Nabokov, ou le vrai et l'invraisemblable
by Jeff Edmunds
page eleven of twelve

Raguet-Bouvart, Christine. “Les métamorphoses du corps : de Camera Obscura à Laughter in the Dark de Vladimir Nabokov," in Le corps dans tous ses états (Bordeaux: Presses universitaires de Bordeaux, 1995), pp. 227-236.

Not seen..

Raguet-Bouvart, Christine. “Camera Obscura et Laughter in the Dark ou la confusion des textes,” Palimpsestes 9, 1995, “La lecture du texte traduit,” pp. 119-134 and 48-53.

English translation available in Zembla, 1999.

Raguet-Bouvart, Christine. “État de création ou état de crise? Vladimir Nabokov en quête d’une voix américaine,” in Éclats de voix (La Rochelle: Rumeur des Ages, 1995), pp. 49-59.

Not seen..

Raguet-Bouvart, Christine. “LOLITA—Mon Amérique …,” Annales du CRAA, Écritures nord-américaines, un singulier-pluriel : fractures/ruptures (Talence: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine, 1995), pp. 207-219.

Not seen..

Raguet-Bouvart, Christine. “Ember, traducteur de Hamlet,” in Hommage a Henry Suhamy, Études Anglaises, 1995, pp. ??.

English translation available in Zembla.

Chouard, Géraldine. “La Méprise: mirages de la désespérance,” op. cit. 5 (novembre 1995), pp. 259-267.

Chouard very intelligently discusses the “double” theme in Despair, distinguishing Nabokov’s doubles from the garden variety: “le double nabokovien n’est pas une fin esthétique en soi, mais bien plutôt un moyen pour faire rejaillir l’irréductible variété du vivant” [the Nabokovian double in not an aesthetic end in itself but rather a means of making the irreducible variety of the living stand out]. The novel is the story of Hermann’s “tentative ratée de traversée des apparences” [failed attempt at crossing appearances] and thus can be read as “un anathème lancé contre la vulgarité (mortifère) de la ressemblance” [an anathema cast against the (mortiferous) vulgarity of resemblance]. Chouard begins by characterizing the text itself as double, demonstrating the “brouillage du temps” [blurring of time] caused by the two temporalities, that of the crime and that of its telling. A real criminal but failed artist, Hermann commits the crime (common to many of Nabokov’s creations) of confusing art with life: “la transgression consiste à confondre deux plans de la réalité” [the transgression consists in confusing two levels of reality]. But in his imagined world of invertable reflections, “la mort est l’irréversible qui, précisement, ne peut être renversé” [death is the very irreversible which cannot be inverted].

Chouard concludes that “La Méprise est une gifle magistrale flanquée aux doubles trop parfaits” [Despair is a masterful blow thrown at too-perfect doubles].

Schapira, Marie-Claude. “Le ‘faux-double’ dans La Méprise de Nabokov,” op. cit. 5 (novembre 1995), pp. 279-284.

In Despair “Nabokov pose d’emblée le problème littéraire du double et de son rapport à la création” [Nabokov poses from the outset the literary problem of the double and its relationship to creation]. Schapira begins by measuring the novel against what she calls “le topos du double” [the topos of the double], distinguishing Nabokov’s doubles from those of Chamisso and Dostoevsky. Unlike other 19th-century stories, in which the meeting with his alter ego is traditionally “la métaphore du conflit entre les deux personnalités du poète” [the metaphor of the conflict between the poet’s two personalities], in Despair “Il n’y a pas découverte de l’Autre en soi mais projection du même sur l’autre” [There is not discovery of the Other in oneself but projection of sameness onto the other]. The second part of the article focuses on Hermann as narrator, caught in a cycle of failure of his own making: “Acculé á écrire ce qu’il a vécu puis à le lire pour en trouver le sens, il n’y trouve que la folie qui lui a fait accomplir le crime comme substitut de l’œuvre qu’il n’a pas écrite et écrire le récit du crime comme réparation du forfait génial qu’il n’a pas réussi” [Cornered into writing what he’s lived through and then to read it to find its meaning, he finds only the madness that made him commit the crime as a substitute for the work he did not write and write the account of the crime as reparation for the heinous crime he failed to bring off]. Schapira notes that Despair represents a particularly subtle equilibrium between genius and madness, since “il n’y a pas une lettre de différence entre le texte avorté d’Hermann, lu par Hermann et le texte censé être abouti de Nabokov lu par nous.” [there is not a letter of difference between Hermann’s abortive text, read by Hermann, and the text supposedly completed by Nabokov read by us]. In conclusion she proposes that “Nabokov manipule Hermann comme Hermann manipule Félix et profite de la diversion pour organiser un récit très savant” [Nabokov manipulates Hermann like Hermann manipulates Felix and profits from the diversion to organize a very masterful tale].

Chouard, Géraldine. “Loli-time: temps, hors-temps et contretemps dans Lolita de Vladimir Nabokov,” Q/W/E/R/T/Y 5 (1995), pp. 303-313.

In this long and well-reasoned article, Chouard discusses the ostensibly chronological Lolita as “le lieu où s’affrontent des temporalités plurielles et conflictuelles, à hauteur de mort” [the site where plural and conflicting temporalities confront one another]. The “intangible island of entraced time” that Humbert strives to create, where “le hors-temps du transport érotique prend la forme d’un entre-temps” [the timelessness of erotic rapture takes the form of a meanwhile] is contrasted with Lolita’s hopelessly everyday experience of duration. Reading the text borne of Humbert’s narrative strategies to cheat time “c’est être en état d’alerte permanent pour tenter de saisir quels fantasmes se cachent sous la réalité des images offertes” [is to be in a permanent state of alert to try to grasp what fantasies are hiding beneath the reality of the images offered].20 Humbert’s real crime is his theft of Lolita’s childhood, his efforts to “briser l’ordre symbolique et temporel, à détraquer l’horloge du temps objectif” [shatter the symbolic and temporal order, to upset the clock of objective time]. Having lost Lolita to his mysterious rival, Humbert retraces his steps across America in an attempt to recapture his erotic idyll hors-temps, but “De même que les nymphettes ne restent qu’un temps des nymphettes, le hors-temps humbertien ne saurait durer” [Just as nyphettes remain nymphettes only for a time, Humbertian timelessness cannot endure]. In passing through the looking-glass he has “tranformé l’inaccessible en irréversible” [transformed the inaccessible into the irreversible]. In the end he realizes his terrible mistake, that “Pour que puisse durer l’enchantement des chimèrers, il faut qu’elles restent chimères” [For the enchantment of chimeras to endure, they must remain chimerical]. Humbert stands on a hilltop listening to the distant voices of children at play, and “Dans cette épiphanie finale, temps, hors-temps, et contretemps s’accordent soudain comme une vérité de miracle” [In this final epiphany, time, timelessness, and disappointment are suddenly reconciled like a miraculous truth].

Fraysse, Suzanne. “Le texte tendu au lecteur: Lolita de Nabokov,” Q/W/E/R/T/Y 5 (1995), pp. 315-324.

Fraysse argues that the reader of Lolita is faced with many narrative traps, some laid by Humbert, some by Nabokov, some not definitively attributable to one or the other: “le texte … est toujours tendu au lecteur, comme piège, et comme miroir” [the text … is always laid out for the reader, like a trap, and like a mirror]. First we must decide whether the text is a confession or a plea from the accused, and Humbert’s trap “consiste ici à favoriser l’identificatioin du lecteur à un Humbert que le Humbert repenti condamne …, condamnant du même coup le lecteur ayant naïvement accepté le rôle que le texte lui offrait” [here consists of fostering the reader’s identification with a Humbert whom the repentant Humbert condamns …, condamning in the same stroke the reader having naively accepted the role the text offered him]. Judgment of Humbert becomes possible only if the reader is willing to break the rules of the game: “juger ne peut se faire en effet qu’en rupture des contrats de lecture proposés par Humbert” [in fact judgment can be passed only in breaking the reader’s contract as set forth by Humbert]. The second question relates to the veracity of Humbert’s tale. Is it truth or lies? The reader must recognize, after distinguishing between Humbert the character and Humbert the narrator, that the latter parodies the truthfulness of literary confessions, and that the documents he presents as evidence “ne peuvent avoir valeur de preuve” [cannot have any value as proofs]. The reader’s doubt as to the sincerity of the confessions “ne peut être que ravivé par l’étude des circonstances de la rédaction du manuscrit” [can only be roused by the study of the circumstances of the drafting of the manuscript]. Finally there is the question of whether Humbert’s Lolita should be considered confession fiction. Fraysse raises the possibility that the text might be Humbert’s atonement for his lie to Charlotte that the journal of his found by her contained “fragments of a novel.”

The total effect of the tricks and traps is that “Le texte fonctionne … comme miroir reflétant moins les fantasmes de son auteur que de son lecteur …. Le lecteur piégé devient donc tout naturellement un double de Humbert, une créature de Nabokov” [The text functions … like a mirror reflecting less the fantasies of its author that of its reader …. The trapped reader thus most naturally becomes a double of Humbert, a creature of Nabokov].

Machu, Didier. “Arrêt sur l’image: le tombeau de Lolita,” Q/W/E/R/T/Y 5 (1995), pp. 333-341.

Machu notes that “La passion de Humbert est marquée d’une contradiction essentielle: elle s’adresse à l’éphémère mais est perçue comme éternelle” [Humbert’s passion is marked by an essential contradiction: it concerns the ephemeral but is perceived as eternal] and sets out to discover how the transformation from one state to the other takes place. Beginning with Lolita’s precursor Annabel (who died young and was thus consigned to nymphettedom for eternity) Machu argues that Humbert, though well aware of the transient nature of nymphettes, strives to “nier le caractère de la nymphette, de la perpétuer en dépit de sa définition” [deny the nymphette’s nature, to perpetuate her despite her definition]. The first of Humbert’s strategies is to frame Lolita, “de reporter indéfiniment la possession, de délibérément demeurer hors, de maintenir une distance entre lui-même et l’objet fantasmatique de sa convoitise” [to postpone indefinitely the possession, to deliberately remain outside, to maintain a distance between himself and the object of his longing]. Photographic and cinematic imagery are discussed as means to this end. The second strategy is seclusion: Humbert imprisons Lolita in a world of his own creation in which he is king. But “Enfermant Lolita à l’intérieur de sa passion maniaque” [enclosing Lolita inside his maniacal passion] Humbert both becomes a prisoner himself and “ignore chez elle toute intériorité” [remains ignorant of any interiority in her].

At the outset “Humbert ne voulait jouir de la nymphette que sur le mode de l’imaginaire” [Humbert wanted to enjoy the nymphette only in an imaginary way]. But his relationship with Lolita crosses the boundary of the imaginary, and once she disappears, “c’est à nouveau par l’image et le verbe qu’elle se perpétue pour lui qui lui offre ‘the refuge of art’ et son immortalité toute relative” [it is once again by means of image and word that she is perpetuated for him and offers him ‘the refuge of art’ and her entirely relative immortality].

Montandon, Alain. “L’unique et sa recollection: Lolita,” Q/W/E/R/T/Y 5 (1995), pp. 343-348.

Montandon, comparing Nabokov’s passion for butterflies with Humbert’s passion for nymphettes, discusses the latter’s evocation of Lolita, noting that “Le regard de Humbert est celui d’un épieur, mais en épiant le regard crée l’objet de son désir, il crée Lolita …” [Humbert’s gaze is that of a spy, but in spying the gaze creates the object of its desire, it creates Lolita]. As a scrupulous observer of details, Humbert is compelled to recognize that Lolita changes over the course of his tale, but in immortalizing her he makes her immutable: “Cette Lolita-là est pourtant toujours la même” This Lolita is nevertheless always the same]. Humbert’s misogyny leads him to distinguish Lolita from other females, especially her mother (“deux sexes qui tous deux s’appellent anatomiquement femelle, mais qui sont évidemment le jour et la nuit” [two sexes which are both called anatomically female, but which are of course like night and day]) and to oppose her youth with maturity, especially by means of marine metaphors that establish nyphettedom as an enchanted island beyond the reach and ravages of time. Ultimately it is Humbert’s memory and imagination that engender “another fanciful Lolita … overlapping, encasing” the real girl: “L’imagination et le souvenir, papillons parnassiens—Parnassius mnemosyne—, créent cette Lolita éternelle, image rigoureusement fidèle et objective d’un visage aimé, comme un fantôme miniscule en couleurs naturelles projeté sur l’écran palpébral” [Imagination and memory, parnassian butterflies—Parnassius mnemosyne—, create this eternal Lolita, rigorously faithful and objective image of a beloved face, like a miniscule phantom in natural colors projected on the palpebral screen].

20. In writing that “Lolita ne décrit pas seulement une expérience érotique mais devient une expérience érotique en soi” [Lolita does not just describe an erotic experience, but becomes an erotic experience in itself], Chouard echoes Maurice Couturier’s characterization of Nabokov’s texts as poérotique. (See, for example, excerpts from his book Roman et censure, ou la mauvaise foi d'Eros, available in Zembla.)