Caitlin Lawrence Professor Karla Armbruster ENGL 4500 17 December 2010 Invitation to a Beheading: A Criticism Chronicle The evil

minded will perceive in little Emmie a sister of little Lolita, and the disciples of the Viennese witch-doctor will snicker over it in their grotesque
world of communal guilt.

Nabokov: Forward to Invitation to a Beheading The first readers of Vladimir Nabokovs 1935-6 serial novel Invitation to a Beheading were Russian migrs like himselfbourgeois, intellectual, and blacklisted. It is not surprising that the subject of this audiences exile should play a major role in their interpretation of the novel; they saw in Nabokovs dreamworld a dystopia that reflected the plight of freethinkers in a repressive society (Connolly 6). In his particularly Nabokovian manner of handling critics, the author responds in 1959: I composed the Russian original exactly a quarter of a century ago in Berlin, some fifteen years after escaping from the Bolshevist regime, and just before the Nazi regime reached its full volume of welcome. The question whether or not my seeing both in terms of one dull beastly farce had any effect on this book, should concern the good reader as little as it does me (5). Nabokov frequently attempted to steer his critics away from interpretations he deemed false or shallow. He wanted his critics to focus on his novels as aesthetic objects, not reflections of society, politics, the unconscious, the author, etc. While this didnt keep his more widely read workssuch as Lolita and Pale Firefrom the disciples of the Viennese witch-doctor, the critics of Invitation to a Beheading have adhered surprisingly well to the authors dictums. When I speak of critics of Invitation to a Beheading, it must be understood that this is a peculiar collection of people. The casual Nabokov scholar (as his critics like to call Lawrence 1

themselves) does not bother with Invitation. English-speaking criticsand I focus only on thesewho write about this particular novel typically write about Nabokov on a regular basis; in fact, most have written full books on the author. Nabokovs English critics tend to be familiar with the novels Russian criticism as well. Some of them, like Nabokov, write in both languages. This complicates a study of criticism because the English critics sometimes reference Russian essays. This presents a disheartening challenge to exhaustiveness. Even so, a study of Invitations English criticism is not without its rewards, if only due to the fascinating object of study. Invitation to a Beheading takes place in a nightmarish, theatrical realm. At the start, the writer Cincinnatus C. is sentenced to death for gnostical turpitude1 He has known himself to be guilty of this crime since childhood, but has managed to hide it until now. He is imprisoned in a fortress and tormented by Roman the prosecutor, Rodion the jailer, Rodrig the prison director, and Emmie, Rodrigs young daughter. To demonstrate the surreality of the novel, Rodion and Rodrig sometimes switch heads. Cincinnatus spends his time daydreaming (which he is forbidden to do), writing in his diary, and attempting to escape. Midway through his month-long captivity, Cincinnatus is awoken by the sounds of a fellow prisoner digging his way through the walls. This prisoner, Pierre, is Cincinnatus executioner. The surreal etiquette of the prison demands that the executioner be appointed the official friend of the jailed, and Cincinnatus is forced to smell, listen to, and play checkers with the sweating, bombastic cheat. At the novels close, Cincinnatus is finally led to the execution block. As Pierres ax swings, Cincinnatus finally breaks free of the prison that is that surreal world and prepares to ascend to another

The definition of this charge is subject to much debate. Loosely, it means that C. C. is real or opaque, in contrast to his surreal and translucent captors.

Lawrence 2

realm. The square where he was to be executed, along with the rest of the world, goes up in smoke.2 A few words should be said on the general trends in Invitations serious English criticism. Earlier criticism (1967-1987) is objective, focusing on its structures, themes, devices, or a combination of these. Exceptions include Pifer and Peterson, whose mimetic approach champions Invitation as more real than 19th century realism. In 1987, Grossman leads a shift toward expressive criticism, particularly what the novel reveals about the authors own philosophical views. This does not overshadow objective criticism, however, which continues into this millennium. Little serious criticism directly followed the 1959 release of Dmitri Nabokovs translation of his fathers novel,3 perhaps frightened away by the authors forward (quoted above). The first influential words on the novel, besides those of Nabokovs forward, are written by Andrew Field in his 1967 book Nabokov: His Life in Art. Field does not focus on one particular device or motif many of the ideas he fleetingly presents are later explored by other critics. According to Field, the major theme in Invitation is the plight of the artist. He states that the world of Invitation to a Beheading is truly totalitariannot only in regime but also in culture. Cincinnatus family condemns him just as readily as the judge. He discusses Cincinnatus relationship to his foil, Pierre, who is the best, most fleshed-out example of the nightmarish society (Pierre is, Field points out, exceedingly Gogolian4). Invitation can be read as a commentary on the disparity between art and life, a political commentary, and a fable, among other things. The primary transgression of the early Russian critics, Fields states, is the focus on
2

Like all great novels, Invitation defies summary. Ludmilla Foster says it well: the novel is a phenomenon of language, not of ideas. 3 The first and only translation into English. Vladimir Nabokov himself edited it. 4 Gogolian here means characterized by postlost , which is a Russian term meaning "petty evil or selfsatisfied vulgarity" (Alexandrov 106) paired with banality.

Lawrence 3

only one possible interpretation without allowing for other interpretations. The idea that the novel should be interpreted in many different ways, rather than one, dominates criticism to this day. In her mimetic piece Nabokovs Invitation to a Beheading: The Parody of a Tradition, published in 1970, Ellen Pifer focuses on Nabokovs subversion of the realistic tradition in literature. Invitation is Nabokovs statement that reality does not exist even in the real world that it only exists in our perception of it. Using E. M. Foresters comments on realistic fiction, Pifer claims that Cincinnatus world represents the novel as Forrester describes it, subverted by Nabokov. She interprets him as saying that as hard as realists try to accurately depict reality, they must still depend on literary tricks, much like Cincinnatus captors depend on theatrical tricks. By allowing Cincinnatus to break from the novel, Nabokov displays his disdain for realism: art is art, and should not attempt to imitate life. Pifers claims are later echoed by Dale Peterson. In her 1974 article Nabokovs Gnostic Turpitude: The Surrealistic Vision of Reality in Priglaenie na kazn, 5 Ludmilla Foster also touches upon many aspects of the novels theme that are later expanded upon by other critics. Although she writes in English, she focuses solely on the Russian text. She is the last English critic to do this. First, she addresses previous interpretations, which tend to focus on the novel as a political dystopia (yes, she says, but more), Cincinnatus as an Everyman (no, hes a privileged being, an individual), or Cincinnatus as an artist in the process of creating the world of his imagination from which he departs into reality (no, she says, Cincinnatus is not the narrator). Her interpretation of the novel focuses on life as a nightmare, the binary pair real/ideal (Nabokovs description of the world/Cincinnatus depiction of himself), in which reality is devoid of logic, rationality, and causality (118). She compares the novel to the Gogolian
5

Invitation to a Beheadings Russian title

Lawrence 4

tradition, which has been explored before by migr critics and Field, and to European modernism, which is an entirely new comparison.6 Echoes of Nabokovs own assertions are found in her final statement that Invitation is a phenomenon of language,7 not of ideas (political or otherwise). D. Barton Johnson is the first English critic to extensively analyze a specific motif. In The Alpha and Omega: Alphabetic Iconism in Invitation to a Beheading, first published in 1978, he explores the way Nabokov uses the physical shape of letters as a device in many of his novels, but most obviously and importantly in Invitation. Letters are frequently brought up in the narrativethe same day Cincinnatus learns the alphabet, he loses his innocence; his job is to work with children in Division F, fita in Russian, which is also the word for retarded. Also in Russian, Cincinnatus name and that of his foil (and executioner) begin with the mirror-letters and , respectively. Johnson draws special attention to imagery that focus on single-letters and points to the fact that Nabokov took special care to make sure this imagery translated sensically into English.8 He concludes by commenting on the sparse nature of the plotsimple, he claims, in order to allow more attention to be invested in the devices and main themethe striving of the prisoner to break free of the prison-house of language9 through writing. Johnsons thoughtful exploration of letter-play is later expanded upon by Gavriel Shapiro. Petersons 1981 essay Nabokov's Invitation: Literature as Execution is the first to be particularly interested in the readers role in the narrative web of Invitation to a Beheading.
6 7

To my knowledge i.e., brilliant turns of phrases, imagery, and puns, as well as less obvious phenomenon such that described by Johnson in the next paragraph 8 Note that he turns to expressive criticism for a moment to support a point about the object. 9 Johnson borrows this idea from Frederick Jameson, who borrows it from Nietzsche: "We have to cease to think, if we refuse to do it in the prison house of language; for we cannot reach further than the doubt which asks whether the limit we see is really a limit." Friedrich Nietzsche

Lawrence 5

Like Pifer, Peterson attempts to raise the worth of the novel by comparing it to realism. He begins by describing Nabokovs insistence that his novels not be interpreted was vehicles for great ideas or real life. He states that Iris Murdoch is incorrect in her dismissal of what she terms 20th century crystalline fiction in favor of the realist novels of the 19th century, which she terms moral fiction. Peterson claims that Nabokov, in his seemingly crystalline novel, exposes, in the form of an opaque parable, why writing that purports to respect real life must not seek to reproduce it (825) and that moral fiction is fiction that makes no pretense of being identical with given reality, or even a substitute for it.Throughout his essay, he explores the novels complexities and mocks the reader who finds it to be simply a crystalline parable. Petersons reading of Invitation to a Beheading breaks away from Pifers with the statement that the reader is executing Cincinnatus C. just as surely as he is turning pagesin fact, he is executing Cincinnatus C. by turning pages. He draws the analogy between the prisoner in an autocracy and a character in a plot. Unlike other characters, however, Cincinnatus is vaguely aware that he is trapped in the confines of a novel. In the end, Peterson suggests, he transcends the novel, escaping both the piecemeal, nightmarish world of the book and the novel itselfCincinnatus lives on in the readers mind and through criticism. So far, no line of criticism has fallen neatly into a particular school. In 1982, however, D. Barton Johnson publishes another essay on Invitation called Spatial Modeling and Deixis: Nabokovs Invitation to a Beheading, this time taking a structural approach based in the theories of Jurij Lotman. Johnson focuses on the here/there, now/then, and this/that oppositions deeply ingrained in the novel. These diexical words are used in high frequency throughout the book. Johnson points out the high significance of these words when determining what belongs to the surreal world and what belongs to the real world, the world that Cincinnatus escapes to at

Lawrence 6

the end of the novel. He also discusses thematic oppositions, including transparent/opaque, theatre/reality, reality/art, and metaphysical/geographical. Each of these binary pairs contains a good element and a bad element. Cincinnatus is at the center of the structure, attempting to escape the here in favor of the there. Johnson states that Nabokov uses deixical oppositions intentionally to ground his highly surreal novel and enrich the linguistic structure. While not as influential as his previously discussed essay, Johnsons structural analysis provides an in-depth analysis of binary oppositions also explored by later critics. In his 1984 book Motives for Fiction, Robert Alter takes on numerous critics who claim that Nabokovs novel is self enclosed, sterile, and therefore minor and that it carelessly dismisses totalitarianism (clearly a force to be reckoned with). He grounds these critics reasoning in the humanist tradition, especially in the tradition of Arnolds idea of the moral novel. He argues that Invitation constantly compares good art and bad art: pairing good art with the novel itself and Cincinnatus, and bad artwhich is sentimental and misguidedwith totalitarianism. 10 He notes that Invitation is self conscious art in both medium and moral mode, and that the novel affirms the persistence of man against the worlds increasing brutality. Alter asserts that Nabokov is expressing a political statement about art, not about politics. In 1987, Robert Grossman introduces a line of thought entirely new to Invitations English criticismthat Nabokov expresses his own beliefs about the nature of the universe11 through his use of Gnostic motifs. Grossmans draws from a loose tradition of Gnostic thought that borrowed freely from Greek, Oriental, pagan hermeneutic, and Judeo-Christian sources.

10 11

Both the totalitarianism of the world of Invitation and totalitarianism in general Nabokov never makes these beliefs entirely clear. His son Dmitri has stated that Vladimir would not fully reveal his philosophy even to his wife and son.

Lawrence 7

Nabokovs use of Gnostic motifs has been mentioned before,12 but never with the implications given to them by Grossman. It is these implicationsthat the novel ultimately [states that] we are all exiles and death is our only return (59)perhaps, that condemn Grossman to rarely being mentioned by later critics who focus on Invitations Gnostic tendencies. His relative obscurity could also be caused by his confession of having not Russian (68). Even though he is not named, other scholars build on his ideas. 13 To summarize Grossmans arguments, the novel is centered in Gnostic ideas (which include Neoplatonism, pagan Hermenics, and Christian gnosis). Because Gnosticism is more of a loosely collected set images and ideas rather than a unified doctrine, this center is somewhat difficult to discern. Keys to seeing Invitation as a Gnostic narrative include the premise of the novel: that Man, or a man, is condemned to die and awaits in prison the [date] of his execution (53). Cincinnatus prison is the entire physical universe, including his own body, just like the Gnostics prison. He possesses within him the divine spark of the Gnostics that sets him apart from his physical world and also marks him as belonging to the highest tier of man in the Gnostics three levels of anthropological reality: the spiritual man, the soulish man, and the carnal man. Other noted Gnostic metaphors include life as sleep or nightmare, the shedding of corporal layers in the assent from the world after death, and the spiral as the symbolic escape from the unending circle. Leona Toker devotes a chapter of her 1989 book Nabokov: Mysteries of Literary Structures to Invitation to a Beheading. She incorporates more biographical implications than Nabokov scholars to date; to illustrate, she notes that determinacy is always at play in Invitation to a Beheading, just as it was a major factor of Nabokovs migr lifestyle in 1930s Berlin. This
12 13

Sergei Davydov spends a great deal of time on them, but his Russian studies remain untranslated. These scholars might actually be building on Davydov, who seems to have many of the same insights as Grossman. Grossman, however, is the closest we can get.

Lawrence 8

indeterminacy is interpretive, lexical, and structural all at once. The novel as a whole (as well as certain, separable sequences) can be interpreted in many, many ways. However, none of these interpretations can make complete sense. Lexically, Cincinnatus is frequently at odds with gaps in his vocabulary; he cannot express everything he is thinking with the language system he has been given. Structural inconsistencies are evident not just in the structure of the prison-world, where characters switch heads, vanish, and deconstruct themselves, but also in the structure of the novel itself, which contains inconsistence of plot detail and logical incompatibility between contiguous scenes (135). Rather than authors of dystopian fiction before him, Nabokov does not lay out specifics, but rather uses a web of ambiguity that, impossible to untangle, tips its hat to the ambiguities and dissimilarities or reality. These ambiguities cause readers to pause and consider what the reason for the hiccup could be. See Oles 1995 essay for a deeper look into the silences, or gaps, of the novel. In 1991, Vladimir Alexandrov writes a study, "The Otherworld in Invitation to a Beheading," that, like Grossmans, focuses on Gnostic motifs. He focuses most heavily on Neoplatonist and metaphysical themes. He argues that Cincinnatus has a metaphysical double, who escapes the nightmare world only when the physical Cincinnatus dies. This double has an occult influence on Cincinnatus, occasionally granting him more knowledge than he would otherwise have. This is seen through Cincinnatus odd insights in diary entries. Alexandrov also argues that Cincinnatus is the only essentially good character in the novel because he is connected to the second, metaphysical world to which he ascends at the end of the novel. This metaphysical otherworld is contrasted with Cincinnatus immediate surroundingsa theatrical simulacrum that doesnt quite make sense. The Platonic implicationsthose of Cincinnatus there as a world of Formshere are clear. Alexandrov, in departure from Grossman, insists

Lawrence 9

that the metaphysical otherworld should be placed at the center of the novel, rather than Gnostic subtext. In 1998, Gavriel Shapiro becomes the first and only critic to devote an entire book to the novel. Delicate Markers: Subtexts in Vladimir Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading explores said subtexts in greater depth than they ever have been before. He analyses Nabokovs use of alphabetic chromesthesia and the implications of this use in his choices of character names.14 His chapter on allusions to Russian writers connects Invitation to writers such as Pushkin, Gogol, Zhukovsky, and Chernislovsky. He posits that the indistinct nature of these allusions add to the atmosphere of mysteriousness as well as suggest that the reader should compare the characters and devices of Invitation to these authors works. Links to Christian tradition and iconography are extensively explored, including the Salome motif, the Christ motif, and distinctly Christian binary pairs such as Christ/Antichrist (Cincinnatus/Pierre). Unlike Grossman or Alexandrov, Shapiro treats religious and semi-religious elements simply as subtext, not as indications of Nabokovs own beliefs. An entire chapter draws parallels with Baudelaires Flowers of Evil, a connection frequently mentioned but hardly explored. Shapiros book is well-researched and exhaustive, making it a difficult act to follow. The next 2001, Dana Dragunoius Vladimir Nabokovs Invitation to a Beheading and the Russian Radical Tradition takes Invitation criticism down an odd path. As the title suggests, Dragunoiu is primarily concerned with the implications of radical politics of the novel, asserting that Nabokov himself said that the novel is in direct connection with the times we live in in a 1938 letter. This quote is not mentioned in any previous criticism and is directly at odds with Nabokovs statements in his introduction to the English edition. Dragunoius focus on the politics of Invitation (the real politics, not the aesthetic politics of
14

This aspect of the novel was previously explored by Johnson, summarized above.

Lawrence 10

Alter) directly disobeys Nabokovs demand that politics be left out of interpretations of Invitation. Finally, Timothy Langons 2004 article The Ins and Outs of Invitation to a Beheading uses mathematics to explore the concept of in/out in the novel. He follows Leona Tokers study of the role of indeterminacy in the novel and is also strongly influenced by Johnson. Indeterminacy is at the center of the novel, he claims. His most memorable suggestion lies in his comparison of the world of Invitation to a Mbius strip, which implies that Cincinnatus otherworld will not be a true escape, but simply the flip-side to the world he already knows. Langens article is the most recent piece of published criticism on Invitation to a Beheading. Whether they choose to focus on issues of realism, thematic motifs, or philosophical implications, Invitations critics agree on one thingthe novel is a wonderfully complex and interesting read. Due to the highly surreal, symbolic, and artful nature of Invitation to a Beheading, most agree that there is no single correct interpretation. This is one of its many charms. Some of Invitations critics are quite good at expanding upon the novels charms. Johnson and Shapiro, especially, provide an excellent synthesis of information from Nabokovs autobiography, as well as mythic allusions and Russian literary history, which enhances the readers understanding of Invitations motifs. It is these authors, who adhered closest to Nabokovs critical demands, that provide the most interesting and revealing studies of the text. It would seem that Nabokovs heavy-handed meddling deserves merit. We cannot help but wonder, however, if Nabokovs influence caused some harm. A thoughtful psychoanalytic study could have added an interesting dimension to the criticism.

Lawrence 11

Several other schools of theoryincluding Marxist and postmodern theorieshave stayed away from this text, perhaps to the detriment of its body of criticism. For now, though, the best Invitation criticism remains true to the authors wishes. Considering the trends of the last fifty years, its a pleasant anomaly.

Works Consulted

Lawrence 12

Alexandrov, Vladimir. "The Otherworld in Invitation to a Beheading." Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading: A Critical Companion. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1997. 93118. First printed in Alexandrovs Nabokovs Otherworld in 1991. Alter, Robert. "Nabokov and the Art of Politics." Motives for Fiction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. 61-75. Blackwell, Stephen. Reading and Rupture in Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading The Slavic and East European Journal. 39.1 (1995):38-53. JSTOR. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. Like Peterson, Blackwell focuses on the significance of reading to the form and theme of the novel. He particularly focuses on the vital role of rupture in the process of reading the novel, ruptures which heighten the readers sense of the narrated world. He also traces Cincinnatus personal reading experiences in relation to the events of the novel, as well as his writing experiences, which tend to happen directly after a reading experience. After chronicling experiences of both Cincinnatus as a reader and the reader (as a reader), Blackwell states that The reading and the protagonist both are engaged in creating a world through reading. Boegeman, Margaret Byrd. "Invitation to a Beheading and the Many Shades of Kafka." Nabokov's Fifth Arc. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. 105-121. Originally published in 1978 as The Alpha and Omega of Nabokovs Prisonhouse of Language: Alphabetic Iconism in Invitation to a Beheading in Russian Literature. Boegeman spends pages speculating on Nabokovs precise relationship with Kafka, of whom he claimed to be ignorant despite similarities in Invitations structure to The Trials. She also claims that Invitation is a fable without a moral and explores Invitations relationship

Lawrence 13

with some of Nabokovs other works, including The Gift and The Real Life of Sebastian Knight. Connolly, Julian W. "Invitation to a Beheading: Nabokov's 'Violin in a Void'." Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading: A Critical Companion. Ed: Julian W. Connolly. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1997. 3-44. Connolly provides a commentary of Invitations criticism through 1997. Drangunoiu, Dana. "Vladimir Nabokovs Invitation to a Beheading and the Russian Radical Tradition." Journal of Modern Literature 25.1 (2001): 53-69. Project Muse. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. Field, Andrew. "Nabokov: His Life in Art." Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1967. 185-196. Grossmith, Robert. "Spiralizing the Circle: The Gnostic Subtext in Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading."Essays in Poetics: The Journal of the British Neo-Formalist School . 12.2 (1987): 51-74. Johnson, D. Barton. "The Alpha and Omega in Invitation to a Beheading." Worlds in Regression: Some Novels of Vladimir Nabokov. Ann Arbor: Ardis Publishers, 1985. 2846. Originally published in 1978 as The Alpha and Omega of Nabokovs Prisonhouse of Language: Alphabetic Iconism in Invitation to a Beheading in Russian Literature. Johnson, D. Barton. Spatial Modeling and Deixis: Nabokovs Invitation to a Beheading. Poetics Today. (1982): 81-98. JSTOR. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. Langen, Timothy. "The Ins and Outs of Invitation to a Beheading." Nabokov Studies (2004): 5970. Project Muse. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

Lawrence 14

Nabokov, Vladimir. Invitation to a Beheading. Trans. Dmitri Nabokov. New York: Vintage, 1989. This translation by Dmitri Nabokov was created in collaboration with the author, his father. Oles, Brian Thomas. "Silence and the Ineffable in Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading." Nabokov Studies (1995): 191-212. Project Muse. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. Oles builds on Alexandrovs analysis of Neoplatonic themes in Invitation. He focuses on the privilege given to silence over speech. Cincinnatuss silences, which occur frequently when confronted by his captors, represent a lack that will later be filled by the language of the otherworld (there). Therefore, silence represents there. This interpretation suggests that other sometimes-silent characters, namely Cincinnatuss mother, Cecilia, and the prison librarian, are also connected to the otherworld. Peterson, Dale E. "Nabokov's Invitation: Literature as Execution." PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 96.5 (1981): 824-836. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 7 Nov. 2010. Pifer, Ellen. "Breaking the Law of Averages: Invitation to a Beheading." Nabokov and the Novel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. 49-67. Pifer focuses on the binary pairs individual/state and true art/creaky theatrics. The dystopian world of Invitation represents a totalitarian governments demand that the individual submit. She states that Invitation represents the triumph of the human consciousness over average reality. Cincinnatus is able to change the world he lives in simply by changing his perception of it. Despite the high surreality of the novel, this triumph is very real. Pifer, Ellen. Nabokovs Invitation to a Beheading: The Parody of a Tradition. Pacific Coast Philology (1970): 46-53. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.

Lawrence 15

Shapiro, Gavriel. Delicate Markers: Subtexts in Vladimir Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading. New York: Peter Lang, 1998. Toker, Leona. "Invitation to a Beheading: 'Nameless Existence, Intangible Substance'." Nabokov: Mysteries of Literary Structures. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. 123141.

Lawrence 16