

The Gay Nabokov (2000) - georgecmu
http://www.salon.com/2000/05/17/nabokov_5/

======
camperman
"Nabokov was fascinated by doubles, and his work is full of them — mirrors,
twins, reflections, chance resemblances. Sergei was his brother’s double, a
“shadow in the background,” as Nabokov put it."

I need to re-read Lolita in the light of this. I know that the book mocks the
supposed connections between an author's experience and his work but I've
always felt the Humbert-Quilty relationship to be a deeply personal one that
the author drew on from somewhere.

------
soperj
That was an incredibly well written, and researched article. Thanks for
posting it.

------
jimhefferon
Is the photo not available? Starting an article with a description of a photo
is a bit of a letdown when you can't see the picture.

~~~
dmart
I found this blog entry[0] where they've located the photo in question.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's available online anywhere in any sort
of decent resolution.

[0][http://bookmendc.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-gay-
nabokov.html](http://bookmendc.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-gay-nabokov.html)

~~~
sp332
A better one on this page [http://elena-v-kuzmina.blogspot.com/2013/01/sergei-
vladimiro...](http://elena-v-kuzmina.blogspot.com/2013/01/sergei-
vladimirovich-nabokov-12051900.html) (it gets bigger if you click it)

------
omonra
Very interesting article, but I do take exception to this sentence

"Vladimir was a confirmed homophobe, and his gay brother was a constant source
of shame, confusion and regret to him."

It's a typical projection of moral standards of our age onto another. Someone
is not a 'x-phobe' if they reflect the mores of the day (or simply don't share
our views on the subject).

~~~
jedanbik
Words aren't projections. His brother was a homophobe because his attitudes
towards his brother were homophobic.

~~~
omonra
Are you an insectophobe because you crush bugs? No - because our society
doesn't have this concept.

By the same token, it's not correct to label Nabokov to label a homophobe for
not sharing progressive attitudes of a society that came 100 years after.

Such labels are judgement calls - which must be made in the context of the
society the person lived in.

~~~
parasubvert
This linguistic social relativism you state is complete bs.

I do agree the moral judgement of a person holding a currently repugnant view
of course must be weighed by historical and social context.

Words to describe a belief or set of behaviours, however , are context-free.

Do we claim Henry Ford wasn't antisemetic because almost everyone was in his
era? No. Do we claim slave owners weren't racist in the 18th and 19th century
because everyone was racist back then? No.

Same for our racist grandparents (I had a Nazi in the family until recently).
"Oh that was a different time". Sure , it shapes the broader moral picture of
a person. Doesn't make them less racist.

Same for homophobia. Not everyone was homophobic in Nabokov's time. The
definition has nothing to do with why one may hold the view. It's just a
statement that they did.

One might critisize that the word fuses a clinical term "phobia" so casually,
when "anti-homosexual" might be more accurate... but that ship has sailed.

~~~
omonra
Do you actually know how Nabokov's homophobia was manifested?

Ie your Nazi relative (if he subscribed to the Nazi doctrine) believed that
Jews should be physically exterminated. Slave owners actually owned slaves
(although in Africa slavery was as or more common - without any racism
involved, so not sure if it's even a required condition).

Meanwhile Nabokov viewed homosexuality akin to any other sexual aberration.
For example how today we may look at someone with a foot fetish, yet whose
life is completely taken over by it.

He didn't disavow his brother nor advocate violence - as a libertarian he
believed that people were free to do in private as they pleased.

If you want to draw a valid example - you'd have to start by calling Darwin &
Lincoln racists. Ie people that you probably admire yet who shared views with
majority of the educated class at the time that today would be considered
racist by many.

~~~
parasubvert
But historians do acknowledge that Lincoln and Darwin were racist in certain
ways. They certainly are admirable people in many respects, but were far from
saints.

------
agzam
Good article, yes. However what the heck is it doing on hackernews?

~~~
dang
Please re-read the HN guidelines. Anything interesting is on topic.

