March 05, 2008
The Fate of Nabokov's Laura, Part II
Ron Rosenbaum in Slate:
The latest chapter in the intrigue surrounding The Original of Laura, the elusive, unfinished, unpublished final work of Vladimir Nabokov—a chapter that has unfolded since I last wrote about Laura in Slate—turns out to be a kind of ghost story.
It involves what might be called the spectral appearance of Nabokov himself to his son, Dmitri, the 73-year-old sole heir who holds Laura's fate in his hands. This otherworldly manifestation came on the heels of an intense period of worldwide debate among readers and literary figures—debate stirred up by my disclosure that Dmitri was once again inclined to follow his father's deathbed wish and burn the manuscript, now awaiting its fate in a Swiss bank vault.
"Burn it," cried playwright Tom Stoppard in the London Times. "Save it," countered novelist John Banville. Slate readers were passionately divided.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 04:18 AM | Permalink
Comments
The Original of Laura... or The Original of Lolita?
Indulge my wild fantasies, Abbas... perhaps you remember my ideas concerning the hidden 'tombstones and signposts' in Lolita? My theory then, as now, was that Nabokov's Lolita was directly inspired by von Lichberg's Lolita, and that far from being a case of cryptomnesia, Nabokov actively felt indebted to von Lichberg and 'hid' in his own book a number of 'signposts' whose sum was nothing less than an admission of this. Which brings me to The Original of Laura (TOL). I haven't read the manuscript, obviously, but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if it turned out to be a more frank admission of Lolita's (read: Laura's) origin. Which is probably why, especially in its unfinished state, Nabokov had doubts great enough to order its destruction — no one understood Lolita, so how could they possibly understand an incomplete TOL? — and this might explain, too, the hand-wringing on Dmitri's part over whether to publish it or destroy it. If it was just a brilliant portion of an unfinished novel unrelated to Lolita, would there really be any hesitation to publish?
There is at least one other undiscussed possibility as well: the manuscript does not exist. I admit I'm something of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to Nabokov, but only because his constant trickery has made me this way. Is it really so far-fetched to assume that this whole thing is one last great trick he is playing on us all (with the help of a few close friends and family members)?
I say publish!
But I put my money on its destruction. Or 'destruction,' if you will...
Posted by: ghostman | Mar 5, 2008 11:28:58 AM
Post a comment