'The Feud' celebrates the bad behavior of illustrious literary figures

What began as a warm friendship between Vladimir Nabokov and Edmund Wilson eventually flamed into a feud.

The Feud: Vladimir Nabokov, Edmund Wilson, and the End of a Beautiful Friendship By Alex Beam Pantheon 224 pp.

Within the large category of books that should have been magazine articles, Alex Beam’s The Feud: Vladimir Nabokov, Edmund Wilson, and the End of a Beautiful Friendship is one of the more enjoyable. It’s a gossipy rehashing of the peevishness and pettiness that marked the dissolution of a friendship between two gifted egomaniacs. Beam takes great pleasure in recounting the venomous literary insults and ill-controlled bile of Nabokov and Wilson, both of whom made the dubious decision to prioritize their own pride above their friendship and the truth.

What we are meant to learn from this spectacle is less clear. If the point is that humans, even or perhaps especially those with erudition and literary talent, are capable of supreme illogic and stubbornness, an article would have sufficed. If the point is not to establish so much as delight in this human tendency, a glance at Twitter would gratify the same impulse. The tacit premise of the book seems to be that the bad behavior of illustrious literary figures is somehow especially notable and fascinating.

The two men began corresponding in 1940, after Vladimir’s cousin Nicolas, a composer, asked Wilson if he might help his cousin. Nabokov had fled Europe for America and was looking for work. Wilson, enamored with all things Russian ever since a trip to the Soviet Union a few years before, was happy to oblige. Soon he was assigning Nabokov book reviews for The New Republic and connecting him with editors at The New Yorker.

They gradually became close friends: “You are one of the very few people in the world whom I keenly miss when I do not see them,” Nabokov wrote Wilson in 1948. The samples from their correspondence that Beam includes show lively intellectual exchange as well as a strong current of competition. They debated things like the correct pronunciation of the word “nihilist.” Wilson scolded Nabokov for using too many silly puns in his writing. Nabokov teased Wilson for his highly imperfect pronunciation of the Russian language.

Nabokov was initially the less successful of the two. In 1940, Wilson was a prominent and well-connected literary critic, while Nabokov was an obscure émigré who had published some fiction in Russian. Over the next few decades, their positions slowly reversed. Though Wilson considered himself a good novelist, he never wrote a novel as commercially or critically successful as Nabokov’s 1958 "Lolita," which sold 100,000 hardcover copies in three weeks. Nabokov is still beloved by literati around the world, whereas Wilson is often mistaken for a sociobiologist of the same last name.

There were various simmering grievances that finally flamed into a feud. Wilson had not bothered to finish reading the manuscript of "Lolita," despite the fact that Nabokov was keen to earn his approval of the book. Wilson did, however, warmly praise Boris Pasternak’s novel "Doctor Zhivago," a book Nabokov resented and considered overwrought. There were also political tensions – Wilson had a naïve liberal admiration for the Soviet Union, while Nabokov loathed the repressive regime so much that he supported the Vietnam War for its allegedly anti-communist purpose.

The immediate cause of conflict, however, was Wilson’s 1965 review of Nabokov’s translation of Pushkin’s poem "Eugene Onegin." Nabokov’s translation was enormous and eccentric, in Beam’s words, “a doorstop composed of unequal parts hubris, genius, philological research carried to proctological extremes, heedless and needless provocation, often but not always informed by an exquisite literary sensibility.” The book was 1,895 pages spread across four volumes. The translation occupied only 257 pages; the rest was dedicated to commentary and notes.

Wilson’s review accused Nabokov of using pretentiously obscure vocabulary, committing glaring grammatical errors in both English and Russian, and generally butchering a poem widely considered a classic of Russian literature. The review, perhaps inspired by Nabokov’s example, stretched on for nearly 7,000 angry words. Nabokov, of course, replied with a furious 4,500 word screed of his own. The debate played out in the pages of prominent magazines and as it intensified and devolved their friendship was ruined.

Beam is a deft and droll narrator of all the sordid details, and he does capture the folly and vanity that characterize public literary feuds. But devoting an entire book to the subject, even a short one, feels voyeuristic and trivial. Some things are best forgotten.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'The Feud' celebrates the bad behavior of illustrious literary figures
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today