Nabokov’s Crooked Mirror：The Artist’s False Double in Despair*#

WU Tsaiyi

Abstract： The article explicates Nabokov’s metaphors of crooked mirrors and false doubles in his novel Despair，which articulate his aesthetics that art is self-obvious deception.For Nabokov，art is neither superior to nor independent of reality，but is rather its inferior mimic.Thus Nabokov’s simulacrum always refers to the revered model：the author himself.Nabokov’s aesthetics challenges the readers to have a different attitude toward art：rather than sympathy or appreciation，we should instead cultivate our critical discernment by distinguishing between the simulacrum and the true model.In our age of post-truth，Nabokov’s aesthetics provides us an ethical paradigm where reality is concealed but not altogether cancelled，a reality that is rather the prize that the readers are invited to actively seek out.

Keywords： Vladimir Nabokov；Despair；simulacrum；the false double；the mirror metaphor

A madman is reluctant to look at himself in a mirror because the face he sees is not his own：his personality is beheaded；that of the artist is increased.

— Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，377.

Vladimir Nabokov is known for his obsession with the doppelg?nger motif，which figures prominently in all his novels.And yet，in an interview with Nabokov（1967），where the interviewer，eminent Nabokov scholar Alfred Appel，asks persistently that Nabokov talk about his conception about the doppelg?nger，Nabokov answers tersely，in one sentence：“There are no‘real’ doubles in my novels.”1Alfred Appel and Vladimir Nabokov，“An Interview with Vladimir Nabokov，”Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature 8，no.2（1967）：145，https：//doi.org/10.2307/1207097.When Appel asks Nabokov if there is any doppelg?nger fiction that he would “single out for praise，” as it is an important theme amongst Romantic and Modernist writers including “Poe，Hoffman，Andersen，Dostoevski，Gogol，Stevenson，and Melville，down to Conrad and Mann，” Nabokov’s answer is unexpectedly haughty：“TheDoppelg?ngersubject is a frightful bore.”2Appel and Nabokov，“An Interview with Vladimir Nabokov，” 145.When Appel asks Nabokov specifically：

Q.What are your feelings about Dostoevski’s celebratedThe Double；after all，Hermann inDespairconsiders it as a possible title for his manuscript.

A.Dostoevski’sThe Doubleis his best work though an obvious and shameless imitation of Gogol’s “Nose.” Felix inDespairis really afalsedouble.3Ibid.，emphasis original.

Through Nabokov’s brusque answers，we might only gather that Nabokov refuses to let his works be simply characterized or categorized as doppelg?nger novels.But what does it mean when Nabokov proclaims that “there are no ‘real’ doubles in my novels” and that “Felix inDespairis really afalsedouble”？ Is afalse doublemore interesting，if for Nabokov areal double“is a frightful bore”？

The novelDespair4Vladimir Nabokov，Despair （New York：Vintage Books，1989）.features an unreliable narrator and protagonist Hermann，who is a selfproclaimed artist，as the readers are reading his narration of himself：“I have grown much too used to an outside view of myself，to being both painter and model，so no wonder my style is denied the blessed grace of spontaneity”（19，emphasis mine）.But Hermann suffers an existential anxiety in that he is constantly browbeaten by images haunting the “crooked”mirrors，which do not show images of himself but rather “a bearded stranger”（21）.Thus Hermann is frantically provoked to find a true reflection of his own face.One day Hermann meets a tramp，Felix，in the city of Prague，and believes Felix to be his doppelg?nger.Hermann persuades Felix to take advantage of their semblance and to dress up like himself.When Felix is disguised as Hermann，however，Hermann murders Felix in order to collect the insurance money on his own life.Hermann considers his murderous plot a genius work of art，as he can make the dead face of Felix a still reflection of his own countenance—thus enthroning himself as the model.But Hermann’s perception is in fact faulty，and Felix does not in reality look like Hermann at all.

Nabokov is known to never give interviews without having received the questions and carefully rehearsed his answers in advance.5Michael Wood，The Magician’s Doubts：Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction（London：Random House，1994），8.Yet，despite Nabokov’s pronouncement in the interview，the significance of false doubles in his novels has often escaped critical attention.In Claire Rosenfield’s study of the double motif throughout Western literary history，for example，she begins the discussion by concurring with Otto Rank that primitive man seeks immortality by creating “a body-soul which he located in his shadow or his reflection”；6Claire Rosenfield，“The Shadow within：The Conscious and Unconscious Use of the Double，” Daedalus 92，no.2（1963）：326.whereas “modern literature presents the Double as a symbol not of eternal life but of death，a representation which anticipates the division of the personality into two opposing forces.”7Rosenfield，“The Shadow within，” 327.Following this thread of thought，Rosenfield discusses works of Dostoevski，Conrad，Henry James，and finally places Nabokov’s usage of the device at the apex of a modernity that is obsessed with the identity crisis of the age：“all the characteristics of the modern Double novel converge inPale Fireby Vladimir Nabokov.”8Ibid.，341.Four years later，Rosenfield publishes another article exclusively on Nabokov’s double motif in the novelDespair，and maintains that：

The narrator’s longing for a bodily double，a “brother，” is a modern perversion of the primitive’s longing for immortality；it reveals the quality of his personal disintegration that he seeks his soul by destroying another’s body.9Claire Rosenfield，“‘Despair’ and the Lust for Immortality，” Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature 8，no.2（1967）：181.

But Rosenfield misses to distinguish the essential difference between serious modernist works where the device of the double often indicates two facets of one psyche，the disintegration between consciousness and the unconscious，and Nabokov’s false doubles，which are usually two individuals connected by crooked mirrors and faulty perceptions.

ReadingDespair，my article analyzes Nabokov’s aesthetics by foregrounding his false doubles，connected by crooked mirrors，as a metaphor for art.Two pairs of false doubles will be examined—the first pair Felix and Hermann，and the second pair Hermann with the bearded stranger in the crooked mirror，which is the menacing presence of the author himself—in hopes of understanding Nabokov’s intricate device of parallel worlds10Various critics note the central role of the otherworld or Platonic parallel universes in Nabokov’s art.See Donald Barton Johnson，Worlds in Regression：Some Novels of Vladimir Nabokov（Ann Arbor：Ardis，1985）；Vladimir E.Alexandrov，Nabokov’s Otherworld（Princeton，N.J.：Princeton University Press，1991）.For Nabokov’s worldview as shown in his short stories，see Maxim Shrayer，“Writing and Reading the Otherworld，” in The World of Nabokov’s Stories（Austin：University of Texas，1999），17-70.of different ontic statuses.In Hermann’s retrospective narrative that is in fact a creation of Nabokov，we have the parallel worlds of Hermann’s imagination，of Hermann’s reality，and the intrusive presence of Nabokov.Beings of a higher world manipulate and bully their mimics residing in inferior worlds，and characters in the same world struggle for a higher ontic status once the false double relationship is established by crooked mirrors and deluded perception.With the two pairs of double traversing worlds of different ontological levels，my purpose is to discuss a dimension that is central to Nabokov’s art：the hierarchical distinction between reality and artwork，the model and its false double.

Nabokov’s aesthetics is unique in the way that he does not conceptualize art as an autonomous sphere independent of reality，as is the general theoretical trend from Romanticism to Postmodernism.Rather，for Nabokov，his protagonists are ofteninferiormimics of the author himself，always referring in reverence to their model.Contrary to Jean Baudrillard’s exhilarating reading of Jorge Luis Borges’s fable：“it is the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra，”11Jean Baudrillard，“Simulacra and Simulations，” in Jean Baudrillard：Selected Writings，ed.Mark Poster（California：Stanford University Press，2002），166.Nabokov’s stubborn insistence on the external，absolute point of an anchor that generates all meanings for the novel，an anchor that works like the solution to the puzzle，is surely peculiar.Thinking from the perspective of our age of post-truth，however，Nabokov’s aesthetics allows us an alternative paradigm where the referent is concealed but not altogether cancelled out，even as we understand that art is flagrantly deceptive.This alternative paradigm in turn requires the reader to cultivate a different attitude toward art—not cheap sympathy or appreciation—but rather intellectual discernment that is determined to seek the holy grail，the model，the thing-initself.I argue that Nabokov’s aesthetic paradigm is needed for our age of post-truth，where we just begin to realize that it is irresponsible to playfully nullify reality.

The Crooked Mirror

Nabokov’s metaphors of crooked mirrors and false doubles are his aesthetic manifesto that the literary world is a world ontologicallyinferiorto that of the author，in the same way Plato believes that our world is but an inferior imitation of Ideas，or as Christians believe that our world is an inferior realization of God’s conception.As critics generally agree that Nabokov is a“metaliterary writer，”12Alexandrov，Nabokov’s Otherworld，3.Nabokov’s aesthetics consists of maintaininga strong hierarchical divisionbetween the imaginary world and reality，in order to assert authorial mastery and to emphasize that the literary world is his creation.Indeed，Nabokov uses similar Romantic rhetoric that compares the author to the inventive Creator—“but the real writer，the fellow who sends planets spinning and models a man asleep and eagerly tampers with the sleeper’s rib，that kind of author has no given value at his disposal：he must create them himself .”13Vladimir Nabokov，Lectures on Literature（New York：Harcourt Brace Jovanovich，1980），2.But Nabokov’s aesthetics in fact subverts the Romantic tradition that the imaginary world is superior to our world，and is rather an idiosyncratic resumption of Plato’s ontology that art is inferiorto reality.Whereas in Romanticism the imaginary world is superior to reality in that it might be more beautiful and more ordered，Nabokov’s fictional worlds are usually a little maddening，where we find details go awry：“it is chaos，and to this chaos the author says ‘go！’ allowing the world to flicker and to fuse.”14Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，2.

In Chapter X ofThe Republic，Plato establishes Western ontology and aesthetics，and the notion ofmimesis：the world we reside in is a degraded imitation of the higher realm of Ideas，while art is an even more degenerated imitation of our world（598e）.15Plato，The Republic of Plato，trans.Allan Bloom，2nd ed.（New York：Harper Collins Publishers，1991），280.In Plato’s metaphor，since art imitates only the appearance of things and not their substance，it is like a mirror that is capable of producing illusions of everything：

If you are willing to take a mirror and carry it around everywhere；quickly you will make the sun and the things in the heaven；quickly，the earth；and quickly，yourself and the other animals and implements and plants and everything else that was just now mentioned.（596d）16Ibid.，271.

Whereas a faithful imitation of things is called representation，inSophistPlato calls an unfaithful mimic of things a simulacrum（236b）.17Plato，Plato’s Theory of Knowledge：The Theaetetus and the Sophist of Plato，trans.Francis Cornford（London：Routledge &K.Paul，1949），197.As Deleuze rightly notes，Plato’s theory of art is first of all a “method of division”：“it is a matter of drawing differences，of distinguishing between the‘thing’ itself and its images，the original and the copy，the model and the simulacrum.”18Gilles Deleuze，“Plato and the Simulacrum，” trans.Rosalind Krauss，October 27（1983）：45.Moreover，this hierarchical division must work to ensure the ontological inferiority of the simulacra，“of keeping them chained in the depths.”19Deleuze，“Plato and the Simulacrum，” 48.For Nabokov，art surely cannot be faithful representation and must assert its author’s creativity by being a simulacrum.At the same time，this simulacrum cannot be superior to reality as it is for the Romantics，and cannot supersede the models，as Baudrillard notes is the condition of postmodernity.20Baudrillard，“Simulacra and Simulations，” 166.Rather，Nabokov employs aesthetic devices to ensure the definite distinction between reality and art，and to keep art down to its status of inferior likenesses.As I will go on to argue，these aesthetic devices are the keys to decipher his puzzling novelDespair.Nabokov’s ethics as evinced by his aesthetic devices calls for the readers to cultivate their critical discernment，as Vladimir Alexandrov notes，“to differentiate between truth and falsehood，”21Alexandrov，Nabokov’s Otherworld，8.a value which I think is even more important in our age of post-truth and fake news.

Because art functions like mirrors and is already the third-order imitation，artists who are conscious of the ontology of art often deny the mirrors in the artwork their truthful representational function.A false double，then，is the mark to distinguish between reality and its virtual mimic.For example，Foucault notes how the two media in Diego Velázquez’s paintingLas Meninas（1656）refuse to represent：the canvas turns its back to the spectator，and the mirror in the far back center of the painting，which should have reflected the spectatorfrom its perspective，shows some vague silhouettes of the king and the queen，who are corporeally absent in the room and are simply the most improbable phantoms to appear in the mirror，displacing the spectator’s gaze.As Foucault notes，“the mirror provides a metathesis of…its nature of representation.”22Michel Foucault，The Order of Things：An Archaeology of the Human Sciences（London：Routledge，2002），8-9.

Art wears the badge of false doubling in order to proclaim its capacity to deceitfully mirror the world.Craig Owens in his essay “Photography ‘en abyme’”23Craig Owens，“Photography ‘en abyme’，” Photography 5（1978）：73-88.notes how photography，at the moment when it renounces its representational relationship with the external world and proclaims itself to be a virtual reality，gains the freedom to create false doubles.In his discussion of George Brassa?’s photographic work “Group in the Dance Hall”（1932），we see in the frame of the photograph a group of people，and a mirror reflection of another group sitting opposite to the first group.Because we cannot see the corporeal presence of the second group in the frame of the photograph except from the mirror，and moreover because the physiognomy of the second group closely resembles the first group，the two groups establish the relationship of a false double.The virtual images of the second group in the mirror attach themselves wrongly to the corporeal presence of the first group.The two groups’ facial expressions however playfully contrast that of each other.24Owens，“Photography ‘en abyme’，” 73.Owens notes that the mistaken double is the key to dissolving the representational relationship that photography is condemned to have with the real，since now the meaning of the“psychological and sociological details are thus displaced by the network of internal relationship between subject，mirror，and other，which structure the image.”25Owens，“Photography ‘en abyme’，” 73.By contrast，a photograph showing a faithful double，such as Walker Evans’“Cary Ross’s Bedroom”（1932），only“impute to the material world the capacity to independently create its own symmetries，to mirror itself.”26Craig Owens，“Photography ‘en abyme’，” 85.That is，it is the privilege of Nature to create true twins and doubles，whereas in a work of art that is conscious of its ontological status，of beingthe crooked mirrorof the world，it should refuse to bear faithful doubles.

The Game Rules

In Nabokov’s novels，the inferiority of the literary world is manifested by two strict principles.First，Nabokov’s heroes are often inferior mimics of the author himself.As a sign that they are inferior mimics，Nabokov’s heroes，although often themselves self-enthroned artists，must have pathetically and comically faulty perception.Nabokov the magician prohibits us to take the existential problems of his charactersseriously，as the readers should keep in mind that Nabokov’s characters are but the author’s caricatures：“this is the worst thing a reader can do，he identifies himself with a character in a book.”27Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，4.This is why any engaging discussion with the contents of the novels，such as the aforementioned study of Rosenfield’s psychoanalysis，or Simon Karlinsky’s discussion that equates the depiction of the characters to the condition of the artist himself—“Nabokov’s central theme is，of course，thenatureof the creative imagination and the solitary，freak-like role into which a man gifted with such imagination is inevitably cast in any society”28Simon Karlinsky，“Illusion，Reality，and Parody in Nabokov’s Plays，” Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature 8，no.2（1967）：268.Emphasis mine.—are readings gone amiss.Rather，Nabokov urges his readers to employ “impersonal imagination and artistic delight” to read the book—“we ought to remain a little aloof and take pleasure in this aloofness.”29Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，4.Rather than wasting our sympathy on the pathetically hilarious characters，the readers must have an attitude as haughty as the author，who manipulates the characters as if they are inferior copies of himself.

Second，as the literary world is already ontologically a virtual world；the hero in the novel is forbidden to have any faithful reflection of his own，neither in the mirror，nor in the pictures，as in Nabokov’s own words，which I have quoted in the epigraph：“A madman is reluctant to look at himself in a mirror because the face he sees is not his own.” What Hermann often finds in the mirror is the menacing presence of the author，reminding the character that he is，like Truman inThe Truman Show，living in a world constructed by the author.This is why Hermann is obsessed with making Felix’s dead face a reflection of his own—he is eager to prove that he is an artist，not a character under the author’s control.The gist of Nabokov’s aesthetics consists precisely of asserting the fictional nature of art by negating in it any internal representational relationship between objects，which is a privilege enjoyed only by higher beings.Nabokov employs these two strong principles so as to emphasize the impassable gap between reality and the literary world，to accentuate the authorial authority which has created the world of fiction and is in total control of it.

The First Double

As hinted in the epigraph，the mirror in the novel is often the portal through which the author intrudes into the character’s world，evoking the character’s existential fear of his ontological status.After Hermann meets Felix，Chapter Two of the novel begins with Hermann’s frantic fear of mirrors.Hermann cannot see in the mirror a true reflection of himself.Mirrors in art have no right to represent，since by their ontic status they are but “imitation of looks” or worse（Plato，Republic598 b）.30Plato，The Republic of Plato，281.Hermann notes that mirrors in his world are twisted.“Crooked mirrors”31Marina Kanevskaya in her article “The Semiotic Validity of the Mirror Image in Nabokov’s Despair” provides an insightful analysis of the crooked mirrors in the novel.But she mainly lays the responsibility of the crooked image on Hermann’s misinterpretation rather than the problem of the mirror，which in my argument signifies the nature of the fictional world.Marina Kanevskaya，“The Semiotic Validity of the Mirror Image in Nabokov’s Despair，” in Nabokov at Cornell，ed.Gavriel Shapiro（Ithaca：Cornell University Press，2003），20-29.can create random double relationships.Crooked mirrors can merge two nude men into one，or split a man into two，or transfigure the man：

A crooked mirror strips its man or starts to squash him，and lo！ There is produced a man-bull，a man-toad，under the pressure of countless glass atmospheres；or else，one is pulled out like dough and then torn into two.（21）

Hermann distraughtly exclaims that he would remove the mirror in his room，as he is afraid that he would not see himself in the mirror：“True，even in the event of my being confronted by one（bosh，what have I to fear？）it would reflect a bearded stranger”（22）.Although Hermann quickly glosses his fear over by saying that he would see a strangerbecausehewouldgrow a beard himself：“for that beard of mine has done jolly well，and in such a short time too！”（21），we see Hermann is indeed frightened when gaining a glimpse of what his world is made of.The mirror is Nabokov’s metaphor for art，which designates the abusive relationship between the author and the character：Hermann finds that his image can be easily duplicated，split，or transfigured in the work of art.

When Hermann starts off on his murderous plan，confronting Felix and attempting to deceive Felix into dressing up like himself，he again remarks how，because they are not true doubles，they reflect each other as if by a sick mirror.The sick mirror，again，is a symbol that Hermann’s world is unreal.

Thus we were reflected by the misty and，to all appearance，sick mirror，with the freakish slant，a streak of madness，a mirror that surely would have cracked at once had it chanced to reflect one singlegenuinehuman countenance.（89，emphasis mine）

Hermann is dimly aware of the unreality of his world，as well as that neither himself nor Felix are genuine human beings.The sick mirrors mark the boundary of this unreal world，and Hermann hopes that it might crack if one day the spell is lifted and a magician of the real world breaks in.In effect，however，the author’s menacing presences in Hermann’s mirrors only serve to solidify the fictional world.

In addition to the mirrors，paintings in this world refuse to grant Hermann a truthful image of himself.Hermann recounts how Ardalion takes pains to paint him a portrait，but it turns out to not look like himself at all：

As to my portrait，he worked at it stubbornly，continuing well into August，when，having failed to cope with the honest slog of charcoal，he changed to the petty knavishness of pastel.I setmyselfa certain time limit：the date of his finishing the thing….［When the painting is finished，］ we had guests that evening，Orlovius among others，and we all stood and gaped；at what？ …Looking as one might，none could see the ghost of a likeness?。?5-56，emphasis mine）

The passage seems to have a typo；Hermann should be setting for Ardalion a time limit rather than for himself.But Hermann is indeed eager to have an image of his own in order to alleviate his existential anxiety.Hermann is indeed settinghimselfa time limit：if he does not get a selfimage from Ardalion’s painting，he is going to initiate his murderous plan to make Felix’s motionless face a reflection of himself.

In the unsubstantial literary world，the representational relationship between the model and the copy cannot steadily hold.All are virtual images.Hermann and Felix need to fight for their ontic statuses：the victor will be the model，and the defeated the mimic.The battle of wills begins upon their first encounter，and Hermann is annoyed by the fact that Felix refuses to cooperate with his imagination and reduce himself to being his mirror reflection：

For some ten seconds we kept looking into each other’s eyes.Slowly I raised my right arm，but his left did not rise，as I had almost expected it to do.I closed my left eye，but both his eyes remained open.I showed him my tongue.He muttered again：

“What’s up？ What’s up？”（11）

It hurts Hermann’s pride that he is always the first to acknowledge the double relationship，as if by doing so he stoops to be the “doubtful imitator” of Felix（13）：

As the resemblance itself had been established by me，I stood toward him—according to his subconscious calculation—in a subtle state of dependence，as if I were the mimic and he the model.（12）

Even as Felix is a homeless tramp and Hermann belongs to the middle class，and Felix asks Hermann to find some work for him to earn some money，Hermann feels insecure and suspects that Felix would not concede to being the mimic：

At the back of his muddled brain there lurked，maybe，the reflection that I ought to be thankful to him for his generously granting me，by the mere fact of his own existence，the occasion of looking like him.（13）

The mimic owes to the model its existence—such is the severe existential condition of the fictional characters.Hermann is faintly aware of the fact that he is a mimic of some higher existence，but he seeks to escape the crisis by being the model.Hermann’s artistic pursuit is defined precisely by his desire to create a mimic to himself.This is the crucial passage where Nabokov announces，through Hermann’s existential anxiety，the gist of the novel and his aesthetics：that the nature of art is mimesis，that art is an inferior and deceptive double to reality.

Finally，Hermann sees that Felix is willing to establish the double relationship with him：“I took out my handkerchief；he took out his handkerchief too.A truce，parleying”（14）.The double relationship in the fictional world is established not so much by resemblance，but rather by agesture，a gesture of taking out the handkerchief.Once the double relationship is established，the war begins for the two to fight for their ontic statuses.The truce is insincere.Hermann immediately becomes determined to seal his double in death for “artistic perfection”（15），in order that Felix’s face will become astill imagewhich faintly imitates Hermann，who will thus be entitled a higher ontic status.

That man，especially when he slept，when his features were motionless，showed me my own face，my mask，the flawlessly pure image of my corpse—I use the latter term because I wish to express with the utmost clarity—express what？ Namely this：that we had identical features，and that，in a state of perfect repose，this resemblance was strikingly evident，and what is death，if not face at peace—its artistic perfection？Life only marred my double.（15）

When both are living characters，there will be no criteria to define who is the model and who the mimic.Only when Hermann can reduce Felix into a still image can he prove that Felix is the mimic of himself，in the same way a motionless picture is a reproduction of its model.

But the whole world，except for Hermann himself，knows Hermann and Felix bear no resemblance at all.One of Nabokov’s devices to demonstrate Hermann’s existence as a character is by fixing him in a limited perspective.Nabokov has Hermann articulate his own aesthetic principle that a character by definition has a finite characterization：

Do you feel the tang of this epilogue？ I have concocted it according to a classic recipe.Something is told about every character in the book to wind up the tale；and in doing so，the dribble of their existence is made to remain correctly，though summarily，in keeping with what has been previously shown of their respective ways；also，a facetious note is admitted—poking sly fun at life’s conservativeness.（179）

Hermann is a character with defined and comical characterizations，and his limits bear out his existence as a flat character that can never see things as sound as a human being.Hermann’s problem is not so much that he has gone mad with some unfathomable psychological problems，32For critics who make lengthy and arduous arguments that Hermann is a madman，see William Carroll，“The Cartesian Nightmare of Despair，” in Nabokov’s Fifth Arc：Nabokov and Others on His Life’s Work，ed.J.E.Rivers and Charles Nicol（Austin：University of Texas Press，2014），82-104；Kanevskaya，“The Semiotic Validity of the Mirror Image in Nabokov’s Despair”；Leonid Livak，“A Mirror for the Critic：Two Aspects of Taste and One Type of Aphasic Disturbance in Vladimir Nabokov’s Despair，”Canadian-American Slavic Studies 34，no.4（January 1，2000）：447-64.but more because he as a character，on a flattened literary plane，can see things only from a certainperspective.One of Hermann’s assigned characterizations is，among many，his belief in his resemblance to Felix.In effect，however，Hermann believes in his resemblance with Felix on the strict condition thatHermann is in his own consciousness seeing Felix’s motionless or dead face.Hermann finds out that Felix’s passport picture does not look quite like Hermann（173）.More ironically，when Hermann switches away from his own consciousness and is imagining himself being Felix，he can see clearly their dissemblance.As Hermann envisions Felix’s first impression of himself：“A laugh in the darkness：‘It was you who saw double，you old sot’”（45）.After murdering Felix，in excitement Hermann imagines himself being Felix who has slayed Hermann：

I roved about；found work here and there.One day I met a swell fellow who kept saying he was like me.Nonsense，he was not like me in the least.But I did not argue with him… I killed the bluffer and robbed him.（176）

But Hermann the character always insists on his similitude with Felix，when his consciousness resides in the stern prison wall of hischaracterization.

Hermann has been adopting the most futile way to cope with his ontological crisis.We have learned since Chapter Two that Hermann has started to grow a beard in order to escape his fear that he sees in mirrors a bearded stranger—that is，he starts tomimichis supposedly mirror images，and thus wretchedly gives in to his status as the original，perhaps unknowingly.In the pursuit of his original ontic status，Hermann gradually becomes alienated from his own self.He grows the beard but does not recognize it as part of himself，and he would pluck his beard when he is sound asleep.By growing this beard，he thinks he can maintain “admirable terms with mirrors，” but actually when he looks into the mirror he sees only “a hastily made-up individual”：“I had the sensation that it was glued on；and sometimes it seemed to me that a small prickly animal was settled on my upper lip”（64）.When Hermann finds out even murdering Felix cannot solve the problem，he again starts to imitate Felix and assume Felix’s identity，perhaps hoping that the menacing mirror image attached to Hermann can thus disappear.Without warning the readers，Hermann begins Chapter Ten by imagining himself to be Felix.After finding out on Felix’s passport that his occupation is a musician，Hermann narrates in Felix’s perspective：“Since childhood I’ve loved violets and music”（175）.Felix is supposed to be his mimic，but Hermann now escapes into Felix’s consciousness，imagining that the tramp has slayed himself and still，he needs to grow the beard in order to look like his own mirror image：“Thus，a reflected image，asserting itself，laid its claims.Not I sought a refuge in a foreign land，not I grew a beard，but Felix，my slayer”（176）.Hermann now becomes the double of his double，33Wladimir Troubetzkoy，“Vladimir Nabokov’s Despair；The Reader as ‘April’s Fool，’” Cycnos 12，no.2（1995）：58.a shadow of the most debased ontology.

The Second Double

I have tried to teach you to feel a shiver of artistic satisfaction，to share not the emotions of the people in the book but the emotions of its author—the joys and difficulties of creation.

—Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，382.

That Hermann falsely recognizes Felix to be his double is the doing of the author，who is superior to the character.In the same way Brassa? in his photography arbitrarily arranges two groups of people to double each other，and reduces one of the groups to be the virtual image of the other group’s corporeal presence，Nabokov wheedles Hermann into believing Felix to be his double and into his reckless plan to reduce Felix to an image of his own.Only after having murdered Felix，as if revealing the answer to a riddle，in Chapter Ten Hermann betrays his motivation for the murderous plot.It is surely not to collect the insurance money：

I know，I know：it is a bad mistake from the novelist’s point of view that in the whole course of my tale there is—as far as I remember—so very little attention devoted to what seems to have been my leading motive；greed of gain.How does it come that I am so reticent and vague about the purpose I pursued in arranging to have a dead double？ But here I am assailed by odd doubles.（177）

Finally the reader gets the clue to decipher the puzzling novel：that Hermann has been assailed by odd doubles，who might have driven Hermann to find a true reflection of his own face.But even after Hermann’s murder of Felix，Nabokov，the author God，does not cease to menace Hermann in mirrors.

Far worse was my failure to put up with mirrors.In fact，the beard I started growing was meant to hide me not so much from others as from my own self.Dreadful thing—ahypertrophied imagination.So it is quite easy to understand that a man endowed with my acute sensitiveness gets into the devil of a state about such trifles as a reflection in a dark looking glass，or his own shadow，falling dead at his feet.（177）

When feeling menaced by his mirror images，the author’s face appearing as an enlarged，“hypertrophied imagination，” Hermann finds Felix as the scapegoat.Hermann’s confusion is seen in his usage of an apposition that in fact has three different referents，that of Nabokov，himself，and Felix：“as a reflection in a dark looking glass，or his own shadow，falling dead at his feet”.The mirror is Nabokov’s metaphor for art，the portal through which the Creator can threaten and bully his characters.

Whereas Hermann contends with Felix for a higher ontic status by making Felix an image of himself and the raw material of his art，Nabokov easily manipulates Hermann’s life to be his artwork.At the beginning of Chapter Six，at a moment when Hermann is fully conscious of his own situation，he desperately protests that，being a literary character and an author’s creation，he just cannot find his own life meaningful even if his existence conforms to the author’s logic and can bring the author ecstasy：

If I am not master of my life，not sultan of my own being，then no man’s logic and no man’s ecstatic fits may force me to find less silly my impossibly silly position：that of God’s slave；no，not his slave even，but just a match which is aimlessly struck and then blown out by some inquisitive child，the terror of his toy.（102）

Hermann is making a very reasonable petition，that even if he is the protagonist of an author’s literary creation，his life would not be meaningful since he has no agency in his world.However，Nabokov the tyrant has no pity for his character’s petition，or in fact he writes in this petition into Hermann’s mouth to assert the author’s power.As demonstrated by the epigraph，Nabokov asks his readers to rightly place the meaning of the creation in the author，the final reference of his inferior worlds，rather than to identify with the characters.34Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，4.

God made man after his own image，albeit pathetically degraded.Nabokov’s aesthetic project is to assert the author’s supremacy over the artwork，the gap between the Creator and the created.Nabokov creates Hermann as a bad artist，an inferior mimic to himself，in the most hilarious way.Nabokov in his autobiographySpeak，Memorynotes that one of his rare abilities as a poet is that he can perceive “everything that happens in one point of time…，of which the poet is the nucleus.”35Vladimir Nabokov，Speak，Memory：An Autobiography Revisited（New York：Vintage International，1989），218.This ability is crucial to our discussion of Nabokov’s distinction between the author and the characters.With this “manifold awareness” to see through simultaneous parallel universes，Nabokov can depict his characters’ consciousness and reserve for himself his own judgments of the characters.This ability，however，manifests on Hermann in a degraded and absurd way.Hermann enjoys experiencing “dissociation”—“the sensation of being in two places at once”—which often happens spontaneously when he is having sex with Lydia（27）.Unlike Nabokov the author who has manifold awareness，however，Hermann’s dissociation allows him to engage in amorous movements with Lydia and suddenly finds himself to bephysicallyelsewhere：

My face was buried in the folds of her neck，her legs had started to clamp me，the ashtray toppled off the bed table，the universe followed—but at the same time，incomprehensibly and delightfully，I was standing naked in the middle of the room，one hand resting on the back of the chair where she had left her stockings and panties.（27）

Hermann then finds “the greater the interval between my two selves the more I was ecstasied”—but the distance never gets further than between the bed and the parlor.With multiple attempts and experiments，finally one night Hermann thinks he could have a part of his consciousness watching himself having sex with Lydia from afar，as if he is sitting in an auditorium fifteen rows of seats from the stage：

Alas，one April night，with the harps of rain aphrodisiacally burbling in the orchestra，as I was sitting at my maximum distance of fifteen rows of seats and looking forward to an especially good show—which，indeed，had already started，with my acting self in colossal form and most inventive—from the distant bed，where I thought I was，came Lydia’s yawn and voice stupidly saying that if I were not yet coming to bed，I might bring her the red book she had left in the parlor.（28）

At the moment when Hermann realizes that he is actually sitting in the parlor while imagining having sex with Lydia，he feels terribly insulted—“I was like an insular species of bird that has lost the knack of rising into the air and，like the penguin，flies only in its sleep”（29）— while we understand that when Hermann articulates his frustration is also the moment when Nabokov is ruthlessly teasing his pet character.Existing on a literary plane，Hermann may only inherit from Nabokov the author a false and degraded version of his talent，in the same way Plato argues that art imitates only appearance，and not substance.

Hermann likewise inherits Nabokov’s aesthetics that art is deception，which must consciously differ from the faithful representation of things.In hisLectures on Literature，Nabokov asserts that literature as the author’s invention must consciously contradict truth.

Literature was born not the day when a boy crying wolf，wolf came running out of the Neanderthal valley with a big gray wolf at his heels：literature was born on the day when a boy came crying wolf，wolf and there was no wolf behind him.That a poor little fellow because he lied too often was finally eaten up by a real beast is quite incidental.But here is what is important.Between the wolf in the tall grass and the wolf in the tall story there is a shimmering go-between.That go-between，that prism，

is the art of literature.36Nabokov，Lectures on Literature，5，emphasis mine.

As expected，Nabokov declares that the essence of art lies in the clear distinction between reality and fiction，between truth and invention.Immediately after the above quoted passage，however，Nabokov claims that artists deceive as they follow Nature’s lead.

Every great writer is a great deceiver，but so is the arch-cheat Nature.Nature always deceives.From the simple deception of propagation to the prodigiously sophisticated illusion of protective colors in butterflies or birds，there is in Nature a marvelous system of spell and wiles.The writer of fiction only follows Nature’s lead.（Lecture5）

But Nabokov here is not giving an ethical justification of his deception by taking Nature as his model.More complicated than the Romantic rhetoric，where art deceives and is imaginative only asit contradicts nature，Nabokov reminds us that Nature deceives，too.Comparing Nature’s deception and the artist’s deception，however，we find that the artist’s deception isinferiorbecause，whereas a harmless butterfly can successfully deceive its predator by aptly imitating a poisonous one，the schoolboy gets eaten up by the wolf.Nabokov’s art is one of Plato’s simulacrum，which does not enjoy the autonomy of Romantic art，but rather deceives like knockoff merchandise，always referring in reverence to its model.

The artist’s lie isself-obvious，and the false double in Nabokov’s novel isclearlyfalse to the readers.Hermann himself practices Nabokov’s aesthetics，but in a facetious way.While always composing verse and elaborating stories in his mind，he would not write them down or talk about them.Rather，he expresses his creative impulse by telling obvious and oblivious lies：“Not a day passed without my telling some lie.I lied as a nightingale sings，ecstatically，selfobliviously；reveling in the new life-harmony which I was creating”（45）.Identifying himself as an artist，Hermann boils down the essence of art as telling lies，defining it as a fiction unfaithful to reality.As a schoolboy，when asked to tellin his own wordsthe plot ofOthello，he would make “the Moor skeptical and Desdemona unfaithful”（46）.On another occasion，Hermann has an opportunity to perform at an amateur theatre.He is the Prince’s messenger who was supposed to announce the Prince’s arrival，but as a result he speaks precisely at the moment when the Prince appears on stage：“The Prince cannot come：he has cut his throat with a razor”（90）.While for Nabokov the artist is the one who announces the coming of the wolf when there obviously is not one，Hermann similarly declares the death of the Prince precisely at the moment when he is arriving.Hermann’s aesthetic practice seems ridiculous，but he nevertheless propounds what for Nabokov is the nature of art：self-obvious lies，which，however，never gain autonomy from the model and can never escape authorial power.Suspended between representation and autonomous imagination，Nabokov’s art is doomed to be an illegit simulacrum.

The Ethics of Deception

We may then wonder what is the ethical appeal of conceptualizing art as a crooked mirror，as self-obvious deception，and at the same time ontologically inferior to its model？ To answer this question，we have to ask first of all what are the ethical values inherent in established aesthetics？From Romanticism and Modernism to Postmodernism and Poststructuralism，orthodox aesthetics has asked the reader to bask in the bliss of imagination or virtual images，oblivious of reality.It was fine，and ethical，to forget all about the truth and the reality outside of the text，to even suspend our disbelief and to be emotionally invested in the imaginary world.

But is it really responsible to cancel out the reality behind representation？ In 2016，with reference to the presidential election of the United States，the Oxford Dictionary announced the word of the year to be “post-truth，” observing that we are in an age where “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Donald Trump behaved precisely like Nabokov’s hero，or a sophist that Plato asks us to be cautious about，telling self-obvious lies，which however proved to be forcefully persuasive to his voters.Nabokov’s art aims to fortify his reader against this kind of sophistry.Rather than asking his reader to easily give sympathy to the story heard，Nabokov invites his reader to be a detective，perfectly detached and discerning while hearing out the account of a nervous and confused suspect.The experience of reading Nabokov’s story is an ethical education，where the reader is encouraged to believe that there is still an accessible answer behind the smoke screen，a reality opposite to the crooked mirrors，and to be on the quest for it.Nabokov’s aesthetics and his ethics of reading，I assert，are the ones we need for our information age.

Further Readings

Carroll，William.“The Cartesian Nightmare of Despair.” InNabokov’s Fifth Arc：Nabokov and Others on His Life’s Work.Edited by J.E.Rivers and Charles Nicol.Austin：University of Texas Press，2014，82-104.

Johnson，Donald Barton.Worlds in Regression：Some Novels of Vladimir Nabokov.Ann Arbor：Ardis，1985.

Kanevskaya，Marina.“The Semiotic Validity of the Mirror Image in Nabokov’s Despair.” InNabokov at Cornell.Edited by Gavriel Shapiro.Ithaca：Cornell University Press，2003，20-29.

Livak，Leonid.“A Mirror for the Critic：Two Aspects of Taste and One Type of Aphasic Disturbance in Vladimir Nabokov’s Despair.”Canadian-American Slavic Studies34，no.4（January 1，2000）：447-64.

Shrayer，Maxim.“Writing and Reading the Otherworld.” InThe World of Nabokov’s Stories.Austin：University of Texas，1999，17-70.