Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
Ada, or Ardor
Ada, or Ardor - Nabokov 2013
>
Discussion - Week One - Ada, or Ardor - Part One, Chapter 1 - 25
date
newest »
newest »
With Ada, or Ardor, Nabokov has attempted to suspend the present, that "instant of zero duration" in the Proustian fashion of recollection and re-experiencing through the (re)reader. This is the only communion we may have with the present, already gone. It can be momentarily summoned, by smelling a certain perfume or eating a certain food... but never fully attained. Nabokov has attempted to fight Time and the encroachment of the end in this novel by suspending Time as he describes Van's adolescence in perfect, almost too perfect, prose. Every detail is fleshed out. And then corrected for authenticity by Ada. But even here, there are confusions and disagreements as to the particulars of certain events. Nabokov, although accused of being wordy and pretentious, has used three languages in his mad, nearly empirical, attempt to describe the present (as it was then remembered) and currently recalled. It is a losing battle that some of us know too well. The closer we come, the more we realize that we can never retrieve the past in it's entirety - in it's entire truth, richness, or authenticity. This is like a woman who rereads her soldier's love letter decades after his death, in hopes of (c)remaining in that moment, but Time does not wait for anyone and like gravity will not suspend us for long. We are brought crashing back to "reality," our world of half-truth and lies. But one thing does remain constant. Indisputable. And that is death. That being said, Ada is more about death than about love. Or, because it is about love, it is more pointedly a death story. In every description of Ada in the first part of the novel, we are made to confront her childishness, her immaturity, her youthful tendencies. She is a child. But she is a child marked, like all others, by death: she has "milk pallor" legs and "grave eyes." In this, we share in Van's "eternal pain" of losing Ada, not just physically from his arms to another's, from Ardis to non-Ardis ... but to the infinite forever that stalks us all our days, from first scream to last. Once the reader is aware that Van is describing his adolescence and is now a crotchety old man, we are forced to pity him and his approximation to Death. Or are we sympathizing with Van in the present he described in his youth because even then, he was aware of her association with Death? Ada is a young lepidopterologist. A young girl of 12 studying the lives of creatures whose lives span mere weeks, months? Ada is the butterfly seeking its cocoon. But it is not her physical death that we are to anticipate. But her general feeling of dying-by-days. Similarly, she is a botanist - precisely because Nabokov thought that the "flowering of the present" was possible only by the act of love and therefore, Ada becomes Van's only love. It is through her that he attempts to recall the past, primarily for her. It might be said that this novel is a novel "in remembrance of things lost," not just past. Maybe this was Nabokov's great contribution to literature, his refutation of Proust's idea that the past could be recalled. This isn't the "last 19th century Russian novel," this is the very last novel.
Mod
You make many good points, especially about how difficult it is to accurately recall the past. Have you noticed all the mentions of various kinds of technology, i.e. cars, phones, etc. It seems like some of the devices mentioned might not have been available in the years they were supposedly used. I suspect this may be part of the two narrators' faulty memories.
Also, many strange place names, which at first I thought might just be Nabokov disguising things, but now, given the narrators' semi-senility, I'm thinking it may be a technique to emphasize their age. Things like "Ex" for "Aix", and so on. BTW, where exactly is Ardis? I'm imagining south of France but sometimes I'm not so sure.
Jim wrote: "Tia wrote: "With Ada, or Ardor, Nabokov has attempted to suspend the present, that "instant of zero duration" in the Proustian fashion of recollection and re-experiencing through the (re)reader. Th..."I'm thinking Ardis is located somewhere in the Marquis de Sade's bedchamber...
And I hadn't taken note of the place names, but now that you bring them to my attention, it does appear as those places described as "Ex," & etc., are towards the beginning (and therefore the farthest from memory). Furthermore, Ardis is Greek for "point of the arrow" - as Van & Ada age and move beyond Ardis, (Greek for the point of the arrow) they are directed away from Van's time towards "objective," "real" time.
I think Nabokov is leading us away from the 19th century and its ideas/diseases... but towards what?
What do you think about Nabokov's radical restructuring of history? Do you think it has anything to do with his broader political views? I think "Amerussia" says it all - don't you?
I don't know if this is appropriate or not... but seeing as it's just you and me (so far) I thought I would c/p some of my comments from the main Ada page. (Forgive me for any repetition, but I have sharpened the edges of some of my ideas in other places and thought that they might seem more cohesive pulled together like this.)Maybe I am over-analyzing it (is it possible to over-analyze a Nabokov novel? Or is it impossible?) but Ada is probably Nabokov's greatest contribution to literature - the refutation of Proust's idea that remembrance could not only conjure but capture the past. Despite Nabokov's empirical dissection of Van's adolescent adventures, including his sexual escapades with Ada, there are inconsistencies and disagreements between the pair. I think that the addition of French and Russian only magnify this problem and Nabokov uses them to reveal the impossibility of describing the "thing as it is." Ada says "it is like" because there is no way of describing what it (really) is. Nabokov is attempting to pin down the instant of zero duration, which is impossible. And I think with this book he not only called Proust's bluff but all of ours. Tongue out, indeed.
***
Nabokov doesn't warm me at all. Instead, his ideas (not those surface notions, about sex and desire and morality) but the real essence of the thing - that it's impossible to ever know the real essence of ANY thing - makes me numb and indifferent. I'd say Nabokov motivates me to put on my mad scientist's lab coat and attempt to prove him wrong, but he's done it with Ada. There's no better attempt at it than his. And people wonder why I drink to remember, not to forget. ~ sigh ~
***
I think that Ada is meant to be a cipher and therefore sacrificed (and nonetheless adored, revered, maybe even deified) accordingly. What is really important, I think, are Van Veen's recollections of their experiences together, especially in youth, and how she constantly stops him mid-sentence to disagree with this or that fact (she never had a dress like that, she claims not to have been aware of his feelings, & etc.) Ada is the one motivates Van to remember, but Ada casts doubts on him. Ada is doubt. Ada is the negation of the assumption we can fully retrieve the past from remembrance; this is in keeping with Nabokov's descriptions of her skin being moon-white and her eyes "grave." The point of zero duration cannot be achieved, she taunts (in my mind), until Death. But then, the present folds itself under the wings of the butterfly and perishes, too.
(Sorry if this annoys you!)
Mod
I imagine it's also a part of Nabokov's own restructuring - losing his birthright and inheritance because of the revolution, exile in Europe where he lost his father to the same revolution, then emigration to the U.S. to escape the war, landing in Dolores Haze-y America and the culture shock that entailed. Then the endless Cold War between his old country and his adopted country. Maybe Van is in part a manifestation of Nabokov's aged inner-romantic and the addled recollections of his own youth.
(Sorry if this annoys you!)
Doesn't annoy me at all - but watch for spoilers for those who are reading the book but not discussing yet.
i've been ages willing to read this novel. what i found first is an intriguing web of allusions and interconnections. i had to re-read some passages. is it me or actually there are two Van Deen?
Mod
The changes in style and time and narration are very complex. At times, it's hard to say who is speaking - young Van, old Van, Ada, or Nabokov.
Jim wrote: "The changes in style and time and narration are very complex. At times, it's hard to say who is speaking - young Van, old Van, Ada, or Nabokov. "I found this to be very confusing at first, since I didn't realize that this was happening until Ada started interrupting him. After I caught on, though, it was pretty fun to see the changes in narrators.
I am really enjoying this novel. I've only read Lolita so far of Nabokov, but he is quickly becoming one of my favourite authors.
Jim, Ryan - I have seen some reviewers ask whether or not Ada even exists, or if she is just a device by which Van vivisects the past.
Any thoughts?
Mod
I have seen some reviewers ask whether or not Ada even exists, or if she is just a device by which Van vivisects the past.
Any thoughts?"
When you say "exists", do you mean in the time that Van is writing the memoir? Or did she ever exist at all?
(on p.131)This is my first read so I've opted for no training wheels (study guides, wiki's etc.) I like to use those on 2nd reads, as of course they weren't available on the day of publication... so that said I may say shit that's already been hashed over by Nabokovian scholars for decades.
I was surprised he revisited the nymphet and surprised I wasn't aware that he did. I guess people got all their ya-ya's out quizzing him about his intentions with Lolita that by the time Ada came out no one in the mainstream gave a shit. Now instead of Humbert's pedophile perspective, we get the nymphet eroticized by a 15 year old relation. The allusions in the end-notes to Lolita are a nice touch.
I'm so glad I just completed Proust's biggie this year,as Ada would not exist without the Frenchman's voluminous meditation. Not sure I felt the refutation that Tia did though.
Immediately I found Nabokov's language so much more exquisite (when in English) and I wonder if I read Proust in French his sentences would be as dazzling as I find Vlad's? Ain't gonna happen though.
So, I haven't been dwelling on the subject of memory as of yet, more on the weird alternate steam-punk reality, and the eroticism, and the mind-altering sentences.
I, personally, tend to not get too analytical with works I enjoy but really love reading other's analysis. As you said Tia, can one be too analytical with Nabokov?
Mod
That's a good way to describe it. All this talk of technologies I don't think existed in the years he's describing.
Jim wrote: "Larry wrote: "the weird alternate steam-punk reality...."That's a good way to describe it. All this talk of technologies I don't think existed in the years he's describing."
Not to mention the whole flying carpet/glider thing...
Jim wrote: "Tia wrote: "Jim, Ryan - I have seen some reviewers ask whether or not Ada even exists, or if she is just a device by which Van vivisects the past.
Any thoughts?"
When you say "exists", do you m..."
There are several points in the novel where we are led to believe that Van and Ada are one in the same, or two parts of one whole, if but fractured, identity. ("Ada-like Van," e.g.)
Tia wrote: "There are several points in the novel where we are led to believe that Van and Ada are one in the same, or two parts of one whole, if but fractured, identity. ("Ada-like Van," e.g.)I'm not quite sure I see it. Maybe as I get deeper into the novel. Or when I re-read it (as I definitely will be).
I found fascinating the way Nabokov tells the story. With several jumps in time - something I could link with Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, for instance-. One barely can discern if it's an unknown narrator or Van who are telling. Also there are many sequences that suggest me an old-fashioned novel, let's say some Tolstoi or Richardson-Fielding -maybe.Finally the erotic passages are exquisitely subtle that any other writer I know weren't able to such mastery.
I like novels that play tricks on me.
A complex family tree, an intriguing tale of incest, extravagant prose, plentiful puns and inside jokes all combine into what some call Nabokov’s “masterpiece”. In this first section, we get a glimpse of Van and Ada’s budding love and then some…
To avoid spoilers, please restrict comments to page 1 – 159.