EDITOR’s REMARKS
An editor’s life is not always an easy
one -- as witness the on-going discussion being conducted by Gavriel Shapiro (GS), Alexander Dolinin (AD), Dmitri Nabokov (DN), with myself as the uncomfortable mediator. On
September 6th GS submitted a statement objecting to parts of AD’s article “Nabokov as a Russian Writer” in The Cambridge
Companion to Vladimir Nabokov, Ed. Julian Connolly.
Since the matter has become
contentious, especially from DN’s point of view, I
submit the relevant documents so that NABOKV-L subscribers may be fully
informed. Other than
messages I sent to the parties involved and a couple of clarifying
remarks, my comments are restricted to DN’s
assessments of my role. These immediately follow DN’s
two messages addressed to me.
I try to be evenhanded in my
dealing with NABOKV-l postings and, be it noted, the appearance of items on the
list do NOT necessarily represent the editor’s views. Indeed, I disagree
strongly with many of them. I do try (none too successfully) to keep the level
of discourse civil and to discourage
“flames.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded message from gs33@cornell.edu
-----
Date:
From: Gavriel Shapiro <gs33@cornell.edu>
Reply-To: Gavriel Shapiro <gs33@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Dolinin's Chapter in _The Cambridge Companion to
Vladimir Nabokov_
EDNOTE. Gavriel Shapiro is the author of two books on Nabokov and teaches in the Russian Department at Cornell.
Below he comments on Alexander Dolinin’s “The
Cambridge Companion to Vladimir Nabokov” Ed. Julian
Connolly.
To:
Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
I am writing to express my shock and
dismay at Alexander Dolinin's chapter
"Nabokov
as a Russian Writer" that appeared in the recently published
Two brief quotations will
suffice:
1. "In a sense, the Russian writer
Sirin fell victim to the
tricky
mythmaking and
playacting Nabokov indulged in during his later years.
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. For this
purpose, he would
argue that 'the nationality of a worthwhile writer is of
secondary importance'
(SO, 63) and present himself as a born cosmopolitan
genius who has
never been attached to anything and anybody but his
autonomous imagination
and personal memory" (p. 53).
2. "It seems that memoirists,
biographers, and critics alike tend to fall
under the spell
of Nabokov's own inventions, evasions, exaggerations, and
half-truths and
perpetuate his mythmaking game by sticking to its rules"
(p.
54).
I find the resentful and virulent
tone of Dolinin's "formulations"
unbecoming of a
scholar. It is rather reminiscent of the infamous Soviet
journalistic
lingo.
Aside from the inadmissible tone in
which Dolinin's chapter is written, his
assertions are
malevolently misleading. Such is the simile in the first
passage: Dolinin knows full well that Nabokov did not leave his native land
for
danger of the
Bolshevik terror, just as twenty years later he came to the
United States because
he had to flee the mortal danger of the Nazi menace.
Dolinin must be
also well aware that the shift from Russian to English was
Nabokov's personal
tragedy. Nabokov's books were banned from
his native
country turned
Zoorlandian, and his Russian reading audience in the
West
was
shattered to smithereens by the cataclysms of World War Two.
Therefore, Dolinin's presenting Nabokov's shift from Russian to English
as
a carefully
calculated opportunistic move is a cruel and truth-bending
attack on the
writer.
In the second passage, Dolinin once again subjects the writer to a
slanderous attack and
arrogantly "dismisses" the achievements of Nabokov
scholarship.
It is lamentable that this otherwise
fine volume is marred by such
deceitful and
disgraceful pronouncements.
Gavriel
Shapiro
----- End forwarded message
-----
|
At
Dear Gavriel,
I think perhaps you are
misreading Sasha's article. I am willing run
your
eloquent
comments but do think it over and let me know. Best,
Don
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Gavriel Shapiro to Don
Johnson
Subject: Dolinin’s
Chapter
Dear Don,
I carefully read these passages and others like them
and will stand by my
characterization. Please print my letter.
any thanks. Best, Gavriel
----------------------------------------------------------
|
Sept 7, 2005.[ Response to above.]
Dear Gavriel,
OK, I'll run it Thursday with
Sasha's response, if any. Although I have
not
re-read Sasha's chapter, my own impression is
that Sasha is advancing a
> hypothesis
about VN's trying to distance himself from his Russian
past (and
> language) [Sirin]and to identify himself as an English-language writer [Nabokov]. A
> reasonable and in no
way dishonorable strategy in his situation. It
will
> be interesting to see what DN's take is on all this.
>
Best, Don
>
--------------------------------------------
Date: |
Wed, 07 SSept 2005 |
From: |
|
To: |
|
Subject: |
Re: DoliniDolinin's
Chapter |
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weds,
Dear Don,
Here is my short response to Shapiro. I
think it is strong and clear enough.
Mr. Shapiro's strange attack betrays an
ardent but naive mind that reads tropes literally and takes every argument for
argumentum ad hominem. I am afraid that for a
professor of literature, it is a liability. The more sophisticated reader, I
hope, would easily understand that in my essay I don't discuss Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov's personal problems, tragedies,
challenges and choices. What interests me 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 (to use Bourdieu's term). I do question the Nabokov myth but not Nabokov's genius and integrity, nor
"achievements of Nabokov scholarship." I am sorry for
Mr. Shapiro who is still haunted by ghosts of the "infamous Soviet journalistic
lingo" but at the same time cries haro upon a first
sign of demythologization, calling me and my piece resentful, virulent,
malevolent, slanderous, deceitful, disgraceful, cruel and truth-bending. If it
is not a Soviet-style denunciation, I don't know what is.
Alexander Dolinin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDNOTE. I ran GS’s posting and AD’s response in sequence on the day following GS’s initial transmission and my exchange with him since AD
responded on Wednesday, Sept 7th rather than Thursday. None the less DN sent me
the note below on Sept. 7, apparently after GS had copied him my response about
sending both the GS & AD postings. On the Sept 8, GS sent and I posted his
response to AD:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------
EDnote. As editor, I remarked that I found some of GS’s remarks distasteful. Meanwhile I received the following
communiqué from DN.