Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 01:55:38 -0300
From: jansy@AETERN.US
Subject: Re: [NABOKV-L] Distortions and slanting views
To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Bruce Stone: [To JM's "it's easier to identify some of
the instances in which Nabokov describes this mechanism, as in a painting, than
how he works it into the structure of a paragraph or an entire chapter ...I
haven't yet managed to find the main ugly and mangled verbal blurbs which a
convex surface, or a particular perspective, would organize and reveal as a
beautiful image, as suggested by VN... happens in Lolita ("a beautiful
puzzle")....] "It seems to me that this technique, or motif,
surfaces explicitly at several points in Lolita: the letter from Dolly Schiller
has shape-shifting penmanship (H initially believes it to be from Rita's
mother), and Humbert describes his voyeuristic experiences in which the image of
the nymphet resolves into, or reveals itself to be, a man in an undershirt
reading the newspaper. Of course, the notion of anamorphism, or distorted
perception, seems to inhere in the novel even more broadly. H claims that the
very act of perceiving a nymphet requires a kind of "focal adjustment." But
perhaps this is too obvious, and you're looking for different kinds of
anamorphism, more subtly encoded into the texts. If this is the case, then maybe
the tone shifts that signal the interjections (incompletely masked) of John Ray,
or Nabokov himself, are relevant here."
JM: You brought up some interesting examples of
anamorphosis as a motif (such as calling attention to H's claims about the
"focal adjustment" that enables him to see the nymphet in Dolores Haze). Inspite
of my curiosity, I'm not truly competent to explore when
a narrator's subjection to the rules of anamorphic logic
will operate as a watermark, or signature. I tend to agree with your
idea that to examine "the tone shifts that signal the
interjections".of JR, or Nabokov, are relevant, if we want to identify a special
image that'll give meaning to a particular quest (such as John
Ray's intromissions in HH's confessions and his role in the
novel)
You wrote that "Ultimately, the novel is engineered to
conceal as much as it reveals, to leave readers with errata and aporia, error
and uncertainty—fundamental conditions of Nabokov's aesthetic."* and I
happily agree. As I see it (somewhere in SO, VN admitted that his
universe expands like a spiral), there is no definitive
overall conclusion to be achieved in his novels because, if there
was one, it would smother its constant growth and irradiations.
Probably VN's employ of various kinds of anamorphism in his writings
will offer us the enormous satisfaction of facing an
enormous collection of elaborate pictures and...partial conclusions.
I think this is one of your points: "When Humbert...waxes philosophical
on the nature of literary characters, he emphasizes their "stability of type",
their ontological fixity, in order to describe a peculiarly limited view of
human behavior and potential: Whatever evolution this or that popular character
has gone through between the book covers, his fate is fixed in our minds, and,
similarly, we expect our friends to follow this or that logical and conventional
pattern we have fixed for them. In this sentiment, Humbert appears to be
equating fate and character, again mistaking the self-service of his imagination
for a grasp of the real, and this myopic vision fails him at least twice in the
novel ...Even so, Humbert's assessment might be true of the literary examples he
discusses, King Lear and Emma Bovary; their personas might change dramatically
between readings, but their fates remain immutable. For Nabokov's fiction,
however, it appears that this axiom no longer applies." I can easily call
to mind VN's insistence on durable pigments, eternity and immortality but, right
now, I cannot remember one instance of his search for
infinity (perhaps, in an oblique way, Sudarg of Bokay's crystal "triptyich
of bottomless light" in Pale Fire) - and it's with an offer
of infinity that I associate Nabokov's
writings.
When you added: "For Nabokov's characters, fate isn't necessarily fixed
or inalterable; even the inevitability of death becomes, for them, eerily
negotiable." you outlined the limits of what happens with
Nabokov's characters within his fictional work. However, when you
accept that John Ray Jr., or Nabokov, is/are constantly intervening
and thereby inviting the attentive reader to interact with them, you may be
extending this mutability and lack of stability, or the lack of
determinism, to what takes place metafictionally, that is, to the
world of the readers. But I may have confused the issues!
............................................................
*Cf. Bruce Stone in Miranda n°3 - "Editorial In(ter)ference: Errata and
Aporia in Lolita"
All private editorial communications are
read by both co-editors.