Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire is one of the great novels of the post-War era—of the English-language.[1] Such a superlative requires some vindication. Allow me. What constitutes a great novel? Well, one could have long, laborious dialectical discussions on such a question only to end up with what they had from the beginning: nothing. Subjectivity is a merciless paradox. All and none are correct. And when one criticizes literature, music, film, or the arts etc. etc., the need for order becomes an imperative.[2] So in order to evaluate, one must first create some boundaries—ultimately understanding said boundaries are illusory, but still necessary. Once perimeters are agreed justifiable, establishment follows. When one individual sets the borders alone, he or she freely accepts them and thus plays within his or her own rules—free to change them whenever it behooves the individual. This becomes inadequate when applying critical analyses on a macro-level. Therefore when dealing with a broader scale, the communal element must apply. At this point, the critic looks at the other great literary solons of both past and present. Once he or she can reach an agreement with the community (in this case: an agreement on the attributes of a “Great” novel), the boundaries can be established.[3] Looking back, when one thinks of some of the capital G “Greats” (i.e. the “Greatest Novels of the English-Language in Such-And-Such-An-Epoch”) what comes to mind?[4] According to the Modern Library (a subsidiary of Random House publishing), the best novel of the twentieth century was James Joyce’s Ulysses.[5] Larry McCaffery (well-known literary critic and former professor of post-modern literature) wrote in the American Book Review in 1999, that Pale Fire was the greatest 20th Century novel, stating: “[Pale Fire is the] most audaciously conceived novel of the century-and the most perfectly executed-this is also the book whose existence could have been the most difficult to anticipate in the year 1900.”[6] Indeed. Others claim Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, de Cervantes’ Don Quixote, even Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as the jötnar of their literary realm. Irrespective of what novel sits atop the conjectural lists, one can begin to notice broad, overarching similarities between the novels. These similarities become the foundations for judging a novel as a Great. Most of the Greats contain some acute observation of the “human condition” or the world humanity inhabits and the symbiotic relationship between both.[7] The Greats often succeed in revealing realities within the contexts of fantasy. And at times a novel is considered a masterpiece because it per se revolutionizes the literary world—like Joyce’s Ulysses.[8] All the while entertaining the reader.[9] The Greats do all of these in some capacity with much gravitas, a balance of quality and quantity, pious yet playful. Pale Fire is one of these novels. It addresses humanity’s struggle with mortality, and the relationship Art plays in the struggle. Whilst simultaneously exploring the form and structure of fictional writing—creating a novel novel. Like Ulysses, it is a novel for literature, and like Moby Dick, it is as much for the masses. While literary critics, scholars, or those with a penchant for such, will lionize the novel for its many allusions to other bodies of work or the unique structure and impact on the post-modern literary world; the casual reader (with enough patience and keen eye) will appreciate the underlying moral, and have fun navigating the labyrinth Nabokov created.
[1] Of course, this entire review is the personal opinion of one individual. Subjectivity is not irrevocable.
[2] Note: Criticism is not meant pejoratively here, rather a formal intellectual judgment, or observation.
[3] This does not always come to fruition—these things seldom do. Often times a loose nucleus is created in which dissenting opinions form the outer nebulous, and the conforming ones draw closer to one point. Never a true establishment, but when building a house of cards one must accept instability.
[4] Answering this question will help answer the initial one.
[5] Modern Library, “100 Best Novels: The Board’s List,” Random House, Inc., http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/ (accessed August 5, 2011). Many readers are of the opinion James Joyce’s Ulysses ranks high above the rest. Indeed a solid paragon, but often an overused standard that, ironically, diminishes the greatness of the novel.
[6] Larry McCaffery, “The 20th Century's Greatest Hits: 100 English Language Books of Fiction,” American Book Review 20, vol. 6 (1999). McCaffery placed Joyce’s Ulysses in second, Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow in third, and Ellison’s Invisible Man and DeLillo’s Underworld in the top twenty—even including Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho on the list. A man after this critic’s own heart. For the entire list: http://www.spinelessbooks.com/mccaffery/100/index.html
[7] “Human condition” consumes every aspect of being “human” in multiple conditions (i.e. philosophy, psychology, sociology, biology, anthropology, theology, cultural studies, economics, etc. etc.).
[8] Debate still carries on in certain circles about how much impact Ulysses had on the literary world, but little doubt can be had for what the novel meant for the Modernist movement.
[9] Or, at least, enough of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment