Message

"Rita" (Mme. Margarita Meklin, I presume): I had absolutely no idea of Mr. Zver'ev's death when I posted the message you refer to. The censorship of death of course takes precedence over other considerations, and I extend my profound condolences to the family of the deceased. My opinions remain another matter. As you can see, your insulting remarks in my regard are utterly inappropriate. As for my father, he, too, was a man of both compassion and principle, and I do not think my presumption is excessive if I suggest that he would have replied to you in much the same way.

Mme. Walker: As you may know, I am capable of expressing myself in four languages to a high academic standard. Sometimes, though, it is the colorful American vernacular, sparingly used, that can most accurately express my thoughts, particularly about a certain kind of contemporary Russian. If "scumbag" bothers your sensibilities a lot, consider it expunged.

Mr. Iannarelli: I have a sneaking suspicion that your motivation was less stupor at my outrage than curiosity as to how I would respond. In any case, thanks for making my day. I confess that when I write on the very late cusp of two long days, I sometimes overlook that not everyone on the List has Russian or is conversant with the needed frame of reference. To put things into a digestible capsule: Mr. Mel'nikov's worst sin in my father's regard has been to plagiarize, translate, and publish the entire contents of Strong Opinions. This was a blatant infringement of copyright even by Soviet standards, since the interviews, essays, etc. that make up the book, even if originally composed earlier, were substantially revised by my father for inclusion in the volume after the date in 1973 when the Soviet Union adhered to the International Copyright Convention. Not content with stealing, Mel'nikov gnawed the hand out of which he was feeding by garnishing his (very poor) translations with an introduction and commentary laced with snide innuendo, all of which is meticulously catalogued in a document that will soon be made public at an appropriate time and place. I could go on to other instances of his deliberately insulting "literary criticism," some of it posted on this forum not very long ago in the guise of a review of Nabokov's lectures. I wish you knew enough Russian to form your own opinion of the publication currently under discussion.

In a more ample context, let me remind you and others that after the Bolshevik Revolution looted everything Nabokov possessed -- and all those whe have read him know that mansions, icons and samovars were not the main losses -- the Perestroika publishers, as soon as it became legal to read him, plundered his literary estate, in both the material sense and the artistic. Today, instead of taking pride in the modest Nabokov Museum, the authorities continue to exact an unaffordable rent from the largely volunteer, self-sacrificing staff whose only mission is to provide Russia and the world with a vestige of Nabokov, the same Nabokov whom, officially, they proudly acclaim as one of their own. Against such a background of triple robbery Mel'nikov and his ilk, having discovered that they will never write like Nabokov, add the envious insult of innuendo to the injury of depredation.

Mr. Selleck: Before you totally lose your cool, would you kindly explain to whom on the List, and in what way, I have done all those terrible things? Specifics, please. And, pray tell, how did I, or could I, close down a discussion of Charlie Chaplin, Communism, or homosexuality? You've got your facts wrong, mister. It was Professor Johnson, Moderator, who asked that further discussion of politics be avoided, just as I was about to reply to a crescendo of provocation from a participant whose name I have not seen before or since, but whose tone is suddenly evoked by a curious déjà vu. If I've trodden on any personal toes, sorry. But what "innocent" bibliography (see above)? And what steep slope? and what homo (sapiens) have I attacked?