Should Nabokov

[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.

[quote]And so this is Dmitri's choice: become the means of transmission of his father's last words and

[jales4]

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. P]

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.

Would he be in compliance with the will if he copies the work and then destroys the manuscript? Just a twist I thought of. I am sure the wording of the will covers a situation like this.

My opinion, not have read anything by Nabokov, is still that it would be a shame to see a previously unknown work destroyed.

Mr. P.

[George Ricker]

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.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the will in question gave the directive to Nabakov's widow, not his son. The son is inheriting from his mother. I'm not at all sure how binding Nabakov's instructions would be, legally, under such circumstances.

That said, Nabakov, as the creator of the work, should have the last word in how it is to be handled. I like Rosemary's suggestion that the courts should appoint something like a guardian ad litem to represent Nabakov's interests here.

George

[irishrosem]

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

Actually, after I had posted the above, jales, I had wished I hadn't mentioned anything too specific about legal issues, because I'm most interested in how people respond morally to this. And then I go and lead us down a legal trail. Thanks for reminding me what the actual issue is.

I can't decide precisely where I stand, morally. I think I'm leaning towards Nabokov's wishes, mostly because I think if a person took the time to write down his wishes, they should be followed. But, as Mr. P. said, even though I'm not really a Nabokov fan, the idea of losing a piece like this is a shame. Back and forth...

I am sure the wording of the will covers a situation like this.

Mr.P., as far as I know, and I certainly don't know everything about this story, this doesn't appear like it will come down to a legal tussle. It seems like Nabokov's son will be deciding without interference from courts. So...what would you do if you were Nabokov's son, if you don't mind me asking?

[jales4]

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]

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]

And I can't say I agree with the argument that shifts responsibility from Dmitri Nabokov to any other group.

Mad, are you speaking here to the suggestion raised in the article for a third alternative where Dmitri passes the manuscript to a trusted friend for decision after Dmitri's death? Or are you speaking to my suggestion of an advocate appointed to represent Nabokov's interest? If it's the latter, I don't mean for the advocate to make any decisions, just that she would be appointed to advocate in support of Nabokov's wishes as indicated in his will. If it's the former, I agree I think it would be a random way to proceed. Certainly it's not fair that his mother died without destroying the document and Dmitri is left with this nearly possible decision. But he should still definitely be the one to make the decision.

I will say this, it would be hard for me to destroy something of my father's, even if I knew it to be his wishes, if I thought it would further or even just shed light on his reputation. But, I would probably still destroy it. Because not to do so presumes I knew better than he did, if his wishes were explicit.

[George Ricker]

And I can't say I agree with the argument that shifts responsibility from Dmitri Nabokov to any other group.

Mad, are you speaking here to the suggestion raised in the article for a third alternative where Dmitri passes the manuscript to a trusted friend for decision after Dmitri's death? Or are you speaking to my suggestion of an advocate appointed to represent Nabokov's interest? If it's the latter, I don't mean for the advocate to make any decisions, just that she would be appointed to advocate in support of Nabokov's wishes as indicated in his will.

Just as a point of clarification, I agree with both of you. I don't think anyone but Dmitri should make the final decision about the manuscript. A third party advocating on behalf of the father would be useful only if it helped the son determine his course of action. I wouldn't want the decision taken out of his hands. It should remain his and his alone to make.

George

[Dissident Heart]

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?