Subject
DN to GD et al
From
Date
Body
*** Though this letter is addressed to me, Dmitri Nabokov wanted it posted
on the list. The first part deals with my infamous posting on Nabokov and
Pasternak, the second with my objection -- actually dictated not by PC but
respect for human dignity to which even bad authors are entitled, at
least in my book -- to DN's using people's last names as further means of
ridiculing, in this case of the female author's bodily attributes (or lack
of some and abundance of others). GD ***
From Dmitri Nabokov:
Dear Galya,
Yor untrammelled elucidation and apology were much appreciated. I
found it hard to imagine you would have deliberately disparaged Father's
honor. Peace and a very belated Happy New Year to you and all, a wish that
a flurry of LOLITA launches and other duties made me forget.
On the other front--the one you address in your posting of 12
Jan., let me be the one to allay your profound concern about my presumed
incorrectness. It is true that when necessary I am politically incorrect,
whatever that means, and proud of it, as my favoraite T-shirt proclaims.
On the other hand what I said about pears and noses was niether ad hom,
nor ad fem. I have no idea of Nosik's morphology, but conveniently played
on words--as I had with impunity and a big laugh in my Petersburg
Library lecture--to suggest that he was behaving like such a sleaze that
the shape of his nose deserved painful alteration. I stick to my guns 'n
roses, and leave further discussion to Gogol's ghost.
As for Miz Pera, she is indeed pear-shaped. I have no problem with that,
especially since my own shape is not so great these days. But I also stick
to my guns and pears. Her dressing up in a PENTHOUSE-style neglige, which
either some cinemag photojournalist or she herself deemed appropriate for
anyone connected with LOLITA, LO, or whatever, was grotesque for a
decidedly postpubescent authoress simultaneously trying to play the role
of social arbiter and clone of the man whom the BBC, as you may have
heard, has just named one of the greats of the century. What I said was
meant to underline the execrable taste and opportunism that has
characterized her tenacious coattailing. I'll be glad to share other
samples with you privately some time. Otherwise she has my _beneplacito_
to wear what she likes. For my part, I choose to remain inconsistent. For
example, I found Madame Holmes herself far more sexy and charming than her
miserable book.
I learn meanwhile that Farrar Straus have announced the intent to
publish Pera. Without addressing the utter nonsense she writes, the
proper attorneys have advised this publisher that he would suffer the
same consequences, in spades, as friendlier and wiser houses who had been
on the point of infringement.
FINAL SUGGESTION:LIGHTEN UP AND SMILE!
BEST GREETINGS.
DN
on the list. The first part deals with my infamous posting on Nabokov and
Pasternak, the second with my objection -- actually dictated not by PC but
respect for human dignity to which even bad authors are entitled, at
least in my book -- to DN's using people's last names as further means of
ridiculing, in this case of the female author's bodily attributes (or lack
of some and abundance of others). GD ***
From Dmitri Nabokov:
Dear Galya,
Yor untrammelled elucidation and apology were much appreciated. I
found it hard to imagine you would have deliberately disparaged Father's
honor. Peace and a very belated Happy New Year to you and all, a wish that
a flurry of LOLITA launches and other duties made me forget.
On the other front--the one you address in your posting of 12
Jan., let me be the one to allay your profound concern about my presumed
incorrectness. It is true that when necessary I am politically incorrect,
whatever that means, and proud of it, as my favoraite T-shirt proclaims.
On the other hand what I said about pears and noses was niether ad hom,
nor ad fem. I have no idea of Nosik's morphology, but conveniently played
on words--as I had with impunity and a big laugh in my Petersburg
Library lecture--to suggest that he was behaving like such a sleaze that
the shape of his nose deserved painful alteration. I stick to my guns 'n
roses, and leave further discussion to Gogol's ghost.
As for Miz Pera, she is indeed pear-shaped. I have no problem with that,
especially since my own shape is not so great these days. But I also stick
to my guns and pears. Her dressing up in a PENTHOUSE-style neglige, which
either some cinemag photojournalist or she herself deemed appropriate for
anyone connected with LOLITA, LO, or whatever, was grotesque for a
decidedly postpubescent authoress simultaneously trying to play the role
of social arbiter and clone of the man whom the BBC, as you may have
heard, has just named one of the greats of the century. What I said was
meant to underline the execrable taste and opportunism that has
characterized her tenacious coattailing. I'll be glad to share other
samples with you privately some time. Otherwise she has my _beneplacito_
to wear what she likes. For my part, I choose to remain inconsistent. For
example, I found Madame Holmes herself far more sexy and charming than her
miserable book.
I learn meanwhile that Farrar Straus have announced the intent to
publish Pera. Without addressing the utter nonsense she writes, the
proper attorneys have advised this publisher that he would suffer the
same consequences, in spades, as friendlier and wiser houses who had been
on the point of infringement.
FINAL SUGGESTION:LIGHTEN UP AND SMILE!
BEST GREETINGS.
DN