« Europe fact of the day | Main | The Countercyclical Asset, part II »
Nabokov's last work will not be burned
Surprise. That's against his deathbed instructions, in case you haven't been following the controversy.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 23, 2008 at 07:28 PM in Books | Permalink
Comments
As per his request, I will not read it.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at Apr 23, 2008 8:10:01 PM
We're up in arms over this egregious flouting of a dead man's last wish because estate planning is for peace of mind while *alive*. We want to go to our deaths knowing that our legacy is ours to define. We feel better as we age knowing that no matter what happens, our instructions will be followed. Running roughshod over one man's dying wish is tantamount to running roughshod over all of our future dying wishes. After Nabokov's book is published, in direct contravention of his explicit instructions, we all must feel a certain nagging uncertainty that perhaps our dying wishes will be deemed just as unimportant and equally ignorable. If so, we the living suffer an almost imperceptible increase in pain.
And, yes, we the living *are* in fact countable members of the global social welfare function.
I suppose one might argue that the book could be so incredibly good that the few thousand people who read it over the next decades will be so enriched as to offset the reduction in utility. But, one has to ask, if the work is this good -- and for this argument to prevail, I might add, it must be *quite* good -- would not Nabokov had thought it worth publishing in the first place?
Burn it.
Posted by: Keith E at Apr 23, 2008 9:07:22 PM
Poppycock! If Nabokov wanted it destroyed, he had, I must presume, plenty of opportunity to do so when he was among the living. Now, he has other fish to fry, so to speak. Being a radical myself, I say let all estates revert to the state. Why should the dead dictate to the living? Let them disburse their worldly gains when they are of the world. When they give up the ghost, let them with the ghosts repose!
Posted by: grackle at Apr 23, 2008 10:35:34 PM
grackle: "Being a radical myself, I say let all estates revert to the state."
If people don't currently will their estates to the state, I'm quite certain they'd take the steps necessary to make sure that the state doesn't end up with their property when they die. The Law of Unintended Consequences will surely win out. People will give their stuff away while they are still alive under terms that allow them the use of it until they are dead, or something like that.
Cheers,
Posted by: Michael Giesbrecht at Apr 24, 2008 1:19:27 AM
"Poppycock! If Nabokov wanted it destroyed, he had, I must presume, plenty of opportunity to do so when he was among the living."
Nonsense. Nabokov was working on it and could not be sure when he would utlimately lose his faculties. That is why he secured the promise that it would be destroyed if unfinished. And that is why this is such a gross act of deceit by his son who could easily have told his father that he was unable to fulfil his instructions which would have given Nabokov the choice of destroying the MS himself and safeguarding his reputation. A horrible act of betrayal to witness. Not that the rest of us need feel bound by any sense of piety towards the great man.
Posted by: John Meredith at Apr 24, 2008 5:03:42 AM
"Poppycock! If Nabokov wanted it destroyed, he had, I must presume, plenty of opportunity to do so when he was among the living."
Nonsense. Nabokov was working on it and could not be sure when he would utlimately lose his faculties. That is why he secured the promise that it would be destroyed if unfinished. And that is why this is such a gross act of deceit by his son who could easily have told his father that he was unable to fulfil his instructions which would have given Nabokov the choice of destroying the MS himself and safeguarding his reputation. A horrible act of betrayal to witness. Not that the rest of us need feel bound by any sense of piety towards the great man.
Posted by: John Meredith at Apr 24, 2008 5:04:06 AM
Is this a question of the disposal of property or ideas? Dmitri could easily burn the original after copying it down. Where's the utility in Victor having told his son a beautiful story while on his deathbed but then swearing Dmitri to secrecy?
And, what would the harm be in having the wishes of the dying ignored after their deaths? Clearly not all of their wishes are worth enforcing (consider the father that passes his house on to his son with the stipulation that he never wear a hat while inside it). The orderly disposal of the property of the dead is one thing, but our desire to adhere to the wishes of the dying generally is another.
Posted by: billb at Apr 24, 2008 7:24:40 AM
Lesson: If you really want it done, choose a reliable executor. If one cannot be found, choose one whose interests coincide with your wishes.
Posted by: Cyrus at Apr 24, 2008 8:05:28 AM
Every book ever written is an unfinished manuscript. Just ask the author.
Nabakov may have feared that his last work would be the one by which he
would be ultimately judged, but so many years on, that just isn't going
to be true.
As a question concerning the wishes of the dead or living, the piece of mind
given by the granting of a dying wish, unfortunately, dies with the mind. I
know we'd all like to achieve immortality through the belief that our
control over the world of the living extend beyond our leaving it, but that
is rarely the case.
Posted by: BFogarty at Apr 24, 2008 8:12:34 AM
Cyrus is probably right here. But why does Dmitri get such a harder time about this than Vera? It was Nabokov's wife who was supposed to have destroyed the MS; does she get a pass because of her complete inaction? Is it better to pass the duty off on someone else? Personally, I consider her more at fault than Dmitri, and I find the fact that she did not destroy the MS something for Dmitri to take into account.
Posted by: nicole at Apr 24, 2008 10:17:21 AM
"Every book ever written is an unfinished manuscript. Just ask the author.
Nabakov may have feared that his last work would be the one by which he
would be ultimately judged, but so many years on, that just isn't going
to be true.
As a question concerning the wishes of the dead or living, the piece of mind
given by the granting of a dying wish, unfortunately, dies with the mind. I
know we'd all like to achieve immortality through the belief that our
control over the world of the living extend beyond our leaving it, but that
is rarely the case."
Point one is false for certain creative types, myself included. Definitely not the Beethoven type, but certainly the John Cage type.
On point two: how do you know?
Doesn't an author have a creative right to determine what exactly s/he should be judged on in terms of what s/he considers truly finished output?
Posted by: at Apr 24, 2008 11:31:29 AM
Doesn't an author have a creative right to determine what exactly s/he should be judged on in terms of what s/he considers truly finished output?
Let's hope not. Authors are often the worst judges of such stuff.
If Kafka's heirs had followed the author's instructions, both THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE would have been consigned to the flames. (Ditto Virgil's AENEID.) And Eugene O'Neill's LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT would not have been produced until 1978, more than two decades after the play won a Pulitzer Prize for drama.
Posted by: Tim Hulsey at Apr 24, 2008 7:25:54 PM
If he really asked that it be "burnt" (and not something more generic) then he was pretty clearly alluding to the ancient accounts of Virgil's deathbed request about the Aeneid, and pretty clearly expecting the same result.
To add to Tim Hulsey's list, A E Housman requested various unpublished works to be destroyed, and then named his brother Laurence as executor in the full knowledge that Laurence would see that they were published. Either he wanted to have his cake and eat it too or he was conflicted.
Posted by: Gene O'Grady at Apr 24, 2008 8:16:24 PM
I kind of agree with Gene. Surely Nabakov knew his literary history well enough to know that it wouldn't actually get burnt any more than The Trial or the Aeneid.
Posted by: Andrew Edwards at Apr 24, 2008 9:20:39 PM
Nabokov is dead. His wishes no longer matter to us, the living, in any sense except the sentimental. I find few things more abhorrent than the cult of ancestor worship that has arisen in our society through the creation of unbreakable wills, trusteeships, and so forth.
I doesn't matter whether he thought it was any good or not, or whether he thought it was too personal, or didn't want his name associated with it, or whatever. He is dead, may be rest in peace, but may the rest of us get on the with business of living our lives on our own terms.
Here's an extreme example: What if, instead of burning his book, Nabokov wanted his son burned instead? After all, Nabokov created him and raised him for years, and since we must follow the instructions of the deceased, it must be done. If you don't agree with this, then you must concede that it is the prerogative of the living to ignore the wishes of the deceased.
William the Conqueror, I'm sure, would have wanted the English King to remain an absolute monarch until the end of time. Should Queen Elizabeth dismiss Parliament and resume ruling directly, because it was the wishes of a dead man? No, of course not.
I for one will not live in a necrocracy to be governed by the dead.
Posted by: some guy at Apr 24, 2008 11:45:03 PM
When a person dies, the only thing we must decide is where property should be distributed. From there, they have no say in the run of things. It was his son's choice, and I'm only glad that he made one. We will benefit more from having his book published, though, so it's good in that sense. But no pressure!
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Apr 25, 2008 8:56:16 AM
Any reader who wants to read this can now do so, knowing that Nabakov did not consider it up to his exacting standards for publication, but also that the author could not bring himself personally to remove it from the world and that he therefore suspected it of having some worth. Any reader who wishes to abide by Nabakov's deathbed wish may neglect to read it. Both readers are respectable, and I'm glad Dmitri has offered us this choice.
Posted by: hotspur at Apr 25, 2008 1:58:51 PM
Didn't Emily Dickinson request that all her papers be destroyed up her death?
Posted by: curious at Apr 25, 2008 2:31:18 PM
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living : that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it -- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Rex at Apr 25, 2008 3:44:11 PM
Well, I hope you all feel that way if your graves (or those of your loved ones) are bulldozed at some point in the future to make way for condos.
Or your organs are harvested immediately upon your death.
Personally I have no problem with either but I have a feeling many would.
Logical follow-up for those who claim that the dead's wishes have no bearing on the living: should the government respect wills?
Posted by: meter at Apr 26, 2008 1:23:33 AM
"Logical follow-up for those who claim that the dead's wishes have no bearing on the living: should the government respect wills?"
That concerns the allocation of assets, not what to do with said assets beyond allocation.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Apr 26, 2008 1:46:57 PM
Exactly. Should they be allocated to those the deceased identified as beneficiaries? Can/should the state usurp inheritances?
Posted by: meter at Apr 27, 2008 11:50:06 AM
Honestly, I doubt that many diarists wanted to have their private thoughts published. The offense is very common.
On the other hand, I have read that Dmitri read some parts of the novel to conferences and was asking different Nabokov-experts what they think he should do. To me, all this drama seems more like a marketing ploy, arousing readers' curiosity, than like a tortured conscience.
Posted by: lb at Apr 28, 2008 10:32:44 AM
