Dave Lull alerted
me to Bernard Pivot’s interview with Nabokov for an episode of Apostrophes, the prime-time literary
talk show on French television. The episode was broadcast in 1975, two years
before the novelist’s death at age seventy-eight, and I sense the presence of a
mellower Nabokov, friendlier, more obliging, less combative than the one we
know from earlier interviews. He dismisses his customary bĂȘtes noires – Freud, Faulkner, fakes – but lingers nostalgically on
fondly recalled memories of Russia and the U.S. Nabokov mingles his discontents
with gratitude and wonder:
“I don’t
care at all for the writer who does not see the wonders of this century, little
things – the free-and-easiness of male attire, the bathroom that has replaced
the foul lavabo – and great things
like the sublime liberty of thought in our double West, and the moon, the moon.
I remember with what a shiver of delight, envy, and anguish I watched on the
television screen man’s first floating steps on the talcum powder of our
satellite and how I despised all those who maintained it wasn’t worth the expense
of billions of dollars to walk in the dust of a dead world. So I detest,
therefore, engagé scandalmongers,
writers without mystery, the unfortunates who feed on the Viennese charlatan’s
elixirs. Those I love, on the other hand, are those who know, as I know, that
words alone are the real value of a masterpiece, a principle as old as it is
true.”
He is the writer
dead in my lifetime whose absence I most often mourn. After reading the
interview, I carried with me to a doctor’s appointment The Stories of Vladimir Nabokov (1995). Almost at random I chose to read in
the waiting room “Perfection,” written in Russian in 1932 and translated by
Nabokov and his son Dmitri for inclusion in Tyrants
Destroyed and Other Stories (1975). No writer so marries melancholy to comedy
and a celebration of the visible world. Nearly every sentence delivers a tingle
of recognition. When a boy makes fun of Ivanov on a street in Berlin, he
mistakes the “didactic mimicry” for a suggestion that he look at the sky where
he sees “three lovely cloudlets, holding each other by the hand, . . . drifting
diagonally across the sky; the third one fell slowly behind, and its outline,
and the outline of the friendly hand still stretched out to it, slowly lost
their graceful significance.”
One recalls
the indecent fun made of Pnin by his tormentors. The clouds delicately foreshadow
Ivanov’s sadly heroic fate at the end of the story, which in turn recalls Nabokov’s
recurrent theme of a potential afterlife, particularly in Pale Fire. Close attention paid to this world often suggests the
existence of another. And always, we have the pleasure of his prose. In the
interview he says:
“One must
draw everything one can from words, because it’s the one real treasure a true
writer has. Big general ideas are in yesterday’s newspaper. If I like to take a
word and turn it over to see its underside, shiny or dull or adorned with
motley hues absent on its upperside, it’s not at all out of idle curiosity, one
finds all sorts of curious things by studying the underside of a word –
unexpected shadows of other words, harmonies between them, hidden beauties that
suddenly reveal something beyond the word. Serious wordplay, as I have in mind,
is neither a game of chance nor a mere embellishment of style. It’s a new
verbal species that the marvelling author offers to the poor reader, who
doesn’t want to look; to the good reader, who suddenly sees a completely new
facet of an iridescent sentence.”
Wonderful.
ReplyDelete