Destroy the MS. of _Laura_ (Nabokov)

[Pure]

There is a draft of a chapter of a novel, The Original of Laura, by V. Nabokov, being kept in a bank vault. Nabokov, in his latter days, asked that his heirs destroy it. His heir, Dimitri, is in the process of deciding.

Should this be done?

http://www.slate.com/id/2185222?nav=wp

 

[Vermilion]

No. If Nabokov wanted it destroyed so badly he should have done it himself. Surely, now he is dead, a) it can no longer harm him and b) it belongs to (sorry for the cheese) the world now...

x
V

 

[Guest]

do we really need more nabokov? Seriously?

Maharat

 

[oggbashan]

Destroyed? No.

Should it be published? That is another and different question and depends on the content and the state of the draft.

Og

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes.

Heirs can do as they wish, but if the deceased's wishes don't have to be followed in this case, then why should they be followed in any case? Will YOUR posthumous instructions be followed?

 

[oggbashan]

Yes.

Heirs can do as they wish, but if the deceased's wishes don't have to be followed in this case, then why should they be followed in any case? Will YOUR posthumous instructions be followed?

Should your posthumous instructions be followed?

Were you in a fit state to dictate them when you wrote them?

Do you care, once you are dead?

If you want to destroy an incomplete work - do it yourself while you can.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

do we really need more nabokov? Seriously?

Maharat

I do...

 

[Weird Harold]

Should your posthumous instructions be followed?

Were you in a fit state to dictate them when you wrote them?

Do you care, once you are dead?

If you want to destroy an incomplete work - do it yourself while you can.

Og

Common Law says "Yes."

There is a long tradition of "last wishes" being inviolable -- as are "death bed confessions" -- that are the historical legal underpinnings for estate planning and "Last Will and Testaments."

We are legally bound to follow the instructions in a formal Last Will and Testament, why should informal "Last wishes" be any different -- subject to the same "sound mind" qualifications as a Will.

As for whether I'll care about my "final instructions" after I'm dead, ask me then -- I might be in a state to care about whether they're followed or I might not be.

 

[oggbashan]

Common Law says "Yes."

There is a long tradition of "last wishes" being inviolable -- as are "death bed confessions" -- that are the historical legal underpinnings for estate planning and "Last Will and Testaments."

We are legally bound to follow the instructions in a formal Last Will and Testament, why should informal "Last wishes" be any different -- subject to the same "sound mind" qualifications as a Will.

As for whether I'll care about my "final instructions" after I'm dead, ask me then -- I might be in a state to care about whether they're followed or I might not be.

However testators can be mean, vicious, vindictive and just plain nuts without being legally incapable.

The executor in England and Wales is not obliged to follow the instructions in a Last Will and Testament. The executor can use judgement to achieve a fair and equitable outcome and, IF those who are beneficiaries agree, can change the instructions for example to avoid (not evade) possible taxes. If the beneficiaries, or someone who has a claim on the testator but was not included in the beneficiaries, do not challenge the executor's discretion - the executor can vary the testators instructions considerably.

The executor is the testator's agent but has almost complete freedom of action within the constraints of English Law. Choosing your executor is probably more important than the wording of your last will and testament.

However if you DON'T have a Last Will and Testament then the estate will have to be divided in very prescribed ways which could really hurt those you leave behind (and benefit the taxman!).

Og

 

[Equinoxe]

I am rather conflicted on the issue: I am inclined toward holding a literary executor to the author's expressed will, but—to use one genuine example—I am also pleased that Max Brod did not feel himself bound to it. In principle I am inclined one way, but in practice I am somewhat inclined another.

 

[NoJo]

Nabokov was an extremely weird control-freak. He refused to answer any interview questions extempore, but instead had to have all questions prepared in advanced an sent to him to give him the opportunity to either formulate a reply or reject the question.

I rememeber seeing a BBC interview of him where Robert Robinson, the questioner, was obliged to write each question on a duplicate cue cards. And Nabokov had a set of cards with all the answers, in order. Robinson's first question, which of course Nabokov knew was coming, was "Why do you insist on being given all the questions in advance?" Nabokov answered to the effect that he was a skilled writer but a very poor speaker. But to me, he was just a weirdo, afraid of the "messy reality" of speech, with its false starts and misunderstandings.

It's no wonder he didn't want to reveal his rough drafts to the public.

 

[Pure]

in part, i wish emily dickinson's heirs had not destroyed her letters.
i wonder who her lover was.

but then i think, 'the public appetite is insatiable for 'dirt' on who fucks whom, etc.' is there a 'right to know'?

i think a famous person or author is not obliged to make it easy for later researchers. i remember a documentary about Charles Dickens, and it reconstructed his travels and figured out, clearly, who the mistress was. he took lots of precautions (phoney names on hotel registers, etc.).

==
there is also an issue of 'quality control'. to take a writer's notes, unpublished stories, etc, is to look at pieces he or she may have thought inferior. but often they are published as 'lost manuscripts.' in the history of philosophy, Nietzsche's notes and scribblings--even wastebasket material-- was published after his death as 'his master work,' and it was uneven, lots of crap ("The Will to Power").