In 2009, Vladimir Nabokov’s son, Dmitri Nabokov, went against his father’s dying wish and published the writer’s final — and unfinished — novel, “The Original of Laura.”
Nabokov, who died in 1977, had ordered his family to destroy the manuscript. As his biographer Brian Boyd explained, Nabokov used a specific technique when crafting manuscripts: He would envision a novel in his mind, from start to finish, and then begin the laborious task of transferring parts of his mental narrative on a series of 3-by-5 cards. This tactic allowed him to edit particular sections and rearrange the chronology with ease.
In the case of “Laura,” though, the cards only amounted to about 45 printed pages. Calling the novel “unfinished” is an embarrassing understatement — it’s hardly surprising that he didn’t want that particular novel disseminated. Yet his son released it anyway as part of a stunt that was supposed to be the “literary event of 2009.” The whole ordeal really just smacked of greed on Nabokov’s son’s part.
However, recent reports of soon-to-be-released posthumous work by the famously reclusive J.D. Salinger, who died in 2010, seem to be fueled not by family greed, but by pushy researchers.
A new biography about J.D. Salinger, titled “Salinger,” by David Shields and Shane Salerno was recently released. The book was written in conjunction with a documentary by the same name, which has been in production for the past 10 years and is comprised of more than 150 interviews with Salinger’s lovers, colleagues, fans and friends.
Shields and Salerno claimed Salinger left instructions on a specific timetable for the release of his unpublished work between 2015 and 2020. The unreleased stories reportedly revisit the lives of some of Salinger’s well-known characters — yes, including everyone’s favorite screwup, Holden Caulfield.
However, the Salinger estate — run partly by Matt Salinger and Salinger’s widow, Colleen O’Neill — didn’t cooperate with Shields and Salerno and haven’t commented on the reports of upcoming Salinger fiction.
In the unfolding case of Salinger’s posthumous work, we see a different type of greed — two manic Salinger fans willing to sacrifice the author’s wishes and integrity in order to catch a glimpse at work that probably wasn’t meant, as in the case of “The Original Laura,” for public consumption.
The documentary has already received a scathing New York Times review. Critic A.O. Scott called it a blend of “reverence and character assassination” and an “almost perfect distillation of the modern pathology of fame.”
As for posthumous work, it seems the literary world hasn’t learned the “don’t-milk-a-dead-cow” lesson.
Betty Eppes, who interviewed Salinger in 1980, told NPR, “He said, ‘I refuse to publish ... When you publish, the world thinks you owe something. If you don’t publish, they don’t know what you’re doing. You can keep it for yourself.’”
A version of this editorial ran on page 6 on 9/9/2013 under the headline "Live and Let Die: Pains of posthumous manuscripts"
