In Canto Three of his poem John Shade (the poet in VN’s novel Pale Fire, 1962) mentions empires of rhyme and Indies of calculus:
But who can teach the thoughts we should roll-call
When morning finds us marching to the wall
Under the stage direction of some goon
Political, some uniformed baboon?
We'll think of matters only known to us -
Empires of rhyme, Indies of calculus;
Listen to distant cocks crow, and discern
Upon the rough gray wall a rare wall fern;
And while our royal hands are being tied,
Taunt our inferiors, cheerfully deride
The dedicated imbeciles, and spit
Into their eyes just for the fun of it. (ll. 597-608)
In his conversation with Brück (in VN’s novel Camera Obscura, 1933, the writer who corresponds to Baum in Laughter in the Dark, 1938) Robert Horn (Axel Rex in Laughter in the Dark) says that, to describe India, it is sufficient to mention a pair of wet boots that one leaves outdoors and that are covered with fungi on the next morning:
Уже за омаром разговор в том конце стола, где сидели Дорианна, Горн, Магда, Кречмар, Марго Денис, сделался громким, но каким-то разнобоким. Магда сразу выпила немало белого вина и теперь сидела очень прямо, сияющими глазами глядя прямо перед собой. Горн, не обращая внимания ни на нее, ни на Дорианну, имя которой его раздражало, спорил наискосок через стол с писателем Брюком о приемах художественной изобразительности. Он говорил: «Беллетрист толкует, например, об Индии, где вот я никогда не бывал, и только от него и слышно, что о баядерках, охоте на тигров, факирах, бетеле, змеях – все это очень напряженно, очень прямо, сплошная, одним словом, тайна Востока, – но что же получается? Получается то, что никакой Индии я перед собой не вижу, а только чувствую воспаление надкостницы от всех этих восточных сладостей. Иной же беллетрист говорит всего два слова об Индии: я выставил на ночь мокрые сапоги, а утром на них уже вырос голубой лес (плесень, сударыня, – объяснил он Дорианне, которая поднимала одну бровь), – и сразу Индия для меня как живая, – остальное я уж сам воображу».
«Йоги, – сказала Дорианна, – делают удивительные вещи. Они умеют так дышать, что…»
«Но позвольте, господин Горн, – взволнованно кричал Брюк, написавший только что роман, действие коего протекало на Цейлоне, – нужно же осветить всесторонне, основательно, чтобы всякий читатель понял. Если же я описываю, например, плантацию, то обязан, конечно, подойти с самой важной стороны эксплуатации, жестокости белого колониста. Таинственная, огромная мощь Востока…»
«Вот это и скверно», – сказал Горн.
By the time the lobsters were being tackled, the talk at the head of the table where (the following string of names would be best arranged in a curve) Dorianna, Rex, Margot, Albinus, Sonia Hirsch and Baum were seated, was in full swing although rather incoherent. Margot had emptied her third wineglass at one gulp and was now sitting very erect with bright eyes, staring straight in front of her.
Rex paid no attention either to her or to Dorianna, whose name annoyed him, but was arguing across the table with Baum, the author, concerning the means of artistic expression.
"A writer for instance," he remarked, "talks about India which I have never seen, and gushes about dancing girls, tiger hunts, fakirs, betel nuts, serpents: the Glamour of the mysterious East. But what does it amount to? Nothing. Instead of visualizing India I merely get a bad toothache from all these Eastern delights. Now, there's the other way as, for instance, the fellow who writes: 'Before turning in I put out my wet boots to dry and in the morning I found that a thick blue forest had grown on them' ("Fungi, Madam," he explained to Dorianna who had raised one eyebrow) and at once India becomes alive for me. The rest is shop."
"Those yogis do marvelous things," said Dorianna. "Apparently they can breathe in such a way that--"
"But excuse me, my good sir," cried Baum excitedly--for he had just written a five-hundred-page novel, the scene of which was laid in Ceylon, where he had spent a sun-helmeted fortnight. "You must illuminate the picture thoroughly, so that every reader can understand. What matters is not the book one writes, but the problem it sets--and solves. If I describe the tropics I'm bound to approach my subject from its most important side, and that is--the exploitation, the cruelty of the white colonist. When you think of the millions and millions--"
"I don't," said Rex. (Chapter 15)
On his way back from Sakhalin (in November, 1890) Chekhov visited Ceylon. In Chekhov’s play Chayka (“The Seagull,” 1896) Treplev (a young author) envies Trigorin, the writer who can describe a moonlight night in one sentence:
Тригорин выработал себе приёмы, ему легко... У него на плотине блестит горлышко разбитой бутылки и чернеет тень от мельничного колеса - вот и лунная ночь готова, а у меня и трепещущий свет, и тихое мерцание звёзд, и далёкие звуки рояля, замирающие в тихом ароматном воздухе... Это мучительно.
Trigorin has worked out a process of his own, and descriptions are easy for him. He writes that the neck of a broken bottle lying on the bank glittered in the moonlight, and that the shadows lay black under the mill-wheel. There you have a moonlight night before your eyes, but I speak of the shimmering light, the twinkling stars, the distant sounds of a piano melting into the still and scented air, and the result is abominable. (Act Four)
In Canto Two of his poem Shade speaks of his dead daughter and mentions the poor sea gulls:
Life is a message scribbled in the dark.
Anonymous. Espied on a pine's bark,
As we were walking home the day she died,
An empty emerald case, squat and frog-eyed,
Hugging the trunk; and its companion piece,
A gum-logged ant. That Englishman in Nice,
A proud and happy linguist: je nourris
Les pauvres cigales - meaning that he
Fed the poor sea gulls! Lafontaine was wrong:
Dead is the mandible, alive the song. (ll. 235-244)
In a footnote to her Russian translation of Pale Fire Vera Nabokov points out that Krylov translated Lafontaine’s fable La Cigale et la Fourmi (“The Cicada and the Ant”) as Strekoza i muravey (“The Dragonfly and the Ant”). In his essay O Chekhove ("On Chekhov," 1929) Hodasevich mentions Strekoza (“The Dragonfly”), a literary magazine in which young Chekhov published his first humorous short stories:
Самые ранние произведения Чехова - рассказики, сценки, диалоги, напечатанные в печальной памяти "Стрекозе". Они приспособлены ко вкусу и пониманию читателя ниже чем среднего.
In a conversation with Kinbote (Shade’s mad commentator who imagines that he is Charles the Beloved, the last self-exiled king of Zembla) Shade listed Chekhov among Russian humorists:
Speaking of the Head of the bloated Russian Department, Prof. Pnin, a regular martinet in regard to his underlings (happily, Prof. Botkin, who taught in another department, was not subordinated to that grotesque "perfectionist"): "How odd that Russian intellectuals should lack all sense of humor when they have such marvelous humorists as Gogol, Dostoevski, Chekhov, Zoshchenko, and those joint authors of genius Ilf and Petrov." (note to Line 172)
The name Brück (of the writer in Camera Obscura) seems to hint at Bryuk net (“No Trousers”), a notice that, according to Ostap Bender (the main character in Ilf and Petrov’s novels “The Twelve Chairs,” 1928, and “The Golden Calf,” 1931), can be often seen at the entrance doors of the Moscow clothing stores:
Магазин "Платье мужское, дамское и детское" помещался под огромной вывеской, занимавшей весь двухэтажный дом. На вывеске были намалеваны десятки фигур: желтолицые мужчины с тонкими усиками, в шубах с отвернутыми наружу хорьковыми полами, дамы с муфтами в руках, коротконогие дети в матросских костюмчиках, комсомолки в красных косынках и сумрачные хозяйственники, погружённые по самые бёдра в фетровые сапоги. Всё это великолепие разбивалось о маленькую бумажку, прилепленную к входной двери магазина: ШТАНОВ НЕТ - Фу, как грубо, - сказал Остап, входя, - сразу видно, что провинция. Написала бы, как пишут в Москве: "Брюк нет", прилично и благородно. (“The Golden Calf,” chapter VII: “The Sweet Burden of Fame”)
According to Baum (Brück’s name in Laughter in the Dark), a book should solve the problem it sets. In a letter of Oct. 27, 1888, to Suvorin Chekhov says that in Tolstoy’s Anna Karenin and Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin not a single problem is solved, but they satisfy the reader completely because all the problems are correctly stated in them:
Я иногда проповедую ересь, но до абсолютного отрицания вопросов в художестве еще не доходил ни разу. В разговорах с пишущей братией я всегда настаиваю на том, что не дело художника решать узкоспециальные вопросы. Дурно, если художник берется за то, чего не понимает. Для специальных вопросов существуют у нас специалисты; их дело судить об общине, о судьбах капитала, о вреде пьянства, о сапогах, о женских болезнях... Художник же должен судить только о том, что он понимает; его круг так же ограничен, как и у всякого другого специалиста, — это я повторяю и на этом всегда настаиваю. Что в его сфере нет вопросов, а всплошную одни только ответы, может говорить только тот, кто никогда не писал и не имел дела с образами. Художник наблюдает, выбирает, догадывается, компонует — уж одни эти действия предполагают в своем начале вопрос; если с самого начала не задал себе вопроса, то не о чем догадываться и нечего выбирать. Чтобы быть покороче, закончу психиатрией: если отрицать в творчестве вопрос и намерение, то нужно признать, что художник творит непреднамеренно, без умысла, под влиянием аффекта; поэтому, если бы какой-нибудь автор похвастал мне, что он написал повесть без заранее обдуманного намерения, а только по вдохновению, то я назвал бы его сумасшедшим.
Требуя от художника сознательного отношения к работе, Вы правы, но Вы смешиваете два понятия: решение вопроса и правильная постановка вопроса. Только второе обязательно для художника. В «Анне Карениной» и в «Онегине» не решен ни один вопрос, но они Вас вполне удовлетворяют, потому только, что все вопросы поставлены в них правильно. Суд обязан ставить правильно вопросы, а решают пусть присяжные, каждый на свой вкус.
... In conversation with my literary colleagues I always insist that it is not the artist’s business to solve problems that require a specialist’s knowledge. It is a bad thing if a writer tackles a subject he does not understand. We have specialists for dealing with special questions: it is their business to judge of the commune, of the future of capitalism, of the evils of drunkenness, of boots, of the diseases of women. An artist must only judge of what he understands, his field is just as limited as that of any other specialist—I repeat this and insist on it always. That in his sphere there are no questions, but only answers, can only be maintained by those who have never written and have had no experience of thinking in images. An artist observes, selects, guesses, combines—and this in itself presupposes a problem: unless he had set himself a problem from the very first there would be nothing to conjecture and nothing to select. To put it briefly, I will end by using the language of psychiatry: if one denies that creative work involves problems and purposes, one must admit that an artist creates without premeditation or intention, in a state of aberration; therefore, if an author boasted to me of having written a novel without a preconceived design, under a sudden inspiration, I should call him mad.
You are right in demanding that an artist should take an intelligent attitude to his work, but you confuse two things: solving a problem and stating a problem correctly. It is only the second that is obligatory for the artist. In “Anna Karenin” and “Eugene Onegin” not a single problem is solved, but they satisfy you completely because all the problems are correctly stated in them. It is the business of the judge to put the right questions, but the answers must be given by the jury according to their own lights.
Anna Karenin brings to mind Dorianna Karenina, the movie actress in Laughter in the Dark. In Chapter Two (XIV: 6-7) of Eugene Onegin Pushkin mentions dvunogikh tvarey milliony (the millions of two-legged creatures) who are for us orudie odno (only tools):
Но дружбы нет и той меж нами.
Все предрассудки истребя,
Мы почитаем всех нулями,
А единицами – себя.
Мы все глядим в Наполеоны;
Двуногих тварей миллионы
Для нас орудие одно;
Нам чувство дико и смешно.
Сноснее многих был Евгений;
Хоть он людей, конечно, знал
И вообще их презирал, —
Но (правил нет без исключений)
Иных он очень отличал
И вчуже чувство уважал.
But in our midst there’s even no such friendship:
Having destroyed all the prejudices,
We deem all people naughts
And ourselves units.
We all expect to be Napoleons;
the millions of two-legged creatures
for us are only tools;
feeling to us is weird and ludicrous.
More tolerant than many was Eugene,
though he, of course, knew men
and on the whole despised them;
but no rules are without exceptions:
some people he distinguished greatly
and, though estranged from it, respected feeling.
Odno (neut. of odin, “one”) = Odon (a world-famous actor and Zemblan patriot who helps the king to escape from Zembla) = Nodo (Odon’s half-brother, a cardsharp and despicable traitor). At the end of his Commentary Kinbote mentions Odon and a million photographers:
"And you, what will you be doing with yourself, poor King, poor Kinbote?" a gentle young voice may inquire.
God will help me, I trust, to rid myself of any desire to follow the example of two other characters in this work. I shall continue to exist. I may assume other disguises, other forms, but I shall try to exist. I may turn up yet, on another campus, as an old, happy, healthy, heterosexual Russian, a writer in exile, sans fame, sans future, sans audience, sans anything but his art. I may join forces with Odon in a new motion picture: Escape from Zembla (ball in the palace, bomb in the palace square). I may pander to the simple tastes of theatrical critics and cook up a stage play, an old-fashioned Melodrama with three principals: a lunatic who intends to kill an imaginary king, another lunatic who imagines himself to be that king, and a distinguished old poet who stumbles by chance into the line of fire, and perishes in the clash between the two figments. Oh, I may do many things! History permitting, I may sail back to my recovered kingdom, and with a great sob greet the gray coastline and the gleam of a roof in the rain. I may huddle and groan in a madhouse. But whatever happens, wherever the scene is laid, somebody, somewhere, will quietly set out - somebody has already set out, somebody still rather far away is buying a ticket, is boarding a bus, a ship, a plane, has landed, is walking toward a million photographers, and presently he will ring at my door - a bigger, more respectable, more competent Gradus. (note to Line 1000)
In his Foreword to Shade’s poem Kinbote speaks of his close friendship with the poet and mentions his favorite photograph of Shade:
Oh, there were many such incidents. In a skit performed by a group of drama students I was pictured as a pompous woman hater with a German accent, constantly quoting Housman and nibbling raw carrots; and a week before Shade's death, a certain ferocious lady at whose club I had refused to speak on the subject of "The Hally Vally" (as she put it, confusing Odin's Hall with the title of a Finnish epic), said to me in the middle of a grocery store, "You are a remarkably disagreeable person. I fail to see how John and Sybil can stand you," and, exasperated by my polite smile, she added: "What's more, you are insane." But let me not pursue the tabulation of nonsense. Whatever was thought, whatever was said, I had my full reward in John's friendship. This friendship was the more precious for its tenderness being intentionally concealed, especially when we were not alone, by that gruffness which stems from what can be termed the dignity of the heart. His whole being constituted a mask. John Shade's physical appearance was so little in keeping with the harmonies hiving in the man, that one felt inclined to dismiss it as a coarse disguise or passing fashion; for if the fashions of the Romantic Age subtilized a poet's manliness by baring his attractive neck, pruning his profile and reflecting a mountain lake in his oval gaze, present-day bards, owing perhaps to better opportunities of aging, look like gorillas or vultures. My sublime neighbor's face had something about it that might have appealed to the eye, had it been only leonine or only Iroquoian; but unfortunately, by combining the two it merely reminded one of a fleshy Hogarthian tippler of indeterminate sex. His misshapen body, that gray mop of abundant hair, the yellow nails of his pudgy fingers, the bags under his lusterless eyes, were only intelligible if regarded as the waste products eliminated from his intrinsic self by the same forces of perfection which purifed and chiseled his verse. He was his own cancellation.
I have one favorite photograph of him. In this color snapshot taken by a onetime friend of mine, on a brilliant spring day, Shade is seen leaning on a sturdy cane that had belonged to his aunt Maud (see line 86). I am wearing a white windbreaker acquired in a local sports shop and a pair of lilac slacks hailing from Cannes. My left hand is half raised - not to pat Shade on the shoulder as seems to be the intention, but to remove my sunglasses which, however, it never reached in that life, the life of the picture; and the library book under my right arm is a treatise on certain Zemblan calisthenics in which I proposed to interest that young roomer of mine who snapped the picture. A week later he was to betray my trust by taking sordid advantage of my absence on a trip to Washington whence I returned to find he had been entertaining a fiery-haired whore from Exton who had left her combings and reek in all three bathrooms. Naturally we separated at once, and through a chink in the window curtains I saw bad Bob standing rather pathetically, with his crewcut, and shabby valise, and the skis I had given him, all forlorn on the roadside, waiting for a fellow student to drive him away forever. I can forgive everything save treason.
We never discussed, John Shade and I, any of my personal misfortunes. Our close friendship was on that higher, exclusively intellectual level where one can rest from emotional troubles, not share them. My admiration for him was for me a sort of alpine cure. I experienced a grand sense of wonder whenever I looked at him, especially in the presence of other people, inferior people. This wonder was enhanced by my awareness of their not feeling what I felt, of their not seeing what I saw, of their taking Shade for granted, instead of drenching every nerve, so to speak, in the romance of his presence. Here he is, I would say to myself, that is his head, containing a brain of a different brand than that of the synthetic jellies preserved in the skulls around him. He is looking from the terrace (of Prof. C.'s house on that March evening) at the distant lake. I am looking at him, I am witnessing a unique physiological phenomenon: John Shade perceiving and transforming the world, taking it in and taking it apart, re-combining its elements in the very process of storing them up so as to produce at some unspecified date an organic miracle, a fusion of image and music, a line of verse. And I experienced the same thrill as when in my early boyhood I once watched across the tea table in my uncle's castle a conjurer who had just given a fantastic performance and was now quietly consuming a vanilla ice. I stared at his powdered cheeks, at the magical flower in his buttonhole where it had passed through a succession of different colors and had now become fixed as a white carnation, and especially at his marvelous fluid-looking fingers which could if he chose make his spoon dissolve into a sunbeam by twiddling it, or turn his plate into a dove by tossing it up in the air.
Shade's poem is, indeed, that sudden flourish of magic: my gray-haired friend, my beloved old conjurer, put a pack of index cards into his hat - and shook out a poem.
The characters in VN's story Kartofel'nïy el'f ("The Potato Elf," 1929) include the conjuror Shock. The story's hero, Fred Dobson (a circus dwarf) brings to mind 'Shark' Dodson, the main character in O. Henry’s story The Roads We Take (1910). In Canto Four of his poem Shade mentions sharks among the things that he loathes:
Now I shall speak of evil as none has
Spoken before. I loathe such things as jazz;
The white-hosed moron torturing a black
Bull, rayed with red; abstractist bric-a-brac;
Primitivist folk-masks; progressive schools;
Music in supermarkets; swimming pools;
Brutes, bores, class-conscious Philistines, Freud, Marx,
Fake thinkers, puffed-up poets, frauds and sharks. (ll. 923-930)
In Camera Obscura Dietrich Segelkrantz (Udo Conrad in Laughter in the Dark) compares Horn (Rex) to a shark:
Да, это для меня новость, – сказал наконец Макс. – Это для меня новость. А что сталось с тем прохвостом?»
«Неизвестно, но есть все основания думать, что он, подобно акуле, последовал и дальше за ними. И вот теперь вообразите: человек слеп, физически слеп, но этого мало, он знает, что кругом измена, а сделать ничего не может. Ведь это пытка, застенок! Надо что-нибудь предпринять, нельзя это так оставить».
According to Kinbote, he suggested to Shade Solus Rex as the title of his poem:
We know how firmly, how stupidly I believed that Shade was composing a poem, a kind of romaunt, about the King of Zembla. We have been prepared for the horrible disappointment in store for me. Oh, I did not expect him to devote himself completely to that theme! It might have been blended of course with some of his own life stuff and sundry Americana - but I was sure his poem would contain the wonderful incidents I had described to him, the characters I had made alive for him and all the unique atmosphere of my kingdom. I even suggested to him a good title -the title of the book in me whose pages he was to cut: Solus Rex, instead of which I saw Pale Fire, which meant to me nothing. I started to read the poem. I read faster and faster. I sped through it, snarling, as a furious young heir through an old deceiver's testament. Where were the battlements of my sunset castle? Where was Zembla the Fair? Where her spine of mountains? Where her long thrill through the mist? And my lovely flower boys, and the spectrum of the stained windows, and the Black Rose Paladins, and the whole marvelous tale?
Nothing of it was there! The complex contribution I had been pressing upon him with a hypnotist's patience and a lover's urge was simply not there. Oh, but I cannot express the agony! Instead of the wild glorious romance - what did I have? An autobiographical, eminently Appalachian, rather old-fashioned narrative in a neo-Popian prosodic style - beautifully written of course - Shade could not write otherwise than beautifully - but void of my magic, of that special rich streak of magical madness which I was sure would run through it and make it transcend its time. (note to Line 1000)