Subject
Re: THOUGHTS: Nabokov and Symbolism]
From
Date
Body
Thomas Karshan: there's been some discussion on the list of my TLS article on Nabokov, and of my recently published book, Vladimir Nabokov and the Art of Play, which I'd like to comment on. Of the three major areas of debate- 1) symbolism, 2) Freud, and 3) belief (and the 18th century) - I'll write on each separately.First, Jansy de Mello's comments on symbolism ["Naiman ...in "Kinbote's school"."love of fleeting minutiae" by someone afflicted by "logomania"...] My point in my TLS piece was that Nabokov held two potentially contradictory views of what good reading is, and that in Pale Fire he dramatised their possible (but not necessary) irreconcilability...To my mind, in Pale Fire Nabokov humorously embodies these two ways of reading, in Kinbote and in Conmal. Each is absurd; each embodies, but in a dangerously exaggerated way, something essential to good reading. .."
JM: As in the old joke about Frankenstein - let's get to the body, in parts ( or split Nabokov in two: Shade/Kinbote; Kinbote/Conmal?).
I enjoyed the distinction Karshan presents between two views which "reflect the centaur-like dual nature of literature, which belongs *both* to the trinity of poetry, music, painting (the arts), *and* to the trinity of philosophy, history, and poetry (the discourses)..." and the ellucidation that, in Pale Fire, Nabokov embodies these two views in Kinbote and in Conmal. I see now that this is why he situates Naiman in the Kinbote school
Sure, I fully agree with Karshan. I consider Naiman's logomanic "freudianism" dangerously exaggerated (whereas Maar, who promised to explore the nervous tissue that underlies any symbol, mercifully allowed his hints to dissolve into thin air).
TK [ to JM's: What strikes me over and over is how imprecisely the term "symbolism" is employed whenever it is quoted or re-applied. It is often used indifferently as synonimous of "icon", "sign", "index," whereas the eminently symbolic dimension of language is not sufficiently considered...] "On that point, we come on to the question of what 'symbolism' is or isn't, in and beyond Nabokov.... There are certainly kinds of 'symbolism' - as Jansy says, "the eminently symbolic character of language" - which Nabokov's work relies on, fosters, and draws its inspiration from. ... he said that "all art is in a sense symbolic...once you detach a symbol from the artistic core of the book, you lose all sense of enjoyment..."
JM: Indeed, what every critic considers to be the "symbolic" dimension of language has to be clarified, and by him, in the first place.
Nabokov and Coleridge seem to feel comfortable by considering that "art is in a sense symbolic." I'm not comfortable with that because of the restriction contained in "in a sense." As I see it (after reading Lacan) for them language has become a mere carrier of verbal symbols or of verbally rendered images and tools.
It is easier to agree when Karshan recognizes that "All good non-philosophical writing must insist on its right to use terms with a specific meaning given by the context of the sentence - otherwise you would have a patent deodorised technical prose," but I value even more the effort to identify "who speaks" and from "where he speaks" (the "subject of the ennunciation"), when discussing "symbols", since this is what differenciates the "personal" quality ( the unique vertex) of the symbol that's being used, and extracts it from the traditional, generic context,.obedient solely to grammar and syntax*.
Perhaps, instead of splitting Nabokov or condensing his tactics under the image of a "centaur," one can also consider that the "unreliable narrator" is instrumental for Nabokov's shifts of perspective, which serve him to dissimulate his authorial intentions, voice, ideas: who is speaking, in what context and when, are a dedicated reader's permanent challenges, not only a postmodern distancing jolt.
..................................................
* - In the foreword to Didier Machu's new book on Lolita, Jeff Edmunds plays with Rimbaud's remark by warning us that the foreword he is writing is not a pastiche of erring John Ray, Jr' s foreword, since: "JE est un autre" (JE= Jeff Edmunds and, the non-subjectified "I" from Rimbaud's sentence.) - a very Nabokovian move.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
JM: As in the old joke about Frankenstein - let's get to the body, in parts ( or split Nabokov in two: Shade/Kinbote; Kinbote/Conmal?).
I enjoyed the distinction Karshan presents between two views which "reflect the centaur-like dual nature of literature, which belongs *both* to the trinity of poetry, music, painting (the arts), *and* to the trinity of philosophy, history, and poetry (the discourses)..." and the ellucidation that, in Pale Fire, Nabokov embodies these two views in Kinbote and in Conmal. I see now that this is why he situates Naiman in the Kinbote school
Sure, I fully agree with Karshan. I consider Naiman's logomanic "freudianism" dangerously exaggerated (whereas Maar, who promised to explore the nervous tissue that underlies any symbol, mercifully allowed his hints to dissolve into thin air).
TK [ to JM's: What strikes me over and over is how imprecisely the term "symbolism" is employed whenever it is quoted or re-applied. It is often used indifferently as synonimous of "icon", "sign", "index," whereas the eminently symbolic dimension of language is not sufficiently considered...] "On that point, we come on to the question of what 'symbolism' is or isn't, in and beyond Nabokov.... There are certainly kinds of 'symbolism' - as Jansy says, "the eminently symbolic character of language" - which Nabokov's work relies on, fosters, and draws its inspiration from. ... he said that "all art is in a sense symbolic...once you detach a symbol from the artistic core of the book, you lose all sense of enjoyment..."
JM: Indeed, what every critic considers to be the "symbolic" dimension of language has to be clarified, and by him, in the first place.
Nabokov and Coleridge seem to feel comfortable by considering that "art is in a sense symbolic." I'm not comfortable with that because of the restriction contained in "in a sense." As I see it (after reading Lacan) for them language has become a mere carrier of verbal symbols or of verbally rendered images and tools.
It is easier to agree when Karshan recognizes that "All good non-philosophical writing must insist on its right to use terms with a specific meaning given by the context of the sentence - otherwise you would have a patent deodorised technical prose," but I value even more the effort to identify "who speaks" and from "where he speaks" (the "subject of the ennunciation"), when discussing "symbols", since this is what differenciates the "personal" quality ( the unique vertex) of the symbol that's being used, and extracts it from the traditional, generic context,.obedient solely to grammar and syntax*.
Perhaps, instead of splitting Nabokov or condensing his tactics under the image of a "centaur," one can also consider that the "unreliable narrator" is instrumental for Nabokov's shifts of perspective, which serve him to dissimulate his authorial intentions, voice, ideas: who is speaking, in what context and when, are a dedicated reader's permanent challenges, not only a postmodern distancing jolt.
..................................................
* - In the foreword to Didier Machu's new book on Lolita, Jeff Edmunds plays with Rimbaud's remark by warning us that the foreword he is writing is not a pastiche of erring John Ray, Jr' s foreword, since: "JE est un autre" (JE= Jeff Edmunds and, the non-subjectified "I" from Rimbaud's sentence.) - a very Nabokovian move.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/