Vladimir Nabokov's Bend Sinister

In Bend Sinister, Vladimir Nabokov utilizes various literary and narrative devices to stress the importance of one’s awareness of others’ various and unique perceptions of the world. We are exposed to the imperfections of different characters in the novel so that we may think about our own mental, emotional and psychological states. Loaded metaphorical imagery introduces a literary reality that invites us to think about how symbolism (in both inanimate and animate objects/characters) presents an observation on Nabokov’s thoughts on reality – that it is nigh on impossible to understand it (reality) objectively. Nabokov suggests that we may never comprehend what is truly reality for all that we know is simply our perceptions, which are produced

Here, the dark “heaving” waters stand as a reflection of Krug’s character, a sorrowful man enduring tearful struggles. He makes an attempt to cross the bridge only to be turned away by guards on the other side. Once he arrives again at the start of the bridge, a new set of guards turn him back; thus, he is forced to wander between two sides of a bridge, repeatedly turned away at both ends. The image of Krug constantly walking back and forth along a bridge is quite comical, but also functions as a visual metaphor for his mental state: the bridge is a frontier that he is struggling to cross: from his married life into widowhood, from happiness into despair. For the country, the bridge symbolizes the new regime: a crossing from one political shore to another. Krug is always on the bridge: between the old politics and the new, between happiness and grief, and, more importantly, between our world and his

As a scholar, Krug views the world through an academic lens. He does not understand the brutality of the Ekwilist regime simply because he fails to perceive its legitimacy. President Azureus begs to Krug: “My dear friend, you know well my esteem for you, but you are a dreamer, a thinker. You do not realize the circumstances” (47). Instead of thinking about the dangers of Paduk’s regime, Krug stubbornly holds on to the belief that he is invincible. This false sense of being untouchable is a partially due to his childhood memory of being a bully to Paduk. Krug recollects that “toad was [Paduk’s] nickname,” recalling also that he was “something of a bully” who used to “trip [Paduk] up and sit upon his face” (46). Krug’s attachment to the past manifests itself in his obliviousness and unwillingness to treat Paduk with respect during an interview. Recognizing Krug’s condescending demeanor as an anomaly, the alarmed guards warn him that he “should bear in mind that notwithstanding the narrow and fragile bridge of school memories uniting the two sides, these are separated in depth by an abyss of power and dignity which even a great philosopher cannot hope to measure” (129). Though he is explicitly told to not “indulge in this atrocious familiarity,” Krug disregards them and