In the summer of 1958, a novel that had been rejected by four American publishers and quietly printed in Paris by a press better known for pornography arrived in the United States and promptly became the most talked-about book in the country. Lolita had been circulating in plain brown wrappers among literary cognoscenti for three years, passed between readers with the furtive excitement of contraband, when Putnam finally risked American publication and watched it sell 100,000 copies in its first three weeks. The scandal was immediate and the debate ferocious: was this literature or obscenity, a moral indictment or a moral outrage, a masterpiece or an elaborate act of provocation? Vladimir Nabokov, watching from his hotel room in Ithaca, where he still taught literature at Cornell, seemed quietly delighted by the confusion. He had spent his entire career setting precisely this kind of trap: a surface so seductive it was almost impossible to see clearly, concealing depths that rewarded scrutiny with more questions rather than answers. The man who had written Lolita was not, it turned out, the easiest man to find inside it.
Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977) wrote sentences that gleamed like knife blades: sharp, dazzling, and faintly dangerous. Born into the Russian aristocracy, exiled by revolution, displaced by war, and ultimately reborn as one of the supreme stylists of the English language, he carried the full catastrophic weight of the 20th century into prose of almost unbearable elegance. His novels — Lolita, Pale Fire, Pnin, The Gift, Ada — shimmer with double meanings and concealed architectures, each a labyrinth designed by a man who understood, from painful personal experience, that reality offered no guarantees and no exits. He loathed Freud, dismissed Marx, and treated any system that claimed to explain life's mysteries as an affront to the irreducible complexity of individual consciousness. Reality, he insisted with a conjurer's grin, was a word that meant nothing without quotation marks.
The difficulty with Nabokov is that he was an exceptionally cunning architect of his own legend. He gave interviews in which he composed his answers in advance and read them from index cards. He constructed a public persona of glacial aesthetic superiority so convincing that generations of readers have taken it at face value, mistaking the mask for the face. Yet beneath the performance of serene, ironic detachment lay a man shaped by exile, grief, and loss of a magnitude that would have broken most writers entirely, a man whose most famous creation is narrated by a monster because he understood, from somewhere very deep, how seductively convincing monsters could sound when given the right sentences.
It is that more complicated and more human Nabokov that Dana Dragunoiu sets out to recover in Simply Nabokov, bringing to the task a razor-sharp command of European intellectual history and a scholar's refusal to let a writer hide behind his own carefully constructed masks. An Associate Professor of English at Carleton University, Dragunoiu treats Nabokov's fiction, essays, and public performances not as aesthetic objects sealed off from history but as the work of a man entangled in the political upheavals, ethical dilemmas, and psychological wounds of his century. The result is a Nabokov who is more vulnerable, more morally fraught, and far more interesting than the aloof aesthete he spent a lifetime pretending to be. In this interview, Dragunoiu reflects on the layers of myth and misdirection Nabokov so carefully constructed, what lies beneath the butterfly's wings, and why the most elusive literary conjurer of the 20th century rewards, above all else, the reader patient enough to look twice.
Charles Carlini: Nabokov worked hard to keep people from figuring him out, but at the same time, he left behind all kinds of hints and puzzles. Did you ever feel like he was setting traps for readers and biographers, just to see who would fall in?
Dana Dragunoiu: Let me begin with Nabokov’s revealing answer to an interviewer who asked, “What surprises you in life?” His response: “the marvel of consciousness–that sudden window swinging open on a sunlit landscape amidst the night of non-being.” Brian Boyd, Nabokov’s biographer, chose this as his epigraph for good reason. The “marvel of consciousness” was the lodestar of Nabokov’s philosophy: his fondness for puzzles and traps stemmed from his fascination with how the mind operates. To him, the mind shines brightest in moments of revelation. A complacent mind stumbles into traps; an alert, engaged mind unlocks discoveries and savors the thrill of making them. This same intellectual hunger drove Nabokov’s scientific pursuits, particularly his lepidoptery. The natural world, like art, teems with enigmas, and the scientist’s task is to decipher them.
CC: You lean on Brian Boyd’s big biography throughout the book, but you also push into areas he mostly leaves alone, especially Nabokov’s politics and blind spots. Were you building on Boyd’s work, or gently challenging it?
DD: It is impossible not to rely on Brian Boyd’s biography of Nabokov. The word often invoked to describe it is “monumental”—and deservedly so. It has won numerous awards, been translated into seven languages, and remains (and will remain) a touchstone in the field. Even Stacy Schiff’s Véra (Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov) draws heavily from it. Boyd’s biography does address Nabokov’s politics and, with remarkable consistency, identifies his blind spots.
At the same time, scholarship advances inevitably, and Nabokov studies have continued to flourish since the biography’s publication. Boyd himself has corrected, refined, or even retracted some of his original claims in his biography, most notably his interpretation of Pale Fire and its so-called internal-authorship problem. And, as in any vibrant scholarly community, Nabokovians disagree on many issues. Boyd and I, for instance, diverge on several major questions: Nabokov’s conception of love, the so-called calendric anomaly in Lolita, and the quality of John Shade’s poetic skills. Though Boyd supervised my dissertation, he would have been the first to reject any deference to his authority.
CC: Nabokov liked to say he came out of Russia’s Silver Age, a time full of wild art, poetry, and big cultural shifts. Do you think that background helped shape his obsession with beauty, style, and the idea of hiding things in plain sight?
DD: Yes, the Silver Age played a crucial role in his literary development. One of the most significant cultural shifts you allude to was the Silver Age artists’ rebellion against the rigid dogma of their predecessors, the so-called men-of-the-sixties, who insisted that everything could be reduced to physical explanations and that art must be “realistic” and didactic. Like the Silver Age artists who preceded him, Nabokov rejected these ideas, a stance he crystallized in his scathing short biography of Nikolay Chernyshevsky, the most influential of the men-of-the-sixties. He embedded this critique in The Gift, his most ambitious Russian novel, where he portrays Chernyshevsky as the ideological wellspring of Soviet censorship in art.
CC: The fact that Nabokov shares a birthday with Shakespeare wasn’t lost on him. He played with that coincidence in his writing more than once. Was that just a fun fact for him, or do you think he saw something deeper, or even a little mystical in it?
DD: Indeed, Nabokov delighted in sharing a birthday with Shakespeare. However, this coincidence only emerged later in his life: at the time of his birth in 1899, Russia still followed the Julian calendar, which placed his birthday on a different date. Nabokov’s birthday shifted to April 23 (the date traditionally associated with Shakespeare’s birth) only after he became a refugee in Western Europe, which had long since adopted the Gregorian calendar. (Lenin’s abandonment of the Julian in favor of the Gregorian meant Nabokov’s birthday would have been “Shakespereanized” regardless of whether he fled from Russia.)
As to his attitude toward this coincidence, it gratified his sense that the world is more enigmatic and elusive than the mind can grasp. Calendric coincidences abound in his fiction and have been widely analyzed. The most notorious of these is what scholars call Lolita’s “dating problem.” If the debate is resolved in favor of an intentional dating anomaly, our interpretation of Lolita would require a radical reinterpretation. Even now, Nabokov studies remains a thrilling arena of scholarly debate.
CC: You describe Nabokov as a writer who loves to delay, distract, and mislead his readers. Was that just part of the fun for him, or do you think there was something more serious going on, maybe even a kind of moral lesson?
DD: We must never underestimate the role of “fun” in Nabokov’s work. His writing brims with playfulness, a deliberate, essential quality. While this might not constitute a “moral lesson,” it certainly offers a philosophical one. (There is even a scholarly book dedicated to this topic: Thomas Karshan’s Vladimir Nabokov and the Art of Play.) Though Nabokov rejected Marx, he revered Darwin as a scientific genius. Yet in this passage from his memoir, he slyly mocks both for overlooking life's purely playful dimension: “‘Struggle for life’ indeed! The curse of battle and toil leads man back to the boar, to the grunting beast’s crazy obsession with the search for food. . . . Toilers of the world, disband! Old books are wrong. The world was made on a Sunday.”
This, perhaps, captures Nabokov's lasting magic: his prose possesses an irrepressible gaiety and a profound belief in the sheer joy of existence in this glittering, enigmatic world. While his work confronts, condemns, and mourns history's tragedies, it never relinquishes its faith in beauty, goodness, and, above all, delight.
CC: A book like Pale Fire is so full of wordplay and tricks that it’s easy to miss how sad it is underneath. Do you think Nabokov worried that his style might end up covering up real emotion?
DD: This question intrigues me, and I would respond thus: Nabokov was reared in an environment that prized strict codes of conduct. In my second book on the author, I argued that he places the highest moral value on acts of courtesy rooted in chivalric tradition, specifically on acts that suppress one's own emotions to safeguard another's comfort. Several characters in Nabokov’s novels (usually women) master this art: despite profound personal anguish, they muster the grace to attend to others' needs.
To address your question directly: this same principle of noblesse oblige permeates his literary style. It is a style that conceals rather than parades pain; it is an aesthetic that values hospitality of expression above raw sincerity.
CC: Nabokov rarely talks about politics in his work, but you suggest that his silence still says a lot. Do you think that’s because he was trying to protect himself, or was it more about keeping a certain kind of image?
DD: The issue with Nabokov’s political statements isn’t one of silence, or even precisely one of reticence, given his frequent denunciations of tyranny and two overtly political novels. The complication is threefold. First, as the son of a distinguished late-imperial statesman who dedicated his life to the struggle against tsarist autocracy, Nabokov believed he could never match his father's political legacy; he feared appearing presumptuous by posing as a serious political thinker. Second, his fundamentally poetic temperament found the pragmatic workings of politics profoundly dull. But most crucially, having witnessed the Russian subordination of art to politics during the second half of the nineteenth century and then again under the Soviets, he dedicated his career to preserving art's autonomy. His proclaimed "supreme indifference" to socio-political matters was not apathy, but a principled defense of art's freedom from ideological servitude.
CC: He made fun of Freud and Marx at every chance, but his writing is full of dreams, doubles, and buried trauma. Do you think he was protesting too much—maybe because deep down, those ideas hit a little close to home?
DD: Nabokov objected to both Freud and Marx because they each, in their own way, denied freedom of the will and human self-determination. His considerable interest in dreams and doubles had little to do with Freud’s schematic formulas and everything to do with literary tradition: Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, and Stevenson–all of whom wrote intriguingly about doubles and dreams. Where Freudian interpretation turns inward toward singular, universalizing solutions, Nabokov's approach to these phenomena moves outward, opening up dizzying possibilities of interpretation.
As for Marx, Nabokov recoiled not only from the same tendency toward rigid formulas that he disliked in Freud, but also from Marx’s rejection of law as essential to a just society. In my first book on Nabokov, I argue that he understood profoundly the central lesson of his father’s career: that lawlessness destroyed Russia, and that the rule of law remains indispensable for a just and stable society.
CC: Why do you think Nabokov was so drawn to characters who have doubles, masks, or secret identities? Was he trying to rewrite parts of himself, or just playing around with the idea of being unknowable?
DD: I think it’s the latter. Nabokov firmly held that individuals are endlessly complex and that a writer's duty lies in honoring this richness. Lazy writers resort to stereotypes; true artists labor painstakingly to comprehend the full depth of another's being. In The Gift, the last complete novel Nabokov wrote in Russian, the protagonist cultivates his artistic vision by rigorously training himself to perceive the world through others' eyes. Yet in his very next novel, The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Nabokov explores the opposite premise: that we can never truly know another person, even the people we ought to know well.
CC: Given your 25+ years of studying Vladimir Nabokov, how would you assess his enduring relevance in contemporary literature and culture? What insights from your work on him might surprise or challenge readers today?
DD: First, let’s state the obvious: Nabokov’s writing delivers enormous pleasure. This quality resists easy theorization or quantification, yet it’s precisely why countless readers worldwide continue to fall under his spell. He belongs to that rare class of writers who fuse accessibility with complexity, a duality that sustains both a thriving scholarly field and a devoted fanbase. His readers don’t just study him; they post YouTube tributes, flock to conferences, and sustain vibrant communities. (It’s worth noting, in passing, that the three major societies dedicated to his work—the International, French, and Japanese—are anything but stuffy or exclusionary; they’ve always welcomed newcomers with open arms.)
Yet his work feels urgently relevant today. His novels, stories, and plays lay bare not only the brutality of fascism and the seduction of cruelty but also the rhetoric that justifies them. His ecstatic celebrations of nature—verdant landscapes, shimmering butterflies—serve as potent reminders of what we stand to lose to climate collapse and nuclear folly. Most crucially, though, his writing embodies what playwright Ann-Marie MacDonald terms “professional-grade empathy”: the ability to plunge into fraught emotional depths and transmute those discoveries into stories whose meanings resonate universally.
Recommended Reading
0 comments