Vladimir Nabokov: The Enchanter

[StillILearn]

To: Walter J. Minton

February 6, 1959

Dear Walter,

I have just thought of an interesting little scheme. As I explained in my essay appended to your edition of Lolita, I had written a kind of pre-Lolita novella in the autumn of 1939 in Paris. I was sure I had destroyed it long ago but today, as Vera and I were collecting some additional material to give to the Library of Congress, a single copy of the story turned up. My first movement was to deposit it (and a batch of index cards with unused American Lolita material at the L. of C., but then something else occured to me.

(to be continued ...)

want to hear more? evil

 

[pontalba]

want to hear more? evil

Indeed you are! And Yes!

BTW, I just read an absolutely priceless quote in Vera from N. Berberova on p. 68

Berberova's description of the face of the continent at the time goes some way toward explaining their inertia: "On the map of Europe were England, France, Germany, and Russia. In the first, imbeciles reigned, in the second living corpses, in the third villains, and in the fourth villains and bureaucrats."

Now I cannot think of a better description of Chamberlain's treatment of Hitler!

 

[Peder]

This may all be nonsense, but......

This morning as I lay half awake, with thoughts roaming where they might, one of them went klunk and bumped against a long-ago subconscious memory.
I remembered Dmitri Nabokov writing

Other translations of the Russian word volshebnik are 'magician' and 'conjuror,' but I have respected Nabokov's express intention that, in this case, it be translated as 'enchanter.' Volshebnik was written during October and November of 1939.....

It was that 'k' at the ending of volshebnik that went klunk. My memories of Russian grammar, studied many decades ago, said, "That is a masculine ending. If it were feminine, it would have to end in 'a.' "
That seemed a little odd. After all, in English, we have both 'sorceror' and 'sorceress,' and (used to) 'actor' and 'actress,' and might just speak of 'enchanter' and 'enchantress' in the present situation.
And that got me out of bed, to dig out the dictionary, to check whether there might be a feminine form of volshebnik, or whether that term might apply to both genders, like the English 'magician' and 'conjuror' that DN mentions.
Well, surprise of surprises, but not so surprisingly, there is the definition

volshebnik, m., magician, sorceror, wizard

and a corresponding feminine form

volshebnitsa, f., enchantress, sorceress

Ho, ho! So we revisit that quote with new eyes.

Other translations of the Russian word volshebnik are 'magician' and 'conjuror,' but I have respected Nabokov's express intention that, in this case, it be translated as 'enchanter.'

Express intention?....gender, and all? Meaning really Enchanter and not Enchantress?

If you are expecting an answer, don't look in my direction!

But let me ask you who have read the story: Who is the Enchanter? Might it be Arthur? Or must it be the little girl?

Hmm?
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

But let me ask you who have read the story: Who is the Enchanter? Might it be Arthur? Or must it be the little girl?

Excellent question, Peder. And now you've got me to thinking too. Some little nagging something in the back of my mind. Beyond reach, unfortunately, but maybe it'll come floating to the fore.

Some conversation or words I read somewhere that raised that very same issue in my mind ...

 

[Peder]

Now I cannot think of a better description of Chamberlain's treatment of Hitler!

Oh Pontalba,
What are we going to do with you?
You find such perfect things, and see them so exactly right!
/lying flat on the floor, toes up, knocked out/
peder

 

[StillILearn]

To: Walter J. Minton

February 6, 1959

(continued)

The thing is a story of 55 typewritten pages in Russian, entitled Volshebnik ("The Enchanter"). Now that my creative connection with Lolita is broken, I have re-read Volshebnik with considerably more pleasure than I experienced when recalling it as a dead scrap during my work on Lolita. It is a beautiful piece of Russian prose, precise and lucid, and with a lttle care could be done into English by the Nabokovs. Therefore I wonder if you would be interested in publishing The Enchanter somewhen, at a favorable moment -- perhaps in a limited numbered edition at a rather steep price (but that would be for you to decide).

Tell me how does this idea strike(s) you.

Sincerely,
Vladimir Nabokov

 

[Peder]

Some conversation or words I read somewhere that raised that very same issue in my mind ...

Still,
Well, yay, I hope so!
It can get very lonely out on the limb all by one's self.
I hope you find it.
Peder

 

[StillILearn]

Oh Pontalba,
What are we going to do with you?
You find such perfect things, and see them so exactly right!
/lying flat on the floor, toes up, knocked out/
peder

pontalba, how ever are we to resist this man's blandishments?

 

[StillILearn]

Still,
Well, yay, I hope so!
It can get very lonely out on the limb all by one's self.
I hope you find it.
Peder

Hm, hm, hm. Could have been anywhere though ... by now, anywhere.

How're the Baker Street Irregulars on this type of thing?

 

[StillILearn]

"There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he
may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. a
major writer combines these three -- storyteller, teacher, enchanter -- but
it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes for a major writer."
(VN)

some people who may possibly be even crazier than we are which is pretty scary

 

[Peder]

Hm, hm, hm. Could have been anywhere though ... by now, anywhere.

How're the Baker Street Irregulars on this type of thing?

Still,
I shall definitely turn them loose on it.
But I have heard nary a thing, and the preponderance of opinion (including the Nabokovs!) certainly seems to be that it is the little girl. After all, look at the cover of the book.
So at the moment I think it is mainly an intellectual exercise, but a fascinating one at that.
But if we get into a discussion of the snake's progress, it is certainly something to keep in mind for judging his technique. And would provide a great allegorical description for the ending. Evil vanquished by ultimate purity, or something like that.

After all, what else is there to think about when one can't get to sleep at night?

Peder

 

[Peder]

some people who may possibly be even crazier than we are

Still.
That's a great quote!
And I see you have gotten into listserv! Now we are getting up among the professionals here! They are definitely the cream of the heap, counting Dmitri among their contributors.
They were much too rarified for me when I was trying to make head or tail of Pale Fire and I haven't been back there since.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

You Guys! I suppose I must be the dense one in the group. I always, automatically assumed that he was the enchanter.
Or wannabe enchanter, or wouldbe enchanter............

 

[pontalba]

pontalba, how ever are we to resist this man's blandishments?

And why should we even try!?

 

[Peder]

You Guys! I suppose I must be the dense one in the group. I always, automatically assumed that he was the enchanter.
Or wannabe enchanter, or wouldbe enchanter............

Pontalba,
Whaddya' mean we guys! And whaddya mean dense! I'm all set to believe that could be the correct answer and talk about why it is or might be. I'm impressed that it is what you thought all along! I had to work hard to get to that point. So it does sound to me like we have something worth talking about now!
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba,
I absolutely agree with you and all others who say that Lolita is by far the superior book! And for all the reasons you say. In fact, using Lolita as a comparison, which is the natural thing to do, it is so far superior that there is no comparison.

I have, however, found enough of interest in Enchanter to see it is a story in its own right with no particular need to compare it to Lolita. The savage review that we have all read strongly implies that it is trash and that is the attitude I take issue with.

I have just finished with a novel I would generously call 'less than distinguished' and others might call 'chick-lit.' And while I hate to mention that genre in the same post as VN, I would remind others (emphatically not yourself, or others here) that if they think The Enchanter is so poor, then they should remember that there is much more room below Enchanter for inferiority.

That's a very backhanded sort of compliment. But I do think the story is best summarized in the line that you have singled out -- which is not what I would call an especially Lolita theme -- and moreover it has the unmistable and very visible writing skill of VN to bring it to life.

So I defend the Enchanter,
With no offense meant to those who very justifiably prefer Lolita.
For an intriguing thought about Enchanter, please check the next post coming.
Peder

Even VN calls it a "pre-Lolita novella", so perhaps even he did not consider it a real precursor. As you say the thrust of the story is so different as to be entirely a separate entity. Maybe we could call The Enchanter part of the 'one story' train of thought. Lolita is the more developed and more compelling story, but TE certainly stands alone with merit. I am glad to have read it.

And regarding some other writers, I fully agree, VN spoils you for anything less lyrical.

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba,
Whaddya' mean we guys! And whaddya mean dense! I'm all set to believe that could be the correct answer and talk about why it is or might be. I'm impressed that it is what you thought all along! I had to work hard to get to that point. So it does sound to me like we have something worth talking about now!
Peder

OH!
Something interesting on p.106-107 of DN's section:

The English title chosen by Father has, of course, a not-so-secret echo in The Enchanted Hunters of Lolita. I shall leave to others the search for additional Easter eggs of this kind. One should be wary, however, of exaggerating the significance of superficial similarities. Nabokov considered The Enchanter a totally distinct work, only distantly connected to Lolita.

It seems folks, we have out assignment..........

 

[Peder]

OH!
Something interesting on p.106-107 of DN's section:


It seems folks, we have our assignment..........

Pontalba of the keen eyes,
Fascinating quote!
Only distantly related. Hm, hm, hm! How 'bout that!
And totally distinct work, too.
Looks like one might too quickly call it a prototype or an early version.
Vee-rrr-yyy interesting,
Peder

 

[Breaca]

...I always, automatically assumed that he was the enchanter. Or wannabe enchanter, or wouldbe enchanter............

Thank heavens for post-its The Enchanter is Arthur. It's in plain black and white - page 55 '...for there was no telling what impudent elf might fly from the lips of enchanted innocence..' Slithering onto the next page he refers to himself as the 'enchanter' and goes on to say, 'He knew he would find sufficient delights in her so as not to disenchant her prematureley...'

I wonder if there are more examples? Decisions, decisions. To reread or flick through in the hope that mine eyes will alight upon...

 

[Peder]

The Baker Street Irregulars, and Irregularettes, tell me there are 314 google hits here for 'Enchantress AND Enchanter AND Nabokov' in combination. They are leafing through, time permitting, while also hoping pdf reader works better here than last time.
Apparently DN himself once had a slip of the tongue and referred to the book as The Enchantress. Important evidence!
CUL
Peder