Stendhal and Nabokov
Michael Dirda is one of the best literary essayist out there. He is a senior literary editor at the Washington Post newspaper. Every week he participates in a discussion, where he answers readers' questions. This week I stumbled into his discussion at just the right time, and since my literary landscape is clouded by Nabokov and Stendhal these days, I asked him the most obvious question, and here is what the answer was:
Alok, Chicago, IL: Interesting to see Stendhal sitting side by side Nabokov on your favourite writers list. What do you think of Nabokov's comment, when he called Stendhal's novels "fiction for the chambermaids" ? Don't you think Stendhal's fiction is a little too "easy", a little too "racy" to be ranked with other great literature?
Michael Dirda: No. He is the greatest all round French writer--author of two of the top 20 French novels, author of a highly original autobiography (Vie de Henry Brulard), a superb travel writer, and as inimitable a presence on the page as any writer you'll ever meet. By comparison, Nabokov is nothing but a stylist. A great stylist, yes, but in a fairly narrow vein.
2 comments:
I heartily agree. Stendhal seems to polarize readers, however. Cyril Connolly, who is otherwise an extremely discerning and reliable critic, confesses he is not a fan. One reason that Stendhal is polarizing is his lack of illusion, accompanied by a refreshing lack of self-pity or Romantic bitterness. (Of course, Stendhal is not a Romantic. He is really an 18th Century personality.)His seeming dryness can irritate people with romantic tendencies, who would like to see their own self-importance reflected in their literary heroes, and vice versa -- not by the schemers and idiots who populate Stendhal. He is also extremely funny. The book on love is endlessly ironic and hilarious, enormously entertaining and not the least bit sententious or "improving." It has no castor oil of heavy-handed moralizing, and yet it is full of truth. As for Nabokov, I simply don't understand the appeal. Lolita is a great novel, and Pale Fire was fun to read, if inconsequential. I wish I could write a single sentence like those in Laughter in the Dark--and I know I never will. But Stendhal, dead for 170 years, feels like a contemporary and a friend. Nabokov is an elegant entertainer, but never really shows us his heart or his real mind.
Enjoying your thoughtful blog.
-- Morris_Newman@sbcglobal.net
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I absolutely agree with what you say. The best part in stendhal is definitely, as you say, his lack of self-pity and romantic bitterness. And because of this there is an analytical clarity and truth in his worldview which was lacking in his romantic predecessors. He is perhaps the link which connects Flaubert to Romantics.
Thanks again for visiting and leaving the comment.
Post a Comment