December 15th, 2009 / 1:28 pm
Author Spotlight

NABOKOV SMIRKING IN INTERVIEW (SORRY, KINGSLEY, I LOVE HIS TRICKS)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldpj_5JNFoA

Every now & then I watch this interview purely for entertainment value.  Nabokov.  My dad gave me one of his books when I was twelve or thirteen, I think, and shortly thereafter I had a dawning-of-comprehension moment, like, this guy [my dad] might actually be pretty smart/have good taste. Which, while not quite a Nabokovian epiphanic moment, actually is a revelation to an adolescent.

I’ve long had the impression that a lot of folks in the HTMLGiant/indie lit crowd don’t care for Nabokov* or at least orient more toward Bukowski/Burroughs/Kafka & what I think of as the “Grits” (i.e. writers whose lifestyles are associated with gritty shit and/or whose writing prioritizes visceral response over sublimity), but I pretty much consider it axiomatic that VN was a genius and maybe the most skilled manipulator of the English language who ever lived.  Also, nobody has ever been more successful at translating synesthesia into art.  (Btw, do you know what “Martian colors” are?  I call that as a title for a book.)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wcB4RPasE&feature=related

A friend of mine was obsessed with Nabokov in the 70’s and, he told me recently, wrote a book-length biography/critical analysis that he ultimately scrapped–because he became disgusted.  He was convinced that Nabokov was a cruel, contemptuous, and above all devious man.  (Deception being, of course, central to Nabokov’s whole aesthetic and also at the core of his conception of beauty.  Nobody disputes that!)  He said that when he saw Nabokov interviewed, “He was exactly like I’d imagined… utterly sneering and contemptuous.”  Oh, I don’t know.  I think he’s endearing.

Martin Amis used to argue with Kingsley Amis (I think I’m remembering this from Experience) about Lolita.  He read his father a particularly bravura passage and Kingsley snorted and said something like, “That’s Nabokov doing tricks to make you think he cares.”  (Elsewhere about Lolita, he wrote, “The end product sadly invokes a Charles Atlas muscle-man of language as opposed to the healthy and useful adult.”)  Too bad for Kingsley, he never had his own epiphanic moment.  Oh well, I still love Lucky Jim.

My favorite Nabokov after Lolita is Bend Sinister.  Shit, I should go reread that soon.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F3ywUpp_ps

* though some certainly appreciate!

Tags: , , , ,

66 Comments

  1. D.W. Lichtenberg

      I’m surprised you don’t think people on this site like Nabokov. ‘Lolita’ is the undisputed greatest novel of all time, right? (I’m actually a Salinger-ite, who I guess is somewhere between your Nabokov and their Bukowski, and I’m offended that he was not mentioned in this official HTMLGiant blogpost on VN)

  2. D.W. Lichtenberg

      I’m surprised you don’t think people on this site like Nabokov. ‘Lolita’ is the undisputed greatest novel of all time, right? (I’m actually a Salinger-ite, who I guess is somewhere between your Nabokov and their Bukowski, and I’m offended that he was not mentioned in this official HTMLGiant blogpost on VN)

  3. Lincoln

      I prefer Pale Fire

  4. Lincoln

      I prefer Pale Fire

  5. davidpeak

      agreed. or invitation to a beheading. but the poem in pale fire that the book revolves around is as good as the book itself. it’s one of the most impressive literary feats i’ve ever witnessed.

  6. davidpeak

      agreed. or invitation to a beheading. but the poem in pale fire that the book revolves around is as good as the book itself. it’s one of the most impressive literary feats i’ve ever witnessed.

  7. Nick Antosca

      Yeah, I think I’ve just had that impression because the folks I first knew in this approximate “scene”–most notably Tao and Noah–seemed to regard VN as a ridiculous or irrelevant figure, ultimately not that interesting. It’s clear, obviously, that he’s monumental to certain individuals in the indie lit scene, but he doesn’t seem to have much influence on the scene as a whole. Not as much as, say, KMart realists.

  8. Nick Antosca

      Yeah, I think I’ve just had that impression because the folks I first knew in this approximate “scene”–most notably Tao and Noah–seemed to regard VN as a ridiculous or irrelevant figure, ultimately not that interesting. It’s clear, obviously, that he’s monumental to certain individuals in the indie lit scene, but he doesn’t seem to have much influence on the scene as a whole. Not as much as, say, KMart realists.

  9. Lincoln

      Nabokov > KMart and/or its realism
      every day of the week

  10. Lincoln

      Nabokov > KMart and/or its realism
      every day of the week

  11. Nick Antosca

      Uh, yes. Yes indeed.

  12. Nick Antosca

      Uh, yes. Yes indeed.

  13. Matt Jasper

      Congratulations on listing “Bukowski/Burroughs/Kafka” in the correct order of ascendancy. About a tenth of Bukowski is quite good yet he is as much death on *imitators as he was when he aped himself.

      *see Kenneth Patchen’s anti-beatnik rants.

      Loved ADA. Will track down Bend Sinister.

  14. Matt Jasper

      Congratulations on listing “Bukowski/Burroughs/Kafka” in the correct order of ascendancy. About a tenth of Bukowski is quite good yet he is as much death on *imitators as he was when he aped himself.

      *see Kenneth Patchen’s anti-beatnik rants.

      Loved ADA. Will track down Bend Sinister.

  15. mark

      don’t often see them as a trio — sounds like the setup for a stellar joke.

  16. mark

      don’t often see them as a trio — sounds like the setup for a stellar joke.

  17. Amy McDaniel

      Thanks, Nick, this vid is wildly entertaining. I like when N up and moves to the couch and the other follow, and I love when Trilling insists that he’s a respectable man.

      Reading&loving Speak, Memory right now…the way N peels back the layers of childhood consciousness is a marvel; also I have a bit of an identity crush on his mother, who sounds splendid. Will check out Bend Sinister next. I’m a little scared of Pale Fire; I feel unequal to it. Can’t quite imagine anything surpassing Lolita but then surpassing it is hardly necessary.

  18. Amy McDaniel

      Thanks, Nick, this vid is wildly entertaining. I like when N up and moves to the couch and the other follow, and I love when Trilling insists that he’s a respectable man.

      Reading&loving Speak, Memory right now…the way N peels back the layers of childhood consciousness is a marvel; also I have a bit of an identity crush on his mother, who sounds splendid. Will check out Bend Sinister next. I’m a little scared of Pale Fire; I feel unequal to it. Can’t quite imagine anything surpassing Lolita but then surpassing it is hardly necessary.

  19. Nick Antosca

      I like how he appears to suppress his laughter when Trilling says a creative writer can hardly be trusted to tell us what he intended…

  20. Nick Antosca

      I like how he appears to suppress his laughter when Trilling says a creative writer can hardly be trusted to tell us what he intended…

  21. mark

      VN is amazing, but i wonder if the reason you don’t here so much about him from youngish writers have to do with the difficulties of following his style. i mean, you can learn from his cadences and use of imagery and structures and so on, but people who go to far down the VN road — david mitchell in that one section of cloud atlas, banville, often — make me cringe a little. maybe it’s the humor that’s the hardest? has wild swings, but the basic, very arch stance of it is one that feels both super hard to pull off and less relevant to america right now then, say, the black, deadpan humor of carver.

  22. mark

      VN is amazing, but i wonder if the reason you don’t here so much about him from youngish writers have to do with the difficulties of following his style. i mean, you can learn from his cadences and use of imagery and structures and so on, but people who go to far down the VN road — david mitchell in that one section of cloud atlas, banville, often — make me cringe a little. maybe it’s the humor that’s the hardest? has wild swings, but the basic, very arch stance of it is one that feels both super hard to pull off and less relevant to america right now then, say, the black, deadpan humor of carver.

  23. Lily

      really? does noah? i think i’ve talked to him about VN… noah, do you?

  24. Lily

      really? does noah? i think i’ve talked to him about VN… noah, do you?

  25. Amber

      This was great–thanks, Nick.

      I love Nabokov, too, but me personally, I wouldn’t lump Kafka in with Bukowski and Burroughs. Do people, generally? Is Kafka gritty? I feel like not in the same way B&B are. And he had a relatively un-gritty life as a low-level beaurocrat…just my opinion. (Incidentally, I can’t stand Bukowski or Burroughs, but Kafka’s one of my favorites.)

  26. Amber

      This was great–thanks, Nick.

      I love Nabokov, too, but me personally, I wouldn’t lump Kafka in with Bukowski and Burroughs. Do people, generally? Is Kafka gritty? I feel like not in the same way B&B are. And he had a relatively un-gritty life as a low-level beaurocrat…just my opinion. (Incidentally, I can’t stand Bukowski or Burroughs, but Kafka’s one of my favorites.)

  27. Amber

      YES.

  28. Amber

      YES.

  29. mark

      speaking of, just saw the new nabokov covers via gawker — papercuts pinned in buttefly boxes. love. way more inspired than the previous ones.

  30. mark

      speaking of, just saw the new nabokov covers via gawker — papercuts pinned in buttefly boxes. love. way more inspired than the previous ones.

  31. John Dermot Woods

      Nick, I don’t think you overstate the importance and ability of Nabokov one bit. If you want to create layers and reinvent meaning and infuse newness in old world, can’t do much better than pulling apart any of his books (paragraphs, sentences – words, even). Pale Fire is fun, but the subtleties and intricacies go much further in much of his other work, like Lolita and even some of the early Russian stories (books that are not primarily driven by intricacy).

  32. John Dermot Woods

      Nick, I don’t think you overstate the importance and ability of Nabokov one bit. If you want to create layers and reinvent meaning and infuse newness in old world, can’t do much better than pulling apart any of his books (paragraphs, sentences – words, even). Pale Fire is fun, but the subtleties and intricacies go much further in much of his other work, like Lolita and even some of the early Russian stories (books that are not primarily driven by intricacy).

  33. Roxane Gay

      I love Nabokov. I think he is perhaps the greatest writer of all time. Fantastic interview.

  34. Roxane Gay

      I love Nabokov. I think he is perhaps the greatest writer of all time. Fantastic interview.

  35. Jesse Hudson

      Other than Joyce, I think Nabokov is the best manipulator of language who ever lived. For some reason, I really like “The Eye” a whole lot. But I also love Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, etc.

  36. Jesse Hudson

      Other than Joyce, I think Nabokov is the best manipulator of language who ever lived. For some reason, I really like “The Eye” a whole lot. But I also love Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, etc.

  37. Nick Antosca

      I thought I remembered Noah being not particularly enthused. I know he takes Russian lit super seriously (I think when I went to visit him he was reading Oblamov; only time I’ve ever actually seen someone reading reading Oblamov) Noah, if you’re reading this…

  38. Nick Antosca

      I thought I remembered Noah being not particularly enthused. I know he takes Russian lit super seriously (I think when I went to visit him he was reading Oblamov; only time I’ve ever actually seen someone reading reading Oblamov) Noah, if you’re reading this…

  39. Brandon Hobson

      I would agree with Roxanne. I also love Nabokov’s short stories.

  40. Nick Antosca

      No, not usually, but I don’t think they lump Burroughs & Bukowski together either… I was intentionally choosing three pretty different writers to give an idea of what I meant–not one particular school of writing, but writers who in some sense like to get down in the dirt, whether psychological, biological, or geological. Whereas Nabokov tries to achieve something sublime.

  41. Brandon Hobson

      I would agree with Roxanne. I also love Nabokov’s short stories.

  42. Nick Antosca

      No, not usually, but I don’t think they lump Burroughs & Bukowski together either… I was intentionally choosing three pretty different writers to give an idea of what I meant–not one particular school of writing, but writers who in some sense like to get down in the dirt, whether psychological, biological, or geological. Whereas Nabokov tries to achieve something sublime.

  43. Amy McDaniel

      I’m with you on that distinction, I think. Speak, memory seems to me unique as a memoir not of a kind of struggle forth from early hardship, but instead of a late struggle to recapture or simply retain something beautiful from childhood and from innocence. Maybe this plays into the rest of his work as well, wherein instead of facing off with the world’s horrors, he tries instead to reach for something magical that can only, if even then imperfectly, be accessed through art.

  44. Amy McDaniel

      I’m with you on that distinction, I think. Speak, memory seems to me unique as a memoir not of a kind of struggle forth from early hardship, but instead of a late struggle to recapture or simply retain something beautiful from childhood and from innocence. Maybe this plays into the rest of his work as well, wherein instead of facing off with the world’s horrors, he tries instead to reach for something magical that can only, if even then imperfectly, be accessed through art.

  45. Amber

      That makes sense. Certainly, Nabokov seems to occupy a different plane and write with different purpose than the three others. There’s a sense of real metamorphosis there (no wordplay intended), a sort of transcendence, that the other three never intend to achieve. Their protagonists are glued to the ground, so to speak.

      (Incidentally, I like the idea of “psychological dirt.” Grit in the id. Great image.)

  46. Amber

      That makes sense. Certainly, Nabokov seems to occupy a different plane and write with different purpose than the three others. There’s a sense of real metamorphosis there (no wordplay intended), a sort of transcendence, that the other three never intend to achieve. Their protagonists are glued to the ground, so to speak.

      (Incidentally, I like the idea of “psychological dirt.” Grit in the id. Great image.)

  47. Mike

      Or a really twisted law firm.

  48. Mike

      Or a really twisted law firm.

  49. jh

      The Gift is an incredible book, every young writer should read it.

  50. jh

      The Gift is an incredible book, every young writer should read it.

  51. John Dermot Woods

      That’s it exactly, Amy. I think this is what I find so emotionally appealing about Nabokov’s work.

  52. John Dermot Woods

      That’s it exactly, Amy. I think this is what I find so emotionally appealing about Nabokov’s work.

  53. Charles Dodd White

      Well, I think denying VN as a violent influence on any kind of written aesthetic that followed smacks of outright idiocy. Like denying God, denying VN is a tacit admission that the idea of Him has to be wrestled with.

  54. Charles Dodd White

      Well, I think denying VN as a violent influence on any kind of written aesthetic that followed smacks of outright idiocy. Like denying God, denying VN is a tacit admission that the idea of Him has to be wrestled with.

  55. Charles Dodd White

      ADA was one of the most challenging books I ever pocked up, but was damn fine.

  56. Charles Dodd White

      ADA was one of the most challenging books I ever pocked up, but was damn fine.

  57. Sean

      Is the Bukowski over Nabokov line a jab at HTML? I totally disagree.

      Cool video. I like when N jumped up and led them to the couch.

  58. Sean

      Is the Bukowski over Nabokov line a jab at HTML? I totally disagree.

      Cool video. I like when N jumped up and led them to the couch.

  59. Nick Antosca

      Or rather, tell us what he did.

  60. Nick Antosca

      Or rather, tell us what he did.

  61. Sabra Embury

      After reading Lolita everything that I wrote for the next few years, stories, emails, shopping lists, had a piece of Nabokov in it. Lolita’s like some beautiful and disgusting onion.

  62. Sabra Embury

      After reading Lolita everything that I wrote for the next few years, stories, emails, shopping lists, had a piece of Nabokov in it. Lolita’s like some beautiful and disgusting onion.

  63. roberta

      i always feel so cliched loving ‘lolita,’ but i do. i don’t care that it’s almost unbearably self-referential, and that the humour’s so clever and self-aware as to be a bit pompous. well…self-consciously pompous, i suppose.
      i just love the damn book. it’s such a fantastic mind-fuck. humbert’s one of my favourite anti-heroes of all time. even just his name is great.

      i just find a lot of the language just really mesmeric. i feel like a bit of a twat even typing this, but i really feel you can actually ‘feel’ nabokov’s synaesthesia within just how rich some of the lexis is.
      …though, i suppose that’s very much something he’d ‘perfected.’ something like ‘laughter in the dark’ weirdly, felt to me more like reading camus or something. merely just in that it’s so much starker, and i suppose pre-nabokov’s peak.

      it’s slightly odd for me though that though i think it’s a brilliant book overall, the second half of the novel is just absolutely less gripping. i suppose it says something for it that that doesn’t diminish my overall feelings about it.

  64. roberta

      i always feel so cliched loving ‘lolita,’ but i do. i don’t care that it’s almost unbearably self-referential, and that the humour’s so clever and self-aware as to be a bit pompous. well…self-consciously pompous, i suppose.
      i just love the damn book. it’s such a fantastic mind-fuck. humbert’s one of my favourite anti-heroes of all time. even just his name is great.

      i just find a lot of the language just really mesmeric. i feel like a bit of a twat even typing this, but i really feel you can actually ‘feel’ nabokov’s synaesthesia within just how rich some of the lexis is.
      …though, i suppose that’s very much something he’d ‘perfected.’ something like ‘laughter in the dark’ weirdly, felt to me more like reading camus or something. merely just in that it’s so much starker, and i suppose pre-nabokov’s peak.

      it’s slightly odd for me though that though i think it’s a brilliant book overall, the second half of the novel is just absolutely less gripping. i suppose it says something for it that that doesn’t diminish my overall feelings about it.

  65. Eva

      Did anyone else watch the second video? Want to venture an argument for the speaker’s choice of the word “pwnd” in reference to Lolita? I think it meant she liked it. Must not be an HTML Giant fan.

  66. Eva

      Did anyone else watch the second video? Want to venture an argument for the speaker’s choice of the word “pwnd” in reference to Lolita? I think it meant she liked it. Must not be an HTML Giant fan.