Subject
Re: Maria Malikova & DN re _Nabokov: Pro et Contra_ (fwd)
Date
Body
DN feels he must say the following. While he has nothing personally
against Mme. Malikova, and is aware of her publication's history, he sees
little use for such grab-bags, particularly when the inclusion of the
venomously vindictive Ms. Shakhovsky insults the very concept of
"objectivity", the citation of Adamovich is a backhand into the net unless
accompanied by VN's hilarious fictional smash, and the Russians don't
bother to publish ready and translated Boyd as an antidote to the
biographical monstrosities of Shakhovsky, Nosik et al. DN also hopes Mme.
Malikova has obtained proper permissions for post - - 1973 items such as
the Kafka lecture.
------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:31:26 +0300 (MSK)
From: "Maria E. Malikova" <masha@assisi.spb.su>
To: NABOKV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu
Subject: Re: DN on _Nabokov: Pro et Contra_
I was extremely upset and bewildered by Mr.D.Nabokov's displeasure
over our collection "Nabokov. Pro et contra" which will be soon published
in St.Petersburg. We did this work with love and respect for the author
and wish it would not by any means offend his son, so I think it necessary
to explain myself. The main aim of the volume is to present major
landmarks of Nabokov studies. There is not a single collection about
Nabokov in Russia (though we are lucky to have some brillian commentaries,
e.g. by A.Dolinin). We happened to be the first and wanted to reflect
history adequately. G.Ivanov and G.Adamovich's article from one side and
P.Bitsilly and Vl.Khodasevich on the other did co-exist in reality and
both deserve to be considered and studied. They have not been re-published
in Russian since that time and have yet to be included in the local
Nabokovian studies. I also do not see the point of defending Nabokov from
anybody - excuse my triteness, but he had defended himself by his art well
enough. If we publish only positive reviews of the past this will distort
Nabokovian history and might prevent students from studying his art.
However, we did our best to restore objectiveness and followed all
included publications (including Z.Shaxovskaya's reminiscences) with
detailed commentary, using among other sources the brilliant biography
written by B.Boyd (Incidentally I happen to know for sure that a
St.Petersburg publishing house is now thinking over the possibility to
publish Russian translation of his "Russian Years").
I do realize that I might be ill-informed and wrong in my
judgements, so I would greatly appreciate if NABOKV-L subscribers would
give their advice and opinions. If this first Nabokov undertaking isn't a
complete failure we are planning to continue the series--(the only
problem, as you might guess, being money and no efficient local
association of Nabokov students and scholars).
Please excuse my English.
Sincerely yours, Maria Malikova. Russia, St.Petersburg