Dear Carolyn,

Nabokov attacks Tolstoy's ridiculous moralistic sermons quite strongly in his Lectures on Russian Literature. Yet he considers him the greatest prose writer Russian has ever known. I don't have the book at hands right now, so let me quote from David Rampton's amusing article "Nabokov and Chesterton" instead:

Chesterton and Nabokov in their criticism were
happy to stress the importance of style and structure at the expense of the
explicit moral recommendations included in the text. It might amuse readers
to try to guess which of the two said of Tolstoy: “an artist teaches far more by
his mere background and properties, his landscapes, his costume, his idiom
and technique—all the part of the work, in short, of which he is probably
entirely unconscious, than by the elaborate and pompous moral dicta he
fondly imagines to be his opinions”

(The quote belongs to Chesterton)

Something similar can be seen in Bely's Gogol's Artistry, where he (Bely) is careful to distinguish Gogol the artistic genius from Gogol the worthless moralist. So this view is not some queer Nabokovian quirk; it's shared by many artists and lovers of true art alike.

As for purported feelings of "guilt", I propose we leave the Viennese delegation where they belong: outside, among the vulgar smell of rotten trash cans. I fail to see what good can come from speculating as to what inner feelings may or may not have influenced some of Nabokov's opinions; especially when we have the option to focus on some marvelous curve of a little-read sentence in stead. This whole business of poking in an artist's private life is really quite disgusting, it reeks of gossip of the sorriest kind.


Philip Klop

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Vladimir Nabokov Forum namens Carolyn Kunin
Verzonden: do 5/27/2010 9:18
Aan: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: [NABOKV-L] Soviet provincialism?


On May 26, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Stan Kelly-Bootle wrote:  Carolyn now  
completely reframes her original question: What I am saying is, did  
Nabokov have the right to criticize those who stayed behind? I am  
thinking for example of Pasternak. Did Nabokov forgive the murdered?  
-- CK

My answer is YES, VN has the right to criticize anything/anyone about  
which/whom he is critical. We, in turn, have the right to review  
specific criticisms and judge their merits. (To avoid any confusion,  
it should be noted that Pasternak died of lung cancer, to the best of  
our knowledge! He's far from typical of 'those who stayed behind.')


Dear Stan,

Before I tackle your response, allow me to pose a question that  
occurred to me today. Was Pasternak really that much more a novelist  
of ideas (which was what VN purported to despise about him, and  
others) than was Tolstoy? I don't know for sure, but I suspect not.  
Did Nabokov ever attack the truly ridiculous ideas of Tolstoy? or the  
ideas that are expressed quite openly in his great novels? I'm not  
aware that he ever did. If so, why should that be?

It seems to me possible that there is some kind of suppression of  
guilt feelings going on in some of VN's more outrageous attitudes to  
Soviet writers.  I think it similarly possible that this same  
motivation informs his overweening* attitude toward such things as  
homosexuality.

Pasternak may not have been murdered as others were - - his  
relationship with Stalin I'm finding from my reading in Volkov's book  
was more complex than I had realized, but he certainly was hounded in  
life. If lung cancer allowed him to escape the fate of others it seems  
to me to make little difference.

Carolyn

* to overween: to regard one's own thinking or conclusions too highly;  
overweening (adj): unduly confident, arrogant, presumptuous. On a  
personal note - - I had an extremely overweening person in my  
immediate family, and it took me many years to understand that it  
covered up a deep sense of self-doubt.