Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

[SFG75]

Can't you just see it, two 40ish year old pervs sittin' on a bench..........d-r-o-o-l-i-n-g............

Thats all both of them were supposed to be! 38-40 years old!

LOL-That is what made the couch scene in Lolita so humorous. A person virtually dying in their lust as their *victim* unkowingly(?) tortures them. I'm not so certain that our petite French girl knew that Arthur was slobbering all over himself as she was skating on by, but it does paint a rather pathetic portrait of these fellows.

 

[StillILearn]

Well, StillILearn,
That is a big loss because I always looked forward to your posts and I still hope that we will hear from you from time to time.
Yours most sincerely,
And thanks for the happy times,
Peder

PS If you think it is un-PC of me to recommend such a book, or think of it as I do, I would sincerely appreciate hearing your honest views on that also. It is certainly from a different era.
P

Peder, I'm laughing! I'm not changing my name and moving! And I really enjoyed reading Vera! It's just that I didn't know anything at all about the Nabokovs prior to reading it, and that was the picture I got of them there. I may have been reading through mud-colored glasses and will change my mind. I could even read yet another book and become their biggest champion. My middle name was never Constancy, and y'all're not getting rid of me that easily.

 

[SFG75]

Thats right! You were the one that wanted to lynch poor little ole Humbert! I'd rather lynch Arthur personally.

Picking the lesser of the two evils is hard in that case. Arthur was more honest about his intentions-Humbert liked to pretend that he didn't harm others or stated flat out that he wanted to be a good father.

 

[Peder]

Peder, I'm laughing! I'm not changing my name and moving! And I really enjoyed reading Vera! It's just that I didn't know anything at all about the Nabokovs prior to reading it, and that was the picture I got of them there. I may have been reading through mud-colored glasses and will change my mind. I could even read yet another book and become their biggest champion. My middle name was never Constancy, and y'all're not getting rid of me that easily.

Still,
Thank you so much for your friendly response. I am overjoyed to hear that we still sound like friends, and that you are not going anywhere, even in e-space.

I don't think you need to ameliorate your views just because I have different ones. That I see two people whose love lasted much longer even than their remarkable 50+ year marriage, and you see two people who are haughty, arrogant, snobbish, and isolated, is not necessarily unusual. I myself remember characterizing VN as 'lordly' and I won't necessarily challenge your view at all. We just see the same story differently.

Which I take to be an example of literary reaction theory at work. /clears throat, begins to sound ponderous/. According to the fascinating Metamorphoses link that SFG posted, some literateurs claim that only half the story of a book resides in black and white on the printed page. The other half is created by the reader in their own mind, based on their own experiences and beliefs. I was fascinated to read that, and now, here, I think we have an example of the truth of just that. Your view is how you see it, and my view is how I see it, and we may never get any closer than that to what the 'truth' is.

That being the case, I'm not sure that you will see a different Nabokov in other stories of his life. He grew up on a large estate surrounded by servants and workmen of all sorts, and when his father was asassinated, he inherited all that and became a millionaire at age 17 before the Russian Revolution washed it all away. I have no doubt that his aristocratic background lingered with him and that your views are proof of that. Nothin' wrong with having those views and seeing the Nabokov's as you do. IMO

And now /springing trap / I was wondering if you had any thoughts on Enchanter. You have been noticeably silent, and if you had a reaction I would guess that it was acerb. But that is what the thread is for, to hear and dsicuss what all people think, even about such a provocative story.

So, hmmm?
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

I'm not ignoring your question, I just have to be gone for a day or two. I'll take TE with me and get back to you.

Meanwhile, what do you make of VN's relationship with his brother? Or of either of them with their siblings, for that matter? Hmmm?

 

[pontalba]

I'm not ignoring your question, I just have to be gone for a day or two. I'll take TE with me and get back to you.

Meanwhile, what do you make of VN's relationship with his brother? Or of either of them with their siblings, for that matter? Hmmm?

Well, Good Morning All, its a fine sunshiny day the (cold) breeze is blowing, etc, etc, etc...................

To answer your question as to siblings, the only thing that comes immediately to mind is the fact that Vera wasn't allowed to go to I guess what we would call college. I don't remember the terms used there. Her father said something about her health being frail. Was that true? Probably to a great extent as later was born out, but she was such a private person, even the biographer was unable to get any real details. I suspect some of the acrimony between Vera and her sisters came from that failure to finish school.

 

[pontalba]

LOL-That is what made the couch scene in Lolita so humorous. A person virtually dying in their lust as their *victim* unkowingly(?) tortures them. I'm not so certain that our petite French girl knew that Arthur was slobbering all over himself as she was skating on by, but it does paint a rather pathetic portrait of these fellows.

I agree that the French Girl didn't know anything about Arthur's um, feelings towards her.

Pathetic is the operating word there. Wastefull as well. Here were two intelligent, fairly cultured men at least superficially, and the waste!!

 

[pontalba]

Picking the lesser of the two evils is hard in that case. Arthur was more honest about his intentions-Humbert liked to pretend that he didn't harm others or stated flat out that he wanted to be a good father.

I really feel that Humbert struggled with his misplaced feelings, he felt the guilt constantly, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And he had the whole thing.........

 

[pontalba]

Still,

Which I take to be an example of literary reaction theory at work. /clears throat, begins to sound ponderous/. According to the fascinating Metamorphoses link that SFG posted, some literateurs claim that only half the story of a book resides in black and white on the printed page. The other half is created by the reader in their own mind, based on their own experiences and beliefs. I was fascinated to read that, and now, here, I think we have an example of the truth of just that. Your view is how you see it, and my view is how I see it, and we may never get any closer than that to what the 'truth' is.

That being the case, I'm not sure that you will see a different Nabokov in other stories of his life. He grew up on a large estate surrounded by servants and workmen of all sorts, and when his father was asassinated, he inherited all that and became a millionaire at age 17 before the Russian Revolution washed it all away. I have no doubt that his aristocratic background lingered with him and that your views are proof of that. Nothin' wrong with having those views and seeing the Nabokov's as you do. IMO

And now /springing trap / I was wondering if you had any thoughts on Enchanter. You have been noticeably silent, and if you had a reaction I would guess that it was acerb. But that is what the thread is for, to hear and dsicuss what all people think, even about such a provocative story.

So, hmmm?
Peder

Ponderous? Never. But I agree with what you have said. Plus yes, his background had to stay with him, everyones does in the end.

And yes, SIL come on now, views on Arthur/Enchanter...

 

[Peder]

I'm not ignoring your question, I just have to be gone for a day or two. I'll take TE with me and get back to you.

Meanwhile, what do you make of VN's relationship with his brother? Or of either of them with their siblings, for that matter? Hmmm?

Still,
Turnabout is fair play! However you have the advantage of me there, in having a much more recent reading of Vera. But I'm digging mine out right now and will see what miracles I can do with its index, and Boyd's, in working up an answer to your question.
Have a good trip,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Peder I remember one of Vladimir's brothers was a homosexual, and died in the concentration camps. From what I recall, and I do have to go back and find it, the disagreement between them was political and not because of the sexual orientation of the brother. There was more to it than that, but I have to check as well.

 

[Peder]

Peder I remember one of Vladimir's brothers was a homosexual, and died in the concentration camps. From what I recall, and I do have to go back and find it, the disagreement between them was political and not because of the sexual orientation of the brother. There was more to it than that, but I have to check as well.

Pontalba,
I just did come across that in fact. (And you have a keen memory!)
But I must say that tracking down all the brothers and sisters of Vladimir and Vera is a bit like trying to list all the characters in a Dostoevsky novel. Expecially in Vera where they seem not to be of paramount importance, so it is on to Boyd I go.
And then there are the cousins.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

SIL Another source of bad or resentful feelings was that one of her sisters, Lena I think did not put claim to her Jewish ancestory. Vera was quite adament in her avowal and defiant pride in her Jewishness. If I have the right sister in mind, she (Lena) went so far as to convert to Catholicism. Which drove Vera right up the pole. I get the sisters names mixed up, it may have been the other one. Bad Me, the book is in the other room.

Peder.......cousins.............!

 

[steffee]

Which I take to be an example of literary reaction theory at work. /clears throat, begins to sound ponderous/. According to the fascinating Metamorphoses link that SFG posted, some literateurs claim that only half the story of a book resides in black and white on the printed page. The other half is created by the reader in their own mind, based on their own experiences and beliefs. I was fascinated to read that, and now, here, I think we have an example of the truth of just that.

Yes, it was very interesting! Which is probably why people re-read books, because not only does the 2nd read (or 3rd or 4th, or 50th) give the reader a chance to "read" more of the story, but as a person gets older (and wiser ) they will certainly change their views on account of their experiences (or lack of them).

 

[Peder]

Yes, it was very interesting! Which is probably why people re-read books, because not only does the 2nd read (or 3rd or 4th, or 50th) give the reader a chance to "read" more of the story, but as a person gets older (and wiser ) they will certainly change their views on account of their experiences (or lack of them).

Steffee,
I see therre is a glaring typo in that. It should have read "reception theory" not "reaction theory." /sigh, groan, mutter, swear a little/

As to your last remark, you will find it surprising how many views and opinions an older person can accumulate.

Pedder

 

[pontalba]

Steffee,
I see therre is a glaring typo in that. It should have read "reception theory" not "reaction theory." /sigh, groan, mutter, swear a little/

As to your last remark, you will find it surprising how many views and opinions an older person can accumulate.

Pedder

Yes, I admit to it freely, I am rather opinionated! But given proof I have been known to change my mind.
Particularly on reading material.

 

[steffee]

I was going back to a conversation once on the Lolita thread, about people who are young are idealistic, and idealism is the opposite of cynicism (though I may have quoted wrong). So maybe, as you become less idealistic/more cynical, maybe you realise that the story (Enchanter, or Lolita) is not as clear cut as just "a man who seduces a young girl". It's been mentioned ^^^ that V & V were a couple for over 50 years. To me, well to everyone, 50 years is a lifetime and uncomprehendable, but a 50-year strong marriage/relationship is not that incredible from my point of view, but is expected. Says she who has been married for 4 years, hmmm!

 

[pontalba]

Steffee I don't see how anyone could reach cynical without going thru idealistic first. You have to expect something out of life to be disappointed in not getting it. Natural Path and all that. Unfortunately. I wish content 50 year plus marriages were the norm, they should be. I'll agree with that wholeheartedly.

And yes, it does take life experience (note....I don't say age, as wisdom does not always come with age) to really appreciate the nuances of these stories. But HH and Arthur will always be in the wrong. That doesn't change. Our understanding, and yes, sympathy only increases.

 

[Peder]

The Enchanter Married

Good morning, all. We begin a highly improbable nice new Spring day up here, in Mid-February!

I've been continuing a slow reread of Enchanter, noticing enjoyable things as I go along.

Snaking himself along with his plan, Arthur has finally married the mother. But things definitely do not go as he expected. Suddenly it is almost as if VN enjoyed putting roadblocks in his path!

At the wedding, Arthur does get some alone-time with the daughter, as he takes her out for a pastry. But he is completely incapacitated by his own fears ("You know, Mother, whenever nobody's around he always starts caressing."). As well he should be!
Then, back at the Mother's home he almost gets a chance to touch the girl, to lift her up for a better view of an accident outside their window, when someone returns home and that plan is aborted.
And then, the next day the daughter will go back to her home with the governess! Oh, woe.
His suggestion to the Mother that the daughter stay a while is not accepted because the Mother needs her "peace and quiet."
So, Arthur ends up no closer to the daughter than he was before.

Worse yet, he didn't realize how tight a leash his wife was going to keep him on. Ah, the things one discovers in marriage! His minutes away for even a minor errand are counted. His mere mention that he might visit the daughter, if a business trip takes him that way, brings a gleam of jealousy to the Mother's eyes sufficient for he himself to scuttle that idea.

So, worst of all, and suddenly, his con-man powers of persuasion seem to have vanished completely! He reluctantly settles in for the long haul, to await the Mother's passing. And his hopes rise when the mother's health declines, but decline again when her health rises somewhat. Oh, the torture!

Finally, as in Lolita, Providence does take a hand, but this time from natural causes, and Arthur is left to take his stepdaughter into his 'care.' And the stage is finally set for the last two parts of the five-part story outlined up above -- Disaster, and Ending.

Viewed from an outside perspective, and completely ignoring the context, the long 20-page sub-plot, from p28 to p 48, is the complete story of an unhappy marriage, with details lovingly provided by VN himself and perhaps with a certain glee as one-by-one he thwarts Arthur's plans for the moment. "All happy marriages are the same" according to Tolstoy? Well, this is one of those different "unhappy" ones that he also mentions! Arthur married for the wrong reasons and it didn't turn out well. Splat!

I'll repeat what I have said before; there are reading pleasures to be found in this slender story.

Peder

 

[SFG75]

Snaking himself along with his plan, Arthur has finally married the mother. But things definitely do not go as he expected. Suddenly it is almost as if VN enjoyed putting roadblocks in his path!

LOL-The frustration level is almost palpable when you read it.

At the wedding, Arthur does get some alone-time with the daughter, as he takes her out for a pastry. But he is completely incapacitated by his own fears ("You know, Mother, whenever nobody's around he always starts caressing."). As well he should be!

Another great way that Arthur "grows" into H.H. IMHO.

Then, back at the Mother's home he almost gets a chance to touch the girl, to lift her up for a better view of an accident outside their window, when someone returns home and that plan is aborted.

I had to chuckle upon reading that, not to mention the part where after he clasps her hands behind her as she swings back and forth, he oddly drops her hands and wheels around upon being surprised. Talk about getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

Can't remember if this is the scene or not, doesn't Arthur make a suggestion about the daughter staying and he is met with silence until he changes the subject? LOL-a little humor in that exchange.

And his hopes rise when the mother's health declines, but decline again when her health rises somewhat. Oh, the torture!

Calling her a *monster* and the use of other negative words reminds me of the descriptors of Big Haze. The ruminations about poisoning her makes you believe that if he knew he could get away with it, he would have the "old hag" done in.

All happy marriages are the same" according to Tolstoy? Well, this is one of those different "unhappy" ones that he also mentions! Arthur married for the wrong reasons and it didn't turn out well. Splat!

LOL-Kind of makes you wonder if he could stick out if somehow, she were able to live for another five or ten years. "Love" definitely hasn't progressed from the park bench. Even on her end, it has a utilitarian purpose, a selfish purpose that she even admits. She points out that she won't be the best person to deal with and that he will be saddled with another man's child(just as a wolf would be hassled by having a hen from the chicken-coop) The suggestion here is that by checking on him and talking to him about the future possibilities without her around, that she married him to take care of business(i.e.-finding a home for the daughter)