A lot of people are jumping on this.

Here is your chance to weigh in on one of the most troubling dilemmas in contemporary literary culture. I know I'm hopelessly conflicted about it. It's the question of whether the last unpublished work of Vladimir Nabokov, which is now reposing unread in a Swiss bank vault, should be destroyed--as Nabokov explicitly requested before he died.

I can see the gray area. Do we honor a dead man's last request, or do we satisfy our own curiosity? Sure, at first glance, it's a hard question; most people would (understandably) like to read the book, if only to find out what all the fuss is about. However, I'm going to side with Nabokov on this one: the manuscript should've been destroyed years ago--"as Nabokov explicitly requested before he died." And we should be thankful that his genius won't be tainted by something that, quite possibly, isn't as great as we would like to believe. (Then again, I have a feeling the manuscript might be something else altogether: did he write something that's humiliating to himself or his family, something that might actually be better left unread? Maybe Dmitri should enlighten us without showing all his cards.) All of the great writers have written something they don't want the public to read and, clearly, Nabokov is no different. So respect a dead author's wishes, burn the manuscript, and stop fucking with his legacy. It's great enough as it stands.

Comments

[Nonanon]

I say destroy it, although why didn't he destroy it himself--did he die very suddenly? (I'm not that up on Nabokov's life story.) Seems like asking for trouble. Then again, perhaps I come from too practical a family--my mother burned all her love letters from my dad a few years back, because they were "hers and no one else's." Now that's taking care of business. You can see why none of us gave her much lip growing up.

[Brandon]

Nonanon: I wondered about that, too. Writers always lock something up, then say, "I wrote something, and it's sitting in a secret vault, and I don't want you to publish it." Then they die. I bet ol' Normie Mailer has something hidden away in a chest. So yes: destroy it, in my opinion. On the other hand, Virgil wanted "The Aeneid" to be destroyed; he never actually finished it, and it was never good enough for him, but the Roman emperor at the time (wisely, a lot would say) saw things differently. You have to wonder how destroying "The Aeneid" would have affected the entire poetry landscape.

[Stefanie]

But aren't you the least bit curious? As Nonanon asked, if he wanted it destroyed, why didn't he do it himself? I say let the manuscript see the light of day.

[Brandon]

Stefanie: I am curious; who isn't? Seems like, if Dmitri's been sitting on the manuscript all these years, he's at least considered pubishing it. It's hard to make a judgment. I'd at least like to know Dmitri's reasons for keeping it in the vault. Still, I say destroy it, but that's mostly because I get a kick out of these kinds of things.

[J.S. Peyton]

I fall into the "destroy it" camp. It's his story, his name on the byline, his legacy that will be affected by it (for better or for worse), and, ultimately, it's his decision. If he wants his manuscript burned, we should shed a tear or two for our unsatisfied curiosity, then toss it into the burning blaze.