Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers Chapter Ten thru Twenty, p. 108 – 223
Conclusions and the book as a whole.

M’sieur Pierre visits, but Cincinnatus is somewhat less than hospitable. Cecilia C. visits her son and prattles on about this and that. M’sieur Pierre, Rodrig Ivanovich, and little Emmie take turns playing with poor Cincinnatus’ frazzled psyche. The city fathers throw a going-away party for Cincinnatus, complete with a light show in honor of the happy couple. The execution delayed, Marthe pops in for a visit. The carriage arrives, and Cincinnatus C. is taken away…

Happy couple?
ahh. The title. Again, I didn't read this, but it certainly sounds twisted.

The second half of the novel seems to place almost as much emphasis on M'sieur Pierre as it does on Cincinnatus. Pierre is probably my favourite character in the novel - well, probably the only one who has something resembling character at all, even if it mostly that of a slimy toad. But of a very entertaining toad - I suspect that when he is first shown dressed in black and white stripes that is not just Nabokov poking fun at another prison cliché but also characterizes him as some kind of Pierrot (also, of course, his name).

Continuing the (not quite serious) reading of the novel as allegory on art, M'sieur Pierre would of course be a critic, and the librarian a scholar (as he seems to dislike Cincinnatus and Pierre in equal measure). And the ending would then be Cincinnatus entering the artistic Pantheon...

I'm not sure, and couldn't put my finger on where exactly that impression comes from, but somehow Invitation to a Beheading feels very Russian to me - I suppose it's the satiric aspect, Nabokov's ridicule of all the official figures and their hollow pretensions that reminds me of Gogol and (even though Nabokov did not like him) Dostoyevsky.

And I do love the final sentence in all its glorious ambiguity.

Larou wrote: "Continuing the (not quite serious) reading of the novel as allegory on art, M'sieur Pierre would of course be a critic, and the librarian a scholar (as he seems to dislike Cincinnatus and Pierre in equal measure). And the ending would then be Cincinnatus entering the artistic Pantheon..."

I love this interpretation, and I think it's pretty spot-on. I'd question why it's necessarily an allegory, though. Can't Cinninnatus simply be a complex person / artist imprisoned by the judgment of the rabble?

Nabokov hasn't balked at using fantastic elements in literal ways in his fiction elsewhere. The surreal / dream-like imagery to me seems a way to reinforce the idea that Cinninnatus' prison is a result of his own limited thinking in regards to his place in society. Once he realizes he doesn't have to "feign translucence" and questions why he is there, he is freed from the hold the herd has on him.

Although, I suppose that interpretation could be called an allegory in itself...

Whitney wrote: "Although, I suppose that interpretation could be called an allegory in itself...

Indeed, that it could :P

I don't really think there is any way one can read Invitation to a Beheading as a realistic novel - it is not just fantastic elements somehow inserting themselves into a well-grounded reality, but reality itself keeps shifting and squirming and is very far from solid. There is no pre-establised frame of reference here, which means the novel has to generate one for itself, or rather it has to provide us readers with the means to build one.

To call the novel an allegory and look for some allegorical significance is one way to do it, but not the only one, and with such a reading there is always the danger that one reduces the novel to a mere arrangement of allegorical markers that get shuffled around - which, in my eyes, would be doing an injustice to the rich texture and scintillating colours of Nabokov's writing.

I also wondered whether Nabokov is also hinting that when someone doesn't fit in it is akin to that person being in prison. Cincinnatus seems bewildered by peoples actions around him - he cannot fathom why they do what they do. And yet, despite this, Nabokov does not make Cincinnatus a particularly likeable or even sympathetic character which ensures, at least for me, that the novel doesn't ever descend into sentimentality.

I have to agree with Larou - Nabakov weaves magic with words. His mastery of the craft of writing itself is truly astounding. All in all I found this book to be deeply satisfying.

Amanda wrote: "I also wondered whether Nabokov is also hinting that when someone doesn't fit in it is akin to that person being in prison. Cincinnatus seems bewildered by peoples actions around him - he cannot fa..."

Yes, I think that's a good observation. Also, the people around him continue to try to bring him back into the fold, to reintegrate/reform him.