/lit/ - Literature

>>21250394
Good, now you won't go out interpreting books through psychology like a psychologist faggot or a Dostoyevsky reader

>McCarthy, Cormac. A corncobby chronicler of the strictly mundane. He stepped voluntarily into the shadow of Joyce but never managed to escape it. A writer in name only.

Nabokov's Ada or Ardor. Some parts are puzzling for the amount of alusions, but it is what you would expect from Nabokov. I'm really enjoying the acrobatic language and how meta it is

>>20102933
>I read genre fiction. I read, I don’t circlejerk here about the greeks and classics
Ladies and gentlemen, the genuine and unrepentant philistine

>A philistine is a full-grown person whose interests are of a material and commonplace nature, and whose mentality is formed of the stock ideas and conventional ideals of his or her group and time. I have said "full-grown person" because the child or the adolescent who may look like a small philistine is only a small parrot mimicking the ways of confirmed vulgarians, and it is easier to be a parrot than to be a white heron. "Vulgarian" is more or less synonymous with "philistine": the stress in a vulgarian is not so much on the conventionalism of a philistine as on the vulgarity of some of his conventional notions. I may also use the terms genteel and bourgeois. Genteel implies the lace-curtain refined vulgarity which is worse than simple coarseness. To burp in company may be rude, but to say "excuse me" after a burp is genteel and thus worse than vulgar. The term bourgeois I use following Flaubert, not Marx. Bourgeois in Flaubert's sense is a state of mind, not a state of pocket. A bourgeois is a smug philistine, a dignified vulgarian

>>20038601
>>20038606
>A full-grown person whose interests are of a material and commonplace nature, and whose mentality is formed of the stock ideas and conventional ideals of his or her group and time. I have said “full-grown” person because the child or the adolescent who may look like a small philistine is only a small parrot mimicking the ways of confirmed vulgarians, and it is easier to be a parrot than to be a white heron.

>>19748583
>write proper literary fiction
>add controversy bait
>get free publicity from sensationalist media and seething triggered retards and wannabe rebellions faggots
>sell 50 million copies
pssh... nothing personnell kid

>>19081366
Kek. Easy: become Americans

>>18612188
tell me more anon...

How would you guys describe his style? I have never red something like Lolita in style, it's so rich, symbolic, so fantastic (with all the analogies and poetry inherent to the prose) and, yet, so raw.
I would love to read more material written in this style, Even better, i would love to be able to write in this manner.

http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/8/3/in-which-these-are-the-100-greatest-writers-of-all-time.html

http://thisrecording.com/today/2011/3/10/in-which-these-are-the-hundred-greatest-novels.html

what do we think of these, /lit/?

>>17984557
>fantasy could be the best genre
cmon anon

Tell me about Nabokov's other books /lit/. I was looking into buying another.
I don't read much fiction, but I thought Lolita was a very tragic book, and I enjoyed Nabokov's writing style in it.

Which authors have the most expansive vocabularies?

/ Post authors whose writing delights in the intricacies of language itself.

Someone link me that Nabokov quote where he talks about his writing process where he just dictates a story that’s being written inside of him. He can feel it coming together but it’s just germinating, and then he says, all of a sudden, he writes. And then he just edits certain things here and there but the thing itself is finished before a single word is written. It was in an interview. I felt this once, and I feel it again, only much stronger

Lolita was alright. It titillated me. I got off a few times from the ideas of molesting little girls. Besides satiating my need to read about fucking children, I found Nabokov a pretentious blowhard. Horrible to read. I love reading for beauty, but besides some good prose in the beginning, I don't feel Lolita brought a lot to the table.

Now my question is I love the premise behind Pale Fire. Something I got through Lolita to read. Should I give it a try?

>>16427648

Your entire worldview is a product of your inability to get laid. You just project your own shortcomings onto society as a whole as a cope.

Was the invention of the written word a mistake?

Dostoevsky was undoubtedly a passionate man, but I have to wonder at anyone who puts him above Tolstoy. You may like Dostoevsky's religion or his politics or his psychology, but it must be admitted that as an artist he was third-rate. Tolstoy surpasses him at everything except comedy. He was even a better psychologist. He was one of the greatest artists in Western literature, next to whom Dostoevsky was a raving scribbler.

What did Nabokov say about your favourite author?

http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations

>>15106176
Like you would know.
He praised many authors, people just post the criticism to annoy fans of lesser authors.

>While it is true that in ancient Europe, and well into the eighteenth century (obvious examples come from France), deliberate lewdness was not inconsistent with flashes of comedy, or vigorous satire, or even the verve of a fine poet in a wanton mood, it is also true that in modern times the term “pornography” connotes mediocrity, commercialism, and certain strict rules of narration. Obscenity must be mated with banality because every kind of aesthetic enjoyment has to be entirely replaced by simple sexual stimulation which demands the traditional word for direct action upon the patient. Old rigid rules must be followed by the pornographer in order to have his patient feel the same security of satisfaction as, for example, fans of detective stories feel—stories where, if you do not watch out, the real murderer may turn out to be, to the fan’s disgust, artistic originality (who for instance would want a detective story without a single dialogue in it?). Thus, in pornographic novels, action has to be limited to the copulation of clichés. Style, structure, imagery should never distract the reader from his tepid lust. The novel must consist of an alternation of sexual scenes. The passages in between must be reduced to sutures of sense, logical bridges of the simplest design, brief expositions and explanations, which the reader will probably skip but must know they exist in order not to feel cheated (a mentality stemming from the routine of “true” fairy tales in childhood). Moreover, the sexual scenes in the book must follow a crescendo line, with new variations, new combinations, new sexes, and a steady increase in the number of participants (in a Sade play they call the gardener in), and therefore the end of the book must be more replete with lewd lore than the first chapters.

>>14883982