Skip to main content
  1. Arts & Entertainment
  2. Books

For Nabokov's sake, someone better read Playboy for the articles

Playboy 2009 July & August issue

More Photos

On August 4, 2009 Playboy Enterprises Inc. reported a net loss for the second quarter of $8.7 million. The company just can’t seem to get it up.

Playboy magazine has even anticipated a 47% decline in ad pages for the third quarter. The company attributes this loss to their decision to combine their July and August issue, ultimately having one magazine less than the year prior. There may be other factors for this anticipation of decline—such as Heidi Pratt’s scheduled appearance in the following September issue.

Despite the publication’s dirty journalistic love-nesting with the likes of Pratt, Playboy magazine’s December issue will feature Vladimir Nabokov’s unfinished novella “The Original of Laura.” Nabokov’s son, Dmitri has decided to say ‘no-way’ to his father’s final wish of burning the manuscript and instead has sold it to the magazine.

The “Lolita” author probably wishes he started the fire himself. It takes a strong man to resist a Playboy seduction.

One may wonder how literary geniuses can possibly lay harmoniously with centerfold models.

But it’s really not a shocker. The publication has featured interviews with entertainers such as John Lennon, Miles Davis and Kurt Vonnegut. If that’s not impressive, maybe the politicians’ Q & As are: Jimmy Carter, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, Malcolm X, and even Martin Luther King, Jr.

So what other famous writers have contributed to Playboy? You may be surprised.


  • Krystof 5 years ago


    Given the incredible potential for bad puns and word play, your article shows an amazing display of restraint (and not of the S&M variety; oops, there's one!). For example, I counted only a total of (3) double-entendres (get it up, lay, seduction), which is not bad, given the potentially prurient topic at hand (darn, I'm up to TWO).

    Anyway, kudos on a refreshing re-take on a potentially perilous subject (and AFAIK, that sentence contains NO double-entendres) :)