Should Nabokov’s Son Destroy Father’s Unfinished Work?

irishrosem

I wasn’t sure where to put this thread, but I thought this the safest forum. If it needs to be moved to General Discussion or Current Events, no problem.

“Dmitri’s Choice: Nabokov Wanted His Final, Unfinished Work Destroyed. Should His Son Get Out the Matches”

I’ve heard hints of this controversy here and there. But this writer in Slate seems to think that a decision may be imminent. Quick recap, Nabokov died leaving a piece of an unfinished work. His will directed his widow to destroy the work. His widow died with the work still sitting in a Swiss vault. His son, having inherited the transcript, must decide whether to release it to the hordes of rabid literary scholars and casual readers alike drooling over their chance to get a look at the work, or destroy it.

jales4 · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:33 am Post subject:

I thought a will was a legal and binding document. Doesn't the son have a duty to the estate to disperse (or dispose in this case) of the assets as set out in the will? Could he face legal ramifications if he releases or sells the manuscript?

Morally, out of respect for his father, he should destroy it. My opinion is that the work belongs to the artist.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:07 am Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject:

irishrosem · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:

jales4 · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject:

Hi,

I was trying to have a nap and couldn't stop thinking about this thread and the Moral Quandries thread which has a bit of a side discussion on harvesting organs from bodies without consent.

The two kind of go hand-in-hand. Do we own our thoughts, even after we've put them on paper? Do we own our bodies, even once we've died?

As for Nabokov's dilemma, I feel the son only has two solutions: destroy the work as his father requested (which is what I would do). Simply because I would want my own wishes respected.

If the son feels the work is of such importance that it must be released, the only option I see is to release the manuscript under a pseudonym. If the work is good, it will be published and garner respect. If it isn't good, it doesn't tarnish Nabakov's name or reputation in any way.

Jan.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject:

What Dmitri Nabokov should or shouldn't do, I can't really say. There is, I'm sure, a legal side to the issue, but I think the whole scenario speaks less to a moral decision than to a matter of conscience, if it's permissible to speak of the two as distinct. So while I can't say what he should decide, I can say what I would do in his shoes: I'd destroy it.

And I can't say I agree with the argument that shifts responsibility from Dmitri Nabokov to any other group. Doing so would not, I think, make the decision any less prone to depart from Nabokov's intention or wishes. Whatever decision is made is likely to be flawed in one way or another. The only solution, as I see it, is that someone take responsibility for acting in good conscience, and as someone who presumably ought to care what Valdimir Nabokov intended, his son is as good a default as anyone. At any rate, I'm not sure how you would settle on another candidate without resorting so a rationale at least as arbitrary as filial obligation.

irishrosem · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:08 am Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:46 am Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject:

Some questions:

Does the artist have a responsibility to his art that supercedes his own private wishes?

Does the artist have a responsibility to his audience and peers that supercedes his private wishes?

Supercedes meaning: he has no right to destroy these works or to deny his audience and peers the opportunity to engage them.

Is the artist the best judge when determining the value of his art?

Is the artist's son the best judge when determining the value of his father's art?

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject:

I would probably publish it. Since there is such an importance placed on the works of well known authors, then I just feel like the author has a responsibility to his audience and that goes beyond death. And with death, their choice in the matter ends.

Think of this: What if someone had been working on a cure for cancer but chose not to publish the findings while they were alive, wanting to instead solidify their research. This person was a bit quirky and had requested in a will that all their hard work should be destroyed if he should die before publishing it himself.

Is this a different situation because of the import of the material involved, that is art v. medicine? I think that if something would benefit a branch of human endeavor, then the wishes of the one sole author or creator should be taken into consdieration, but only to an extent. Death is certainly an extent at which I would draw a line.

But, when all is said and done...it is ONLY (still not yelling.. ;P) a work of fiction.

Mr. P.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject:

DH asked:
Does the artist have a responsibility to his art that supercedes his own private wishes? The only obligation an artist has towards his work is the obligation he feels. Apparently, Nabokov didn't feel an overwhelming obligation to make public an unfinished work.

Does the artist have a responsibility to his audience and peers that supercedes his private wishes? I'd say an artist has the same set of responsibilities towards an audience that any person has towards a community of which they are a part. Why that responsibility ought to include making public everything the artist writes is pretty much unfathomable.

Is the artist the best judge when determining the value of his art? Maybe not. But he's the ultimate judge by default. In the last analysis, he can always simply refuse to create.

Is the artist's son the best judge when determining the value of his father's art? Probably not, but determining the value of any particular piece of art is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not to respect the artist's wishes with regard to something that he himself created. Beyond that, the value of the work seems moot.

George Ricker · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject:

What seems to get lost in all this discussion is that Nabakov may have had good reason for not wanting the work in question to be published. It was incomplete, unfinished. Maybe he thought it reflected badly on his other efforts and didn't want the legacy of his achievement to be tainted by an inferior effort. Perhaps, at the end of his life, he realized the novel was not what he wanted it to be and preferred that it be destroyed.

I don't know the circumstances of his last days or why he left it to someone else to destroy the work in question. I do know, and I can speak to this from some personal experience, no writer publishes all or even most of what he or she writes. For every page that makes it into print, there are usually several that wind up going out with the trash.

It's entirely possible Nabakov was exercising what he saw as an obligation to his art not to have his name associated with a work he did not consider worthy of it.

Nabakov's assessment of the value and disposition of his work should be of paramount concern. However, since the manuscript is now the property of the son, he will be the one to make the final decision. I hope he will respect his father's wishes, but it's a decision he alone can make.

George

evendeathmaydie

I think it's important for an artist to destroy a few of his or her own works at some time, or at least lose them or hide them.

Our great heroes and role models would not seem quite so magical and wonderful if they didn't have some secrets, some mystery about them.

If we ever crack Einstein's coded work, will we find that he was taking notes on horse races?

If we knew the ending to Charles Dickens' The Mystery of Edwin Drood, wouldn't it have been a little less of a mystery and just another Dickensian nightmare of odd characters and long words inside long sentences?

If Jesus talked more about Heaven, would we be as floored as we will be when we get there? (Probably, as our puny imaginations can't come close to envisioning God in all his glory.)

But you get my picture. Obviously, this Nabakov guy had his reasons for wanting his art destroyed. We can only guess what they were. Isn't that more interesting than if he had revealed every thought he ever had to the world? (That's a rhetorical question to which the answer is: I have never heard of this guy and here I sit, in the wee hours of the morning, talking about him on the internet.)


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT