This protracted discussion about Nabokov's politics seems, to me, of doubtful interest. I didn't agree with some of his views, expressed in his interviews, on the war in Vietnam and on Nixon's politics but I understood them. On the other hand, I hold Invitation to a Beheading and Bend Sinister  as both great literary works and powerful indictments of dictatorship. One can, naturally, choose to analyze his political views as stated in his non-fictional texts, but I doubt that such an analysis will help us develop a better understanding and appreciation of his works.

This discussion reminds me of other debates like the two following ones:

- Some critics in France chose to disregard Céline as a serious novelist because of his involvement in the Vichy government and his antisemitism (needless to say I respect Nabokov's political views a great more than those of Céline!), yet he remains one of the best French novelists of the twentieth century.

- At a conference, years ago, in Germany, I gave a paper in which I was referring to Michel Foucault's theories. During the following discussion, Ihab Hassan, whom I was glad to count among my friends, objected to the use I was making of Foucault's theories; in his opinion, Foucault couldn't be held as a philosophical authority because he had no sense of responsibility and was reponsible for the death of many young men (among them a good friend of mine) whom he infected with AIDS.

Nabokov was a much better man in all respects man than either Céline or Foucault, yet this discussion about his politics raises similar questions and sends us back, perhaps, to Longinus's theory of the sublime as “the echo of a great soul”. Can Picasso be considered as “a great soul”? He was an egotistic phallocrat who grossly exploited the women he lived with. Were Rabelais, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Joyce or Pound "great souls"?  Political and religious authorities or the judges have clearly answered no to this question for all of them at some point or other in history. The French Minister of the Interior who banned Lolita clearly didn't consider Nabokov as a "great soul". I do, even after writing a long book about "the cruelty of desire" in his novels. Obviously, Longinus’s expression only implies a judgement about the moral values these artists and writers supposedly lived by and not about the esthetic value of their works. And we tend to attribute a moral value to polical principles, do we not?

During my doctoral defense in 1976, I was appalled to find out that Roland Barthes, who sat on the pannel, had not read Nabokov whom he obviously considered as an arch conservative because of his origins. I never found out, on the other hand, if Barthes's biais had anything to do with his own sexual preferences!