Sunday, December 13, 2009

Final Thoughts

This will be my last posting to this blog. I know that this last entry has fallen behind the deadline, but as this is simply a parting farewell to this class and the semester, I see no harm in it being a few days past the finish line.

I want to thank you all for making this class, yet again, such an exciting class to be a part of. Your interest in the works, your madness, your obsessions, drove everyone forward, and I greatly enjoyed sinking further into that madness. It was a joy to come to class every day, regardless of several comatose days of prolongued sleep-deprivation throughout the semester. =)

I want to thank Dr. Sexson for opening my eyes to the full scope of these masterpieces. Before joining the class, I had read Lolita on my own several years ago. I remembered loving the way it was written. And in the days before this class started, I would flip through the books, looking for that poetry. A line or a phrase would stand out. The entirety of the work stands out. It's poetry..... It is beautiful. Yet I believe these works are all the more beautiful now, because we know the framework. It is easy to look at a beautiful human being and see that beauty on the outside, but to find the foundation for that beauty within--to see the blood and bones of the making of that beauty is something else entirely. This is what Vladimir Nabokov offers to us--the ability to see a masterpiece as well as its making.

We keep searching in his works for an ultimate truth, for some final theory that will package Nabokov and his masterpieces into a nice, neat little box safely tucked away in our minds. This is the process we adopt with any major work. We pry and we lift up every floorboard until we can say, "this is the theme" or "this is what this means" or "this is what this work says about its creator". It's easier that way. It is harder to leave things complicated. But life itself is not simple. In life, we find no easy answers, only more and more questions. We stumble down false trails and into webs of our own making, becoming hopelessly entangled, but truth....the entirety of truth, we never attain. The search itself has meaning. Discovery, of even the smallest part of that truth, has value. We say that Nabokov's works have more "pleasure per square inch" than any other because he replicates this human condition. This is something of beauty and of pain. This is something divine and mundane. This is infinity in a moment, forever in a heartbeat. Nabokov is one master who will never be happy inside of a box. His works, like liquid light, will permeate every aspect of ourselves whether we want them to or not, and we, like his characters, will never be at rest. These are the eternities for which we live our lives. This is immortality.

I believe I will never be done with the works of Vladimir Nabokov. I will come back to his novels, time and again, like a great lemniscate, gaining no greater truths, perhaps, but swimming in the light of that immortality.

Thank you all, once again, for an amazing semester. I can't wait to see some familiar faces in Emergent Lit.

--Christina

Friday, December 11, 2009

Individual Presentations (Day 3)

Well, here are the notes on the last presentations. (Again, if I mispell anyone's name I'm sorry)

Caitlin: (Game of Worlds) Caitlin focused on Shades poem as a reflection of his reality and its own separate world. Kinbote also creates his own reality. Over all these, Nabokov creates his own worlds that then interact upon each other. Her paper is really a study on the many realities in Nabokov's works, specifically in Pale Fire.

Chris: (whether or not Lolita is a love story) After exploring this topic from some time, Chris came to the conclusion, "does it really matter?" He talks about Humbert's affect on society. He is incredibly human and we empathize with him, yet he thinks of himself, and in many ways is a monster. Perhaps it is not a love story but an analysis or telling of Humbert himself. (Prof. Sexson talked about how this is a love story, but in different terms. He mentioned the aspect of the divine)

Abbey: (solipsism in Nabokov's texts) Solipsism is the idea that everything outside of the brain is the brain's creation. We can only trust that the brain exists. Abbey cites the passage in Lolita where Humbert Humbert states "imagine me. I will not exist if you do not imagine me" as proof of this concept. The characters in the story are the constructs of the narrator's mind. It is then impossible to decipher reality from the imagined.

Keri: (screenplay of Pale Fire) Keri read to the class from her screenplay. I will say that her imagery was really fantastic. Her descriptions went a long way to the viewer picturing the scene as if in a movie. In one scene a butterfly flutters on the breeze of a quiet neighborhood, finally alighting on the blood spattered hand of John Shade, though we do not know it is him yet. Then the scene changes to the royal palace in Zembla and Charles Xavier surrounded by frolicking pageboys. What a great opening scene!

Aron: (poem) Aron wrote a poem incorporating so many aspects of Nabokov and his novels. It was a rare experience to have such a layered poem read to the class in any individual presentation. Reference upon reference flooded my vision, all within the restrictions of a rhyme scheme. I was truly impressed by his weaving of imagery as if on a loom, incorporating references, tastes, and tactile imagery. Nice job!

Jon: ("Master of Puppets") Jon began and continued his presentation with an impression of Dr. Sexson, white beard and all. Wow. What an enjoyable presentation! (and Dr. Sexson got a plug for his capstone class in there as well). Jon talks about his paper in which he writes about Nabokov as a puppeteer over his fictitious authors or narrators. Discussion of authorial voice. He mentions the "beauty and deicacy of the gauze" and cites the quote on Nabokov--that his novels have "more pleasure per square inch" than any other. Jon also mentioned that Nabokov's relation to Humbert Humbert may echo the relationship between Shakespeare and his Prospero.

Chelsea: (creative project) Chelsea talked about her creative project; i believe it was remaking several bookcovers. Then she talks about her analysis of a photograph in which the person she is with has passed away. She talks about the theme of immmortality (our connection to this theme and Nabokov's). Through art we can live forever, either in a photograph, a book, etc.)

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Individual Presentations (Day 1 and 2)

Over the past few class periods, I have been taking lots of notes on individual presentations. I just know, Dr. Sexson will sneak some Nabokovian questions relating to some of this on the next exam. The following is a copy of what notes I have. (I apologize if I get anyone's names wrong or mispell them).

Day One:

Jared: (Et in Witt Ego) R acts as a guide through Transparent Things. Jared equates this character with Mercury or Hermes. He is also a personification of death. R is a narrator outside of time; death incarnate.

Jessica: (beauty and pity) focus on characters in Lolita and Pale Fire. Beauty and Pity give to one another and helps us understand or interpret the work. Humbert is trapped in a web of his own fantasy. Tangible sincerity.

Kris: (unreliable narrator) Unconventional novels. We have to look between the lines to see that is actually happening-->more like life than a mere novel. Annabelle then 25 years later comes Lolita (the new Annabelle) who breaks the curse (or perpetuates it??) of the former. The narration challenges the reader through deception, self-awareness, and the overall journey.

Rebecca: (unconsciousness, consciousness, and reality in Transparent Things) Rebecca made an entire slide show to accompany her presentation. Some key concepts: Unconscious taking over the conscious mind. Unconscious state blurring lines of reality. Extending ownership to the readers with phrases like "our person". (reality and fiction mixing). Nabokov--Punctuation provides hints. "To read and understand Nabokov is to have a spine"-->audacity.

Riley: (The Original of Laura) He read the novel 4 times to write this trail-blazing paper. There are 2 dominant narrators (Philip Wilde and Flora--Laura). Parts are written as a first-person manuscript. Other narrator=Eric. Basically, I felt Riley raised questions of the narrative voice in this novel, going into the fluidity and elusive quality of multiple narrators existing at the same moment in time that is many moments.

Jennie Lynn: (Edgar Allen Poe and Nabokov) Both have an "obsession with amorphous nuances of being and reality". Both have a certain fixation on death. Both blur the lines between life and death. Being, death, and dreams are important as the 3 states both are interested in.

Amanda: (short story on Gradus) Gradus reads Pale Fire after it was published and finds out he made a mistake. He comes back to finish the job.

Zach Smith: (Speak, Memory and the two eternities of darkness) Zach talks about Nabokov's infatuation with life after death and that spark of electricity that is souls departed.

Brittany: (Kinbote-esque commentary on Canto 1 of Pale Fire) Much like Kinbote, Brittany used the poem as a basis to relate stories of her own life. One was about a bird that flew into the window of her car and was killed while she was on her way to the beach. The other excerpt was about falling off her bike and being assisted by a kindly old man (who she now knows was John Shade watching her and gaining information for his poem which is ACTUALLY based on her life) =)

Zach Morris: (Lolita and Frankenstein) Humbert is paralleled by Frankenstein's monster. Their obsessions are affecting others. Both show a slow development of guilt that comes with further realization.-->forms basis for personal accountability. Both are isolated from society and destroy themselves with their obsessions.

Emily: (Kinbote and Shade talking about God??) Emily did her presentation before writing the paper, so we got to see all the aspects of the novels she was investigating and weaving together. Here are a few: Wes Anderson movies (Royal Tannenbaums) they are obsessed with ridiculous things and we love them for it. Obsession and admiration (compassion and pity) going hand in hand. She referenced the quote "things are beautiful if you love them". We make them beautiful by loving them, but we are influenced as well.

Janna: (One perspective) The only way that we know the characters in any of the novels is through the voice of Humbert or Kinbote, etc., all unreliable narrators. In Speak, Memory, how do we know any of it is "true"?? We are forced to sympathize with unlovable characters; otherwise, we cannot read the book, because the only voice is their voice.

Alicia: (3-7-7-3) Further analysis of Pale Fire. She cited TONS of information relating to this concept, and if you will remember, the book she was using was simply filled with notes and highlighted sections, etc. An interesting detail or discovery was the fact that there are 4 species of Atalanta butterfly-->4 cantos of the poem. She talked in detail of the Vanessa Anabella (Anabelle, anyone?!)

Day Two:

Lee: (mirrors and reflections) She primarily focused on Pale Fire. These mirrors and reflections form layers upon layers building the texture of the work.

Aaron: (characters) Nabokov used pieces of his own life to create his characters and worlds. Aaron cited Vivian Darkbloom, John Shade and the fact that he too writes on notecards, and the numerous immigrant characters in the novels. Interesting fact--in Zembla, there is a river named after a member of Nabokov's family.

Robert: ("Nabokov the Necromancer") Nabokov communicates with the dead but also brings them to life. His characters are dead before the story even begins (Shade, Hazel, Humbert Humbert, Lolita, etc.). Memory, divinity, and illusion "influence people from beyond the looking glass"

Lisa: ("Nabokov and the Vale of Soulmaking") Development of the soul is a major theme in her presentation. She brings in the works of Keats and Thomas More to illustrate this in regards to Nabokov's works, speaking primarily of Lolita and Pale Fire. The butterfly represents Psyche (the soul); its metamorphoses echoes the metamorphoses of the soul. The Vale of Soulmaking is a work by Keats and talks about the activity of living which is the very making of the soul.

Helena: ("coincidences, connections, and clues in Lolita") The five major coincidence she outlines in the paper are: Annabel Lee, the Ramsdale Class List, 342, Quilty's clues, and Fate. In reference to the class list, she talked about Viola, part of a set of fraternal twins, (who echoes Viola and Sebastian of Twelfth Night). She referenced Adam's discovery about Kenneth Knight as well (see his blog).

James: (Index on Transparent Things) James gave the class teasers from his full index, which, if I may be permitted to say, is a huge undertaking. Off the top of my head, here were a few of the concepts he referenced (though he didn't give much away...for that you will have to read the index). Anastasia, Kronig, The Denton Butterfly Collection (and Wellesley college), the number 3 and its relation to the novel (3 stories, 3 tenses, 3 meanings), pg. 505 and the novel Armande is reading.

Kyle: (metamorphoses of John Shade by way of fountains and mountains) He relates the act of epiphane not to knowing, but to unknowing. Initially, he wanted to focus on the religious influence in Nabokov and that iconology in his work, but then focused on how Shade becomes content with the unknown and with that state of unknowing. This is achieved through his art-->understanding existence at least a little-->"beauty and pity" of art. somehow the "unknowable is tolerable".

Rachel: (Nabokov's obsession with memory) Rachel spoke of the quote of how the novelist is more at home on the surface of the present than in the ooze of the past. (tension film so bugs can walk on it). Lolita--time and love alter memories (Annabelle-->Lolita Love causes a distortion). Time adds "new flavor to recollections". Rachel says that in Speak, Memory Nabokov seems to overcome the pitfalls of his main characters by not sinking into the past and into memories in order that he may create timeless works. "Into the Abyss of Memory" is the title of her essay.

Victoria (?): (Similarities between Humbert and Nabokov) The act of writing and Lolita. Treatment of memory.

Joan Goss: (Gradus made from imagination of Kinbote) Gradus is born from the poem. Words of imagination form Gradus. Kinbote waits for a more competent Gradus; Joan Goss says you only have to ask....JG.

Doug: (Zodiacal themes in Transparent Things) What a compelling presentation! I'm sure the entirety of the class enjoyed falling into the deep fathoms of Douglas' madness. Doug talked about the changing seasons and their relation to Hugh Person's visits to Switzerland and to his life. Hugh comes up lacking in every "amorous adventure" he undertakes making him Virgo (the virgin). On the opposite side of the spectrum is Armande Charmar (?) "a man charmer" who Doug equates with Pisces. Pisces symbol is two fish intertwined representing the eternal progression of life and death. He cites a myriad of fish references in relation to Armande, one of them being the Herringbone pattern on her skis. Above these two is Julia to whom Doug assigns the sign of Cancer. (between june and july is julia-->this is the time where cancer reigns). This is also the time when the sun loses its power symbolizing death. Doug cites arson references in relation to Julia. Below her is R representing the winter equinox, a time of death and rebirth. He is the ghost narrator (life after death). Also: Armande is part of the old Russian aristocracy (does Julia have it in for her?); Julia travels a lot (communist ties related to arsonist tendencies?); Shoebox reference in relation to Hugh and R (possible spies??)

Sam: (Hermetic trickery of Vladimir Nabokov) Trickster. (Quilty is to Humbert as Nabokov is to reader). As a trickster god, Nabokov moves between heaven and earth, the living and the dead. Nabokov presents no moral figures. She talks of the epiphane of experience rather than meaning.

Adam: ("Based on a Misprint") Adam read a foreword to his paper written by a suspicious character, a certain "DAME NASBON" (now....rearrange the letters.....) that had both humor and substance. The paper is very Kinbote-esque. Dame Nasbon calls Adam a "shining example of academic leprosy" =) Adam said he utilized a lot of experimental writing techniques in the paper, at one point even stepping out of the paper to confront the reader. He cited a quote by James Joyce in Ulysses which reads, " A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery". Adam says that awareness and attention in the good reader leads him not to be trapped in the web but rather leads him to somewhere new.

Parker: (Screenplays of Pale Fire) Parker wrote screen adaptations or interpretations of Pale Fire and read a few excerpts for the class. He says he realized that Pale Fire would not make a good movie as it would be primarily composed of voice-overs from Kinbote. He also mentioned how after reading through his writings he realized that "nothing has happened". He read to us from a few scenes of his interpretation of how Gradus would act. In one scene, he is pictured as a "sick bastardization of a Humphrey Bogart charater". Parker says while Kinbote was inventing Zembla and Gradus, he must have been watching some pretty cliché spy movies. His interpretation of Gradus was extremely humorous and enjoyable to conjur from his written descriptions.



>Only one more day of individual presentations to go, and I'm sure that those presentations will be just as compelling as the ones we've seen so far. More notes to come.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Texture, Not Text: Immortality and Art in the Writings of Vladimir Nabokov

Artists and philosophers alike have strived for centuries to define in concrete terms the true nature or purpose of art as well as the role of the artist in society. Even primitive man, through cryptic cave paintings, sought to redefine his existence in terms of artistic representation. Why? Perhaps it is because any power we attain over ourselves and our world stems from an attempt to define the nature of our existence, both in this and in other planes of existence. A creator of art, by seeking this insight, gains some form of transformative power over his accepted “reality”. This power then redefines the artist as a god of sorts to the world he defines, and he becomes a great enchanter or psychopompos, working for the transition of souls between worlds. Nabokov, the creator, uses words in this manner, not as simple tools but as an artistic medium by which to guide us through an endless cycle of finite and infinite existence. Through his written works, Vladimir Nabokov illustrates the synthesis of the microcosmic and macrocosmic realms of thought on a single plane of artistic expression while simultaneously depicting the true nature of art—that is to effect immortality.


Almost in the last stanza of Canto Three of Pale Fire are the words, “this/ Was the real point, the contrapuntal theme; / Just this: not text, but texture; not the dream/ But topsy-turvical coincidence, / Not flimsy nonsense, but a web of sense” (Pale 62-63). Here we see a vital key to the understanding of Nabokov, the artist. First one must ask, what is the difference between “text” and “texture”? By text, one can infer the strict delineation of concepts or ideas. Text is mere lines, the simple conveyance of information. Text itself is the dry, clinical means of defining intellectual fire put into words. Now, texture, on the other hand, refers to a quality, a feeling. Texture conjures tastes and emotions, beauty and malevolence. Texture refers to the rich tapestry of human existence, and in order to experience texture, we have to feel it. We read texture through the senses; therefore, if we are meant to read Nabokov’s writings as texture, and not as text, we are meant to experience them in a very moving, tactile, almost physical way. With this approach, Nabokov moves from the constraint of merely capable writing to a realm of true artistry rarely known.


An artist’s primary medium is his canvas or the physical work itself. In the case of Vladimir Nabokov, these are his novels, his characters, his settings. However, this initial work acts only as an intermediary between the creator and his ultimate medium which is the reader. The final goal of any artist is to inspire some reaction, some feeling in the viewer, that is, to move a living being in some significant way in order that he may “cope with the blessed shiver” (Speak 212). This “blessed shiver” is the tingle of texture that grips a good reader’s spine when experiencing true art. What then is the reader’s relation to this enchanter? By being irresistibly influenced by his words, readers become the true subject matter of the creator’s art. Nabokov’s power over words, his ability to manipulate them as he wishes, becomes a power over his readers. One could argue that the reader is the end product of any artistic venture, the final substance one wishes to transform or manipulate. However, the art itself, as a means to effect some reaction or tingling of the spine, for instance, transcends its own intermediary nature. It too gains vital significance.


We may ask ourselves, how are we moved? How does Nabokov influence us into empathizing with supremely unsympathetic main characters, again and again? A pedophile and self-proclaimed beast holds our rapt attention in Lolita, just as we dare not set down the mad ramblings of a deluded and pedantic commentator in Pale Fire. Unlike ordinary writers, however, who may use words to illustrate concepts in a linear fashion (from word to idea), Nabokov manipulates words in a very different way, making them come alive through their varied interactions with one another. Everything Nabokov wishes to impart is contained in single constructs that branch out like lemniscates looping back upon themselves, just as in Transparent Things the three tenses of past, present, and future interact with one another simultaneously.


Simple alliteration strikes subconscious nerves as it runs through significant paragraphs or indeed the entire work. In Pale Fire we see the repetition of the initial consonants in two-word groupings throughout the commentary. This speaks, perhaps, to the duplicity of Kinbote himself. On page 295 of Lolita, when Humbert Humbert holds Quilty in his trap, the overwhelming repetition of the letter “s” throughout a single paragraph creates a hissing of sorts. This snake-like resonance could reference the snake in the Garden of Eden, tying in the concept of forbidden fruit and paradise lost and Lolita’s loss of innocence. Or perhaps this repetitive sound could imply, in far simpler terms, a sense of malevolence or craftiness in Humbert Humbert. The alliteration moves the reader as a whisper through the subconscious. Yet not all of Nabokov’s tricks are so tame.


By using word games, palindromes, anagrams, and internal rhymes, Nabokov dream-weaves a spiraling web of illogical sense by which we are hopelessly trapped. The reader is meant to pick up on these “false scents” and “specious lines of play,” to be trapped in a continual search for hidden meaning and one unifying truth that then never reveals itself (Speak 291). In Pale Fire, we are given Gerald Emerald who without the “eralds” would simply be “gem”. In Transparent Things, we meet Hugh Person, really “You Person”. Similarly, New Wye, where Shade and Kinbote live, upon closer inspection becomes New York. Just as in Lolita Hourglass Lake becomes Our Glass Lake in Humbert’s mind. Now we see “d’Argus” becoming the infamous Gradus. The reader may be blindsided continually by anagrams such as Vivian Darkbloom in Lolita, who is really Vladimir Nabokov. This same reader is perhaps shocked and delighted to learn of all the hidden references on page 250 of Lolita in the names scribbled in numerous hotel registers. “A. Person, Porlock, England” traces back to the revered poem, Kubla Khan, by Samuel Coleridge, for instance. Also, simple license plates such as “WS 1564” refer to William Shakespeare’s birth date. With Nabokov, this is only the beginning. An entire semester of study leaves even the most astute reader begging for more time and more elusive discoveries. Any one finite reference can send us rocketing from the basis of a simple concept into realization upon realization until we find ourselves irreparably moved. This is how we transcend worlds.


Nabokov achieves this condensing of information and images into so small a space through a remarkable economy of words. Each seemingly insignificant phrase is chosen with immense dedication to the impact it will inflict upon the reader. Like a series of dynamite blasts, these words send tremor after tremor through the reader, making room for a far greater expanse. In line 495 of Canto Two of Pale Fire, two seemingly insignificant words at the start of the line, “Black spring/ Stood just around the corner, shivering” lend immense significance to the work as a whole. The word black conjures images of melancholy and death, and as it is situated so near to the word spring, together they can only foreshadow the death of Hazel Shade. Just as Spring itself signifies rebirth, so will Hazel be reborn when, by falling into the frozen waters before her, she springs into that black abyss between worlds. In Lolita two words “(picnic, lightning)” serve much the same purpose but to greater impact (Nabokov 10). Humbert Humbert describes his mother’s death simply, yet within these two small words lies all the description one needs to visualize that tragic end as well as the full extent of emotion that accompanies such an event (Nabokov 10). In two words we experience the innocence of a picnic and the destruction of the lightning. Nabokov’s artistry in relation to the words themselves establishes his characters within a very physical state of existence similar to our own.


Yet by reaching through the tactile physicality of this existence, we can experience another world, what some would call a more real form of existence. In Pale Fire, John Shade begins his poem with the lines, “I was the shadow of the waxwing slain/ By the false azure in the windowpane; / I was the smudge of ashen fluff—and I/ Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky” (Pale 33). Here John Shade, and Nabokov, as the artist, question the meaning of our immediate existence. The waxwing dies upon contact with that other world, yet he is reborn, obtaining a truer existence in that “reflected sky”. There seems to be this deeper reality, the stuff of dreams and fluid memories, beneath our paltry existence. This is the texture of our fullest moments, the product of love and pain and art at its greatest potential.


What form of existence should we consider more “real”? The finite physicality of our existence appears real, “For we are most artistically caged,” yet it is through dreams and emotion, in memories and in art that we seek our refuge (Pale 37). “The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness” (Speak 19). These are the opening lines of Vladimir Nabokov’s autobiography. The existence of this endless spiral between the microcosm of objective reality and the macrocosmic transcendence of that reality is what Nabokov wants us to perceive. Beneath the finite levels of existence lie eternities of unknowable depth. Using words not merely as tools but as artistic means, the artist can enable his readers to sink through the finite, just as Hugh Person does with a simple pencil, into another world, into the abyss.


This then, is the true nature of art, not only to move and transform the reader, but also to achieve a true and lasting form of existence, to achieve immortality. As living beings we exist in “reality,” but eventually and inevitably we will die. Our only solace, our only form of continued existence, is through art, through the transcendence of the finite in favor of an infinite existence. However, this too is fragile. Humbert Humbert cries, “Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me” (Nabokov 129). Even our immortality as achieved through art is finite and fragile, as it depends on the existence of readers and on their ability to uncover the texture inherent in the text.


On page 270 and 271 of Speak, Memory, Nabokov describes a single moment of revelation and bliss when he speaks of a flower petal drifting closer and closer to a still pool of water below it. He speaks of the reflected petal rising to meet its double in one symbiotic moment and the fear that “the reflection might miss and the petal float away alone, but every time the delicate union did take place, with the magic precision of a poet’s word meeting halfway his, or a reader’s, recollection.” This image depicts the knitting together of artist and reader through one artistic vision. It brings together those two worlds, identified as “reality” and “reflected sky” (Pale 33). This is the precision of art, the texture of ability, and the immortality strived for.


The difference between text and texture is the difference between a finite understanding of our world and an immortality beyond words. It is the difference between knowing and feeling. The business of art, therefore, is to redefine the world in terms of this rich texture. What we seek from art is not the safety of concrete definition but rather the transcendence of “the real” for the unending. Only then, in the “refuge of art” can we reflect ourselves perpetually into the future and live in the filaments of light bulbs (Nabokov 309).




Works Cited

Nabokov, Vladimir. The Annotated Lolita. Ed. Alfred Appel Jr. New York: Vintage, 1991.
---. Pale Fire. New York: Vintage, 1989.
---. Speak, Memory. New York: Vintage, 1989.
---. Transparent Things. New York: Literary Classics, 1996.

Day Two of Group Presentations

Wow! Another great day of presentations!

My group presented first. We showed a film we made about chess and how Nabokov constructs chess problems that the reader must solve by reading through his novels. Adam was the technical genius behind the whole project, and I would like to thank him especially for all the work he put into our movie. He brought together quotes, voice overs, still images, different angles of the scenes we shot, and music into a great finished product. Thanks Adam! Joan was great as Kinbote and added some....twitchiness to the role which made me laugh at least. The more we looked in Nabokov's novels, the more chess references we saw. We could have spent an entire semester simply talking about that! Still, I'm happy with how our project turned out, and I hope everyone else enjoyed it too.

Group Five went after us. Each of the group members composed a different written piece in the style of their characters. Humbert Humbert journaled, Lolita wrote a poem from the road, John Shade did a dramatic reading of a recent poem =) , and of course, Kinbote commented on that poem. I was particularly impressed by how well everyone in the group captured the personalities of each major character in their individual writing styles. The unifying theme to their presentation was our own class list. I liked that interplay between "reality" and fiction along with the extra layer of the fictional characters as well. Also very impressive was the amount of blogs this group referenced. They must have read them all! Great job! And what an amazing poem by John Shade. It was beautiful, just as Pale Fire is, and the performance was excellent.

Finally, Group Six did a skit showing the fairy tale connections in Lolita. What a great final presentation! You guys had me laughing the whole time, and I was amazed at just how many references you were able to get in in such a short time. Using the projector to set the scene was a great idea too; it really helped to have a backdrop, music, something multifaceted like that. Here are some of the fairy tales referenced: Little Red Riding Hood, Venus and Actaeon, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Beauty and the Beast, and Frankenstein. Wow I just don't know what to say...you guys did an amazing job, and your performances were really enjoyable.

Now its on to individual presentations. Good luck to everyone presenting tomorrow! I wasn't sure if I had to go tomorrow, but if I do, I may be entirely too sleep deprived as I was up all night putting the finishing touches on the paper. Try not to hold it too much against me if I'm barely conscious. =)

Sunday, November 29, 2009

First Day of Presentations

Well I'm sure we all had high expectations of the group presentations on Tuesday, however, like all the group presentations I have seen in Sexson's classes, these met those expectations and surpassed them.

Group 1 performed a dramatic skit involving Nabokov, his characters, and the blurred lines between "reality" and a dream state. James played Nabokov, at work on creating his iconic characters. Lolita, Kinbote, Shade, Humbert Humbert, etc. all hovered around him, acting out scenes from the novels and even interacting with one another at times. The group used several desk lights to set the stage between scenes, and as one scene came to a close, the audience would be plunged into darkness only to be lit up again by the light of Nabokov's genius. Parker did an excellent job playing John Shade, even incorporating his love of drink into the role. As he read lines from his poem, this Parker Shade would slur a word or two or drink surreptitiously from a flask in his coat pocket.It was exciting to see Janna playing two characters, one being Kinbote, in this play stealing the words from Nabokov himself, and "Dickers", a play off Emily Dickerson whose work was also stolen and modified.

The most exciting part of this group's presentation for me was not only watching the characters come to life and interact with one another, but also what they were saying about the creative process. Nabokov interacts with his characters, takes from them, gives to them, lives through them, all of these things encompassed in a single pen stroke. The creative process is shown as something fluid and cyclical, not as a strictly linear progression or sterile act. It was nice to see that idea adressed so well in so short a play.

The genius of Group 2 was their dedication to portraying Nabokov's characters in the flesh. The context for this was a tv talk show, the "Vivian Darkbloom Show". Lee, books in hand, played Vivian Darkbloom interviewing some of Nabokov's major characters. Quilty was there, seemingly unfocused but his famous playwright whit could be seen in several lines, delivered laughingly almost to himself. "Yes, I have many pets at home." Lolita was there, bored with the proceedings and would poke fun at Humbert Humbert saying she wanted to go see a movie instead. H.H. was, as always, self-contained and well-dressed and would periodically lean over to Lolita saying things like "Darling, don't talk to strangers". Of course we can't forget Kinbote in all of this. Stroking "his" beard the entire time, he would interrupt Vivian and ramble on about himself in the most hilarious manner. And who could forget Hazel Shade, hair dripping in front of her face, ghostly palor about her cheeks. She was truly brought to life, almost as an anime character in a three-dimensional world. Periodically she would scream something at the others or shrink back into herself.

All in all, Group 2 simply blew me away with their performances. Some details to remember: Each character was compared to a figure from Greek mythology. Lolita was Venus or Persephone. Quilty was Pan. Hazel Shade was Mania. (The associations for Kinbote and Humbert Humbert escape me at the moment...). Group 2 also talked about how Quilty is called the "Proteus of the Road". Proteus was a Greek god, a shapeshifter. Also important to remember for the test are several palindromes Hazel Shade wrote on the board. Here are the one's I wrote down: CAIN: A MANIAC. A MAN A PLAN A CANAL: PANAMA. LIVED ON DECAF: FACED NO DEVIL. SENILE FELINES. CIGAR? TOSS IT IN A CAN IT IS SO TRAGIC.

Group 3 played a game with the class, splitting us up into two teams to guess at charades and other games. James really got into things, yelling out answers over the class. But their side was not prepared for our secret weapon. We had Sexson. =) Here are some of the answers to the game: Icharus, The three tenses, Enchanted Hunters, Ramsdale class list, Ornithology, Lemniscate, Princedom by the sea, (Picnic, Lightning), Doppelgangers, Emerald and Gradus, You person (Hugh Person), Lepidoptery, and Waterproof.

All in all, it was fun to see everyone put so much effort into presentations that were certainly informative and definitely entertaining. My group goes on Tuesday; I can't wait to see what you all think of our efforts. (I won't give anything away; you will just have to come see it). ;) Good luck to everyone with the last presentations! I'm sure they will surprise us yet again.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Transparent Things


From the first page of Transparent Things, I was addicted. By the end I was, as I typically find myself in relation to Nabokov, astounded by the weight of all the many references. How could there be so many connections in so short a novel! Even this tiniest of masterpieces is complete and alive. Yet I know I have only scratched the surface. With Nabokov, I am always just beneath the surface, no matter how deep I go.

What struck me about Transparent Things was this major thread running through it, a thread that is present even in the title. The first page alone is so beautifully representative of the whole. Each object is transparent, revealing entire histories and connotations that build upon themselves until we find ourselves holding, not just a mere wooden pencil, but a part of every link in the chain of progression, a part of a living tree. There is this limited "reality" superimposed over everything we see and touch, even people. The narrator of this first page seems to say that if we want to remain in this "reality" or tied to the "real" world, we must learn not to focus too much on any object, lest we lose ourselves in these eternities. Our whole lives are spent searching for meaning. Simple objects trigger memories; a teacup or a cookie finds its way into our hands and suddenly entire worlds open up before us.


Is there any such thing as ultimate "reality" in the end? The narrator states "One should bear in mind, however, that there is no mirage without a vanishing point" (553). This seems to imply that absolute truth is attainable, beneath the transluscent layers of time, memory, perception, connotation, definiton. Or perhaps we only loop back upon ourselves, like a great Mobius strip, ending where we began and starting already complete.


With every book we've read this semester, upon reading the final lines, I always, quite involuntarily, find myself cycling back to the first words for greater connection. To be a good reader, we have to reread. That is the only thing I want to do when I reach the supposed end of a novel by Nabokov. I have been trapped in this web....of illusion and immortality, sense and coincidence.


As a quick side note, I did a little research into the line in French on page 507 and found some interesting connections. The line reads, "Ouvre ta robe, Déjanire that I may mount sur mon bûcher."


The words "Ouvre ta robe" means roughly open your dress (garment), and the word "bûcher," according to a translated French Wikipedia article, refers to bonfires as were used to burn criminals at the stake.





A little research into the name Déjanire revealed that this name is a reference to the wife of Hercules who, as the legend goes, offered him a cloak soaked in the mystical blood of a centaur whom the hero had defeated in order to keep her husband from leaving her. Little did she know that the cloak was poisoned. The cloak burned Hercules so badly that he then threw himself into a funeral pyre.





So, with these references in mind, the line that Hugh Person pens in his journal to Armande reads "Open your robe, wife of Hercules, that I may mount my funeral pyre". Person's love of Armande will lead to his demise. Remember that he dies by fire in the end. Deianira, of Greek mythology killed herself by hanging herself. Armande dies by strangulation.