Random House Or Fire

Friends,

I'm interning with Roger Sheffer this semester in his 343 class, and he wrote this surprisingly good flash fiction piece concerning the controversy around the status of Vladimir Nabokov's final novel. Here is a link to a Slate article covering this dilemma, and some about this work called The Original of Laura (though that might not be the real title). (here's an additional like to the Nabokov Online Journal that will have an interview with Dmitri soon)

See, that novel is sitting in a vault somewhere. Vladimir, before he died, told his son, Dmitri, to burn that work, kind of like how Kafka asked his works to be destroyed when he died. Now, Vladimir died in 1977, so it's been nearly 31 years that this work has sat in the vault awaiting burning or publication because Dmitri can't seem to make up his mind.

Of course, many are calling for its publication and an equal number is calling for its burning. I understand both sides of the argument. Out of respect for art, then the novel deserves to be published because otherwise, the world would be deprived a masterpiece. Also, out of respect for the man's wishes, then you have to burn the thing because that's what he wanted. Part of this ongoing discussion is the role of the dead over the living, and how much power do the dead really have? (According to Roger, the literary blogs are "exploding" with this controversy.)

I haven't checked out the other blog discussions, but to me the debate shouldn't automatically assume it's a masterpiece. Lookit, I know Nabokov was a genius, so the chance of it being a masterpiece is better than most...but, I can't help but think of latter-day Vonnegut (specifically his meandering essays), and I wouldn't automatically crown them masterpieces just because Vonnegut is a respected literary name. And that's what's going on with the Nabokov debate...let's wait until it's read before we start chucking around that masterpiece title.

Also, I wonder how much of this discussion is thinking about Dmitri Nabokov the person. It must have been hard enough to grow up in the shadow of his dad because how the hell would you live up to that, become an astronaut, find Atlantis? So he had all the psychological damage and pressure of just being Vladimir's son, and now your genius famous dad asks you to burn his last work. If you burn it, literary people will just hate and ridicule your ignorance, and once again, you haven't lived up to your dad's shadow in terms of creating art for the world. Plus, consider this: could you burn something your dad loved?

I guess the underlying question to this is what's more important...art or man? Do you do right by the man, or do right by art? Also, who has control over art...the people who create it, or the people who consume it?

What do you think? Personally, I'm in the artist rights corner here. Without those making it, there would be no art to quibble over. So, I guess that puts me in the "burn it" column, but sheesh, if I was Dmitri, I don't know if I could.

I'm going to close with some extra coolness that I found. Here's a link to The Paris Review, Art of Fiction interview with him from 1967, (it is a .pdf file) and here is a link to see a manuscript page of his (also from the Paris Review). And, finally, a video of an interview with Vladimir Nabokov that was done in 1975. The bitch of it...this video is in French. But, it's nice to see and hear the voice of the guy who this debate centers around.


Viva Vladimir Nabokov