Subject
Re: Nabokov and Stendhal (fwd)
Date
Body
Michael S Strickland <mstrickland@free.fr>
Writing from behind the mask of Van Veen, Nabokov alluded to "that
originality of literary style which constitutes the only real honesty of a
writer." (Ada, part 3, chapter 4 [p. 370 of the Penguin paperback in front of
me]) By this standard, the work of Stendahl is quite simply, regardless of
whatever structural or philosophical virtues it may possess, dishonest; Le
Rouge et le Noir reads like a mass-produced best-seller, not like a singular
masterpiece. Furthermore, one author's referring to another need not imply an
ambivalence of affections: Nabokov made no secret of his distaste for, say,
T.S. Eliot or Dostoevsky, yet his work is rife with references, often
parodic, to the works of these overrated scribblers. (Humbert Humbert's
caricature of "Ash Wednesday" comes readily to mind, as do Hermann's dusky
reflections.) It is as if Nabokov needed a duelist to face his prose against.
Perhaps this is why Ada seems "Chartreuse-ian"; yet it also seems rather
"Onegin-ian" or even "War-and-Peace-ian". An enumeration of loyal seconds and
of defeated opponents would be instructive.
> From: Matt Morris <mmorris@netunlimited.net>
>
> A fairly subjective, general question, but an important one it seems to
> me--I have always understood why Nabokov didn't like Faulkner (the reason:
> Wilson gave him the _wrong_ Faulkner to read--not Light In August, but his
> two masterpieces, Sound And Fury and As I Lay Dying). VN's distaste for
> the weak and crude LIA is perfectly consistent with his aesthetic
> principles that he stuck by throughout his career.
>
> But in the case of Henri Beyle/Stendhal, I am somewhat puzzled, and I am
> starting to suspect VN was too. VN's blatant, conflicted, allusions to
> Chartreuse in Transparent Things even suggest a late ambivalence.
>
> Re-reading Red And the Black, it strikes me that there are few books from
> the 19th-century that are so completely Nabokovian, and yet decades before
> VN. See for example the anagrammatic name in the beginning of the book,
> when Julien reads about a famous criminal case that parallels his own. Or
> the complex detachment S. creates between character and author. Or, for
> that matter, the formal beauty of the entire book. In the case of Julien
> Sorel's story, I think our Idol erred, seriously, and I say this as a
> great lover of Nabokov's books.
>
> True the carve of Stendhal's weapon (to paraphrase VN on Dickens) is
> (deliberately) crude. But any fan of Ulysses should have been able to see
> through these tricks, instantly. I don't understand Nabokov's
> incomprehensible incomprehension, again to paraphrase the still-great but
> not as powerful VN, concerning this "question-mark man" (as Nietzsche
> called Stendhal), and his first-rate, archetectonically-perfect novel.
> And again, I say this as a lowly admirer of Nabokov's genius--I am a good
> reader, but a pathetic writer.
>
> Help me on this one, because I love Nabokov, especially his Chartreuse-ian
> Ada. But I worship, absolutely adore, Stendhal, and wonder why Nabokov
> didn't too. His crack about Le Rouge being a book for chambermaids to me
> seems like saying that Ulysses is a book for drunken Irishmen only....
> ----------
Writing from behind the mask of Van Veen, Nabokov alluded to "that
originality of literary style which constitutes the only real honesty of a
writer." (Ada, part 3, chapter 4 [p. 370 of the Penguin paperback in front of
me]) By this standard, the work of Stendahl is quite simply, regardless of
whatever structural or philosophical virtues it may possess, dishonest; Le
Rouge et le Noir reads like a mass-produced best-seller, not like a singular
masterpiece. Furthermore, one author's referring to another need not imply an
ambivalence of affections: Nabokov made no secret of his distaste for, say,
T.S. Eliot or Dostoevsky, yet his work is rife with references, often
parodic, to the works of these overrated scribblers. (Humbert Humbert's
caricature of "Ash Wednesday" comes readily to mind, as do Hermann's dusky
reflections.) It is as if Nabokov needed a duelist to face his prose against.
Perhaps this is why Ada seems "Chartreuse-ian"; yet it also seems rather
"Onegin-ian" or even "War-and-Peace-ian". An enumeration of loyal seconds and
of defeated opponents would be instructive.
> From: Matt Morris <mmorris@netunlimited.net>
>
> A fairly subjective, general question, but an important one it seems to
> me--I have always understood why Nabokov didn't like Faulkner (the reason:
> Wilson gave him the _wrong_ Faulkner to read--not Light In August, but his
> two masterpieces, Sound And Fury and As I Lay Dying). VN's distaste for
> the weak and crude LIA is perfectly consistent with his aesthetic
> principles that he stuck by throughout his career.
>
> But in the case of Henri Beyle/Stendhal, I am somewhat puzzled, and I am
> starting to suspect VN was too. VN's blatant, conflicted, allusions to
> Chartreuse in Transparent Things even suggest a late ambivalence.
>
> Re-reading Red And the Black, it strikes me that there are few books from
> the 19th-century that are so completely Nabokovian, and yet decades before
> VN. See for example the anagrammatic name in the beginning of the book,
> when Julien reads about a famous criminal case that parallels his own. Or
> the complex detachment S. creates between character and author. Or, for
> that matter, the formal beauty of the entire book. In the case of Julien
> Sorel's story, I think our Idol erred, seriously, and I say this as a
> great lover of Nabokov's books.
>
> True the carve of Stendhal's weapon (to paraphrase VN on Dickens) is
> (deliberately) crude. But any fan of Ulysses should have been able to see
> through these tricks, instantly. I don't understand Nabokov's
> incomprehensible incomprehension, again to paraphrase the still-great but
> not as powerful VN, concerning this "question-mark man" (as Nietzsche
> called Stendhal), and his first-rate, archetectonically-perfect novel.
> And again, I say this as a lowly admirer of Nabokov's genius--I am a good
> reader, but a pathetic writer.
>
> Help me on this one, because I love Nabokov, especially his Chartreuse-ian
> Ada. But I worship, absolutely adore, Stendhal, and wonder why Nabokov
> didn't too. His crack about Le Rouge being a book for chambermaids to me
> seems like saying that Ulysses is a book for drunken Irishmen only....
> ----------