com­put­er sci­en­tists, and the oth­er archi­tects of the infos­cape through which we nav­i­gate today.

They’ve also, of course, attract­ed the fas­ci­na­tion of oth­er artists, from Brave New World author Aldous Hux­ley, who wrote an ear­ly script for Dis­ney’s film, to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas illus­tra­tor Ralph Stead­man, who did his own illus­trat­ed edi­tion of the book. Today, we give you Alice’s Adven­tures in Won­der­land in the medi­um of sand ani­ma­tion, as prac­ticed by sand ani­ma­tor Mag­dale­na Bak. At just under eight min­utes and thir­ty sec­onds, it will only take you a frac­tion as long to watch as most of Alice’s oth­er cin­e­mat­ic adap­ta­tions (though not the very first, made in 1903, which clocks in at twen­ty sec­onds short­er).

It may also intro­duce you to an ani­ma­tion medi­um you’ve nev­er seen before. If you’d like to watch more of what an ani­ma­tor can do with sand, have a look at the wide vari­ety of sand ani­ma­tions we’ve pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured: Vivaldi’s Four Sea­sons ani­mat­ed in sand, Kafka’s Meta­mor­pho­sis ani­mat­ed in sand, Goethe’s “Der Erlkönig” ani­mat­ed in sand, mod­ern desert war­fare ani­mat­ed in sand, and even a Span­ish-lan­guage music video ani­mat­ed in sand. Sand may strike you as an unusu­al sto­ry­telling medi­um, but sure­ly Alice’s Adven­tures in Won­der­land, even 150 years after its first pub­li­ca­tion, remains an unusu­al sto­ry.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

See Ralph Steadman’s Twist­ed Illus­tra­tions of Alice’s Adven­tures in Won­der­land on the Story’s 150th Anniver­sary

See the Orig­i­nal Alice In Won­der­land Man­u­script, Hand­writ­ten & Illus­trat­ed By Lewis Car­roll (1864)

Lewis Carroll’s Pho­tographs of Alice Lid­dell, the Inspi­ra­tion for Alice in Won­der­land

When Aldous Hux­ley Wrote a Script for Disney’s Alice in Won­der­land

Vivaldi’s Four Sea­sons Brought to Life in Sand Ani­ma­tions by the Hun­gar­i­an Artist Fer­enc Cakó

The Meta­mor­pho­sis of Mr. Sam­sa: A Won­der­ful Sand Ani­ma­tion of the Clas­sic Kaf­ka Sto­ry (1977)

Watch Goethe’s Haunt­ing Poem, “Der Erlkönig,” Pre­sent­ed in an Art­ful Sand Ani­ma­tion

Col­in Mar­shall writes on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

This Is Your Brain on Jane Austen: The Neuroscience of Reading Great Literature

jane-austen--399--t-600x600-rw

I freely admit it—like a great many peo­ple these days, I have a social media addic­tion. My drug of choice, Twit­ter, can seem like a par­tic­u­lar­ly schizoid means of acquir­ing and shar­ing infor­ma­tion (or knee-jerk opin­ion, rumor, innu­en­do, non­sense, etc.) and a par­tic­u­lar­ly accel­er­at­ed form of dis­tractibil­i­ty that nev­er, ever sleeps. Giv­en the pro­found degree of over-stim­u­la­tion such out­lets pro­vide, we might be jus­ti­fied in think­ing we owe our short atten­tion spans to 21st cen­tu­ry tech­no­log­i­cal advances. Not nec­es­sar­i­ly, says Michi­gan State Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor Natal­ie Phillips—who stud­ies 18th and 19th cen­tu­ry Eng­lish lit­er­a­ture from the per­spec­tive of a 21st cen­tu­ry cog­ni­tive the­o­rist, and who cau­tions against “adopt­ing a kind of his­tor­i­cal nos­tal­gia, or assum­ing those of the 18th cen­tu­ry were less dis­tract­ed than we are today.”

Ear­ly mod­ern writ­ers were just as aware of—and as con­cerned about—the prob­lem of inat­ten­tion as con­tem­po­rary crit­ics, Phillips argues, “amidst the print-over­load of 18th-cen­tu­ry Eng­land.” We might refer, for exam­ple, to Alexan­der Pope’s epic satire “The Dun­ci­ad,” a hilar­i­ous­ly apoc­a­lyp­tic jere­mi­ad against the pro­lif­er­a­tion of care­less read­ing and writ­ing in the new media envi­ron­ment of his day. (A world “drown­ing in print, where every­thing was ephemer­al, of the moment.”)

Phillips focus­es on the work of Jane Austen, whom, she believes, “was draw­ing on the con­tem­po­rary the­o­ries of cog­ni­tion in her time” to con­struct dis­tractible char­ac­ters like Pride and Prej­u­dice’s Eliz­a­beth Ben­nett. Tak­ing her cues from Austen and oth­er Enlight­en­ment-era writ­ers, as well as her own inat­ten­tive nature, Phillips uses con­tem­po­rary neu­ro­science to inform her research, includ­ing the use of brain imag­ing tech­nol­o­gy and com­put­er pro­grams that track eye move­ments.

In col­lab­o­ra­tion with Stan­ford’s Cen­ter for Cog­ni­tive and Bio­log­i­cal Imag­ing (CNI), Phillips devised an exper­i­ment in 2012 in which she asked lit­er­ary PhD candidates—chosen, writes Stan­ford News, “because Phillips felt they could eas­i­ly alter­nate between close read­ing and plea­sure reading”—to read a full chap­ter from Austen’s Mans­field Park, pro­ject­ed onto a mir­ror inside an MRI scan­ner. At times, the sub­jects were instruct­ed to read the text casu­al­ly, at oth­ers, to read close­ly and ana­lyt­i­cal­ly. After­wards, they were asked to write an essay on the pas­sages they read with atten­tion. As you’ll hear Phillips describe in the short NPR piece above, the neu­ro­sci­en­tists she worked with told her to expect only the sub­tlest of dif­fer­ences between the two types of read­ing. The data showed oth­er­wise. Phillips describes her sur­prise at see­ing “how much the whole brain, glob­al acti­va­tions across a num­ber of dif­fer­ent regions, seems to be trans­form­ing and shift­ing between the plea­sure and the close read­ing.” As CNI neu­ro­sci­en­tist Bob Dougher­ty describes it, “a sim­ple request to the par­tic­i­pants to change their lit­er­ary atten­tion can have such a big impact on the pat­tern of activ­i­ty dur­ing read­ing,” with close read­ing stim­u­lat­ing many more areas of the brain than the casu­al vari­ety. What are we to make of these still incon­clu­sive results? As with many such projects in the emerg­ing inter­dis­ci­pli­nary field of “lit­er­ary neu­ro­science,” Phillips’ goal is in part to demon­strate the con­tin­ued rel­e­vance of the human­i­ties in the age of STEM. Thus, she the­o­rizes, the prac­tice and teach­ing of close read­ing “could serve—quite literally—as a kind of cog­ni­tive train­ing, teach­ing us to mod­u­late our con­cen­tra­tion and use new brain regions as we move flex­i­bly between modes of focus.”

The study also pro­vides us with a fas­ci­nat­ing picture—quite literally—of the ways in which the imag­i­na­tive expe­ri­ence of read­ing takes place in our bod­ies as well as our minds. Close, sus­tained, and atten­tive read­ing, Phillips found, acti­vates parts of the brain respon­si­ble for move­ment and touch, “as though,” writes NPR, “read­ers were phys­i­cal­ly plac­ing them­selves with­in the sto­ry as they ana­lyzed it.” Phillips’ study offers a sci­en­tif­ic look at a mys­te­ri­ous expe­ri­ence seri­ous read­ers know well—“how the right pat­terns of ink on a page,” says Dougher­ty, “can cre­ate vivid men­tal imagery and instill pow­er­ful emo­tions.” As with the so-called “hard prob­lem of con­scious­ness,” we may not under­stand exact­ly how this hap­pens any­time soon, but we can observe that the expe­ri­ence of close read­ing is a reward­ing one for our entire brain, not just the parts that love Jane Austen. While not every­one needs con­vinc­ing that “lit­er­ary study pro­vides a tru­ly valu­able exer­cise of peo­ple’s brains,” Phillips’ research may prove exact­ly that.

via Stan­ford News

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Jane Austen, Game The­o­rist: UCLA Poli Sci Prof Finds Shrewd Strat­e­gy in “Clue­less­ness”

This is Your Brain on Jazz Impro­vi­sa­tion: The Neu­ro­science of Cre­ativ­i­ty

What Hap­pens When Your Brain is on Alfred Hitch­cock: The Neu­ro­science of Film

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Alexander Pushkin’s Poem “The Mermaid” Brought to Life in a Masterfully Hand-Painted Animation

Though his name may not car­ry much weight in Eng­lish speak­ing circles—his virtues “lost in trans­la­tion”—no Russ­ian writer stood as high in his time as Alexan­der Pushkin (1799–1837). In his short life of 37 years, Pushkin—the great grand­son of a cap­tured African prince—authored two of his coun­try’s most revered and influ­en­tial works, the play Boris Godunov and the nov­el in verse Eugene One­gin. Like a char­ac­ter in that lat­ter work, the eru­dite noble­man poet met his death at the hands of a sup­posed roman­tic rival “on a win­ter evening,” writes Phoebe Taplin in The Tele­graph, when he “trav­elled by sleigh from Nevsky Prospekt to the Black Riv­er area of St. Peters­burg, then filled with woods and dachas, where Georges D’Anthès fatal­ly wound­ed him in the stom­ach.”

Pushkin wrote as pas­sion­ate­ly as he lived—and died. (That final duel was the last of twen­ty-nine he fought). His work remains vis­cer­al­ly com­pelling, even in trans­la­tion: into oth­er lan­guages, oth­er gen­res, and oth­er media, as in the ani­mat­ed film above of a short poem of Pushk­in’s called Rusal­ka, or “The Mer­maid.” Ani­mat­ed in a mas­ter­ful hand-paint­ed style by Russ­ian artist and film­mak­er Alexan­der Petrov, the film tells the sto­ry of a monk who falls in love with a beau­ti­ful and dan­ger­ous myth­i­cal water spir­it. You can read a para­phrase, trans­la­tion, and inter­pre­ta­tion of the poem here. I rec­om­mend watch­ing the ten-minute film first. Though pre­sent­ed in Russ­ian with­out sub­ti­tles, you will—even if you don’t speak Russian—find your­self seduced.

Petrov, who painstak­ing­ly paints his images on glass with oils, has also adapt­ed the work of oth­er dra­mat­ic writ­ers, includ­ing anoth­er fel­low Russ­ian artist, Dos­to­evsky. His take on Hem­ing­way’s The Old Man and the Sea won an Acad­e­my Award in 2000, and most deserved­ly so. Petrov does not adapt lit­er­ary works so much as he trans­lates them into light, shad­ow, and sound, immers­ing us in their tex­tures and images. His Rusal­ka, just like the poem on which it’s based, speaks direct­ly to our imag­i­na­tions.

Find more lit­er­ary ani­ma­tions in the Ani­ma­tion sec­tion of our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Watch a Hand-Paint­ed Ani­ma­tion of Dostoevsky’s “The Dream of a Ridicu­lous Man”

Crime and Pun­ish­ment by Fyo­dor Dos­toyevsky Told in a Beau­ti­ful­ly Ani­mat­ed Film by Piotr Dumala

Niko­lai Gogol’s Clas­sic Sto­ry, “The Nose,” Ani­mat­ed With the Aston­ish­ing Pin­screen Tech­nique (1963)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast