EDITOR’s INTRODUCTION
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
------------------------------------
EDNOTE.
As editor I often check with those who submit contentious materials to make
sure they are not acting hastily. I sometimes suggest changes of wording to
make postings needlessly abrasive. If the author does not agree, I usually go
ahead and send the item--sometimes prefaced by an EDNOTE. In this case I sent
Dr. Shapiro’s posting without comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
Many 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,
From Alexander Dolinin to NABOKV-L
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.