After finishing Stacy Schiff's excellent biography of Vera Nabokov, I was inspired to finally shell out the dollars for "Lectures on Russian Literature" by VN and "Encounter" by Milan Kundera, both of which I had mentioned in connection with "The Idiot" a few entries back. My little Russian lit excursion doesn't seem to be nearing an end.
An important note about Nabokov (both Vladimir & Vera, insomuch as VN stands for two): the art is in the image, or rather the imagery, the description.
Nabokov elaborates on what a "good reader" is (and what amateurs like me should aspire to) on p.11 of "Lectures":
-not guided or defined by class or nation (i.e., don't read through the lense of middle-class America)
- "identifies himself not with the boy or the girl in the book, but with the mind that conceived and composed that book"
- does not seek historical information within the novel (the world of the book is imagined and specific to the author)
- "not concerned with general ideas" but with "the particular vision" ... TEXTUAL DETAILS! If I'm a good reader, then I enjoy what the author wants me to enjoy -- the devil can be in the details; close reading
I was relieved and pleased to see that Nabokov doesn't idolize Tolstoy's descriptive techniques; instead he chalks the realism up to the pacing of the novel -- the author and the reader follow the story in synchronized yet subjective time (i.e., it doesn't feel rushed or plodding). (p.142)
I also LOVE that Nabokov also finds Tolstoy's long boring philosophical chapters long and boring! Whew, I was afraid they were actually supposed to be weighty and influential and an integral part of the novel. Now I don't feel so bad about hating the end. His notes on this are hysterical. (p.143)
On to Dostoevsky ... Nabokov is not a fan, to put it lightly.
First, a definition of sentimentality: "the non-artistic exaggeration of familiar emotions meant to provoke automatically traditional compassion in the reader" (p.103)
Dostoevsky's post-Siberia writings were guided by his support of the Greek-Catholic Church, absolute monarchy, and Russian nationalism -- none of which endears him to Nabokov. Memorably, he dislikes how the characters end up "sinning their way to Jesus" (p.104). Not to mention that Dostoevsky commits a chief offense by limiting or forgoing physical descriptions of people and places; where is the imagery?
Nabokov makes the argument, similar to Sontag's essays, that a "reaction to true art" is a "feeling of pleasure and satisfaction and spiritual vibration" which is largely absent in "The Idiot" because of Dostoevsky's mentally unstable characters. In other words, how can the reader hope to observe and generally learn about the human soul (the cause of the reaction to true art) in the midst of such rampant madness? How can this inspire reflection on the human experience when so far removed from the norm? ... I thought this was a great point. I mean, Prince Myshkin doesn't give much insight that can be generally applied or grounded in reality. Though he does make for great conversation about religion and morals. Nabokov continues his character criticism and points out that although "The Idiot" has a deep plot, there is hardly any character development, aside from general disintegration into madness which was arguably happening at the outset anyway.
Summarized: Myshkin has epilepsy, General Ivolgin has senile dementia, Nastasya is hysterial (something in common with a lot of the female characters), Rogozhin is a psychopath (and allegedly an erotomaniac?)
So, after this slicing and dicing of poor Dostoevsky, I was hoping for something interesting from Kundera. Surprisingly, his short essay on "The Comedic Absence of the Comical" was directly about that and not much else.
Briefly: to find humor in seeing/realizing that nothing is funny ... or amused at recognizing humorless laughter (is this like realizing that existence is comical because it's nonsense? might have to check back to class notes here.) Kundera also brings up examples of laughter as a rebuke of the ridiculous, an expression of hopeless (?) anguish, and a means to blend in. Actually, just typing that, it's most definitely a commentary on existence. (It's tragic! It all means nothing! It's comical! Absurd!) Impressive that Kundera is able to draw that out. More of a connection to contemporary avant-garde themes than Russian literature.
Next up: quite possibly "Anna Karenin(a)"? Or Gogol's "Dead Souls"?
Other notes: Robbe-Grillet. Plus the zillioneth mention of Last Year at Marienbad. WHO/WHAT?
May mosey through more of Sontag & Kundera.
I love dostoevksy (and tolstoy); kov's remarks about em are very familiar (and i loathe em); but as i'd only read lolita, didn't think i was in a position to dismiss him. So I finally picked up despair. Last night (60 or 90 pages in) I feel like throwing it across the room in frustration/boredom.
ReplyDeleteWhat is clear: nabokov is not for me. So I come googlin, seeking enlightenment.
-- Reading the book: is like listening to a genius salesman/showman. The problem for me is, I'm not interested in his genius - it is too showy, and ultimately empty (in my opinion). I DONT CARE - I'm not interested in puzzles for puzzles sake (fair?) or how clever he is. I want people, psychology, motive, insight, understanding.
This latter is pretty much what my interest in literature consists of. Does it make me a bad reader? No - perhaps I should be called reader-human. I don't consider the author a God-figure. The author and hisher vision gets in the way of what I seek. I seek behind it, beyond it (oh how pretentious).
You can do that with Dostoevsky; his art extends so much further than any "singular" intention (vision) he may have had. Nab's criticisms are crude and simplistic (except the aesthetic ones perhaps, but I don't care for that).
Well, who knows. I don't really like chess either, or dead butterflies. What's in nabokov for you?
that's interesting, dazelnut. have you looked at nabakov's short stories? they are collected into one volume, translated from the original russian by him and his son into the most crystalline and mysterious english i have ever read, and beneath that masterly style must lurk everything that you want, if only you can connect to it. at points, you can imagine that nabakov knew more about people than proust. take a look. and let us know what you see.
ReplyDeleteBob, a friend handed me a sheaf of photocopied Nabokov stories, perhaps five, (from The Short Stories of Nabokov) several years ago. I've now had the opportunity to read through them.
ReplyDeleteSo my reflections are... I really enjoyed reading some of these stories. I sort of comfortably slumped into, and enjoyed poring over and appreciating the many captured details of them.
I think Nabokov is a very elegant and controlled writer, as he intends to be.
And yet, at stages, out of the darkness (that I'd forgotten) flew this awful sense that I was having this rather beautiful text, in all it's elegance, force-fed by a shadow, twisting my arm through the text. It's difficult to describe what I mean. It's as though the writing is too careful, too deliberate, too rounded, too elegant. Too Nabokov, perhaps. I can't get the author out of my view.
But it goes to what he's saying above about the standards by which a reader should read:
"identifies himself... with the mind that conceived and composed that book"
"the world of the book is imagined and specific to the author"
"particular vision"
That's a fine way to read something, but I don't think it's The blue print for reading, or appreciating art.
And that is my point about Dostoevsky - who I had recently re-read, much more aware that it (The Idiot) was scoured with flaws. It's not all in the mind in Nabokov's sense, but beyond it (which is, I admit, a kind of mysticism); but this does not mean it was not part of Dostoevsky's "artistic vision". It can be, it's just not artistic vision in the analytic, wholly conscious, painstakingly articulated sense of Nabokov.
I think.
As for Nabokov's understanding of humanity, I can't tell from those short stories. All of the stories of his I've read have featured an overseer-narrator who composes the stories as he wishes (in reminiscence form, picking and choosing the details that caught His eye.
He's a master manipulator. I truly want to read some more of him, so I'll see if I can borrow the full volume of the short stories from somewhere.
Thanks for your reply so many years thence. It would be helpful if you could provide some specific suggestions. What's your favourite story in the short story book?
And how about you, @Anna? Where is your feeling on Nabokov now?
I have to say I haven't progressed much with Nabokov, and Lectures in Russian Lit stares forlornly at me while I type this (took a detour to some other authors and then a reading hiatus). I'm excited to get back to him in the next year or so -- more of Lectures, Pale Fire, and hopefully the short stories you and Bob mention above. 'Master manipulator' is spot-on though, haha.
Delete