M.Roth on Dieter Zimmer's annotated
Fahles Feuer [...]"He admires Boyd's theory, but doesn't buy it, in part
because to assert a massive intervention by ghostly directors takes too much
autonomy away from the individual artist, whose autonomy VN prized above all
else [...] I was interested to see that DZ cited posts to the listserv
throughout his notes [...]On the other hand, there is material in the footnotes
which I think could be traced back to a discovery on the listserv but DZ doesn't
acknowledge a source. This got me to thinking about the challenge of this forum
in terms of giving credit where credit is due[...].Certainly discoveries of
allusions and sources should be cited, but what about basic insights about, or
interpretations of, VN's books[...] I wonder if anyone has a rule of thumb when
it comes to citing the list. And do we believe that Nabokovians (whether
listmembers or not) have an obligation to be familiar with the contents of the
list? What are our obligations exactly?"
JM: D.Zimmer, according to MR, doesn't
want to "assert a massive intervention by ghostly directors," in PF, thereby
indicating a respect for the autonomy of the individual artist ( even when
we take into account the fact that the ghostly directors are also created by the
artist, I suppose).
Scholars are not necessarily "artists," and yet, their
autonomy is equally precious - should we consider that there are
(apparently) converging ideas and conclusions people may reach
independently.
I'm glad MR is not inquiring about obligations
and rules for the VN-list, only for scholars.
One of Updike's words
about VN mentions his "ecstatic writing" ( and Updike's own responsiveness
to it).
Last week, while I
read Anna Akhmátova's articles about Púchkin ( in particular, the
one dated April 20, 1947), I remembered Updike's assessment and compared it
to VN's passionate dedication to Púchkin when, at least in the eyes of A.A,
Púchkin had been an atheist on the matter of happiness ( he was unable to
put faith in it, cf.his letter to P.A.Óssipova quoted by AA).
AA considers that,
for Púchkin, death only became a menace when it intervened to cut
short a moment of happiness. She quoted other similar
unburdenings from his correspondence to Pletniov and Viázemskaia,
also from a letter to A.Petrovna Kern, before she concluded
that Púchkin feared happiness in the same way that other people fear a
disgrace, that he trembled with its imminent appearance because
happiness announced its impending, perhaps immediate, loss. For
her Púchkin's entire experience and feelings are expressed throughout his
work.
Unable to reach any
conclusion of my own, I can only register that VN's
verbal celebratory and open-hearted acceptance of joy,
and his sufferings and losses as well, became even more
mysterious, intense and enchanting by this contrast. And also to
register my sorrow related to Updike's
demise.