Archive for November 25th, 2009

JILLIAN LOVEJOY LOWERY: It’s easy to see why it was tempting to (very, very posthumously) publish Vladimir Nabokov’s final work-in-progress, The Original of Laura. Nabokov’s a literary icon, one of the greats of the 20^th century. But when is it right to go against a man’s dying wish? And what if the end result turns out to be disappointing and brings with it a significant amount of backlash?

AKIE BERMISS: I was never a huge Nabokov fan for reasons too many and varied to go into. My first tastes of Nabokov were heavy doses of his work paired with virulent myopia and over-bearing personalities. I’ve admired him, if at all (and sometimes begrudgingly) only from afar. As a spectator of those who adore him senselessly. And I have no desire to impugn the author or his body of work with something like ignorant cynicism (though that is often the accusation) — but maybe in another life, I may come to love the words of Vladimir Nabokov.

LILIT MARCUS: So, I’m a religion journalist. Can you imagine a less glamorous job? No one wants to make dinner party conversation about the Pope’s latest speech. However, if I want people to sit rapt and stare at me, all I have to do is offer to explain what the hell Scientology is about. I was going to do that here, and then I realized that a) it’s been done already, and b) I can provide it right here in all its brilliant South Park glory.

MATTHEW DAVID BROZIK: At least you get invited to dinner parties. As a lawyer, I don’t get called unless and until a guest slips and falls! Okay, I’m not that kind of lawyer. But I too have an excess of information no one wants. For example: I understand the Electoral College (U.S. version). You can too!