EDNOTE.
1. Svetlana Chekalova. "'First
celebrating the past, then simply cursing it...'" A
detailed review comparing the Boyd and Aleksei Zver'ev' VN biographies.
2. Nikolai Mel'nikov. "A Tale about How Aleksei Matveevich quarreled with
Vladimir Vladimirovich." A
thoughtful look at Aleksei Zver'ev's
VN bio.
3. Sergei Kostyrko.
"Nabokov -- the
All three appear in the distinguished Moscoe
literary journal _NOVYI MIR_ of July 2003 and may be read on-line http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/2003/7/
Original
Message ----- From: Dmitri Nabokov
Cc: 'Olga Voronina'
Sent:
Subject: RE: Nabokov
Bibliography (Russian)
Dear Don
(kindly post if you don't mind my frankness),
I am
extremely surprised that you keep taking this scumbag pirate seriously -- nay,
respectfully, with an "Ednote" in fat,
black type to boot. I don't want to say more since I have not yet succeeded in
downloading Mme.Chekalov's review (or the other
items), but I know enough about Zver'ev to tell you
it is insolence to mention him in the same breath with Boyd. And I have read
enough of fork-tongued Mel'nikov to predict the tone
of his contribution fairly accurately. If you can prove me wrong on those two
counts, I'll be delighted. As for Stacy Schiff, she is a friend, so I shall not
belabor the veracity and syntax of her Hasty Pulitzer, but I have checked the
Russian translation and it compounds things by being pretty awful (you will
quickly recognize the style of the translatress). In
Respectfully,
Dmitri
Original
Message ----- From: Oleg
Dorman
Sent:
Subject: Re: Fw: Nabokov Bibliography (Russian). Dmitri Nabokov's
comments.
Permit me
to add from the gods that the Russian translation of "Vera" is awful,
is insulting to such an extent that many those who have been passionately and
patiently waiting for it gave up reading the book after dozen of pages.
Otherwise it seems complicity. I wonder - are the authors translated have any interest
in what is being done out of their creations? What do their agents think? -----
Original Message ----- From: D.
Barton Johnson To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU Sent:
Original
Message ----- From: Debra Lynne Walker
Sent:
Subject: Re: Fw: Nabokov Bibliography (Russian). Dmitri Nabokov's
comments.
Couldn't
the list PLEASE retain academic standards?!
Lynne Walker
(
Original
Message -----
From: "Rita" <riteid@yahoo.com>
> This is insolence to talk about recently deceased
> Prof.Zverev in this tone. And a genetic -
probably not
> spiritual - relationship with Vladimir Nabokov
does
> not give his son Dmitrii this right.
>Zverev's obituary:
> http://www.inauka.ru/philology/article33509
> Margarita Meklina
Original
Message -----
From: "Phillip Iannarelli" <iann88us@yahoo.com>
> Isn't D going a bit too far in his rage by using that
> word? What's the story behind it?
> Phil Iannarelli
Original Message
-----
From: "Nat Selleck" <selleck@OPERAMAIL.COM>
> Dmitri's tyranny over this list must end. Need
we endure his bullying
> and ad hominem attacks simply out of deference
to his bloodline?
> This goes beyond taking offense at his vulgar language. His tantrums
> have led, directly or indirectly, to the abrupt cessation of at least two
> interesting lines of scholarly exchange over communism and Charlie
> Chaplin, Nabokov and homosexuality. If you think
that this is
> acceptable in these cases, how about the slippery slope leading to
> the ad hominem slamming of the contents of a simple
bibliographic
> posting?
> Nat Selleck
Original
Message -----
From: "Maxim D. Shrayer" <shrayerm@bc.edu>
> Dear Colleagues,
> Dmitri Nabokov’s
characteristic of Nikolai Melnikov
> is actually rather charitable given the anti-Semitic
> and blasphemous comments this individual has made in
> connection with the Jewish themes (especially the
> Shoah) in the writings of Vladimir Nabokov. I
> attach Melnikov’s review of my book “Nabokov: temy i
> variatsii” (Nabokov:
Themes and Variations, 2000)
> and my response. It’s an old hat by now, but I
> thought I’d share it with the list. I’m sorry that
> both Melnikov’s review and my response are in
> Russian and therefore inaccessible to some of the
> list’s subscribers:
> http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/shranlo.htm
> While strong language isn't always effective or well
> placed, in this case I also wouldn’t mince words in
> likening Mr. Melnikov to a receptacle of certain
> small, creepy (and, I should add, virulently
> xenophobic) microorganisms.
> With best regards,
> Maxim D. Shrayer
> 19 July 2003
>
> --
> Maxim D. Shrayer
> Professor of Russian & English
> Department of Slavic and Eastern Languages
>
> Lyons Hall 210
> 140 Commonwealth Avenue
>
>
> shrayerm@bc.edu
> tel. (617) 552-3911 fax. (617) 552-3913
> http://fmwww.bc.edu/SL-V/ShrayerM.html
Original Message -----
From: "Anatoly Vorobey" <mellon@pobox.com>
To: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
There is no anti-Semitism in Melnikov's review (available in
Russian at http://nlo.magazine.ru/archive/267.html ), though I'd
grant that there is a lot of "anti-Shrayerism"
there. Why would anyone
want to confuse the latter with the former, or to endorse DN's
choice of
epithets (I omit my true opinion thereof at the request of the moderator),
is a question I'd rather not speculate about.
[P.S. I don't know anything about Melnikov
beyond having read these two
articles of him - the review of Shrayer's book at
http://nlo.magazine.ru/archive/267.html, and the review of Zverev's book at
http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/2003/7/meln.html. For all I know he may be
all that DN says, but these two items certainly don't qualify as evidence
for that.]
Original
Message ----- From: Dmtiri
Nabokov
Sent:
Subject: RE: VN magazines?
I would
like to clarify a hasty wisecrack in my post of 19 July. What I meant by
"Hasty Pulitzer," as in Harvard's Hasty Pudding, was not that Stacy
Schiff's prize was undeserved or hastily awarded, but that her book itself,
besides its undisputed virtues, has some imperfections due mainly, as she
herself told me, to such extraordinary pressure from the publisher that she
could not doublecheck everything, or give me a
promised pre-publication look. For instance, the resonant campus love affair
attributed to Father never happened, yet it afforded easy fodder for
scandal-minded critics. I am fond of Stacy and esteem her work. I shall now
expect a reproach from her (our) publisher, who has generally been accurate and
dutiful. It is also true that the pressure was motivated by a desire to publish
within my father's 100th anniversary year.
DN
-----
Original Message -----
From: "George Shimanovich" <gshiman@optonline.net>
> The only standard that I accept on this list is
the one established by
> Vladimir Nabokov himself.
> Calling exchange over communism and Charlie Chaplin, Nabokov
and
> homosexuality a 'scholarly' by Nat Selleck make
me wish for exactly kind
of language
that Mr. Dmitri Nabokov has
courage to offer. We need people that
> keep the bar high, even at the expense of sounding offensive to common
> denominator. An I will trust Dmitri's
'tyranny' of words in maintaining
> that level more then Mr. Selleck censoring
inquisition in this list.
> George Shimanovich
Original
Message -----
From: "Byron Nilsson" <byron@banilsson.com>
> I rarely, rarely post to this usually enjoyable and informative list, but
> impatience compels me to stick my neck out just long enough to observe
that
> Dmitri's so-called tyranny is more generally
known as "opinion."
> That's it. Opinion. Pleasure and rage are but two
of the many acceptable
> reactions to a person's opinion. I work as a critic; I experience a gamut
> of reactions, but the most annoying are those formed as if in response to
> some dictatorial edict. That's not what I deliver. But I don't preface
each review
with a disclaimer noting that it's my opinion -- the reader is
> assumed to be hip to that fact.
> I recommend such hipness to any disgruntled contributors.
It will
eliminate any illusion of tyranny.
Original
Message ----- From: DMITRI NABOKOV
Sent:
Subject: FW: update
-----Original
Message-----
From: nabokov
Sent: lundi,
21. juillet 2003
"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
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?
DN
Dmitri Nabokov is quite
correct in his statement that he had no role in the curtailment of the
political thread of some months ago. Nor does he in any sense control the list.
I have run many postings that I know he finds distasteful. While I confess to
considerable discomfort about ad hominem comments by
DN and other contributors, I have (sometimes unhappily) run them in an attempt
to be fair to all parties. I ask that all contributors avoid invective. In
all-to-rare cases I have asked contributors to tone down their more personal
remarks.
NABOKV-L is primarily intended to be a source of information and
informed opinion about literary matters. Since, however, the list both cites
and forwards published materials that sometimes involve extra-literary matters,
the latter may contain opinions offensive to some subscribers. Please take note
that the appearance of such material on NABOKV-L does NOT imply endorsement (or
damnation) of the contents or the author.
Original
Message -----
From: "Nat Selleck" <selleck@OPERAMAIL.COM>
>
> My cool is intact, but I appreciate Mr. DN's concern. I also want to
> thank him for sending me back to the archives to check my facts.
>
> The archives do not lie, but apparently my rational memory is even
> worse than that of Hermann Karlovich. It was
dead wrong on the
> reasons for the demise of the Chaplin/Communism and Pale Fire/
> homosexuality threads. It remembered DN as having been a party to
> their passing. This is not true. It and I (its owner) apologize both to
> DN and to the list for the false accusations.
>
> The business about ad hominem attacks,
name-calling, and bullying
> tone regarding Stacy Schiff and Melnikov still
stands. I'll leave it to
> those on the list to evaluate the appropriateness of DN's
comments
> on the bibliographic posting that started this thread. My response to it
> reflected my own judgment, although it has been softened a bit by
> additional information.
>
> Nat Selleck
acknowledge
Nat Selleck's apology with regard to my
"tyranny." As for dear Stacy Schiff, I have apologized to her. I am
sorry she got unfairly nicked, allthough she does
know I don't fully agree with all she says. I certainly would not want that to
imperil a friendship of long standing. With regard to Melnikov,
if Nat reads my explanatory post of 22/7, perhaps he will understand my tone.
DN
EDNOTE. On July 19, Dmitri Nabokov sent NABOKV-L a
forcefully worded posting
directed to
others. As editor, I posted the item without comment--a mistake on my part.
Dr. Mel'nikov is entitled to his reply given below.
All parties have now
agreed that NABOKV-L shall not serve as a forum for further comment on the
matter.
------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "teolit" <teolit@philol.msu.ru>
Sent:
Subject: Re: on DN and "Nabokov o Nabokove"
---------------------------
Господин Набоков-мл.!
Признаюсь, я был неприятно удивлен тем малопривлекательным
грязеизвержением, которое невольно спровоцировала моя библиографическая
заметка. Хотелось бы знать: что именно Вы имели в виду, говоря о <подлых
инсинуациях>, будто бы обнаруженных кем-то в моих набоковедческих работах?!
Прежде чем швыряться этими и подобными обвинениями, неплохо было привести
хоть один вразумительный аргумент. Грязные оскорбления, которыми Вы
одариваете меня уже не впервые, согласитесь, никак не тянут на
<убедительные доказательства>: они запятнали не меня, а лично Вас и
громкое
имя Вашего отца, которое не дает Вам права вести себя подобным образом!
Использованные Вами выражения создают впечатление (думаю, не у меня
одного),
что я имею дело не с сыном большого писателя, [Phrase deleted by editor
with consent of the the author].
Литературная критика и реклама - не одно и то же: пора бы Вам это усвоить.
Допуская, что некоторые мои оценки личности и творчества Вашего отца далеки
от суеверного благоговения (видимо, единственный род эмоций, приемлемый для
Вас), хочу заметить, что я имею полное право высказываться так, как считаю
нужным, и по поводу В. В. Набокова, и по поводу любого другого писателя. И
не Вам, никак не проявившему себя на неблагодарном литературоведческом
поприще, указывать мне, что и как я должен писать. Тем более что,
высказывая
критические суждения в адрес В. В. Набокова (творчество которого, уж
поверьте, ценю не меньше Вашего), я, в отличие от Вас и Ваших подловатых
прихвостней, не переступал ту черту, за которой критика превращается в либо
в наглую клевету, либо в истошный маразматический вой. Утверждать всерьез,
что я будто бы завидую Вашему отцу (да это все равно что завидовать Бунину
или Достоевскому!) может либо больной человек, либо злонамеренный лжец.
Советую Вам, прежде чем Вы в очередной раз извергнете на меня лавину
огульных обвинений, выбирать выражения и хотя бы бегло знакомиться с теми
статьями, которые Вы пытаетесь обгадить, даже не прочитав их. Подобная
стратегия применялась в стародавние коммунистические времена (например, во
время травли Пастернака: <Я <Доктора Живаго> не читал, но скажу:>),
теперь
же она выглядит несколько комично. Кстати, не менее комичны и Ваши
постоянные выпады против неугодных Вам переводчиков. Самоутверждаться за
счет переводчиков В. В. Набокова легко: благо не существует эталонного
перевода англоязычных набоковских текстов (если не считать вольного
переложения "Лолиты") - ругать и придираться можно сколько угодно!
Только
вот ведь какая заминка: насколько я знаю, Вы никак себя не проявили как
переводчик на РУССКИЙ язык, поэтому все Ваши "твердые суждения" на
эту тему
выглядят не слишком убедительно.
Н. Г. Мельников