Glob-a-log

So, it won’t be burned after all:

Dmitri Nabokov, son of Vladimir, has decided to publish The Original of Laura, the novel his dying father commanded be destroyed. Having kept the literary world in a state of suspense for years over whether he was prepared to carry out his long-standing threat to burn his father’s last novel, Dmitri Nabokov has finally announced that he is prepared to save it from destruction.

Vladimir Nabokov’s The Original of Laura will now not be thrown onto the flames, the 73-year-old has told Der Spiegel magazine, arguing that his father, the creator of Lolita and Pale Fire who died in 1977, would not want his son to suffer any more over his most tortuous dilemma.

It has been a fascinating if long-drawn-out story: What would happen to this particular book. The dilemma was obvious. On the one hand, there was this unmistakable and clearly expressed wish of the author himself, who did not want a book he couldn’t finish to be published. On the other hand, the whole literary world wanted to at least have the chance to see the work and judge for itself if the writer was right to wish to have it destroyed unseen.

As it often goes, the desires of the living trumped that of the dead.

From a moral point the decision is absolutely wrong - immoral if not illegal. The artist who is still there to express his or her wishes concerning a work of art that has not been promised or sold to some private collector or publisher should be the sole arbiter of these issues. The moment any work of art enters the public arena it becomes part of this world. At that point anyone’s opinion of it becomes as valid (or vapid) as that of its creator. In this sense the world of art is the most democratic of all.

However, until a work of art is brought into this public world the artist’s rule is and should be absolute. It is his or her nalienable right - and duty - to be the God of this creation. No other individual, no society as a whole, should have or claim the right to intervene. Ultimately, all kinds of authoritarian censorship or a more democratic wish for art to be, as it were, ‘painted by numbers’ are bad - and may spell the death of art. An artist must be free to create what he or she wishes and to decide what to do with the end product. That does not mean the world has a duty to applaud whatever is made or to support the artist morally and/or financially - but it does mean it should at least leave the artist in peace, to do as he or she pleases. The making of art should be the most private of all enterprises, so it can become that most public and democratic artefact: a work of art.

Until sold, given (or promised) to the public the artist should have absolute control of the process and the destination of his or her work - including the right to destroy it. This is, as said, the artist’s inalienable right and the death of the artist should not diminish or extinguish this most necessary power. In other words, the decision not to destroy this unfinished work by Nabokov is wrong - terribly wrong even: an absolute perversion and a moral, if not a legal crime.

Having said all that, as a fan of Nabokov’s work, I am, of course, very happy that his son chose to commit this outrage.

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe today to get free updates by email or RSS.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 at 14:46 and is filed under Arts & Ents, Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.