بررسی کارکرد روایی پیرامتن و نویسنده-راوی در رمان حمایل چپ نوشته ولادیمیر ناباکوف

در روایت‌پژوهی بلاغی عناصر پیرامتنی از قبیل دیباچه، پیشگفتار، و مقدمه که نه تنها بر روابط بین نویسنده و خواننده بلکه بر نحوه قرائت خوانندگان تاثیر می گذارند مورد توجه ویژه قرار می‌گیرند. پژوهش حاضر با تکیه بر نظریات جیمز فلن و پُل داوسون اهمیت حضور مستقیم مولف در متن و پیرامتن (مقدمه)، روایت‌گری نویسنده آشکار، و ماهیت نظرات مداخله‌گرایانه راوی-نویسنده در رمان حمایل چپ (1947) نوشته ولادیمیر ناباکوف را مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد. در حمایل چپ آدام کروگ، استاد برجسته فلسفه علی‌رغم تلاش برای دور ماندن از آشفتگی‌های سیاسی، به دلیل علاقه وافر خود به فرزندش به کانون مداخلات حزب اکویلیست تبدیل می‌شود و در نهایت فردیت خود را از دست می‌هد. درحقیقت، با این بررسی، درپی یافتن پاسخ به دو پرسش هستیم: (1) ادعاهای مطرح شده توسط ناباکوف در پیرامتن (مقدمه) رمان، درصورت مفروض پنداشته شدن، چگونه خوانش‌های انتقادی پژوهشگران را تحت الشعاع قرار خواهند داد و (2) نویسنده-راوی در این رمان چه نقشی ایفا می‌کند؟ یافته‌های این بررسی نشان می‌دهند که حمایل چپ روایت‌گر عدم موفقیت کنشگری فردی در مقابل یک نظام‌ سیاسی تمامیت‌خواه است که در آن نویسنده-راوی، با جنون بخشی به شخصیت اصلی، او را نسبت به وجود دنیایی متعالی خارج از جهان داستان آگاه می‌سازد.

the narrative function of paratext in vladimir nabokov’s bend sinister

introductionin bend sinister (1947), the ekwilist party has become the ruling political party due to a recent upheaval and paduk has become its autocratic leader. adam krug, a distinguished professor of philosophy, becomes the focal point of the regime’s scrutiny. initially, he is asked to sign a “historical document”, which he refuses, leading to the imprisonment of friends and acquaintances. when his son is caught and confined to an undisclosed location, krug accepts to sign any prepared document. yet, david’s accidental demise during a pseudo-scientific experiment relinquishes krug’s agency. this study draws on postclassical narratology, especially rhetorical narratology, to provide a rhetorical reading of bend sinister. background of the studythe curious connection between dream and reality in bend sinister has been of main concern of both aesthetic- and rhetoric-centered critics. for michael begnal, from the former group, this novel is the epitome of fatherly love, and therefore, what lurks behind this combination of dream and reality is an artistic dream that allows for transcending pain and coming to terms with the past (25). lee, on the other side of the continuum, maintains that this narrative is a “political dream” that depicts a nightmare for the protagonist who strives to escape from it, and his failure is a symbolic display of the utmost political dictatorship ruining free-spirited individuals’ lives (202). the second studied aspect of the narrative pinpoints the recurring theme within nabokov’s oeuvre—the question of individualism. lee observes that ekwilism is the enemy of the mind and represses any individualistic sense of curiosity (196). this depiction of total suppression of individualism has led diverse critics to pinpoint the doctrines of communism in the narrative (rutledge 134), and even encouraged some, like kopper to consider bend sinister a head-to-toe political novel (57).methodologyaccording to rhetorical narratology, the social and historical context in which a text is produced and received shape critical interpretation (phelan 9). this paper argues that bend sinister showcases the triumph of totalitarianism and philistinism in destroying any hope for overcoming dictatorship and maintaining individuality. hence, krug’s inability to stand against the system is symptomatic of the impossibility of maintaining individuality. the author-narrator pictures a dark, pessimistic situation of the modern world yet, he leaves room for hope as he “blesses” his protagonist through the apparent madness that affirms the philosopher’s intuitions about the real world being above the world wherein he is entrapped.conclusionthis paper concludes that the intrusive narrator, who provides enough space for the protagonist to express his ideas, is directly connected to the author himself. the narrator’s direct deliverance of nabokov’s voice becomes prominent when the author enters the diegetic world of krug and blesses him with madness. neither unreliable nor dictatorial, the author-narrator blurs the border between dream and reality to depict the loss of freedom of mind in the age of banality of meaning as a result of the union of totalitarianism and philistinism. as krug goes mad, he understands his true nature as belonging to a higher, more real world of his author and safely goes back to his bosom in that world, which testifies to nabokov’s gnostic beliefs.