Reading the 20th Century discussion

Roman Clodia wrote: "... Nab makes it funny in an awful, black way, I felt that as the reader I was complicit in the cruelty, especially at the end."

This is a great point. I found it disturbing, and this could well be why.

I've only read one Waugh, but found his style more melancholy--with lots of feeling, even if it was cynical feeling. I have to say I don't feel any heart under what Nabokov writes.

I quite liked this in the end, I didn't agree with Nabokov's rather dismissive, patronising ideas about popular culture. But l loved the intertextuality and the play on the conventions of commercial cinema. I thought it was a very clever piece, the way he weaves in aspects of genre conventions and tropes, the possible femme fatale, the sentimental death-bed scenes, the predatory Weimar-era 'new woman'. The take on celebrity culture and comments on the purpose of writing. The way he toys with realism but then undermines and subverts it, the sudden shifts in register, the constant turning of tables and thwarting of expectations. All of which detract from an interpretation of this as realist but at the same time comment on German society. The scenes in the rented house towards the end are cruel, but they're also exaggerated and slightly preposterous - Axel's naked sun-tanned body seen through the window. Martin Amis, much as I dislike his work, called this one of Nabokov's 'black farces' and I think that's a great description of what's happening here.

I wondered if the reason why Nabokov disliked the novel is that it doesn't quite achieve the goals he set himself? I found it very funny, in a slightly disturbing way. But even though I don't think it's supposed to be realist, the real creeps in, despite the theatricality of elements of the narrative - the way that Albinus's thoughts about killing are expressed during the hotel scenes for example - other aspects of the cruelty/references to violence come across as very marked, harder to dismiss. The way that Axel tortured animals as a child for example - those bothered me the most - was so precisely rendered. Nabokov apparently admitted much later, that despite all his protestations about not being interested in questions of morality, psychology etc the novel did reflect his feelings about his environment at the time, his impression of the worldm or that German world, as being a cruel place. And there are numerous points where I felt the novel seemed poised between highly artificial and more realist, emotional elements.

Great points, Allwynne. You've almost convinced me that Nabokov has provided, intentionally or unintentionally, social commentary on Weimar notwithstanding an approach that seemed to me entirely aesthetic.

There is another aspect I wanted to point out, which is the multiple ways in which Albinus's blindness comes out in the novel even before the final chapters. It's in the imagery in the cinema, his thoughts about Margot when he's contemplating ending things, his blindness to her feelings and intentions, and then to Rex.

Absolutely, good point, the fact that part of his art collection's fake fits with that too. Spectacle, seeing and being seen, voyeurism, are all really central here. They fit with cinema but they also align with a lot of accounts of Weimar society.

Plus Nabokov strikes me as an exceptionally rigid, judgemental person. He's a snob when it comes to culture, he doesn't see value in anything overtly commercial or what he thinks of as generic. He also dismisses a lot of work that others see as significant, he was very snotty about T. S. Eliot's poetry for example. And I imagine he was equally demanding about social interactions, so maybe that's coming through here too? His comments about bourgeois Germans as embodied by Albinus seem very pointed.

Kathleen wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "... Nab makes it funny in an awful, black way, I felt that as the reader I was complicit in the cruelty, especially at the end."

This is a great point. I found it disturbing, ..."

I thought there was a suggestion of 'heart' in his depiction of Paul and Elisabeth. They didn't fit so well with the rest of the novel.

Alwynne wrote: "I thought there was a suggestion of 'heart' in his depiction of Paul and Elisabeth. They didn't fit so well with the rest of the novel. "

They make me think of "non-playing characters" in a video game.

Ben wrote: "(Aside from the convention of the villain being punished at the end)"

But who is the villain in the book? That kind of moral schematic doesn't seem to work in this book - does it?

Oh, I agree! I just thought subversion of that convention was just too obvious.

I would say they're all villains, other than the non-playing characters.

Alwynne wrote: "I wasn't clear enough, I didn't mean the content more the style of humour."

I think I've only read Brideshead and Handful of Dust so Waugh wasn't really an active allusion for me - but, then, intertexts are always in the eye of the reader.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I wasn't clear enough, I didn't mean the content more the style of humour."

I think I've only read Brideshead and Handful of Dust so Waugh wasn't really an active allusion for me -..."

Definitely, the film references worked for me mainly because of far too many hours of film retrospectives when I should have been studying! At least now I can pretend they had some use value.

Ben wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I thought there was a suggestion of 'heart' in his depiction of Paul and Elisabeth. They didn't fit so well with the rest of the novel. "

They make me think of "non-playing charact..."

That's a great way of looking at it.

Ha, but your discussion of the film references opened up ideas that I hadn't marked. Will you add a link to your brilliant review, Alwynne, in case other people on this thread haven't seen it?

Ben wrote: "Oh, I agree! I just thought subversion of that convention was just too obvious."

I was also thinking about the way Nab draws attention to the centrality of love/erotic desire, especially adulterous or forbidden desire, as a driver of western (and other?) literature. Medieval literature, troubadour poetry, Dante, Petrarch, Shakespeare, and on into the novel (think of Samuel Richardson) all offer up a primarily romantic view of love which Nabokov refuses to subscribe to. The presence of Dorianna Karenina sort of points to how Nabokov isn't going to play Tolstoy's game.

So I'd see that as challenging cultural conventions or ideologies, the narratives that a culture keeps feeding itself.

It's here, although it's just my take on things.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The element that really reminded me of 'Lolita' was the emphasis on seeing and the voyeuristic in general. It made me think of the scene where Humber spots Lolita sunning herself in the garden which I think is close to/the point when he becomes obsessed. But not sure if I'm mixing up the novel with the film. The way that Albinus looks at Margot is very similar in feel. It's ironic that Nabokov despised Freud so much and wrote so many novels that seem to be crying out for a Freudian analysis!

The other thing I loved is the way the love triangle keeps revolving, so that the roles played by Albinus, Margot and Axel shape-shift throughout the book. Albinus is predatory at some points but also a victim of that pointed malice towards the end; Margot is victim or object but then takes control of her own story. Is Axel stable in the triangle? We learn that he left Margot the first time because he found himself caring more for her than he wanted to, so not sure.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Ben wrote: "Oh, I agree! I just thought subversion of that convention was just too obvious."

I was also thinking about the way Nab draws attention to the centrality of love/erotic desire, especial..."

Good point, I couldn't decide if he was totally anti those ideas or expressions of romance, or whether he thought popular culture had cheapened or corrupted it in some way, as when Karenina confuses Tolstoy with 'doll's toy'.

Roman Clodia wrote: "The other thing I loved is the way the love triangle keeps revolving, so that the roles played by Albinus, Margot and Axel shape-shift throughout the book. Albinus is predatory at some points but a..."

The section where they effectively torture Albinus were quite weird in some ways it seemed more about Albinus and Axel, with Margo as a means of access to Albinus rather than the focus of Axel's interest. I thought there might be some kind of underlying erotic dimension, and it's interesting how easily Albinus accepts the triangle in the early stages.

Alwynne wrote: "I couldn't decide if he was totally anti those ideas or expressions of romance, or whether he thought popular culture had cheapened or corrupted it in some way, as when Karenina confuses Tolstoy with 'doll's toy'."

I loved that 'doll's toy?' comment - one of the few bits of Nabokovian wordplay which was strikingly missing.

I was thinking about how this book exposes the absurdities at the heart of these cultural love narratives. Instead of a Petrarch or a Dante seeing a young woman and falling in love at first sight we have... Albinus, as Ben says, a pathetic figure.

There's often a kind of sublimated violence in these love narratives: for example, in Petrarch's sonnets to Laura (e.g. Canzoniere: Selected Poems) the underlying myth which the relationship is modelled on is that of Apollo and Daphne (Daphne being Greek for laurel tree) where Apollo pursues a terrified nymph until she is turned into a laurel tree, and then he appropriates her as his tree. The wreaths of laurel that crown a poet *laureate* are thus parts of a dismembered nymph's body. So there's this complicated nexus of writing/power/sex/gender that is woven together in this love narrative which is foundational for western poetry and literature. So for me, Nabokov was playing with this and twisting it about to see what happens.

Alwynne wrote: "The section where they effectively torture Albinus were quite weird in some ways it seemed more about Albinus and Axel, with Margo as a means of access to Albinus"

Haha, classic homosocial theory where women are transactional in effecting relationships between men. Interesting to know how self-conscious Nabokov was about this. I wondered earlier about the relationship between Albinus and Axel when Albinus wasn't paranoid with jealousy which is how the lover usually acts with a rival. Though, again, it's arguable about who is the lover and who the rival, that turning triangle :)

Alwynne wrote: "The element that really reminded me of 'Lolita' was the emphasis on seeing and the voyeuristic in general."

Yes! And that whole connection between voyeurism and power, and the way subjectivity and objectivity are constructed via the authority to look and be looked at.

It was striking that we 'see' Axel's naked body as that's more usually the position of women, serving as objects of visual desire. And Margor has been there with her early modelling work. That reminded me of Flammchen in Grand Hotel who also models and allows nude photographs for money.

Yes I thought that was striking too. The 'homosocial' aspect intrigued me, particularly what Nabokov was trying to do by bringing in the notion that Axel may actually be gay. And the way that Albinus processes that. But also some of the ways that Axel torments Albinus, tickling him with a grass or plant stem had an oddly flirtatious quality, in another context more teasing than torment. And the lack of jealousy is marked, as is the fact that Albinus's anger's entirely directed at Margot not Axel. Although it seems as if he'd been building up to killing her throughout the novel. But when his art collection's exposed as being mainly fake it does also suggest Albinus's inability to be discerning, he sees the art as special because it's been labelled as such, he's not capable of really seeing it for what it is.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "I couldn't decide if he was totally anti those ideas or expressions of romance, or whether he thought popular culture had cheapened or corrupted it in some way, as when Karenina con..."

Definitely, I hadn't made that link, I was thinking more of Goethe and Romanticism.

Alwynne wrote: " The 'homosocial' aspect intrigued me, particularly what Nabokov was trying to do by bringing in the notion that Axel may actually be gay. "

Was that commenting perhaps on the idea of Weimar culture being decadent and breaking down hard gender and sexuality boundaries? And yes, worth drawing attention as you have, Alwynne, to that teasing tickling.

Thinking back on the book via a 'visuality' lens (haha!), even the first meeting between Margot and Albinus involves her holding the torchlight to show him his way through the darkened cinema. She seems to have the power there as both 'owner' of the light, and also as the aloof beloved while he is the victim of erotic desire... but even there, that power dynamic is already unstable as we 'see' Margot through Albinus' eyes so the subjectivity is his, and she is the object observed.

Interesting R C, my thinking's a bit muddled - well more than usual - as had my booster yesterday and although feel okay in general has made me very sleepy! Glad to have had it though. But could it also be Margot ushering Albinus into this debased world, in which emotions, behaviours are inauthentic/mimic popular culture?

Alwynne wrote: "But could it also be Margot ushering Albinus into this debased world, in which emotions, behaviours are inauthentic/mimic popular culture?"

Ha, nice! Especially your use of 'ushering' there.

Good news on your booster :)

Kathleen wrote: "I have to say I don't feel any heart under what Nabokov writes."

I definitely agree in relation to this book, Kathleen, but not necessarily to Nabokov's work overall - Pale Fire, for example, is far more emotive and ultimately I found it very moving.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "I have to say I don't feel any heart under what Nabokov writes."

I definitely agree in relation to this book, Kathleen, but not necessarily to Nabokov's work overall - [book:Pale ..."

I love what you're all pulling out of this one! Nabokov's writing is impressive, but feels so cold to me, so I'm happy to hear about Pale Fire, which I've wanted to read since reading Lolita.

I just started this morning and, while I skipped reading most of the above comments, my reaction seem to be similar to some I did read:
1) This is quite easy to read, seemingly easier than either Lolita or Pale Fire, the only two Nabokovs I've read; I planned to read 40 to 50 pages and switch to another of my books but forced myself to stop on page 82. The prose flows so easily it reminded me of a fairy tale at the start.
2) This does remind me of Lolita in theme and characters ( I doubt anything will remind me of Pale Fire): I agree that while the pair are unsympathetic characters, I somehow sympathize with them;
3) While there is a universality to the plot, I do picture this as Weimar-specific due to the film-theater scenes and, especially Margot's actress ambition and sexually libertine attitude which is so reminiscent of other Weimar females I have encountered such as Flammchen in Grand Hotel, Doris in Artificial Silk Girl and Sally Bowles.

Thanks, Brian - I don't want to say too much given that you're still reading but yes, some of us were also reminded of Doris and Flammchen. I hadn't thought of Sally Bowles, possibly because I haven't read Isherwood or seen the film {hangs head shamefully}.

I have now finished so feel free to say too much RC. I really enjoyed this. I found Nabokov's style so crisp and easy that I could read at a faster than normal pace with full comprehension. Creepily compelling.
Some comments on comments:
1) I don't see the comparison to Waugh in style or humor. I thought this book was far better than any of the Waugh novels I have read.
2) While I agree that there is not as much feel for the time and place as with other Weimar set novels read in this group, the characters themselves did evoke the morality of the time and place. However, the lack of Weimar specificity in the story probably enabled Director Tony Richardson to change the setting to London in his 1969 movie of the novel.
3) As I was reading this, I kept on thinking how this seemed so much like 'noir' fiction like a James Cain novel, mainly because all the main players, as Ben notes, are villainous, including ones you root for, presumably the slightly less villainous ones. Today, I read a quote by Scott Frank, who will be writing and directing the movie remake with Anya Taylor-Joy as Margot, who stated
“It’s a great book and it’s going to be a valentine to movies, I’m going to do it as a film noir. . . It’s a really nasty, wonderful, little thriller.”
4) It is a good idea for Susan not to go straight into Lolita after this one. I started this one right after finishing Grand Hotel and when I started my second day of reading, I was briefly attributing some characteristics of Kringelein to Albinus. I had to stop reading for a few minutes and reorient my brain from Kringelein/Frammchen to the new characters of Albinus/Margot that i had been introduced to the day before.

Wow--very interesting thoughts, Brian. I completely agree with you about the noir feel, and I think that was its saving grace for me. Can't wait for the movie you mention!!

Brian wrote: "I have now finished so feel free to say too much RC. I really enjoyed this. I found Nabokov's style so crisp and easy that I could read at a faster than normal pace with full comprehension. Creepily compelling."

I've forgotten what I wasn't going to say now!

I had that same effect of having to put Grand Hotel's characters to one side as I was carrying them into Laughter and mixing them up in my head. So maybe there is something to that Weimar feel that we recognised in terms of mood or atmosphere or character types or moral status or something that ties these two books together?

I have abandoned this one for now, I couldn’t get it into my brain. I may come back to it in the future, but it’s not working for me right now.

Timing's so important with some novels Pamela, hope you find something that works better for you.

Yes, far wiser to put it to one side, Pamela - I'm always bemused by reviews where readers have pushed on through books they're not enjoying just because they won't dnf a book on principle - move on, I say!

Roman Clodia wrote: "- I'm always bemused by reviews where readers have pushed on through books they're not enjoying just because they won't dnf a book on principle - move on, I say!..."

Not me. It's one of the few principles I have, so I'm keeping it. Admittedly, it's really more of a compulsion than a principle.
Bemusing people with it is a bonus, though, so I appreciate knowing that it does. I also appreciate your referring to this compulsive and slightly masochistic behavior as principled.

Alwynne wrote: “ Timing's so important with some novels Pamela, hope you find something that works better for you.”

Roman Clodia wrote: "Yes, far wiser to put it to one side, Pamela - I'm always bemused by reviews where readers have pushed on through books they're not enjoying just because they won't dnf a book on principle - move on, I say!”

Thanks both. Yes I agree, I used to feel an obligation to finish a book I’d started, but then I realised I’d do it more justice if I came back to it at a later date with fresh eyes. And I do like Nabokov’s writing so I’m sure it’s just a question of timing