Themes & Projects

Mysteries, December 2008–January 2009

Maritime literature, January–March 2009

Melville read-through, part I, TypeeWhite-Jacket, December 2009–January 2010

Whirlwind tour of Russian literature, February–May 2010

Epistolary literature, July 2009–June 2010

Melville read-through, part II, Moby-DickBilly Budd, July–September 2010

The Unstructured Clarel Readalong, August–September 2010

The Art of the Novella Challenge, August 2011

The bibliographing Reading Challenge, January 2011–present



Authors

King, Queen, Knave—“the passage from a hideous hell through the purgatory of the corridors and intervestibular clatter into a little abode of bliss”

The first scenes of King, Queen, Knave take place on the train as Franz Bubendorf moves from his hometown to Berlin. A great coincidence happens on this train, which certainly influences the whole course of events in the novel. Franz, deciding on impulse to travel second-class for the first time ever, ends up in a car “occupied by only two people—a handsome bright-eyed lady and a middle-aged man with a clipped tawny mustache.”

Franz doesn’t really have the stomach for many other human beings, and unlike the filthy riffraff that so disgusted him in third-class, the couple is “charming.” They begin a conversation. The man is thirsty; the woman begins talking about “such a silly thing to do,” something that’s “[his] own fault.” The narrator begins to explain: the man knows his wife is annoyed because of a visit he had with his cousin in the town. She needed “advice”; the man offered to give her son a job. “And that was what his wife could not forgive him. She called it ‘swamping the business with poor relations’; but when you come down to it, how can one poor relation swamp anything?”

The poor relation, of course, is Franz. We already know that he is heading to Berlin to get a job with his uncle, and the three of them will share a car all the way, none the wiser. When he arrives at his uncle’s doorstep the next day, all is revealed.

It’s a very Nabokovian beginning, to my mind. There’s the slowish start and the way Franz springs fully formed from the first page, with a complete set of neuroses laid out within a few paragraphs. The immediate focus is on his inner life and the kinds of thoughts he thinks (then right on to those of his uncle, Dreyer, and Martha, his wife). There’s the well described setting with plenty of specific details that all, of course, connect somehow (Dreyer is thirsty because he ate some strawberries Franz was eying before they ran into each other). Compare to Mary. There, he plunged us into the broken-elevator conversation between Ganin and Alfyarov, where we begin quite quickly to understand what kind of person each is. Then we have the layout of the pension, which creates the whole world of Russia-in-Berlin like *that*.

But who knew that we’d mostly abandon the pension and end up in the idyllic Russian countryside for the emotional high points of that novel? Or, here, that Franz’s innate disgust for nearly everyone would turn to lust for his aunt? Or that her frigidness and primness about men would lead her to vilify her husband (who is, by the way, adorable) while she falls for her creepy, weird, and pretty gross nephew who only changes his undershirt twice a week?

Ganin just wants to be alone

When Ganin and Mary first get together, as I noted yesterday, they are vacationing in the countryside. This gives them plenty of opportunity for romantic rural trysts. They can meet at abandoned pavilions, in empty fields, walk together through the forest. In all his memories of them together they are alone.

At the end of the season, Ganin returns to St. Petersburg and normal life. He is still a schoolboy at this point. Mary’s family follows some months later and the two again begin to meet. But “long walks in the frost were agonizing, and finding a warm place to be alone in museums and cinemas was most agonizing of all.” They write each other letters and talk on the phone. Ganin is deeply dissatisfied.

These meetings in the wind and frost tortured him more than her. He felt that their love was fraying and wearing thin as a result of these incomplete trysts. Every love demands privacy, shelter, refuge—and they had no such refuge.

I’m not sure that privacy is commonly thought of as a Nabokovian concern. I have not yet begun to really contaminate* myself with criticism. But I think this idea of privacy or refuge is a recurring one, both in Mary and elsewhere. I think immediately of Ada and Van, of course, who had nothing if not an intensely private relationship.

In Mary, much of what Ganin does is in quest of this privacy. He is, first of all, literally a refugee, one who ends up in some extremely nonprivate living quarters. The pension is like a suffocatingly small village. The opening scene of the novel finds Ganin stuck in a broken elevator with Alfyarov, whom he despises. Ganin wants only for him to stop talking, but he will not shut up, and is always asking Ganin questions he does not want to answer.

And it’s because of Alfyarov’s lack of concern for privacy that Ganin goes at all on this trip down memory lane. If Alfyarov could keep his own business to himself, could specifically keep his own relationship to himself—his own wife to himself, if you will—Ganin may never have thought of Mary again.

Ganin is also jealous of his reminiscences. He does not share with anyone what has happened, or tell them about his lost love in any but the most oblique terms. He just wants to go back to his room and be alone with his thoughts. His love only exists in private.

There’s another very private character in Mary, Ganin’s neighbor Klara. Described at least three times as “full-busted” and always wearing a black silk dress, Klara is an unhappy typist despairingly in love with Ganin. She does have one confidante, but generally holds back from any revelation about herself. She ends up quite sad, perhaps because of her privacy but perhaps not. And then there’s her extremely nonprivate friend, a girlfriend Ganin breaks up with during the novel. She doesn’t keep much of anything to herself, and Ganin is repulsed by her.

*Not a pejorative!

Mary by Vladimir Nabokov

In Mary, Nabokov’s first novel, Lev Glebovich Ganin is a Russian exile living in Berlin among other exiles. His “pension was both Russian and nasty,” and his neighbor in the next room is Aleksey Ivanovich Alfyorov, also both Russian and nasty.

Alfyorov has just gotten word that his wife is on her way from Russia to join him in Berlin and will arive on Saturday. He excitedly shows Ganin her picture—Mary’s picture. And immediately the rest of Ganin’s week is washed in memory as he realizes his first love is coming, and she’s married to this awful man.

Ganin met her in the countryside one summer; her family was vacationing near his family’s dacha. His first memory of noticing her is at a concert held in the village, and Nabokov’s virtuosity as a writer gets a lot of room to play in all these memories and dreams.

Later, when the concert was over, the Petersburg bass was driven away in the local mill owner’s huge car which cast a mysterious light over the grass and then, with a sweep of its beam, dazzled a sleeping birch tree and the footbridge over a brook; and when the crowd of fair vacationists, in a festive flutter of white frocks, drifted away through the blue darkness across the dew-laden clover, and someone lit a cigarette in the dark, holding the flaring match to his face in cupped hands—Ganin, in a state of lonely excitement, walked home, the spokes of his bicycle clicking faintly as he pushed it by the saddle.

Mary is a land of exiles, a good place for memory and nostalgia. These concern Nabokov in his other work as well, but here they are the main show. I noted more than I ever had before a focus on stream-of-consciousness that (now that I’ve read her) bring Virginia Woolf immediately to mind. Here, Ganin remembers Mary’s old perfume.

Ganin now tried to recapture that scent again, mixed with the fresh smells of the autumnal park, but, as we know, memory can restore to life everything except smells, although nothing revives the past so completely as a smell that was once associated with it.

For a moment Ganin stopped recollecting and wondered how he had been able to live for so many years without thinking about Mary—and then he caught up with her again: she was running along a dark, rustling path, her black bow looking in flight like a huge Camberwell Beauty.

Recollecting, pausing, recollecting some more; this makes me think of Woolf. The scent, and the butterfly, are doses of Nabokov.

It can almost be sentimental, not Ganin really but certainly the sentimental poet Podtyagin, who laments: “It’s terrible—oh, terrible—that whenever we dream about Russia we never dream of it as beautiful, as we know it was in reality, but as something monstrous—the sort of dreams where the sky is falling in and you feel the world’s coming to an end.” I prefer this comment, amid reminiscences of the industrial and human grotesquerie Ganin witnessed while fleeing the country: “It was such trivia—and not nostalgia for his abandoned homeland—that stuck in Ganin’s memory, as though only his eyes had been alive and his mind gone into hiding.”

On Nabokov on Flaubert

I’ve noted before that “if Nabokov is an intimidating writer of fiction (which is a stronger word than I would use), he is much more so writing about fiction,” and this is no less the case when the subject is Flaubert rather than Gogol. His essay on Madame Bovary collected in the Lectures on Literature is excellent; any reader of Flaubert’s novel should read it as well.

Nabokov is very hard on Emma—as he is on nearly everyone, of course. (Readers who find Homais one of the more sympathetic characters in the novel may not be pleased with what VN has to say about that vulgar man.) Sometimes I feel like he is a meaner Nicole. Emma is a bad reader because she identifies herself with characters. I don’t think this is good reading, but I would hardly be so impolitic. Of course, in the world of litblogs such a statement is almost sacrilege; reading is good, and anything that helps anyone enjoy reading is good, and sympathetic characters are very important to the enjoyment of most people, and women especially are always in need of the right kind of characters to identify with, and such. I don’t believe most of this to begin with—I don’t know if I would go around saying reading is “good” in some free-floating, universalized way, I don’t think there’s much reason to encourage anyone and everyone to read no matter how unexceptional the reading material, I’ve never cared much about sympathetic characters, and I’ve hated on the ladyfiction issue before.

And yet despite my general agreement, not to mention my unconditional love for the author of Ada and Pale Fire, I remain needled by the relentless anti-philistinism. If Flaubert is cold and heartless toward philistines, Nabokov is positively icy. “Books are not written for those who are fond of poems that make one weep or those who like noble characters in prose as Léon and Emma think. Only children can be excused for identifying themselves with the characters in a book, or enjoying badly written adventure stories; but this is what Emma and Léon do.” No, again, I don’t disagree, but it seems downright cruel to pour on so much disdain, and entirely unnecessary to characterize scientific and cultural philistinism, multiple times, as “evil” (though I suspect VN’s personal history and the notable references to Marxist cultural philistinism may be at work here too, which makes it more understandable). I am not a nice person, but I am nicer than this—or, once again, less confident, not being a very fortunate genius myself.

One place where Nabokov is not cruel, though, is with Charles. This made me very happy, as I had a lot of sympathy for Charles, and felt that despite all his mediocrity it was his genuineness that redeemed him—whether Flaubert thought so or not, of which I wasn’t sure. Nabokov singles Charles out as “the pleasing paradox of Flaubert’s fairy tale: the dullest and most inept person in the book is the only one who is redeemed by a divine something in the all-powerful, forgiving, and unswerving love that he bears Emma, alive or dead.” I can’t forgive Charles the botched operation on poor Hyppolite, but how much do I really care that he doesn’t appreciate the opera—how much does that matter?

And that’s the question both Flaubert and Nabokov leave me with, to some extent. It should go without saying that the (hopefully deeper than Emma’s) appreciate of art and literature is important to me and to my happiness. But these are consumption goods for me, along with dozens of others. Some are more or less transcendent, others more or less conventional. And I dispute that happiness and enjoyment of the authentic variety come exclusively from the transcendent. I may crave it as Emma does, but I reject such a rejection of material goods as a vehicle of comfort and happiness and I have zero desire to be so judgmental regarding those who seem to prefer comforts of the material variety. This anti-philistinism itself seems like an aesthetic choice to me and not some kind of high moral virtue.

Ah, but I suspect we are taking things too personally here, and that all my problems must come from bad reading—too-close identification with Emma leading to insecurity and defensiveness!

Nikolai Gogol by Vladimir Nabokov

Vladimir Nabokov’s book on Nikolai Gogol is my favorite sort of thing: one writer I love writing about another writer we both love. And I loved it. Nabokov is a joy to read, period, and his insights about Gogol were helpful in articulating the swirling mess of thoughts I had about him. But if Nabokov is an intimidating writer of fiction (which is a stronger word than I would use), he is much more so writing about fiction.

He has tastes, he knows what they are, and he has no problem putting them up as simply correct. He is harsh, he pulls no punches, and his disdain for any number of things is right there on the surface, totally unhidden and unvarnished. E.g.:

There is nothing more dull and sickening to my taste than romantic folklore or rollicking yarns about lumberjacks or Yorkshiremen or French villagers or Ukrainian good companions. It is for this reason that the two volumes of the Evenings as well as the two volumes of stories entitled Mirgorod…leave me completely indifferent.

Also unhidden is the scorn for the wrong kind of reader:

It is strange, the morbid inclination we have to derive satisfaction from the fact (generally false and always irrelevant) that a work of art is traceable to a “true story.” Is it because we begin to respect ourselves more when we learn that the writer, just like ourselves, was not clever enough to make up a story himself? Or is something added to the poor strength of our imagination when we know that a tangible fact is at the base of the “fiction” we mysteriously despise? Or taken all in all, have we here that adoration of the truth which makes little children ask the story-teller “Did it really happen?” and prevented old Tolstoy in his hyperethical stage from trespassing upon the rights of the deity and creating, as God creates, perfectly imaginary people? …
I have a lasting grudge against those who like their fiction to be educational or uplifting, or national, or as healthy as maple syrup and olive oil, so that is why I keep harping on this rather futile side of The Government Inspector question.

This sort of thing gives me a lot of discomfort. First, I abase myself before true genius. And I also note that Nabokov has an enormous amount of that self-confidence that comes seemingly so easily to men (whom I’m not intimidated by, but cannot mimic) and the upper classes (whom I am intimidated by, despite my best efforts). And so much of Nabokov’s particular critique in this case revolves around a concept tied very closely to class issues: the idea of poshlost’ (or, here, poshlust).

Poshlust is one of these untranslatable concepts and important to Gogol’s work. Some English words in the nearby semantic space include “cheap, sham, common, smutty, pink-and-blue, high falutin’, in bad taste…inferior, sorry, trashy, scurvy, tawdry, gimcrack.” In the realm of literature, poshlust does not apply to actual trash, but to “the best sellers, the ‘stirring, profound and beautiful’ novels; it is these ‘elevated and powerful’ books.” In other words, any amount of your average, garden-variety “literary fiction.” And the real damnation of it all:

The dreadful thing about poshlust is that one finds it so difficult to explain to people why a particular book which seems chock-full of noble emotion and compassion, and can hold the reader’s attention ‘on a theme far removed from the discordant events of the day’ is far, far worse than the kind of literature which everybody admits is cheap.*

So what is poshlust but tawdry, bourgeois taste, and who can be the arbiter of real taste other than someone very much like a Vladimir Nabokov? How is it possible, even for those not infected with appreciationism, to trust oneself?

Because as much as you might want to write this all off as the exercise of an ego beyond all reasonable bounds, there is a small problem with that: he is right, about pretty much everything. And that’s after I’ve stripped out (most of) the class shame and resentment and general self-abasement of the student. So many of these were already my ideas, both about Gogol and about literature, and despite certain matters of taste (I still like folklore and rollicking yarns; sorry, I am hopelessly tawdry). I don’t disagree with Nabokov about, say, the purpose of fiction, as many would. I am completely with him here:

Gogol’s play is poetry in action, and by poetry I mean the mysteries of the irrational as perceived through rational words. True poetry of that kind provokes—not laughter and not tears—but a radiant smile of perfect satisfaction, a purr of beatitude—and a writer may well be proud of himself if he can make his readers, or more exactly some of his readers, smile and purr that way.

I know that smile and purr. Here I am rewarded for being “the right kind of reader,” and reminded that I do know what does it for me. And rewarded further when he describes the course of a Gogol story in terms even I could articulate:

So to sum up: the story goes this way: mumble, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, fantastic climax, mumble, mumble, and back into the chaos from which they all had derived. At this superhigh level of art, literature is of course not concerned with pitying the underdog or cursing the upperdog. It appeals to that secret depth of the human soul where the shadows of other worlds pass like the shadows of nameless and soundless ships.

I suppose I could simply say that reading Nabokov on fiction is as rewarding and humbling as reading his novels; the experiences are not dissimilar. But I was much more unsettled after this. There are so many obstacles. I cannot understand Russian literature without speaking Russian—or, let’s be real, being Russian—I cannot understand any of it without understanding my own feelings about fiction more deeply, and being able to justify them; and even after all that I cannot trust myself or my own judgment. This is the periodic problem that stalls my blogging. I will continue to fend it off and write the muddled mediocrities of a poor poshlyáchki.

*Another, and an amazing, example of his real damn-you’re-so-rightness is the takedown in this section of a (made-up?) review of such a book, through a devastating close reading. An editing as well as a writing superhero.

More Saturday Sharing

This week’s Booking Through Thursday meme was too easy—name your favorite literary couple. Ha! As if there could even be a contest. Ada & Van, 4eva. I feel I can hardly say why Ada and Van’s romance is my favorite, nay, the best in the world, without simply telling people to read the book. So I skipped the meme.

Srsly though, I’ve been looking (not that hard) for more criticism of the novel on its release; the Appel review was very interesting for me. But the places I’ve instinctively looked want me to pay to see their archives. Which I would consider doing, but then my readers couldn’t see them anyhow. It’s a dilemma. I could also try to get the CP to do some research on my behalf with his university library access, though I haven’t even managed to persuade him to pick up any Nabokov at all so I don’t think it will be thrilling for him. (The horror! The horror!) Of course, I still have Bryan Boyd’s wonderful resources at my disposal.

One of my favorite bits—Ada’s name itself.

“Ada” combines the Russian a, da, “Oh, yes,” and the rather less affirmative Russian ada, “of hell” (see 29.27-28, “teper’ iz ada (‘now is out of hell’)” and 332.26, “iz ada (out of Hades)”).

Ada is also the first name of a character in Bleak House (1852-53) by Charles Dickens (1812-70), which Nabokov taught at Cornell and Harvard from 1950 to 1958. Ada Clare marries her cousin Richard Carstone; Ada Veen is the love of her “cousin’s” (actually brother’s), Van Veen’s, life, and they live together for four and a half decades.

Adah, in the verse tragedy Cain: A Mystery (1821), by Lord Byron, is both wife and twin sister of Cain, who becomes a pupil of Lucifer; Ada Veen is sister and wife in all but name of Van, a pupil, in matters of personal style and conduct, of his father, Demon.

A, da!

(“Ada, and the glossy-limbed shattal tree” courtesy Flickr user wackodood via Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Generic 2.0 license.)

Saturday Share, part 2

I can’t remember where it was now, but I remember reading something in the past week about the critical reception of Ada when it was first released in 1969—probably in Bryan Boyd’s book. Anyway, it mentioned a front-page review in the New York Times (is that really possible? not just front of the book review section?), and now that the Times has given up on the awful Times Select paid content sections, we can actually see it.

Ada was reviewed by Alfred Appel, Jr., with a note at the bottom that “[h]is annotated edition of “Lolita” will appear this fall….” He really likes it, in case you couldn’t guess. It’s interesting to read, with an eye to the limitations of reviewing. Appel surely didn’t have enough time to explore the fullness of the novel, but he does a pretty good job of things considering.

Tolstoy appears frequently in the text and texture of “Ada,” as Nabokov celebrates through parody the old master’s novelistic plenitude, his style and technique. Van’s first sentence is a quotation of the famous beginning of “Anna Karenina,” and the opening pages of “Ada” are a parodic extension of Tolstoy’s first page. The allusions to Tolstoy’s “Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth” made by Van on the first and last pages of “Ada” are of no small significance. Like Tolstoy’s trilogy, “Ada” is cast as an autobiographical novel. Van’s short chapters, the leisurely pace of his narrative, and many of the lovingly described scenic details mimic Tolstoy’s manner.

Tolstoy looked forward to narrating “the second and happier half of my youth,” but he never wrote the last volume of his projected tetralogy. Part One of “Ada,” in itself book-length, is by way of Nabokov’s completion of Tolstoy’s reminiscences. As such, it is the last 19th-century Russian novel, just as the entire book is the first and only classic of “Amerussian” literature.

At the end of an early chapter, “Ada and Van met in the passage, and would have kissed at some earlier stage of the Novel’s Evolution in the History of Literature.” Nabokov confronts nothing less than that evolution, and “Ada,” a self-contained survey course suggests that to write a novel today after the example of the great 19th-century realists is as anachronistic as finding characters reading Joyce in “1870,” or driving away from a Chekhovian duel scene in a shiny new convertible (as happens at Ardis).

Van ponders “Empty formulas befitting the solemn novelists of former days who thought they could explain everything.” Since most readers still want packaged and clearly labelled explanations how frustrating it is to encounter a story about a psychologist’s incest that offer neither “psychological” explanations nor guilt, but an abundance of “philosophy” and even a happy ending (in the fairy tale spirit). Tolstoy the moralist would certain not approve, as Nabokov well knows. Civic leaders, scout masters, ministers and parents (none of whose vigils should cease) may wonder “What is Nabokov’s moral attitude toward incest?” He would no doubt grant that it does complicate matters in a good many ways, but that prose fiction should do more than make such easy judgments.

In fact, I think Bryan Boyd does an excellent job in Nabokov’s Ada of showing that while Nabokov’s judgment was not “easy,” he certainly does make a moral pronouncement on incest, through the treatment and fate of Lucette—a character who is (unsurprisingly) entirely ignored by this early review.

And what, if anything, to think of the error in the first bit of the review I quoted—the Anna Karenina quotation is a misquotation; is Appel just simplifying here or making a mistake?

Saturday Share

My favorite book ever, to which I return again and again and plan to reread once more very soon, is Ada, or Ardor: A Family Chronicle. I have been thinking lately of a particular passage from it, which is long but beautiful and I feel I could read it on an endless loop. Van and Ada are cousins, summering together at a country estate. He is fourteen and a half, she twelve. They have not met before this summer. Ada is an aspiring entomologist. And Van is in love. Forgive the length—I must evangelize. Continue reading Saturday Share