Frances Assa [to JM]: "I think this whole
issue is supremely important with regard to Nabokov. Memory is
regularly a central subject. When I read literature I am always
wondering about the who the author is in order to feel that I really understand
what the author wrote. You seem to be saying that he, like all of
us, distorts his memories, especially unhappy ones. This leads one to
the conclusion that he was an unreliable author! With so much talk of
Wayne Booth's unreliable narrator, I wonder if anyone has tackled the rhetoric
of the unreliable author. In Nabokov's work, the author seems, generally,
like God, hardly unreliable. And in LATH in particular, if I remember
correctly, even Vadim learns to visualize backward clearly. Also
I'm wondering if your observation of Nabokov's evasions of unhappy
memories is generally shared by students of
Nabokov.".
Jansy Mello: We depart from different
starting points but yes ... Nabokov frequently invites and taunts
his readers to discover some little detail about himself, as
in a game of hide and seek. Nevertheless for me it's just a game and I
try to abide by his rules. He knows that, like anyone else, he
may inadvertently reveal a few things about himself [ "The crudest curriculum vitae crows and
flaps its wings in a style peculiar to the undersigner. I doubt whether you can
even give your telephone number without giving something of yourself" ] -
but would this help us understand his creation? I believe,
also, that Nabokov often tries to mislead his interviewers, like
the real Sebastian Knight and his fake biographer, Mr.Goodman, and
that, like anyone else's, his memory would play tricks on him. As I see it, this
wouldn't turn him into an "unreliable author" (only into a deceiver,
like Nature or a magician).
Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by being
an "unreliable author." Nabokov told Alfred Appel Jr (in a
1966 interview) that "the design of my novel is fixed in my
imagination and every character follows the course I imagine for him. I am the
perfect dictator in that private world insofar as I alone am responsible for
its stability and truth. Whether I reproduce it as fully and faithfully as
I would wish, is another question" and it's worth noting
that, further on, he defines "creative imagination" as the result
from a combination of "stored elements". .."with later recollections
and inventions."* Inventions are not lies**. Making mistakes
isn't lying. Being unable to transform a vision into
exact words, either. What kind of truth are you after?
........................................................................
* "I would say that imagination is a form
of memory. Down, Plato, down, good dog. An image depends on the power of
association, and association is supplied and prompted by memory. When we speak
of a vivid individual recollection we are paying a compliment not to our
capacity of retention but to Mnemosyne’s mysterious foresight in having stored
up this or that element which creative imagination may use when combining it
with later recollections and inventions..."
** - Well, sometimes they are! The inventive boy who cried "wolf" would
be called liar by his companions . Cf.
“Literature was not born the day when a
boy crying "wolf, wolf" came running out of the Neanderthal valley with a big
gray wolf at his heels; literature was born on the day when a boy came crying
"wolf, wolf" and there was no wolf behind him.” Lectures on
Literature. Jacques Lacan thinks that a child's ability to lie marks
his conquest of subjectivity (by stopping to believe that he is transparent in
his parent's eyes and gaining control of his
speech).