A rejoinder from Dmitri Nabokov.

A REJOINDER FROM DMITRI NABOKOV

IN HIS REVIEW [NR, Nov. 7] of AndrewField's recent book on (or, rather, at) my father [Vladimir Nabokov], Jeffrey Meyers, who I am sure meant well, swallowed and regurgitated, quite indiscriminately, what is in fact an unscholarly, error-ridden, and viciously mendacious text, compounding matters by certain misreadings and exaggerations of his own.

A Trib column recently cited theview that it was better in the old days, when lying scoundrels could be dealt with by horsewhip rather than lawsuit. We can do neither with Field, since I don't relish jail and since Field waited for the subject of his libel to be safely dead, and unable to defend himself. I do plan to comment more fully on Field's book elsewhere. For now, I would simply like to point out the more blatant errors and slurs that Meyers, who evidently did not have the frame of reference required to evaluate Field, has taken at face value and sometimes amplified.

1. It is not correct, within the Russianhistorical context, to define the Kadet Party, of which my grandfather was one of the leaders, as "right-wing.' The party was strongly anti-Bolshevik, yes, but committed to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy on the British model. There were groups that were much farther to the "right,' if that is the correct term here (for their views reached fascist extremes that would have been repugnant to the very democratic American Right of the type that we adhere to).

2. Father did have a homosexualuncle (something he certainly made no bones about), but the habitual public fondling, ardent or otherwise, which the reviewer underlines with gusto, is Field's fantasy.

3. Field's subject was not elusive atall; on the contrary, Nabokov made the serious mistake of taking Field into his confidence before the latter revealed his true colors. Father was open and, as always, funny and original during those interviews. Field, who has no humor and, apparently, a kind of Salierian resentment of Nabokov's brilliance, decided at a certain point that he was being "manipulated.' He traveled many miles to consult individuals who often had little or no knowledge of Father's life, and sometimes a rusty axe to grind, in order to present a "balanced' (read: "vindictive') biography by according to their statements at least as much weight as to what he had been fortunate enough to obtain from the horse's month (he even reassures them, in a note, that the information obtained from all has been included!). One should also be aware that Field's previous attempt at a biography--Nabokov: His Life in Part--compiled during Father's lifetime, saw the light of day only after the viorous intervention of our attorneys in order that blatantly inaccurate and sometimes libelous statements be deleted.

4. What Mr. Meyers considers"sound readings' are founded on a) Field's premise that an artist cannot invent but must perforce base his creations on actual occurrences, including those buried among remote roots of the family tree; and b) the bizarre notion that the key to Nabokov's life and art is an implausible--and quite unsubstantiated--narcissism. One perceives, in addition (if one has the fortitude to wade through Field's exceedingly dull texts), that these latest "readings' are nothing but rehashes from another previous Field book, while Nabokov's subsequent, fascinating novels are given short shrift indeed.

5. The implications of the "strangekind of kiss' that terminated an engagement of Nabokov's, which Field belabors and Meyers selects for scrutiny, are quite misleading, and come, by the way, from a particularly libelous source much used and seldom identified by Field.

6. The suggestion of Father's ingratitudefor Edmund Wilson's help is equally false. Nabokov did help Wilson in whatever ways he could, which were pretty much limited to proposing joint translation projects and sharing his expertise in the niceties of Russian language and prosody, matters in which Wilson, notwithstanding his knowledge and talent in other fields, was very weak.

7. Another slur the reviewer citeswith relish--that Nabokov "publicly expressed devotion to his wife, but had a number of serious love affairs'-- originates largely from the same malevolent source and is an outright lie. Nabokov did have one brief skid while on a prolonged trip in the 1930s, which hardly qualifies as a serious love affair, and is certainly not much of a shocker. This episode (both the circumstances and the lady's name, incidentally, are incorrectly cited by Field) is the only one that might have represented a potential deviation from the great love and fidelity that characterized my parents' marriage of 52 years, had not Nabokov promptly told his wife about it and quickly terminated the acquaintance. Whom do Field and Meyers hope to titillate with this revelation? And their chivalry toward Nabokov's 85-year-old widow is, of course, exemplary.

8. The final canard selected for displayby Meyers that deserves a good dose of buckshot is Field's theory about Father's "heavy drinking,' a pure invention that Field utilizes to justify what, in his infinite wisdom, he judges to be an artistic decline (fictional biographies must, of course, have a dramatic denouement). This particular lie is extrapolated in toto from a joke Father played during a television interview: He laced a teapotful of water with a bit of Scotch, sipped it frugally, and later shared the prank with the audience. Neither Mother nor I ever saw VN tipsy, and his alcoholic intake seldom exceeded an occasional glass of beer or wine. And the decline Field invents presumably encompasses such petits riens as Ada, Transparent Things, Look at the Harlequins, and The Original of Laura, which was interrupted by Nabokov's death and promised to be one of his most brilliant and original works (for the time being, my word will have to be taken for that).

It saddens me to think of thedisinformation that threatens readers encouraged to plod through Field's ponderous opus by insufficiently knowledgeable reviewers.