> Yet in this respect they seem to be really terrible parents, the kind of parents who take a child with a problem and make it ten times worse by their visible disappointment in the child for having the problem at all.

 

There are other examples of such unrepentant “moral weakness” in VN oeuvre. Ganin plies Alferov with drink so that he could run away with Mary (he changed his mind). Martyn does not consider what his exploit will do to his Mother (it did). Charlotte does not think much of her teenage daughter when she marries Humbert (she did not die because of that). Luzin jumps out the window after saying to his loving wife “Bylo horosho” (in Russian version).

 

At the same time morally likable characters like Vasiliy Ivanovich, Cincinnatus, Krug are mercilessly punished and are relieved only at the threshold of the story, with strange exception of Pnin, the only morally sympathetic character in PF. As if foreseeing our moral indigestion, VN, being a good chief, added him for a healthy supplement.

 

I think VN used his characters to the fullest and disposed of them right after they served his needs. Morals in his works are not direct, not a starting point. They are byproducts, side effects, almost afterthoughts on reader’s part. May be part of the reason is that morals are shared medium, which in a way is antidote to art. Good art that cannot be repeated or shared – only followed, shaded ;).

 

Should we object to VN inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on his characters? Does it lessen our enjoyment of his works and words? And if not how that is different from weak parenting by Shades and from moral imperfections of other protagonists listed above?

 

In parting I want to say that Nabokov-L is not a popularity contest of literary theories as someone hinted – but an exchange of ideas on how to be a better reader of VN. Being a good listener is a must.

 

- George Shimanovich