A brief, shoddy manual and some useful reminders.
In 1948, Vladimir Nabokov accepted a position at Cornell University, teaching Russian and European literature. That same year, he wrote this piece, ostensibly material for his students (though I can find no confirmation of that inference). Go ahead and read it if you havenât–this will essentially be a review.
My own experience with this essay goes back to high school. I read it then for class, found it completely insufferable, moved on with my life, etc., but now Iâm returning to the ideas and finding them mostly correct and very relevant to the âreadingâ I am doing now with Dark Souls and Sekiro. This is, of course, not psychically painless. Nabokovâs tone is still aneurysmally condescending, and his organizational structures are bizarre, but heâs also One of the Most Important Writers of the 20th Century, so his thoughts are worth a looksee. Take from the piece what you will, it may not be the same list as mine, but in case itâs at all helpful to you, my thoughts are these:
- The authors of the classics are smarter than you.
Okay, this isnât actually one of Nabokovâs points, but itâs a healthy attitude to have and all but prerequisite for digesting the rest of his exegesis. A more plain way of putting it would be to say that in reading a work, you should assume that there is something there of depth. Ironically, Nabokov himself distinguishes between writers of genius and minor authors, but to assume you can tell the difference is astonishingly arrogant. Perhaps Nabokov earned his arrogance. You didnât–be kind to those you read.
This is especially important for works that youâve heard about. Everyone knows Beloved is a scathing indictment of the evils of slavery (and it totally is), but to condense it to that, to go in with those expectations sells short the loving detail (sic) with which its characters are rendered and everything else it might say about what it is to be human.
By the same token, donât judge a bookâs contents by the one who recommended it to you regardless of whether your opinion of (e.g.) Karen is positive or negative. Sure, take a recommendation as an excuse to eat some tasty, tasty typesetting, but donât let your knowledge of the recommenderâs mind preempt your own capacity to interpret art for yourself.
- Fiction is generally not historically accurate.
Uh, yes. Iâm a little confused as to why Nabokov finds this observation uniquely important, but it is correct, and it has some useful implications regarding the role of art. Iâve alluded to it before, but politics and art have an annoying way of getting tangled up in each other. This isnât all bad–politics shapes life, life shapes art, why shouldnât art sometimes be political? Things start turning sideways, though, when one uses political art from the past to synthesize political arguments today; worse: when one uses historical fiction depicting politics that might never have existed to draw conclusions about the present. If the distinction is confusing, let me put it this way: Harry Potter has nothing actionable to say about politics in the 1930s, the 1990s, or the 2010s (I have seen arguments for all three on this lovely internet). I will not accept disagreement on this point.
- Attune your reading to the work and not yourself.
Nabokov is much more vehement on this âlowly kindâ of imagination, which is a little funny to me. I wouldnât begrudge someone emotional involvement in their reading material, and I suspect he wouldnât either, not truly. Rather, Iâd guess his war, as with many of these points, is against preconception. If you identify with a character in a story, if you empathize with them, that creates expectations that the author didnât put there, and expectations cause misinterpretations and distractions.
An example from my own work: If you identify with Les Marquains in this story (and you are not a dangerous sadist), you run the risk of taking the narrative at face value and assuming that his character arc has a distinct turning point. Â No doubt being raped traumatized him, but he was also abused physically and psychologically his entire life. Â A very salient question is whether, if his grandfather never learned about his homosexuality, he wouldnât have gone full despot-de-Sade anyway. Â Was he on the cusp of acceptance by the common people, a hopeful vector away from his grandfatherâs authoritarian rule, or was he just playacting at peasantry? Â Answer that how you like, but kindness means recognizing that there is a question.
***
The rest of the essay has some ballinâ quotes (âTo call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth,â fuck yeah), and deals largely with the craftsman on the other side of the printing press. Itâs a beautiful, if not incredibly useful, description of an authorâs own responsibility to his work, but thatâs appropriate. Art is a remarkably difficult thing to describe, its manufacture more difficult still, and in writing his essay, I hope you realize he was making art himself. And I hope we can agree that art has minimal mandate toward utility.