Cincinnatus' Pharmacy: Invitation to a Beheading & Poststructuralist Graphocentrism

Brendan Nieubuurt
{"title":"Cincinnatus' Pharmacy: Invitation to a Beheading & Poststructuralist Graphocentrism","authors":"Brendan Nieubuurt","doi":"10.1353/nab.2020.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Nabokov called his 1935 story of existential imprisonment, Invitation to a Beheading, his most \"poetical\" work of fiction. This article unpacks that statement, with its subtle conflation of the poetic and the political—two semantic registers Nabokov deemed utterly incompatible. Indeed, Invitation is about that incompatibility, this study contends. More specifically, the article locates a concrete point of conflict in the contrasting ways oral and written language operate in the novel. In doing so, it inserts Nabokov into an age-old debate, initiated by Plato, over the two communicative modes' relationships to truth and their ability to articulate the authentic self. Speech has traditionally been championed in this debate as an unmediated utterance. Invitation, however, makes a vivid and visceral claim for the expressive capacity of the written word. Conventional in form, superficial in content, and meant for swift social exchange, speech is, in Invitation's nightmare world, the medium of Cincinnatus' persecutors. Unintelligible to the homogenous crowd, Cincinnatus only finds his \"voice\" on the pages of the diary he drafts with pencil and paper. The language of that diary is primordial and decidedly poetic. His text also has a peculiar texture, as Cincinnatus becomes (to quote Montaigne) the very substance of his book. Evincing these lingual values, Nabokov lands in the company of later poststructruralist thinkers, whose theories likewise problematize speech to instead champion a graphocentric mode of embodied, poetic self writing as the height of individual expression. First tracing a shared theoretical genealogy in Henri Bergson's philosophy, this paper thus ultimately reads the novel as a creative anticipation of the future intertexts, especially those of Jacques Derrida. It was the deconstructionist provocateur who most explicitly upended Plato and asserted the primacy and power of the written utterance. Derrida did so, moreover, in imagery and metaphors that resonate in sometimes uncanny harmony with Invitation's visual and verbal rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":110136,"journal":{"name":"Nabokov Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nabokov Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/nab.2020.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Nabokov called his 1935 story of existential imprisonment, Invitation to a Beheading, his most "poetical" work of fiction. This article unpacks that statement, with its subtle conflation of the poetic and the political—two semantic registers Nabokov deemed utterly incompatible. Indeed, Invitation is about that incompatibility, this study contends. More specifically, the article locates a concrete point of conflict in the contrasting ways oral and written language operate in the novel. In doing so, it inserts Nabokov into an age-old debate, initiated by Plato, over the two communicative modes' relationships to truth and their ability to articulate the authentic self. Speech has traditionally been championed in this debate as an unmediated utterance. Invitation, however, makes a vivid and visceral claim for the expressive capacity of the written word. Conventional in form, superficial in content, and meant for swift social exchange, speech is, in Invitation's nightmare world, the medium of Cincinnatus' persecutors. Unintelligible to the homogenous crowd, Cincinnatus only finds his "voice" on the pages of the diary he drafts with pencil and paper. The language of that diary is primordial and decidedly poetic. His text also has a peculiar texture, as Cincinnatus becomes (to quote Montaigne) the very substance of his book. Evincing these lingual values, Nabokov lands in the company of later poststructruralist thinkers, whose theories likewise problematize speech to instead champion a graphocentric mode of embodied, poetic self writing as the height of individual expression. First tracing a shared theoretical genealogy in Henri Bergson's philosophy, this paper thus ultimately reads the novel as a creative anticipation of the future intertexts, especially those of Jacques Derrida. It was the deconstructionist provocateur who most explicitly upended Plato and asserted the primacy and power of the written utterance. Derrida did so, moreover, in imagery and metaphors that resonate in sometimes uncanny harmony with Invitation's visual and verbal rhetoric.
辛辛那图斯的药剂:斩首的邀请与后结构主义的文字中心主义
摘要:纳博科夫于1935年创作的关于存在主义监禁的小说《斩首邀请》是他最具“诗意”的小说作品。这篇文章通过对诗歌和政治这两种被纳博科夫认为完全不相容的语义域的微妙合并,对这一说法进行了解读。事实上,这项研究认为,《邀请》就是关于这种不相容的。更具体地说,文章在小说中口语和书面语的不同操作方式中找到了一个具体的冲突点。在这样做的过程中,它将纳博科夫插入了一场由柏拉图发起的古老辩论中,这场辩论涉及两种交流模式与真理的关系,以及它们表达真实自我的能力。在这场辩论中,演讲传统上被认为是一种未经中介的话语。然而,《邀请》对书面文字的表达能力提出了生动而发自内心的要求。在邀请函的噩梦世界里,语言的形式传统,内容肤浅,意味着快速的社会交流,是辛辛那图斯迫害者的媒介。同质的人群无法理解辛辛纳图斯,他只能在用铅笔和纸写的日记中找到自己的“声音”。那本日记的语言是原始的,显然是诗意的。他的文本也有一种特殊的结构,因为辛辛纳图斯成为(引用蒙田的话)他的书的实质。为了证明这些语言的价值,纳博科夫加入了后来的后结构主义思想家的行列,他们的理论同样把言语问题化,而不是拥护一种以文字为中心的具体化的、诗意的自我写作模式,作为个人表达的高度。本文首先追溯了亨利·柏格森哲学的共同理论谱系,从而最终将小说视为对未来互文,特别是雅克·德里达互文的创造性预期。解构主义煽动者最明确地颠覆了柏拉图,并断言书面话语的首要地位和力量。此外,德里达在意象和隐喻中做到了这一点,这些意象和隐喻有时与邀请书的视觉和语言修辞产生了不可思议的和谐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信