Subject
Query re "The Real Life of Sebastian Knight" (fwd)
Date
Body
From: Ryan Asmussen (rra@bu.edu)
Having just put down RLSK for the third or fourth time, I feel still unsure
as to the "Real" authorship of the book, and was hoping here to start a
discussion thread and arrive at some varying interpretations. Boyd's take
on the matter -- that "Sebastian is I" -- I've always felt to be an
excellent one and one I formerly would have, if challenged, held to in a
debate. On the other hand, after reading Michael H. Begnal's "The
Fledgling Fictionalist" (available on ZEMBLA) -- in which he provides a
very thought-provoking "I am Sebastian" argument -- I am now not so sure.
Persuasive points on both sides, really, so much so in fact that I'm almost
tempted to think that VN intentionally (and perhaps perversely) fashioned a
closely intertwined network of possibility; that he, in other words,
created a perfectly plausable (in artistic terms) dual authorship. It all
seems to me to hang on the enigmatic Mr. Silbermann. Either he is a
completely convenient fiction fashioned by V. from a character of
Sebastian's, or he is indeed one guided by Sebastian's spirit, perhaps
chosen by Knight because of his 'fictional' resemblances, in order to
further V.'s search. If one can decide the substance from which this major
'idea' has been created, the rest of the issues should, one way or another,
fall into place. I should add that, as we're operating on an almost
meta-metafictional standard here, all of this may be considered so much
hooey and might compel one to simply say, "The author of the novel is
Vladimir Nabokov" (the same dismissal would hold true, of course, for "Pale
Fire"), if not give up the task of figuring it all out altogether.
Two of my main objections to each of the arguments, the Boyd and the
Begnal, respectively: (a) Why would such an original artist as Sebastian,
whose work clearly showed a constant upward achievement, permit himself
such a relapse into former patterns and colors as in retooling the scenario
of his first book, "The Prismatic Bezel"? Shouldn't his 'latest' book,
let's say (as opposed to saying "The Real Life of Sebastian Knight"), if
anything, be completely new and different from his previous works? (b) V.
seems to me too earnest, too intelligent, too honest to fabricate a life in
such a way as the dishonorable Mr. Goodman did. Doesn't much of the book's
impetus, at least initially, come from a desire on V.'s part NOT to
approach biography in the way of that bloodsucker? To trace, instead, the
harmonies and nuances that best reflected the man as artist, and not
instead as social construct? Begnal argues, if I'm correct in saying so,
that V. becomes frustrated in his attempt and as a result turns to
Sebastian's fiction itself to supply the missing information. If this is
so, he is guilty of the same crime as Goodman, yet I cannot see in the text
anything that would lead me to believe that V. would ever operate on this
low literary plane. People write of the essentially lazy and passive
nature of V., but I would argue that he is relatively dynamic and that it
is his modesty which prevents him from admitting he is a fine writer (which
he clearly is). He doesn't seem an author in need of help, except of
course in the way of actually attaining what he feel he needs to know as
his half-brother's biographer.
Unfortunately, I haven't, I don't think, rendered my opinions all that well
(being in the middle of work as I am), but hopefully have brought enough
out on the table to engage some of you in discussion. Naturally, I haven't
taken into account here any of the other RLSK criticism; I hope to read
some examples from posters.
Best,
Ryan
Having just put down RLSK for the third or fourth time, I feel still unsure
as to the "Real" authorship of the book, and was hoping here to start a
discussion thread and arrive at some varying interpretations. Boyd's take
on the matter -- that "Sebastian is I" -- I've always felt to be an
excellent one and one I formerly would have, if challenged, held to in a
debate. On the other hand, after reading Michael H. Begnal's "The
Fledgling Fictionalist" (available on ZEMBLA) -- in which he provides a
very thought-provoking "I am Sebastian" argument -- I am now not so sure.
Persuasive points on both sides, really, so much so in fact that I'm almost
tempted to think that VN intentionally (and perhaps perversely) fashioned a
closely intertwined network of possibility; that he, in other words,
created a perfectly plausable (in artistic terms) dual authorship. It all
seems to me to hang on the enigmatic Mr. Silbermann. Either he is a
completely convenient fiction fashioned by V. from a character of
Sebastian's, or he is indeed one guided by Sebastian's spirit, perhaps
chosen by Knight because of his 'fictional' resemblances, in order to
further V.'s search. If one can decide the substance from which this major
'idea' has been created, the rest of the issues should, one way or another,
fall into place. I should add that, as we're operating on an almost
meta-metafictional standard here, all of this may be considered so much
hooey and might compel one to simply say, "The author of the novel is
Vladimir Nabokov" (the same dismissal would hold true, of course, for "Pale
Fire"), if not give up the task of figuring it all out altogether.
Two of my main objections to each of the arguments, the Boyd and the
Begnal, respectively: (a) Why would such an original artist as Sebastian,
whose work clearly showed a constant upward achievement, permit himself
such a relapse into former patterns and colors as in retooling the scenario
of his first book, "The Prismatic Bezel"? Shouldn't his 'latest' book,
let's say (as opposed to saying "The Real Life of Sebastian Knight"), if
anything, be completely new and different from his previous works? (b) V.
seems to me too earnest, too intelligent, too honest to fabricate a life in
such a way as the dishonorable Mr. Goodman did. Doesn't much of the book's
impetus, at least initially, come from a desire on V.'s part NOT to
approach biography in the way of that bloodsucker? To trace, instead, the
harmonies and nuances that best reflected the man as artist, and not
instead as social construct? Begnal argues, if I'm correct in saying so,
that V. becomes frustrated in his attempt and as a result turns to
Sebastian's fiction itself to supply the missing information. If this is
so, he is guilty of the same crime as Goodman, yet I cannot see in the text
anything that would lead me to believe that V. would ever operate on this
low literary plane. People write of the essentially lazy and passive
nature of V., but I would argue that he is relatively dynamic and that it
is his modesty which prevents him from admitting he is a fine writer (which
he clearly is). He doesn't seem an author in need of help, except of
course in the way of actually attaining what he feel he needs to know as
his half-brother's biographer.
Unfortunately, I haven't, I don't think, rendered my opinions all that well
(being in the middle of work as I am), but hopefully have brought enough
out on the table to engage some of you in discussion. Naturally, I haven't
taken into account here any of the other RLSK criticism; I hope to read
some examples from posters.
Best,
Ryan