Nabokov's Theatrical Imagination by Siggy Frank (review)

Abstract

SEER, 91, 4, OCTOBER 2013 882 Maiiakovskii’s Vladimir Il´ich Lenin] from mere propaganda [i.e., Bezymenskii’s Vladimir Il´ich Ul´ianov]’ (p. 51); one suspects a much more complex story lies behind the changes occurring in the Soviet poetic system in the 1920s. A more sophisticated approach is suggested by Maria Zalambani in her chapter on ‘Literary Policies and Institutions’, which presents a brief, matter-of-fact, but comprehensive overview of the regimes of cultural power and authority from 1905 to the present. If extended to other chapters, this more analytical attitude could have helped the other chapters to redefine their topics in more innovative ways, not just surveying poetry and prose at distinct moments in relatively conventional terms, but uncovering how the cultural and media landscape was constantly being reconstituted during the Russian twentieth century. The book is handsomely produced and generally well-edited, though the wobbly translations could have used closer editorial attention; one suspects Valerii Briusov might not appreciate being called the ‘doyenne of the Symbolists’ (p. 51). Inevitably one is tempted to quibble with details. In his chapter on ‘Prose of the Revolution’ Boris Wolfson only discusses Pil´niak, Babel´, Zoshchenko and Olesha; this is an outdated canon. The range of novels viewed by Philip Ross Bullock as ‘utopian’ is also needlessly narrow (only really including prose by Zamiatin, Bulgakov and Platonov), and it is difficult to accept his inclusion of Bulgakov’s two full-length novels; his discussion of their apocalyptic elements is much more persuasive, though in no way new. While Marina Balina’s survey of ‘Prose after Stalin’ boasts an impressive and original scope, Solzhenitsyn’s absence seems to be a calculated snub (several of his novels are featured in Katerina Clark’s chapter). These desiderata aside, the volume under review is a useful and enlightening introduction to the subject for students and a valuable reference work for specialists. Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures Robert Bird University of Chicago Frank, Siggy. Nabokov’s Theatrical Imagination. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2012. x + 217 pp. Illustration. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £55.00: $90.00. Siggy Frank’s recent study of Nabokov’s dramatic output is the first book dedicated solely to the subject. Taking her cue from the negligible amount of previous scholarship which exists, and her own expertise in the history of modern European drama, she perceptively notes that the tone of previous studies on the subject has tended towards reading Nabokov’s plays as literary texts. Simon Karlinsky was one of Nabokov’s earliest and most astute critics and the first to study in depth Nabokov’s modest dramatic output. Frank, however, notes that Karlinsky set the agenda for subsequent studies, namely REVIEWS 883 a tendency to concentrate on what she describes as the ‘mimetic rather than the performative features of the play’ (p. 12). Frank maintains that the plays, which Nabokov produced largely due to financial constraints, were often commissioned and, despite the opinions expressed later in his dramatic lectures given at Stanford after his emigration to America, were in fact written to be performed. The study proceeds thus, highlighting Nabokov’s initial unease with the dramatic medium due to its emphasis on mutual artistic synergy and collaboration, to his later definitive anti-theatrical denunciations. Frank provides a thorough and largely convincing simultaneous analysis of the mimetic and performative aspects of each of the plays, and even proceeds to highlight the theatricality implicit in many of his more famous novels. Frank begins her study by tracing the genealogy of Nabokov’s theatrical sensibilities from the multifarious theatrical influence of his youth in Silver Age St Petersburg to the limited and often stifling and claustrophobic atmosphere of Russian émigré theatre. Frank has a comprehensive and meticulous awareness of the historical material, and as such this section (entitled ‘Trying Theatre’) will be of particular interest not just to the Nabokovian scholar, but also to the interested reader. The next section explores Nabokov’s limited interest in guiding the performance of his own work, weighing this against his later denunciation of contemporary collaborative theatre practice — ‘group activity, that communal bath where the hairy and the slippery mix in a...