Something about how he believes she must've had homosexual experiences at camp or at school or something....thank you!!

Hi,

I have the Vintage International Edition of ‘Pnin, ‘ and I was looking up references to Nab by Pynchon and vice versa.

Now, I know that Vlad (not-so-) famously had a laugh when he first read that name in Pynchon’s novel, but I wasn’t certain whether it’s because of the explicit word-play and tacit reference to psychologist John Dewey, or if there was something more to it.

I made the mistake of asking CGPT about the connection and was told that Vlad introduced (or rather, alluded to) a character named Dewey Gland, the name of whom corresponds to another character in ‘V. ‘ This is supposed to have taken place in Chapter 2 and the passage that was quoted to me is,

“To Dr. Eric Wind, a fellow émigré and […], Pnin owed a number of strange notions, such as that of the Dewey Gland, which supposedly secreted a peculiar hormone responsible for the formulation of our opinions and emotions.”

I cannot find any such reference in the book despite checking a few other editions. Am I being gaslit or have I just missed it?

I have been trying to find more copies of Lolita to add to my Nabokov collection. I have a Russian translation, but the cover is not my favorite. I really enjoy this cover over any other. This German translation is starting to become one of my favorites. I always run into the copy they have at B&N (I'm sure you have seen this one) but am just not a fan of this cover. I would like to see what your favorite artworks are!

Any insight on these?

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of his short stories in chronological order?

What does the ‘diktanti’ in Speak Memory as follows “kolokololitryshchiki perekolotiki vikarabkavshihsya vihuholey” mean. I’ve googled it and not one result. Is it phonetic?

Hermann, the protagonist of Despair, is another in the long line of the artists, true and wannabe, portrayed by Nabokov, along with Fyodor Godunov-Cherdynstev, Luzhin, Cincinattus, even Humbert and Kinbote. But among them, Hermann is probably the most miserable and dull. He fails as an artist, and fails miserably. Even before the big twist, near the end, we are given clues that Hermann simply doesn't have an artistic eye. He sees doubles where there is none like with the painting he mistakenly attributes to Ardalion, or the statue he compares to the Bronze Horseman in Saint-Petersburg, or the waiter in the cafe whose double he believes he had seen previously somewhere.

He doesn't see his wife's affair, and thinks she is faithful and absolutely loyal to him (subtle hints could be seen that his marriage is a sham from the beginning, simply a way for Lydia and Ardalion to escape post-revolutionary Russia). Actually, even Ardalion, quite a pathetic figure, an alcoholic, has more artistic skills than Hermann, and gives him a good explanation of his failure: Hermann saw and looked for similarities where there was a difference.

And all along the narration of Hermann there hovers a figure of a true artist, the author himself, who plays with his hero ruthlessly, though Hermann surely deserves it. An example of this (that I found in the article by Sergey Davydov in Garland Companion) is the motif of sticks or canes scattered all over the novel, and it is the stick of Felix that finally leads to the Hermann's apprehension by the police and signifies that even his masterpiece of a murder failed in the most trivial and vulgar way.

H

I was wondering if anyone has read this book or know anything about the book/author? I found this book at my uni and it caught my attention, but I wasn't familiar with the author as I haven't seen anything dealing with Nabokov studies that have been written by this author. Thank you!!

https://www.dailycal.org/weekender/commentary/taylor-swift-was-vladimir-nabokov-in-a-past-life-a-commentary/article_21ff5386-820a-11ef-bfa7-0776439a2f0a.html

I’ve read and recommend Véra. The other I’m using more for reference.

Vivian (Nabokov's well-known self-inserted avatar, due to the anagram) writes the "Notes to Ada" appendix at the end of Ada or Ardor. Since N was a perfectionist when it came to detail, something massive always bugged me. Vivian Darkbloom exists in the "canon" I suppose of Lolita, not 1800s Antiterra. Furthermore, she wouldn't need to provide notes about the memoir Ada herself helped the author pen. My first thought was simply that N was having fun, making yet another reference to his other masterpiece, but at the same time it seems illogical even for this bizarre novel. I know I'm probably overthinking it, but I just want to see what other people think about this.

Does H.H love Annabel (his Riviera prototype) and Lolita the same way? Is it just chronological difference, or is there a more qualitative distinction?

https://youtube.com/shorts/Oxjs_xwSPpI?si=eSX9wdAgRHguSRXI

*The post title has a typo in it; I meant to say stylish...

The majority of the scholarship on Nabokov's Pale Fire—which had its boom in late last century—seems to be extraordinarily stylish, especially when compared to scholarship on other great books. If you would go on thenabokovian.org, you'd see some rather obscure or puzzling comments with a great lot to work out. Some papers would compare Pale Fire against things that one would never expect. The scholarship upon the book is severely fun.

Why is this? Is this some sort of a tribute to the wonderful stylistics of our writer?

Has anyone compared them? It seems Russian version is quite different

I’ve read

The Eye (1930) Glory (1931) Laughter in the Dark (1932) Despair (1934) Invitation to a Beheading (1938) The Gift (1938) Pnin (1957) Lolita (1960) Pale Fire (1962) Ada, or Ardor (1969) The collected shorts Insomniac dreams

Currently reading Véra by Stacy schiff.

The rest of his novels in my collection are at another location.

Bonus points for guessing the book

Has anyone read anything similar to Spring in Fialta?

I reread it often and wish I could find something similar. TIA

Lolita's second title. I get why Humbert is"widowed" obviously, but why "white widowed"? Or is he meant to be a widowed white male? I never understood this alternate title

Does anyone speak or read nabokov's novels in russian? I just ordered a copy of Mary the nabokov translation of Alice in Wonderland and realized they are written in the pre-revolutionary alphabet lol. I can speak russian, studied it for two years, but looking at the alphabet seems to me like it will take a while to finish a story of this size. Bringing this up because i really wish to study his early writings in a postgraduate setting. Sorry of this is boring or annoying :')

Disclaimer: I do not have a satisfying conclusion at the end of all these and this post is mostly a cry for help to see if anyone has a better idea. 

I recently finished Pnin for the first time and am currently trying to figure out its big mystery, the synthetic stage of Nabokov’s layered narrative structure. Most of the articles I consulted support the reading that the narrator, Vladimir Vladimirovich, contrives the majority of the book from his own fleeting glimpses of Pnin over the years. (Boyd brings up this iron point that the stuffed squirrel VV saw in Pnin’s childhood’s schoolroom gives rise to all the squirrels in the story.) 

It is a reading I suspected but discarded on account of its fruitlessness for coming too close to the “it was all a dream” trope. According to it, we barely know what Pnin is actually like without VV’s mediation, who also seems to have granted Pnin a few breaks that life wouldn’t give him (the Cremona lecture, the bowl, etc). Boyd argues that the book captures the necessary falsehood of compassion and it seems on the mark, yet the image of the novel itself thus becomes so foggy and blurry in a wholly unsatisfying manner.

For this, I turn to VI-5, in which VV recounts an absurd academia phenomenon where one would encounter clones of other academics on campus. The figure in question is one Professor Wynn, an ornithologist, who seems to be always around Pnin in a stalking manner and once chatted with him about birds. Pnin attempts to invite him for his party and when a Wynn-looking gentleman approaches him during lunch, he mistook Prof. Tristram W. Thomas, the head of the anthology department for Wynn. Prof. Thomas approached him about an article he read about a Russian local custom:

“Last summer I was reading a magazine article on birds…that in the Skoff region…a local cake is baked in the form of a bird. Basically, of course, the symbol is phallic, but I was wondering if you knew of such a custom?"

We can tell by the wording (“a magazine article on bird…” “phallic”) that this is in fact not Wynn the ornithologist.

The confusion has its sequel near the end of the book (VII-6), when Pnin imitator Prof. Cockerell recounts an incident where…

“Pnin [was] trying to convince Professor Wynn, the ornithologist who hardly knew him, that they were old pals, Tim and Tom—and Wynn leaping to the conclusion that this was somebody impersonating Professor Pnin.”

Furthermore, at end of Pnin’s party, to which Prof. Thomas was invited, the latter expresses confusion as to why Pnin calls him “Prof. Vin,” a Pninian corruption (Wynn→Twynn→Tvin→Vin). In response, Prof. Clements, a friend of Pnin jokes:

“He probably mistook you for somebody else…and for all I know you may be somebody else."

All these lead me to the idea that, even if it is not the final trick, even if the scholars are right about VV having fabricated most of the book, there must be a trick involving mimicry in the novel. And here is my bold though holed hypothesis: VV=Wynn (the Stalker)=Hagen (at the Party). There is a Wynn and of course there is a Hagen, but the ones Pnin saw are in fact VV in disguise.

Now for my evidence, in ascending order, from the weakest to the strongest:

1. VV the initials form the W of Wynn.
2. Hagen, Pnin’s protector at Waindell, also has an alliterative name “Herman Hagen”; Nabokov emphasizes this by having the fake Hagen say his full name at the end of the party (VI-12).
3. VV, in discussing the clones of academia, specifically notes that he himself was once “the radix” of “a case of triplets” in a university (VI-5).
4. VV is no ornithologist but he is evidently knowledgeable of birds, correcting in his description another expat's misidentification of American birds (V-2).
5. The drunken Party Hagen tries to comfort Pnin about his termination while referring to VV’s second meeting with Pnin (“Dramatic program”) and VV’s present lodging (“sleep…mystery story”). (VI-12, VII-2, VII-7, respectively)
6. Hagen at the party recounts his ties to Germany and Switzerland (VI-8), the same regions associated with VV (VII-3).
7. The aforementioned confusion of the real Wynn (VII-6).
8. At the party, Party Hagen (VV) tells a supposedly vulgar joke about another faculty, to which Pnin remarks, “I have heard quite the same anecdote thirty-five years ago in Odessa, and even then I could not understand what is comical in it” (VI-9); it is the same anecdote because VV once told it when they were in the same circles.
9. At the party, Party Hagen (VV) reminds Pnin of Eric Wind, his ex-wife’s ex-husband, but specifically notes that “they are quite different physically” (VI-10). He reminds him of Wind, because like Wind, VV too was once a lover of Liza Pnin.

In my view, VV has been living in Waindell the whole time and constantly stalking him as the Wynn-lookalike on campus. He does so because Pnin is his last personal connection to his Russian life the same way Liza is Pnin’s. But because of his part in Liza’s suicide attempt, VV couldn’t directly reconnect with him. 

Parallel worlds of expats is a central theme of the book; so is the tension between private misery and universal misery. VV is desperate to feel familiar again. The all too general expat reality at Cook’s Castle could not cure his nostalgia. As a result, VV seeks to be part of Pnin’s own private cosmos and share his private misery in order to be in the same world again as when he was being treated by Pnin’s father in Tsarist St. Petersburg, which leads to stalking and disguises (anticipating Kinbote).

Now the extremely obvious holes in my hypothesis are the following:

1. There are virtually no clues that suggest VV has been living in Waindell the whole time.
2. How could VV even know about the party? (It is easy enough to explain, on the other hand, how he knew about Pnin’s termination: Hagen wrote to him about helping Pnin at his new post.)
3. Prof. Thomas recognizes and greets Hagen when he arrives at the party (VI-7); it is too far-fetched to say that he too mistakes VV for Hagen.

Yet, 8 and 9 above are too strong for me to discard the possibility that it was VV at the party. I tried to reconcile this with the obviously superior reading of the other scholars by framing this charade as VV’s self-insert into his imagined version of Pnin’s life, which would fill the three holes, but that is way too sloppy of a solution. Another solution is to attribute the talks about mimicry to the book’s Schopenhauerian view that all men are one man, but that does not explain 8 and 9.

Therefore I am now eliciting the thoughts of the wiser people on this sub to see if anyone has a better explanation for points 8 and 9, as well as the emphasis Nabokov put on mimicry.

Edit: I letter-coded the bullet points but Reddit changed it to numbers; it has been fixed.

In Nabokov’s afterword to Lolita, he lists 10 scenes in chronological order which he describes as the “nerves of the novel," or "the secret points, the subliminal coordinates by means of which the book is plotted." He's telling us these scenes are not just important in themselves, they link up with the rest of the story. Nerves are vital, the body would be nothing without them, and they run right through the innermost fibre of the organism. If you can decode the individual and collective meanings of these scenes, Nabokov might be saying, you will grasp the core of the book. Now, N obviously hated symbolism, but his work is known for allusions and repeating images. The references I've identified seem to represent or rather correlate via synchronicity with specific characters and events. I'm not trying to identify symbols so much as the metaphysics of the novel. After all, Fate seems to be a character or force in itself in Lolita, nothing happens in this world without a reason.

1. Mr Taxovich's introduction (Part One, Chapter 8).
2. The class list of Ramsdale School (Part One, Chapter 11).
3. Charlotte saying “waterproof” (Part One, Chapter 20).
4. Lolita moving towards Humbert’s gifts in slow motion (Part One, Chapter 27).
5. Gaston Godin’s pictures (Part Two, Chapter 6).

6.The Kasbeam barber (Part Two, Chapter 16).

7. Lolita playing tennis (Part Two, Chapter 20).

8. Elphinstone hospital (Part Two, Chapter 22).

9. Dolly Schiller dying in Gray Star (the “capital town” of the book) (Part Two, Chapter 29 / Foreword).

10. The sounds of the valley town (Part Two, Chapter 36).

1 and 8: Taxovich is the first male rival to steal a mate from Humbert (his then wife Valeria). This parallels the scene in Elphinstone hospital, where Quilty at last takes Lolita. Note that in both cases the female went with the rival of her own accord

2: the list of Ramsdale School students Humbert finds in the Haze household isn’t the most important thing, it’s the paper it’s on. The reverse side contains the beginnings of Lo’s tracing of a map of the US. This clearly foreshadows the second road trip, directed by her. Note that the stay at Kasbeam (6) and the tennis scene (7) take place in locations Lo chose, and involve her meeting with Quilty or his cronies.

3 and 9: Charlotte mentions that the watch she gave him was waterproof, which is why his swimming with it on in Hourglass Lake was fine. It was during this swim that he came close to drowning Charlotte. In the scene where he reunites with Dolly in Gray Star, she reveals to him the name of Clare Quilty. Humbert asks himself why that makes him think of the word “waterproof” and of Hourglass Lake. That was the second time he planned a murder and actually knew the target. Now that he is certain of Quilty’s identity, his development into a murderer is certain. The thread began with Charlotte and is set to end with Quilty.

Scene 9 as described in Nabokov's list is about Dolly dying. As is already well known, her death is mentioned in the Foreword, a veiled reveal of the story's end at the very beginning. But, Nabokov also describes the scene as involving "pale, pregnant, beloved, irretrievable" Dolly Schiller, evoking the image of her in the scene where she reveals Quilty's name.

4: the scene where Lolita slowly creeps towards the clothes Humbert bought for her takes place in their room in The Enchanted Hunters. It’s well known that the many mirrors in the room, which show doubles of Humbert and Lo and the room itself, serve as one of many uses of the double motif. It’s no coincidence that this is the location where Humbert describes Lo’s slow stalking towards the gifts in predatory, animalistic language. We see a mirror image: now it is Humbert who perceives Lolita as the predator. Without realising it, Humbert is viewing the situation from the other person’s perspective. This may serve to foreshadow his moral revelation in scene 10. Also, it is in this very room that Humbert will soon rape Dolores for the first time, her predatory appearance is a reflection of what is to come. From Humbert’s perspective, it is she who advances on him, yet later she describes the situation as her having been raped. In the mirror world of the hotel room, Humbert sees an inversion of reality.

5: in the scene where Gaston shows Humbert his painting collection, there is one of a character whose name is Harold (Harold Haze?) D. Doublename. Note that Humbert has chosen his alias and that of all the people in his memoir, including Gaston and Doublename. Humbert Humbert is a double name, and Gaston also has a double initial (G.G.). He has deliberately chosen to draw parallels between himself and this man. It is in this chapter where we first meet Gaston that it’s strongly implied he’s a fellow pedophile, given his close relationship with local boys. Earlier in the book, a doctor suspects Humbert is a closet homosexual. Gaston, being a lover of little boys may be the other pedophilic shadow to Humbert, besides Quilty. Indeed, Gaston is described as always wearing black, and Quilty is first introduced shrouded in shadow. Note that Humbert specifically wears all black for his execution of Quilty. So, Gaston may reflect the homosexual half of Humbert’s bi-pedorosis. Why would he conceal that desire from himself, when even his lust for young girls is an extreme taboo? Humbert cites historical cultures that allegedly permitted an adult male to sleep with a young female, he relies on cultural relativism to justify it. But, he seems unable or unwilling to find cases of homosexual-pedophilic sex being treated as acceptable.

A final point: the double motif between H.H. and G.G. goes beyond the double nature of the attraction to children of both sexes. The Doublename painting hints at other reflections. When the two play chess, Humbert easily outsmarts Gaston: he plays the Quilty. Both men live double lives. Humbert is (in his mind) attractive, Gaston is ugly (this applies to Quilty as well). Humbert sees the love for little girls as beautiful and the love for little boys as ugly. On that note, what does Quilty’s ugliness in Humbert’s eyes mean? Quilty is not only a lover of little girls, he is also a violent sadist (“I can arrange for you to attend executions”). As will be looked at later, Humbert’s homicidal ideation is another inner demon of his, and is in my opinion THE ultimate monster he wrestles with, hence why his killing of the man who reminds him of it is the climax of his psychodrama, the fulfilment and elimination of his innermost urge.

6: the Kasbeam barber cut Humbert’s hair while he was out on a shopping trip for Lolita, who had pretended to be feeling unwell (this mirrors her final escape in Elphinstone, where she does actually fall ill). As the barber talked to him, he by his own admission wasn’t paying attention. It is this, his tendency to overlook details, that is his ultimate undoing. He let his sights leave Lolita despite the obvious fact that she deceives him at every turn.

7: when Lolita plays Tennis, Humbert imagines that if he had not “broken something inside her,” she might’ve had the desire and ambition to develop her natural talent for the game. This is one of the few moments of Humbert assuming her point of view, and is in that way similar to scene 10 where he imagines a life where she got to keep her childhood. Also, the tennis scene is another example of doubling: Humbert and Lolita on opposite sides, playing a competitive game. Note here that Humbert cannot easily defeat her.

10: the Adrian Lyne film has Humbert’s moral awakening happen at the very end of the story. As the police chase him, he wanders off and sees a little town in a valley, where he hears the sound of children playing and realises his losing Lolita wasn’t the real tragedy, it was Lolita losing her childhood. In the book it’s a little different. As he waits for his arrest, he has a flashback of the moment near the valley, which actually took place shortly after Lolita escaped with Quilty. Since the flashback is shown at the end of the novel, it feels like the climax of the story, even though it already happened. This, I think, is a clever way of saying that the climax of the “Lolita” story occurred with her escaping him. Everything since has been the continuation of a different thread, which actually finds its climax with the murder of Quilty. My interpretation of Lolita is that the story of a pedophile is only the outer layer, the inner layer is the story of a murderer. It is Humbert’s existing urge to kill (described in sexual language) that is the ultimate subject of this psychological study. The Lolita story (which ended shortly after her capture by Quilty) simply served as a pretext for Humbert to kill someone, that someone of course being Quilty. Here, “nerve” 10 connects to “nerves” 3 and 9 (the long thread between his plan to kill Charlotte and his plan to kill Quilty). Despite the title, this is not the story of Lolita, in spite of what the sentimental “ending” will have you believe. In fact, this book is so not about Lolita that even Humbert’s sexual possession of her is not the central “point.” Her pain, his guilt, his lust even, everything that directly relates to Lolita is not at the heart of the novel. The true heart is Humbert, a man who wants to destroy another, to destroy himself. His story’s central point is the suicide-homicide at Pavor Manor.