Nabokov's Speak, Memory

The main difference I see between Nabokov and McCourt is a sense of story. McCourt’s childhood narrator immerses us in a linear timeline. The reader has a story to follow and becomes invested in the narrator and characters. With Nabokov, the reader has to become invested in his obsession of butterflies in order to continue reading. Nabokov makes this easier with his elegant imagery and style, but the story is more about his butterflies than himself.

I’ve found that I prefer linear timelines to ones that jump around. The ones that jump around are hard to follow, and the reader has to look closer to find a common string connecting the timeframes. The child narrator uses simpler and easier language to take us along his life, one action and thought to the next. Nabokov takes us from one conquest to another, each butterfly linking to another or reminding him of a similar adventure, but each at different ages. He admits that parts of his memory are blurry or missing, which could be why he chose to connect his narration with the butterflies. But at the same time, McCourt’s narrator makes the story read like a story, like fiction with plot and conflict and resolutions and character development. Nabokov reads like a nonfiction manual about butterflies and moths, how to catch them, and what he did during those adventures. We have to infer who he is by what he does. As Regina said in Tuesday’s class discussions, we can deduce that he likes to be outdoors more than indoors, he is perseverant in his pursuits, is a keen observer and is more introverted and prefers nature to human interaction, which is evident when he leaves a friend behind who traveled a long way to see him.

When he looks back as an adult on his childhood, Nabokov is able to analyze his life a little easier than a child’s reaction that an adult reader would then interpret. He can recognize that it was bad to leave his friend, though at the time he may have just concentrated on his searches. Written in an adult voice, Nabokov gives the reader a break by allowing them to sit back and enjoy his writing instead of interpreting everything. The reader can imagine what the child may have been thinking, instead of the environmental factors. The reader has to take more time with the story because of its dense language, but their job as reader is easier because there’s a good chance it’s an adult narrator speaking to an adult reader.  

This age difference heightens the language. Instead of simplistic vocabulary like McCourt uses, Nabokov uses intelligent and sometimes difficult vocabulary. Combining that with his unique way of describing things, like dewy brilliancy and plastered leavers, and his juxtaposition of descriptions, like a stagnant bog surrounded by beauty, Nabokov raises the bar on literary quality. He doesn’t utilize the same universal themes as McCourt, but his writing alone gives him an edge. It makes me want to learn Russian in order to read what he actually said instead of reading someone’s translations of his words. It would then bring a new depth to Speak, Memory because we’d be able to see if anything was lost in translation.