EDNOTE. I find the ad hominem attitude of this message distasteful and would
urge all subsequent contributors to avoid personal invective.
----------------------------------------

----- Forwarded message from gs33@cornell.edu -----
    Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:29:07 -0400
    From: Gavriel Shapiro <gs33@cornell.edu>
Reply-To: Gavriel Shapiro <gs33@cornell.edu>
 Subject: Re: Dolinin's Defense
      To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum


Mr. Dolinin's defense, I am afraid, is no more successful than that of his
by far more attractive namesake. His attributing my sharp reaction to his
chapter to my being "ardent but naive" is merely half true. I do become
ardent when I see manifestations of cruelty, dishonesty, and arrogance. As
for naive, Mr. Dolinin evidently confuses me with his pseudonymous namesake
from Nabokov's story "Lips to Lips." Unlike his gullible namesake, however,
I see very well through my correspondent's desperate attempts to extricate
himself from the scandalous situation he himself created. Such, for
example, is Mr. Dolinin's disingenuous claim that he does "not discuss
Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov's personal problems, tragedies, challenges
and choices." "What interests me," he says, "is the 'model author' or,
better, two 'model authors' that happened to be named 'Sirin' and
'Nabokov,' two differently constructed personae, and their strategies in
the changing literary field." This apologetic statement, although it sounds
very scholarly, does not tally at all with Mr. Dolinin's attacks on Nabokov
and his integrity, and no degree of sophistication is needed to comprehend
this.

As for Mr. Dolinin's idea about "Sirin" and "Nabokov" as "two differently
constructed personae," I am willing to give it a try, even though at first
glance this bifurcation seems oversimplified. Let us see: there is
"Aleksandr Dolinin," habitually referred to as "the leading Russian Nabokov
scholar," and there is "Alexander Dolinin," the unfortunate author of the
chapter in question. Are they two different individuals or two faces of one
and the same person? It seems that my luckless correspondent's best
strategy at this point is to assert that he has nothing to do with
"Alexander Dolinin." No. My recommendation "betrays an ardent but naive
mind": a fleeting character in The Gift had already tried and miserably
failed "to dissociate himself from a villainous namesake, who subsequently
turned out to be his relative, then his double, and finally himself."

My other recommendation for Mr. Dolinin: in the future, to avoid such
lamentable statements as those that appeared in his chapter, he ought to
re-read Nabokov. Speak, Memory and Strong Opinions will be the best way to
start. No. This recommendation will not work either: Mr. Dolinin might
unwittingly "fall under the spell of Nabokov's own inventions, evasions,
exaggerations, and half-truths" and, Heavens forbid, will abandon his
resentful tone and will give up his slanderous attacks on the writer, the
attacks that he clumsily dubs "demythologization" and passes them off as
representing his scholarly objectivity.

I suppose I am running out of recommendations for Mr. Dolinin. My last
recommendation for him: to behave as a decent human being and as a
conscientious scholar. But perhaps it is too much to ask.

Gavriel Shapiro

----- End forwarded message -----
Dear Don,

             I trust you will run my rebuttal to Dolinin's response, entitled "Dolinin's Defense," in full and without delay.

Many thanks.

Best,

Gavriel


Mr. Dolinin's defense, I am afraid, is no more successful than that of his by far more attractive namesake. His attributing my sharp reaction to his chapter to my being "ardent but naive" is merely half true. I do become ardent when I see manifestations of cruelty, dishonesty, and arrogance. As for naive, Mr. Dolinin evidently confuses me with his pseudonymous namesake from Nabokov's story "Lips to Lips." Unlike his gullible namesake, however, I see very well through my correspondent's desperate attempts to extricate himself from the scandalous situation he himself created. Such, for example, is Mr. Dolinin's disingenuous claim that he does "not discuss Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov's personal problems, tragedies, challenges and choices." "What interests me," he says, "is the 'model author' or, better, two 'model authors' that happened to be named 'Sirin' and 'Nabokov,' two differently constructed personae, and their strategies in the changing literary field." This apologetic statement, although it sounds very scholarly, does not tally at all with Mr. Dolinin's attacks on Nabokov and his integrity, and no degree of sophistication is needed to comprehend this.

As for Mr. Dolinin's idea about "Sirin" and "Nabokov" as "two differently constructed personae," I am willing to give it a try, even though at first glance this bifurcation seems oversimplified. Let us see: there is "Aleksandr Dolinin," habitually referred to as "the leading Russian Nabokov scholar," and there is "Alexander Dolinin," the unfortunate author of the chapter in question. Are they two different individuals or two faces of one and the same person? It seems that my luckless correspondent's best strategy at this point is to assert that he has nothing to do with "Alexander Dolinin." No. My recommendation "betrays an ardent but naive mind": a fleeting character in The Gift had already tried and miserably failed "to dissociate himself from a villainous namesake, who subsequently turned out to be his relative, then his double, and finally himself."

My other recommendation for Mr. Dolinin: in the future, to avoid such lamentable statements as those that appeared in his chapter, he ought to re-read Nabokov. Speak, Memory and Strong Opinions will be the best way to start. No. This recommendation will not work either: Mr. Dolinin might unwittingly "fall under the spell of Nabokov's own inventions, evasions, exaggerations, and half-truths" and, Heavens forbid, will abandon his resentful tone and will give up his slanderous attacks on the writer, the attacks that he clumsily dubs "demythologization" and passes them off as representing his scholarly objectivity.

I suppose I am running out of recommendations for Mr. Dolinin. My last recommendation for him: to behave as a decent human being and as a conscientious scholar. But perhaps it is too much to ask.

Gavriel Shapiro