There are, however, at least two varieties of imagination in the reader’s case. So let us see which one of the two is the right one to use in reading a book. First, there is the comparatively lowly kind which turns for support to the simple emotions and is of a definitely personal nature. (There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of emotional reading.) A situation in a book is intensely felt because it reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we know or knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a country, a landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as part of his own past. Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book. This lowly variety is not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use.More than anything, I love that idea of identification. I find myself so frustrated of hearing people don't like books because they can't identify with the characters. It's not only lazy from the perspective of the reader, but also lazy from the perspective as a person. If you can't engage with a radical empathy, and try to understand things from a different point of view, what's the point of reading? Well, perhaps for the entertainment of being taken elsewhere. Nabokov understands that. I like that Nabokov, in that way makes this statement about what we connect to, and how frequently we as readers, don't try to radically exit our zone of comfort, but rather seek out things that are either identifiable within ourselves, or things that pertain to our pasts.
Furthermore, in that same piece, Nabokov discusses this idea that fiction is fiction. For instance, Nabokov writes: "To call a story a true story is an insult both to art and truth." I really like that, because as a person, and as a writer, I'm sick of people who claim writers are just writing their own life experiences. As Nabokov notes, saying that undermines the very nature of both fiction and reality. (Although, the primary bit of the insult is not to reality.)
I also wanted to make a small point about the interview (which I, for the most part, did not like.) The interviewer was incredibly annoying. He kept asking these questions that were so disrespectful, and also, so uninteresting of Nabokov as a person, and as a writer. More than anything, it connects back to what Nabokov was saying about the nature of fiction, and not undermining fiction based on any reality. "We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study the new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know." The interviewer, kept disrespecting this idea, and kept looking for keys in. I suppose that is the role of a journalist in this situation, though. Nabokov though, was perfectly on point. He was not off the cuff, and in fact, there weren't any great reveals. I understand him more as a figure, but not much more as a writer, and I respect that quite a bit.
