Post for 9/12/13

I'm still reveling in The Enchanter. Nabokov is such a masterful writer, and with such massive restraint. Furthermore, Nabokov is completely steeped in his ideology as a writer. He practices what he preaches, which I realize is partly so impressive to me because my taste and my capabilities as a writer are not on the same plane yet. Anyway, I think Nabokov's ability to morally remove himself from the text is fascinating. Nabokov does like messing with his reader though. I think about the way the story is told, which is some odd mix between a (slightly partial) omniscient third person, free indirect discourse, and first person. Nabokov, in this way, plays a game of cat and mouse with the reader. He plays games with your views of him as an author, and of his authorial presence (or lack thereof.) On the one hand, his use of these narrative standpoints would suggest sympathy, or a sense that the author is trying to make a case for the protagonist. However, Nabokov (and his writing) is more complicated than that. What's fascinating is that the text never endorses the character. Even within the monologue and the free indirect discourse, there's never a sense that the protagonist is doing the right thing. That said, the piece does nothing to condemn him. The blank style that Nabokov takes on, then, has an interesting relationship with the narrative perspective he takes. He could, if he so chose, write the piece in a cold, journalistic tone and style. It would certainly fit the amorality of the narrative. However, Nabokov does (in a moment not unlike Odysseus' throwing the spear into Polyphemus' eye) not use a dry or cold tone. In fact, he uses a tone that, as I previously stated, would encourage sympathy, or the idea of sympathy. The pride, mastery and skill in that gesture is completely off the charts, but it should be noted that he definitely pulls it off.

The other thing that's fascinating about the way The Enchanter is told is the ending. The ending both punishes and doesn't punish the protagonist. The way the ending comes through, it almost seems as though Nabokov had no say in it. It's not like Macbeth, where it's very clear that the protagonist does something bad, or wrong, and is thus punished for it. Rather, while the text shows indifference to the protagonist, the society within the novel does not. In that way, I suppose it's strange to have a story, (particularly one that's so morally charged) where the author is not present in the characters nor in the society. The text doesn't give a sense that when the protagonist is caught, that Nabokov is saying "take that, perv!" Rather, it's almost just like, "Well, that happened."