/lit/ - Literature

>>11582933
He's right.

I don't understand why Nabokov didn't like Dubliners.

>>11582933
Nabokov's opinions are overrated. He suffers from the kind of opinion extremism you find here on /lit/. Everything is either "loathsome" and a "non-entity" or "wonderful" and "a masterpiece." It's tiring. Stop droning this man, he was too far up his own ass. A genius writer, but a mediocre critic.

Stop having strong opinions

>>11582933
The ending is the best bit

>>11582999

Good post

>>11583039
Got trips, too. That Anon is blessed.

>>11582999
>>11583039
>>11583049
Better to have opinions than just skirting around safe vagueries

>>11582933
The ending shows that, no matter what a man thinks, all the poetry and philosophy and genius and originality and uniqueness, it all comes back and down to Womaninity in the end

>>11583077
Not even wrong. People only ever write to get laid

>>11582999
He wasn't a genius writer.

>>11583084
He was actually

>>11583064
Having opinions is one thing; writing a book of them which begins with "I think like a genius" and exposits your opinions as better than everyone else's even though they're quite arbitrary and far too reductionist is another.

>>11583084
read lolita again
at the very least, a genius prose stylist

>>11583077
>womaninity

>>11583093
>and exposits your opinions as better than everyone else's even though they're quite arbitrary and far too reductionist is another.

i.e. I'm a brainlet so everyone else should behave like a brainlet too
Not everyone is going to be brought down to your level retard. When you're as literate and intelligent as Nabokov or me you don't have to cover your bases with non-commitals and nonsense non-statements.
You be arrogant because you have the mind to back it up and its better to get some things wrong now and then than never get anything right

>>11583077
Molly is a stupid fat hog of a woman who's lucky she has the love of a man as good as Bloom.

>>11583100
sorry...Femalality

>>11583111
femoidosis

>>11583082
>People only ever write
my statement wasnt about writers, much of what men do is to obtain and keep a woman

>>11583108
This post is a good example of why Nabokov's opinions aren't worth as much as some Anons think.

>>11583122
Yet we're talking about him and not Philip C Whogivesafuck

>>11583108
>assuming there is a right in this specific context

>>11583108

You're missing his point anon. He's saying Nabokov wasn't as brilliant as he thought he was, in fact, I think most men who think themselves so brilliant are prone to be deluded by their arrogance to some extent. Sure you can have talent to back up your polar opinions but it doesn't mean they're right. It just means you're full of yourself.

>>11583133
There is actually. That whole "there's no wrong answers" shit you were thought in middle school was just so the dumb kids don't get demotivated and learn menial office culture skills

>>11583129
If being talked about is your motivation to write literature or partake in literary criticism, you really won't get very far.

>>11583138
>He's saying Nabokov wasn't as brilliant as he thought he was

He was though. Lolita remains the pre-eminent literary work of the Post-War era bar none

>>11583108
>When you're as literate and intelligent as Nabokov or me
A person calling themelves literate and intelligent and being able to prove it (here and there) does not mean the totality of their opinions are infallible and justified or meaningful or objective

>>11583148

See >>11583149

Just because he was a great writer doesn't mean he had the best opinions.

I.e Ezra Pound, Knut Hamsun

>>11583148
Except this is wrong. Lolita is an impeccably wrapped empty box of cardboard that hacks convince themselves is the pinnacle of the craft.

>>11583149
>does not mean the totality of their opinions are infallible and justified or meaningful or objective

There's the trick they don't have to be. You throw some shit out there and if there's merit it'll hold up and if there's no merit it won't.
Whats really happening is a LOT of people would absolutely abyssmally embarrass themselves if they tried to hold opinions as strong and forthright as Nabokov and they know it. Its not easy to hold original opinions on something as high minded as literature and those who are able to deserve that license.
This is a clear a case as ever of the strong need to be protected from the weak.

>>11583093
>exposits your opinions as better than everyone else's
If you don't think that your opinions are better than all others would you still hold them?

>>11583161
Ezra Pound was a shit writer so I don't see your point. Reminder he literally convicned himself he could read Chinese by starring at it

>>11583141
>Labelling literature as objectively "great" or "garbage" solely off of your own subjective and limited (no matter how genius you think you may be) reading experience, ignoring its context and effect, not to mention other critics, writers, and readers
>>11583148
Brilliant writer, not-so-brilliant critic
>>11583163
Lolita is good, stop being a contrarian
>Empty box of cardboard
The struggle of man with himself, the struggle between the fulfillment of one's passions and the prevention of a loss of innocence, the weight of the destruction of said innocence, the transcendental experience of love, these are all empty? And this is just what any semi-aware reader will pick up from one crack at the novel; there's plenty depth to root around in if you want to dig. Besides, love it or hate it, Nabokov read and write for the aesthetic experience of literature, not to communicate some big idea.

>>11582980
This, I can see where he's coming from on Portrait but Dubliners is top-notch stuff no matter how you look it at

>>11583167
Opinions should be subject to constant review and development. If you find you've been holding an opinion for a while, challenge it. Over time, certain opinions will stand their ground. May we these are better than other opinions. But Nabokov sure as hell wasn't painstakingly combing his opinions. Look, if you literally can't understand the appeal of Dostoyevsky (Nabokov claimed he could not understand why he is held in high regard) then I have to be skeptical about your ability to be a fair critic.

>>11583182
>>Labelling literature as objectively "great" or "garbage" solely off of your own subjective and limited (no matter how genius you think you may be) reading experience, ignoring its context and effect, not to mention other critics, writers, and readers

Literally what is the problem with this? Are you saying there is no shit literature and no great literature?

Yeah your opinion might not be objectively right but thats for the Universe to decide not you. There's no point in fucking clarifying everything that you say is coming from yourself because thats already contained in the act of speaking. If you talk shit and people call you out for it then we all move a step forward. Pussyfooting around and just expelling brown moderations gets us nowhere

>>11583210
Okay. Nabokov talks shit, and I'm calling him out. Mediocre critic, doesn't back up his ideas very far.

>>11583216
>and I'm calling him out

ON WHAT?
Where was he ever wrong?
>back up your opinion
Total meme

>>11583165
>hold opinions as strong and forthright as Nabokov and they know it. Its not easy to hold original opinions on something as high minded as literature and those who are able to deserve that license.
None of his opinions about any books are as valuable as the books

>>11583222
Just read the fucking thread, I'm not going to summarize mine and everyone's posts for you.

>>11583223
Disagree, there's a lot of worthless books out there. Ezra Pounds Cantos for example. Diverting people away from those time sinks is a monumental favor to the world

>>11583161
What's wrong with the opinions of Ezra Pound and Knut Hamsun?

>>11583165
>This is a clear a case as ever of the strong need to be protected from the weak.
*is intelligent and literate*
*has opinion about book*
person- "I think your opinion sucks"
*someone protect me! im strong!*

>>11583238
Thats not whats happening. It would be great if it was. Whats happening is mediocrities disa

>>11583222
>Where was he ever wrong?
Anon, his opinion on Joyce is right there in the OP for everyone to see, let's not be puerile

>>11583242
*disparaging the very act of asserting opinions

>>11583165
>This is a clear a case as ever of the strong need to be protected from the weak.
>None of you are intelligent or literate as me and Nabokov

>This is a clear a case as ever of the strong need to be protected
>needing*
protected that for you

>>11583255
Grammar is for fucking bugmen. I have no time to constantly analyse whether my text conforms to your autismo code. I got actual things to say

>>11583141
The problem is that there is almost no proof to support this positions except for the subjective experiences of people with supposed expertise. I'm not even saying that there is no "objective good"; I'm saying that the chances of some individual human knowing what is and isn't objectively good are so small that they approach zero.

>>11583236
Not that anon but he's obviously talking about their views on Jews (but let's just stop here with that)

>>11583182
>Nabokov read and write for the aesthetic experience of literature, not to communicate some big idea.
Genre writers do the same
Goosebumps aesthetics, hardy boys aesthetics, dr seuss aesthetics

>>11583263
>I'm saying that the chances of some individual human knowing what is and isn't objectively good are so small that they approach zero.

The emphasis being on any random people. If you're a genius you know you're a genius because you're smart enough to recognize that in which case the odds swing hard in your favor

>>11583272
>Genre writers do the same

They really don't. Try again

>>11583204
>Dostoyevsky (Nabokov claimed he could not understand why he is held in high regard) then I have to be skeptical about your ability to be a fair critic.
Especially when he criticizes him for being overly concerned with morals and stuff, and law... when Nabokov most famous books biggest 'factor, thing, selling point, crux' is the provocativeness of the nature of a theory of a certain law

>>11583278
In that case I'd still sooner bet on someone like Joyce

>>11583222
holy shit.. this is beautiful, you are not the anon that said you were literate and intelligent are you? Holy shit holy shit... the purest pottery I have ever seen..

>A)and I'm calling him out
>B)ON WHAT?
>B)Where was he ever wrong?

>A)back up your opinion
>B)Total meme

>>11583303
You can't "call out" someone without referring to any fucking thing he said. I said backing things up is a meme because it usually involves some dweeby academic urchin following a dry and superfluous practice of accepted notation which is just absolutely worthless. Especially when familiarity with the work should be a given on any discussion of it.

>>11583252
>disparaging the very act of asserting opinions
noones disparaging the very act of asserting opinions... doing so would be asserting opinions... they are disagreeing with his opinions

Like someone saying Pizza tastes bad, or fruit, I dont like hamburgers they taste terrible, I dont like orange juice I hate the taste, I dont like chocolate, people who enjoy chocolate are idiots because it tastes bad, it sucks, its so boring and easy to make... you shouldnt like it, let me tell these people not to eat pizza and chocolate and fruit and chicken and pasta, let me disparage them from trying to find their own opinion and enjoyment of it

>>11583320
Yeah fuck look at those dweebs like Aristotle and Kant with their arguments and structure and shit

>>11583328
>Like someone saying Pizza tastes bad, or fruit, I dont like hamburgers they taste terrible, I dont like orange juice I hate the taste, I dont like chocolate, people who enjoy chocolate are idiots because it tastes bad, it sucks, its so boring and easy to make... you shouldnt like it, let me tell these people not to eat pizza and chocolate and fruit and chicken and pasta, let me disparage them from trying to find their own opinion and enjoyment of it

Absolute brainlet analogy, we have an actual direct line sensory organ to detect whether something tastes good or bad, there's no arguing with that to a great extent. Though some people especially in haute cuisine and hipster cultures do regularly fool themselves into enjoying something because as soon as something as complex as culture and experience come into something then delusions can and do manifest incredibly easily.

>>11583330
I don't know a single person on Earth who wouldn't call Kant a dweeb

>>11583285
>not to communicate some big idea.
>They really don't. Try agai
yes they do, thats what makes them only genre fiction and not high literature. Western aesthetic, crime aesthetic, mystery aesthetic, horror aesthetic, nabokov blended all those genres and added his thesaurus aesthetic

>>11582980
>>11583200
Where can I see his criticism?

>>11583278

>>11583222
Dubliners is good.

>>11583349
Those aren't aesthetics. The story structure is what defines genres, you can have any amount of aesthetic styles that still conform to a genres archs and tropes. Christ you are a dumb dumb

>>11583320
>I said backing things up is a meme
My opinion is that Nabokov was a talentless hack, and all his opinions are the opinions of a naughty schoolboy... I do not have to back this up, and I am more intelligent than Nabokov, so my opinion is better than all of his

>>11583352
He wrote a book, "Strong Opinions."

>>11583348
I don't know a single person (that actually matters) that wouldn't call him a genius, either (and yes, you can disagree with someone about things and still think they're a genius)

>>11583368
Good I rather hear that than seeing some reference to a Doctor Bugman of the University of Fucknowhere with a useless excerpt to reinforce away from the impression you didn't even read what you're saying nothing about

>>11583342
>we have an actual direct line sensory organ to detect whether something tastes good or bad,
and yet people have different tastes

We have a sensory organ for thinking and reading, and yet, people have different tastes.

You not understanding the analogy proves that your opinion is worthless.

>>11583342
>Though some people especially in haute cuisine and hipster cultures do regularly fool themselves into enjoying something because as soon as something as complex as culture and experience come into something then delusions can and do manifest incredibly easily.
Exacccttllyyyyyyy, thats what Nabokov is

>>11583390
>We have a sensory organ for thinking and reading

We really don't. The fuck are you talking about

>>11583385
Your understanding of how arguments work is very strange, and your English nowhere near the level of Nabokov's

>>11583385
>Good I rather hear that than seeing some reference to a Doctor Bugman of the University of Fucknowhere
Yes but you are forgetting that you are noone, that what you think and like does not matter and has no relevance or effect on anything, that you appreciating this or that statement, is not evidence of anything, if anything, it can only be evidence of badness, as you have proven your opinions are sour and rotten, convoluted, flimsy, ill thought out, shaky, barren, surface, immature, conceited, narrow minded, dumb, dull: a 3rd rate hack, irredeemable, the stuff of a young wealthy jet setting gay boy who is more concerned with patting himself on the ass in between washing down his caviar with semen, then anything related to actual worthy human history and reality.

>>11583424
>Yes but you are forgetting that you are noone, that what you think and like does not matter and has no relevance or effect on anything

Well you're wrong actually. I'm great and my opinion low key has massive effect on the world and this board in particular because thats what happens when you're correct about many important things

>>11583434
>I'm great and my opinion low key has massive effect on the world
evidence?

Ok... so you think you can back this opinion of yours up? You think backing of opinions up is not worthless? There is a reason and point to it? Your opinion matters in this case, because it can be proven to relate to reality and be meaningful in some way? Can the same be said for Nabokovs opinions (all of them, are any of them questionable?)?

My food analogy was in the sense of: the most damaging thing Nabooovs opinions can do, the only real deep reason someone would argue against them, is because they may have the power from turning readers off from works that they may enjoy, and works that may be good and contain value.

Nabokov saying: book a and B and C and D and E and F and G are bad, dont read them (the only reason we are having this talk is because people, some intelligent people included, think some of those statements of his are questionable) is like someone saying out of the 1,000s of foods people eat and try, not to eat this and that and that and this.

Now we can agree with things like, dont eat poison, maybe dont eat so much fast food and candy.

But the only reason for this talk, is some people may believe Nabokov mis labelled certain potential tasty potentially nutritious foods as junk and fast foods.

There are even some intelligent people that may judge some of Nabokovs books as such.

All in all the point is, the big fear, for people to 'appeal to authority fallacy' to not read these 100 books (that were popular enough to warrant his attention at all) when there may be tasty and nutritious content in them, that nabokov was too 'chicken finger and french fries kid' to taste.

>>11583434
>this board in particular because thats what happens when you're correct about many important things
what other opinions do you have about important things, and how else do your opinions effect this board, what are some of them?

>>11582999
this is the worst post i´ve ever seen on this board.

>>11583475
Too many worth detailing. They're so significant to the point of seeming organic forces of nature you wouldn't believe. Just rest assured this would be a very different place and your own mind would be very different without me

>>11583479
it is actually very good and coherent and sensible, your post is must worse than it because it has 0 content and meaning and value, so you are automatically a retard.

>>11583497
give some examples, and respond to this, just give any examples, even one
>>11583467

>>11583515
I would say the most profound effect was my work in diverting this board from the false polarity of prosery technicians and naive """philosophy""" based ideawork towards a deeper readers concerned with the transformative immanence of the text itself. In general this had an affect of diverting keen readers of the board itself from a trust in both analytic discourse and Marxist structuralism towards a far more Hegelian-Wittgensteinian concern with the thing itself. The rise of popularity of Moby Dick and a resurgence of Biblical readers is a testament to this. To the loss of Pound readers and other jumped up fraudsters

>>11583560
respond to this:

My food analogy was in the sense of: the most damaging thing Nabooovs opinions can do, the only real deep reason someone would argue against them, is because they may have the power from turning readers off from works that they may enjoy, and works that may be good and contain value.

Nabokov saying: book a and B and C and D and E and F and G are bad, dont read them (the only reason we are having this talk is because people, some intelligent people included, think some of those statements of his are questionable) is like someone saying out of the 1,000s of foods people eat and try, not to eat this and that and that and this.

Now we can agree with things like, dont eat poison, maybe dont eat so much fast food and candy.

But the only reason for this talk, is some people may believe Nabokov mis labelled certain potential tasty potentially nutritious foods as junk and fast foods.

There are even some intelligent people that may judge some of Nabokovs books as such.

All in all the point is, the big fear, for people to 'appeal to authority fallacy' to not read these 100 books (that were popular enough to warrant his attention at all) when there may be tasty and nutritious content in them, that nabokov was too 'chicken finger and french fries kid' to taste.


P.S. what are your tastes in foods like? What is your diet like? What are your favorite foods? Any foods you particular dont like? Adventurous eater? tried from many nations?

>>11583560
Do you think Lolita is Nabokovs best book (if so, why)? Did he think it was his best book, his favorite (is there a difference?)

The last episode of Ulysses is the best part

>>11583663
Not him, but there's definitely a difference between best and favorite.

Everyone is dumber than me and my IQ is the highest, so in conclusion god is dead, fuck Drumpf, Peterson is a fag, anyone who disagrees with me is retarded. Anything else is simply psuedepigriphical platitudousness

>>11583819
Based and redpilled

>>11583663
Personally I think Pale Fire was his greatest work. As bogus and immature as it is he reached such a magnificent contribution to literature by pulling it off and capturing what has become such an irony drowned world.
Lolita was certainly not his favorite work by any stretch and he makes efforts to distance himself from it in Speak Memory. Though I think exactly because its success was somewhat of a disaster to who he was when he wrote it.

>>11583098
He's a second-rate Flaubert for anglos, not a genius prose stylist.

>>11582999
>Everything is either "loathsome" and a "non-entity" or "wonderful" and "a masterpiece."

Not really.

>>11583120
>>11583082
If that's the case, writers would have stopped writing after getting laid.

>>11583894
Why isn't Ada or Ardor discussed much?

>>11585131
Incest fetishes aren't in vogue.

>>11582933
The ending is great and Dubliners is better than anything nabby ever wrote.

>>11583148
>Lolita over Catcher (or Nine Stories)
>Lolita over Augie March
>Lolita over any Tennessee Williams play