Subject
Fwd: Re: Dolinin-Shapiro controversy
From
Date
Body
Dear List,
Let me express my humble opinion on the sensitive subject touched upon
in the Dolinin-Shapiro controversy. G. Shapiro's response to A.
Dolinin's article was probaby a bit exaggerated, yet what strikes me, is the
inevitably personal character of such controversies.
Is the reader (even a "model reader", a scholar) able to distance
himself from the author? It's an interesting question. No doubt,
Nabokov was a great "mythmaker" and consciously constructed his "public
persona" (it was probably Pekka Tammi, who first approached the problem
of Nabokov's "public persona" theoretically).
Yet the following phrase from A. Dolinin's article refers to the
knowledge of what Nabokov was and did in "reality":
"Like those unhappy expatriates who leave their native country in search
of a
better life and then are doomed again and again to prove to themselves that
their decision was right, Nabokov had to justify his emigration from his
native language and literature to their acquired substitutes."
Ironically, Nabokov anticipated that his biographers and scholars would
be continuing the "mythmaking". Yet is it possible to avoid it and not
to betray the personal attitude? It's probably a matter of degree and
good will. It pertains also to Jo Morgan's book ardently discussed in
the list.
In conclusion, let me cite another opinion on Nabokov the émigré writer:
"Nabokov's estarngement from his émigré destiny (still - destiny is not
life) was already contained in his novels and short stories written in
Russian. Future biographers and memoir writers will be desperately
trying to return, to insert, to squeeze Nabokov into the émigré
fate and, thereby, to equal themselves to him, or put him nearer
themselves. However, Nabokov, if we judge him by his own writings, was
never a great lover of company, particularly in serious matters" (A.
Pjatigorsky. A Word about the Philosophy of Vladimir Nabokov).
Best wishes,
Marina Grishakova,
Tartu University
----- End forwarded message -----
Let me express my humble opinion on the sensitive subject touched upon
in the Dolinin-Shapiro controversy. G. Shapiro's response to A.
Dolinin's article was probaby a bit exaggerated, yet what strikes me, is the
inevitably personal character of such controversies.
Is the reader (even a "model reader", a scholar) able to distance
himself from the author? It's an interesting question. No doubt,
Nabokov was a great "mythmaker" and consciously constructed his "public
persona" (it was probably Pekka Tammi, who first approached the problem
of Nabokov's "public persona" theoretically).
Yet the following phrase from A. Dolinin's article refers to the
knowledge of what Nabokov was and did in "reality":
"Like those unhappy expatriates who leave their native country in search
of a
better life and then are doomed again and again to prove to themselves that
their decision was right, Nabokov had to justify his emigration from his
native language and literature to their acquired substitutes."
Ironically, Nabokov anticipated that his biographers and scholars would
be continuing the "mythmaking". Yet is it possible to avoid it and not
to betray the personal attitude? It's probably a matter of degree and
good will. It pertains also to Jo Morgan's book ardently discussed in
the list.
In conclusion, let me cite another opinion on Nabokov the émigré writer:
"Nabokov's estarngement from his émigré destiny (still - destiny is not
life) was already contained in his novels and short stories written in
Russian. Future biographers and memoir writers will be desperately
trying to return, to insert, to squeeze Nabokov into the émigré
fate and, thereby, to equal themselves to him, or put him nearer
themselves. However, Nabokov, if we judge him by his own writings, was
never a great lover of company, particularly in serious matters" (A.
Pjatigorsky. A Word about the Philosophy of Vladimir Nabokov).
Best wishes,
Marina Grishakova,
Tartu University
----- End forwarded message -----