Nabokov Against Dostoevsky

[Taotao]

Recently I read Crime and Punishment and Nabokov's criticism of it. Those comments are acute but enlightening. So I plan to summarise them and probably we will have some interesting discussion. It's a long project and I will do it little by little.

Here is the first comment I want to share. It is the scene that Raskolnikov and Sonya read the Bible story the Resurrection of Lazarus. He say it is a cliché story. And he think the story doesn't make any moral or Christian sense. Dostoevsky somehow put the stupid filthy murder and the unfortunate girl's life in the same level. Not to mention that the prostitute was forgiven by Jesus 19 centuries ago. And there is also an unbalance here. Raskolnikov's murder had been explained in the book in many way in very detail, while things about Sonya was explained very much.

Actually I agree with Nabokov's argument very much and this is also how I feel when I first look at this scene: awkward absurd little cliché scene. The scene makes no common sense and is narcissistic. Those who are narcissistic enough will get extremely moved by this scene but not any for reader with common sense and reasonable mind. This scene came up so abruptly. Why is it abrupt? Before this scene everything went normally, but suddenly Raskolnikov went crazy and did the stupid reading play with Sonya.

It is a true cliché. Look at this sentence:

The candle was flickering out, dimly lighting up in the poverty-stricken room the murderer and the harlot who had been reading together the eternal book.

Dostoevsky tried to create the atmosphere by those awkward supernatural phenomenon—flickering out of candle, dimly lighting up—and awkward word 'eternal book'. He use these superficial awkward way to remedy the illogicality of this scene, instead of using natural and reasonable development of the characters.

 

[Liam]

He use these superficial awkward way to remedy the illogicality of this scene, instead of using natural and reasonable development of the characters.

I disagree wholeheartedly because when it comes to C&P words like "natural" and "reasonable" don't apply. Raskolnikov is borderline insane, and you expect his character to develop "reasonably"? You're in for a rude awakening.

 

[Leseratte]

Dostoevsky was very much influenced by Dickens, who IMO was a master in creating atmosphere. Dickens might have coined a sentence like this except that, I think he wouldn´t have used the word "harlot" to describe Sonya.
I don´t remember this Bible reading scene any more, but I remember that Sonya had a great influence on Raskolnikov´s repentance and confessing of his crime and I think this Bible scene points at this future moral "ressurection" of Raskolnicov and the role Sonya plays in it. The scene May be somewhat of a cliché as may this plot of "sin and repentance" itself, but nonetheless it is moving as it shows the protagonist intense struggle for his moral survival.

 

[Taotao]

I disagree wholeheartedly because when it comes to C&P words like "natural" and "reasonable" don't apply. Raskolnikov is borderline insane, and you expect his character to develop "reasonably"? You're in for a rude awakening.

Somewhat interesting that Nabokov has exactly attack your argument in his Lecture Notes on Russian Literature. His argument is that one cannot discuss the "realism" of "human experience" with their characters being lunatics and neurotics.
My explain of this is that, if you use this excuse—the character is insane so he is possible to do everything—then you can write every single awkward thing in your story then claim that your characters are insane. Here is a sentence by Nabokov explaining this

The reactions of such poor, deformed, warped souls are often no longer human, in the accepted sense of the word, or they are so freakish that the problem the author set himself remains unsolved regardless of how it is supposed to be solved by the reactions of such unusual individuals.

Yet what I mean by 'natural' and 'reasonable' is the writing of the author instead of the character. I believe Nabokov will also agree with my viewpoint. Yes the author can write every kind of characters and stories he want, but he need a reasonable way to develop his idea. Kafka used tons of plain words to describe the situation and explain characters' development, and those plain words magically build up the realism, which Nabokov highly approve of.

I need to say that most of the things Nabokov criticised about Dostoevsky are about that Dostoevsky is not a good writer. Dostoevsky's novel may be psychological or philosophical. But Nabokov only cares about purely literary aspects and accused Dostoevsky of not being a good writer.

 

[Taotao]

Dostoevsky was very much influenced by Dickens, who IMO was a master in creating atmosphere. Dickens might have coined a sentence like this except that, I think he wouldn´t have used the word "harlot" to describe Sonya.
I don´t remember this Bible reading scene any more, but I remember that Sonya had a great influence on Raskolnikov´s repentance and confessing of his crime and I think this Bible scene points at this future moral "ressurection" of Raskolnicov and the role Sonya plays in it. The scene May be somewhat of a cliché as may this plot of "sin and repentance" itself, but nonetheless it is moving as it shows the protagonist intense struggle for his moral survival.

It is interesting because Nabokov also hate Dickens very much lol

 

[tiganeasca]

It is interesting because Nabokov also hate Dickens very much lol

Nabokov was very fond of disparaging others. And he was often wrong.

 

[childeroland]

Nabokov liked Bleak House. I thought he liked the rest of him too.

 

[Taotao]

Nabokov was very fond of disparaging others. And he was often wrong.

I think we should always look at his reasoning of his disparaging. He has two lecture notes, on literature and Russian literature. He well explained his criticism and I think his argument—though I may not totally agree with his argument—is insightful.

Yet I need to say that Nabokov only cares about 'pure literature', or the 'artistic' aspect of literature. But when we approach literature, we may not only want the good writing. We may also be satisfied with some philosophical or social things revealed in the book.

 

[tiganeasca]

I think we should always look at his reasoning of his disparaging. He has two lecture notes, on literature and Russian literature. He well explained his criticism and I think his argument—though I may not totally agree with his argument—is insightful.

Yet I need to say that Nabokov only cares about 'pure literature', or the 'artistic' aspect of literature. But when we approach literature, we may not only want the good writing. We may also be satisfied with some philosophical or social things revealed in the book.

You are, of course, absolutely right. We should always look at his reasons. Even so, I cannot escape the feeling that a lot of his arguments are post hoc rationalizations for his personal preferences.

 

[Taotao]

Nabokov liked Bleak House. I thought he liked the rest of him too.

At least Nabokov against Dickens can be found in his comments on The Metamorphosis by Kafka, in his Lecture Note on Literature. He argue that while the setting of Dickens' novels is in real word and The Metamorphosis is a fantasy story, Kafka approached 'realistic' much better than Dickens.

 

[Liam]

The one thing I never appreciated about Nabokov (whose style I find a little "precious" as well) are these gadfly attacks on other writers. You can critique the writing style(s) of others without resorting to disparagement. He hated Freud for a reason, I think he himself suffered from penis-envy vis-a-vis his older, greater, more established predecessors. Harold Bloom calls this "the anxiety of influence" though he is, of course, talking about poetry. You can, by all means, dislike Dostoyevsky, and even point out what in his books doesn't work for you, but Nabokov's constant need to belittle the writers he happened not to like speaks volumes.

 

[Leseratte]

It is interesting because Nabokov also hate Dickens very much lol

I haven´t read anything by Nabokov besides Lolita and criticism that appeared on this forum. I don´t usually agree with his criticism. For me there is much envy in it.

Apart of it, it seems he doesn´t like a dramatic or melodramatic treatment of human experiences. He may have a point there in being against any form of exaggeration, preferring a toned down narrative. But that doesn't make bad novelists of Dickens or Dostoyevsky.

 

[Leseratte]

I think we should always look at his reasoning of his disparaging. He has two lecture notes, on literature and Russian literature. He well explained his criticism and I think his argument—though I may not totally agree with his argument—is insightful.

Yet I need to say that Nabokov only cares about 'pure literature', or the 'artistic' aspect of literature. But when we approach literature, we may not only want the good writing. We may also be satisfied with some philosophical or social things revealed in the book.

What is "pure Literature" according to Nabokov?

 

[tiganeasca]

As it happens, I am re-reading Lermontov's A Hero of Our Time in Nabokov's translation. I had been noting some of the gratuitous insults he sprinkles throughout the notes, thinking that I would post something in this thread when just now, I happened to read the following note...so perfectly typical of Nabokov: "The allusion [in the text] is to...a vulgar novelette, ending in ridiculous melodrama, by the overrated French writer, Balzac." Nothing more.

 

[Liam]

What did I say about a single sentence... speaking volumes??? ?

OK, I'm off to... read some Balzac!! I feel like something vulgar and ridiculous at the moment, ?

 

[tiganeasca]

The only conclusion I can possibly draw from this is the extraordinary insecurity it must take to routinely make such (unsupported and unsupportable) judgments in such circumstances.

 

[Leseratte]

In Brazil popularly known as elbow ache!

 

[Cleanthess]

... I remember that Sonya had a great influence on Raskolnikov´s repentance and confessing of his crime and I think this Bible scene points at this future moral "resurrection" of Raskolnikov and the role Sonya plays in it.

Excellent reading indeed, Leseratte. The god of a certain minor literary genre, Tezuka Osamu, chose to have Raskolnikov confessing to and repenting of his crime while begging for forgiveness from Sonia as the very moving ending to his adaptation of Crime and Punishment.

Also, it might be a good idea to seek a second opinion from some other expert before committing to a strong opinion regarding this matter. For example in the paragraph quoted:

"That is all about the raising of Lazarus,” she whispered severely and abruptly, and turning away she stood motionless, not daring to raise her eyes to him. She still trembled feverishly. The candle-end was flickering out in the battered candlestick, dimly lighting up in the poverty-stricken room the murderer and the harlot who had so strangely been reading together the eternal book. Five minutes or more passed.

The French translator, Andre Markowicz, adds the following note:

"[The sentence This is all about the resurrection of Lazarus"] - in its very awkwardness - is characteristic of the style of the entire novel. Sonia says, at one and the same time, that the narrative of Lazarus's resurrection is over, and that everything (that is, the Bible, Crime and Punishment, the whole of our lives) is about one thing and one thing only: this resurrection.

Also notice the "Five minutes or more passed", Dostoevsky keeps track of the passage of time since Raskolnikov's arrival just "at the eleventh hour" to indicate that there is still some time for Raskolnikov's resurrection ("I am late…. It’s eleven, isn’t it?” he asked").

Andre Markowicz claims that it's impossible to translate the short paragraph in which Sonia answers Raskolnikov's question, even if it's written in very plain Russian.

“— Iest’, probormotala Sonia. Ah da, iest’ ! zatoropilas’ ona vdroug, kak boudto v etom byl dljia neïo ves’ isc’hod, seïtchas u c’hozijaev tchassy probili… i ja sama slychala… Iest.

“It is,” muttered Sonia, “oh yes, it is,” she added, hastily, as if this was her only way out. “My neighbor’s clock has just struck… I heard it myself… It is”

In Russian, when you answer a question in the affirmative, you don't say "yes", but you repeat the verb of the question. In Russian, Sonia's answer is absolutely normal. But the verb "to be" is repeated three times [her 3 affirmations before midnight countering certain 3 negations before the cock crow], and it's this insistence that changes the meaning.

In Russian, it's as if Raskolnikov isn't just asking about the time, but: "Am I too late or is it still time to be resurrected? (It's not midnight yet, just the eleventh hour). And it's as if Sonia answers: It is.. (In the name of the Father.) Ah yes, It is (In the name of the Son)... It is. (In the name of the Holy Spirit.) - Here, it's not the characters who speak, it's the text.
My proposed translation above is only vaguely suggestive of the poetic depth of the Russian text.

 

[Leseratte]

Excellent reading indeed, Leseratte. The god of a certain minor literary genre, Tezuka Osamu, chose to have Raskolnikov confessing to and repenting of his crime while begging for forgiveness from Sonia as the very moving ending to his adaptation of Crime and Punishment.

Also, it might be a good idea to seek a second opinion from some other expert before committing to a strong opinion regarding this matter. For example in the paragraph quoted:

The French translator, Andre Markowicz, adds the following note:

Also notice the "Five minutes or more passed", Dostoevsky keeps track of the passage of time since Raskolnikov's arrival just "at the eleventh hour" to indicate that there is still some time for Raskolnikov's resurrection ("I am late…. It’s eleven, isn’t it?” he asked").

Andre Markowicz claims that it's impossible to translate the short paragraph in which Sonia answers Raskolnikov's question, even if it's written in very plain Russian.

That's a beautiful analysis and in the spirit of Dostoevsky,Cleanthess.lt seems that Nabokov got drowned in the poetic depth of the text..

 

[Taotao]

What is "pure Literature" according to Nabokov?

I don't know whether he formulate this in his notes, and at least I haven't seen from what I have read so far. But we have some clues to this question.

At the beginning when Nabokov tried to attack C&P, he started with 'The flaw, the crack in it'. In his praise of The Metamorphosis, he emphasize the 'reality' of the fantasy. In this way I think one important aspect of his 'real literature' is that a sophisticated and flawless world is constructed by the writer's writing.

Some other clues support my conclusion. He describes writing as a divine game that 'man comes nearest to God through becoming a true creator in his own right'.