SUNDAY, MAR 17, 2013 04:00 PM HB - Vladimir Nabokov, “Houdini of
history”?
A new biography and a recently published play offer insights into how
the author felt about the past
BY ALISA SNIDERMAN (This article
originally appeared on the L.A. Review of Books.)
IN THE INTRODUCTION to
his novel “Bend Sinister” (1947), Vladimir Nabokov writes the following:I am not
“sincere,” I am not “provocative,” I am not “satirical.” I am neither a
didacticist nor an allegorizer. Politics and economics, atomic bombs, primitive
and abstract art forms, the entire Orient, symptoms of “thaw” in Soviet Russia,
the Future of Mankind, and so on, leave me supremely indifferent.
Nabokov was
no stranger to the political atrocities of the 20th century. In 1919, he and his
immediate family fled revolutionary Russia on the last ship out of Sevastopol, a
vessel aptly named “Nadezhda” (“Hope”). In 1937 he escaped Hitler’s Germany by
fleeing to France, and in 1940, just weeks before Paris fell to the Nazis, he
boarded a French ocean liner’s last voyage to New York with his Jewish wife and
son. So, was his insistence that his art was independent of politics and society
fact or fiction? In “The Secret History of Vladimir Nabokov,” Andrea Pitzer
suggests that such pronouncements were merely part of Nabokov’s public façade —
“the genteel, charming cosmopolitan, incapable of being dented or diminished by
history.” The Nabokov that Pitzer presents to us “is more vulnerable to the past
than he publically led the world to believe,” recording events “that have fallen
so completely out of public memory that they went unnoticed.” Pitzer is
particularly interested in tracing how Nabokov planted references to
concentration camps in his art. To prove her point, she chronicles historical
events as they unfolded in the course of Nabokov’s life and shows how Nabokov’s
works “refract” these events. While the result is an admirable work of archival
research, Nabokov’s art, unfortunately, comes out as a mere apparatus for
capturing history — a heroic service no doubt but one that raises the question:
if all you wanted to do was record events, why go through the trouble of writing
fiction? Pitzer suggests that, by burying “his past in his art” and waiting “for
readers to exhume it,” Nabokov had devised a new and different method for
documenting inhumanity and the history of violence.
If Pitzer is correct, why
was Nabokov so cryptic? [ ].
Nabokov did not always hide history.
He could be direct and poignant, as when describing Pnin’s memories of his first
love, Mira Belochkin:
One had to forget — because one could not live with the
thought that this graceful, fragile, tender young woman with those eyes, that
smile, those gardens and snows in the background, had been brought in a cattle
car to an extermination camp and killed by an injection of phenol to the heart,
into the gentle heart one had heard beating under one’s lips in the dusk of the
past.
History does lurk in the wings of Nabokov’s fiction, but he never gives
it center stage. The émigré narrator of Nabokov’s short story “Spring in
Fialta,” for example, obliquely and scornfully refers to the Russian Revolution
as “left-wing theater rumblings backstage.” Interestingly, Pitzer’s own use of
theater metaphors to narrate 20th-century history (“other tragedies were waiting
in the wings”) suggests one potential way of thinking about the relationship
between art and history: Nabokov’s interest in theater.
{ ]While Nabokov might have been the Houdini of history, his art is
anything but escapist. In many ways, his lecture on tragedy anticipates Lionel
Abel’s seminal 1963 “Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form.” Put simply, Abel
argues that while classical tragedy presents a world ruled by fate, indifferent
gods, and inherent forms, the metaplays of Shakespeare, Calderón, and the modern
playwrights that they inspired celebrate not only the artifice of theater, but
also the theatricality of life itself. And Abel finds this liberating.
[ ]If all the world’s a stage and life is a dream, then order is
something continually improvised by human striving and imagination. In other
words, if the world as we know it has been created by human imagination (at
times by the banal and boorish brains of despots) then it is also a world
capable of change by other consciousnesses. When Cincinnatus C., the artist of
Nabokov’s “Invitation to a Beheading” (1935–1936), bravely goes to his execution
and realizes that everything is “coming apart” as though during the striking of
a theater set, he not only returns to the bosom of his maker, but also “makes
his way in that direction where, to judge by the voices, stood beings akin to
him.”
[ ]When complimented in an interview for having “a
remarkable sense of history and period,” Nabokov responded: “We should define,
should we not, what we mean by ‘history.’” The author then expressed his
reservations about “history,” [ ] Throughout history, the wounds of
history have often been called upon to justify further atrocities and solicit
sympathy. While earning him the criticisms of many Russian émigrés, it is
perhaps precisely Nabokov’s artistic distance from and skepticism about
“history” that prevented him from falling into the trap that Solzhenitsyn did
later in his life when he embraced both Putin and ardent nationalism. “I do not
believe that ‘history’ exists apart from the historian,” Nabokov said. “If I try
to select a keeper of records, I think it safer (for my comfort, at least) to
choose my own self.”