This is a collation of my thoughts on the pre-eminent Nabokov scholar Brian Boyd’s approach to literary criticism, particularly with regard to Ada – likely Nabokov’s least appreciated work.
I wrote this up as part of the discussion of Ada and Boyd in relation to Michael Wood on the ilxor forums, here. These discussions are lively and wide-ranging, and I enjoyed the diverse takes and frustrations expressed about Ada – some of which I share.
I have found Boyd’s work immensely useful in deepening my appreciation for Nabokov, and so I did want to write something of a defence of Boyd’s approach. I argue here that his project is rather unusual in the world of lit crit: an almost scientific empiricism, which well suits his subjects (Nabokov, Popper, and … Dr. Seuss?).
I’d still contend that Boyd remains the most useful critic for understanding Nabokov, for getting the most out of the incredible richness of his designs (too rich, likely, in Ada) and for real aesthetic joy in his work.
Critical mass
With regard to the idea that Boyd is a Nabokov fan, and this limits his usefulness as a critic:
The argument is that Boyd lacks “critical distance” or is somehow in thrall to Nabokov.
But I think Boyd is doing something a little different from Wood and other critics. I have enormous time for Wood and The Magicians Doubts, but I think it’s a partial view of Nabokov underwritten by some of Wood’s theoretical commitments: namely the primacy of a moral view of suffering and pity, and the division between signature and style. The former is definitely an important strand in Nabokov: this is essentially the theme of Pnin – but it’s not the only one and I think it leads Wood to over-emphasize what he can take to fit this theory in novels like Bend Sinister.
Boyd shares some of my frustration with apriorism and theory in literary criticism. He is almost an empiricist.