gloryGlory is one of the novels that Vladimir Nabokov wrote in Russian and then later translated into English with his son Dmitri. It’s the deceptively straightforward story of a young man named Martin Edelweiss who shares a number of biographical details with the author: born in Russia, went to the Crimea because of the Revolution, exiled to Switzerland, educated at Cambridge. (Nabokov makes clear in the preface that he was never, however, as naive as our protagonist.)

Looking more closely, however, this novel is not a roman à clef or a fictional working-out of Speak, Memory. Rather, it is a metafiction, begun in the first chapter with the idea of fairy tales. Martin’s mother is an Anglophile, and tells him English and French fairy tales rather than Russian ones — and the rest of the book is laced and interlaced with fairy-tale motifs and references. We know from the first moment that this novel will be about stories. Then, in the second chapter, comes this vital passage:

On the bright wall above the narrow crib, with its lateral meshes of white cord and the small icon at its head (lacquered saint’s brown face framed in foil, crimson underside plush somewhat eaten by moths or by Martin himself) hung a watercolor depicting a dense forest with a winding path disappearing into its depths. Now in one of the English books that his mother used to read to him (how slowly and mysteriously she would pronounce the words and how wide she would open her eyes when she reached the end of a page, covering it with her small, lightly freckled hand as she asked, “And what do you think happened next?”) there was a story about just such a picture with a path in the woods, right above the bed of a little boy, who, one fine night, just as he was, nightshirt and all, went from his bed into the picture, onto the path that disappeared into the woods. […] When, as a youth, he recalled the past, he would wonder if one night he had not actually hopped from bed to picture, and if this had not been the beginning of the journey, full of joy and anguish, into which his whole life had turned.

Martin’s life is a romantic watercolor (the working title of the novel was Romantic Times) and we get regular reminders of it. He risks his life on a mountain ledge for the thrill of it, takes time out of his life to work as a farm laborer in a town he glimpses from the train at night, nearly falls for a shop-girl who says she’s pregnant with his child. All this is by turns pitiful and annoying to the people around him who are not running on Romantic Time.

Still, there are moments when he can make people see what he sees. Sonia, the jaded younger daughter of the Kirilovs, has never wanted to join Martin in the deep path in the watercolor woods. But for a while, the two of them create an imaginary world: Zoorland. In Zoorland, “pure arts, pure science were outlawed, lest the honest dunces be hurt to see the scholar’s brooding brow and offensively thick books.” And “Savior-and-Mauler (the sobriquet of one of the chieftains) has ordered physicians to stop casting around and to treat all illnesses in exactly the same way.” (Ahem.) But eventually, Sonia tires of the game. For Martin, it doesn’t become real, it always was real, and he develops a plan to steal illicitly across its border — the final glorious, romantic act of his life; the final clearing at the end of his watercolor path.

At the end, Martin’s friend Darwin (who is a writer, unlike Martin. Wait, let me digress a moment. His short stories are about “corkscrews, parrots, playing cards, infernal machines, reflections in water.” Does this sound like the works of anyone you know?) follows Martin onto that path into the woods, and thus becomes a work of fiction, leaving nothing behind but a little bird on a fence. It is a marvelous and peculiar book.

It is also, like everything else I’ve read by Nabokov, exquisitely written. There are passages in this novel that are some of the most breathtakingly beautiful prose — there’s a part where Martin as a young boy is riding in a train at night, and he’s pulled up the shade to look out, and I could feel the train sway. It’s echoed later by a similar scene when he’s enticed by the village lights he sees from a night train in France. These echoes and re-echoes (the path crossing itself? the story deliberately telling itself as story?) are sometimes subtle and sometimes beautifully lush. I was pulled along by the writing as much as by the events.

I had an interesting experience about this. I mentioned online that Nabokov makes the very best sentences. Most people didn’t respond at all, but of those who did, two people responded along the lines of a suggestion that good sentences are the opposite of good novels — that good prose is kind of “up itself” and too fancy, and that a good stylist has probably forgotten the main job of moving the plot along. Obviously I don’t agree with this. But do you? Do you think good writing interferes with a good novel? And if so, what makes a good novel for you?

This entry was posted in Fiction. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Glory

  1. Pallavi Modi says:

    I am yet to read Nabokov but this review did the trick for me. Thanks for writing this beautiful piece.

  2. I loved your review. I have yet to read anything by him but you just convinced me

  3. Elle says:

    The idea that good writing interferes with a good novel is absurd to me – I’m with you! But I also think that “good writing” isn’t necessarily the overblown lyricism that some people think it is (the idea that All the Light We Cannot See or Anne Michaels’s novel Fugitive Pieces are “beautifully written”, for instance; they’re not, they’re just gnomic.) So it’s probably at least in part a problem of competing definitions.

    • Jenny says:

      I am so delighted you agree with me about All the Light We Cannot See, Elle. I dislike that kind of writing (and had other issues with the novel as well.) I definitely don’t insist that prose be Hemingway-sparse! It can be lots of things. So one definition is probably never going to cut it anyway.

  4. Kind of a horror-story twist ending there at the end of your post. I will try to pretend I did not see it.

    Here we have James Wood tossing off some amusing but more or less accurate observations on the “absolutely ravishing” Glory. “[I]t must be one of the most idea-free novels of its genre in literature.”

  5. Teresa says:

    Good sentences don’t make a good novel, but it seems weird to say good sentences are the opposite of a good novel. I think the ideal is to have both good prose style and a good story, and what each of those elements looks like can vary–and readers will not always agree on the definitions.I know I go through phases where I’m more interested in story than prose style (and vice versa), but my ideal is excellence in both.

Leave your comment here, and feel free to respond to others' comments. We enjoy a lively conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.