/lit/ - Literature

>>16859536
Laszlo Krasznahorkai is perfect for trying to really capture a sort of dark eeriness. I hate to use the word, but his prose is the embodimebt of kafkaesque in feeling.

>>16859562
Cool thank you anon I'll check him out.

its gonna sound stupid but i honestly feel like nabakov was a kindred spirit. he gets the joy of art and his humour is way ahead of his time, so much so that it goes over most people's heads. he gets what a good sentence is and what a bad sentence is. he knows what he finds beautiful and he writes about them and it really shows.

ive only seen maybe one or two other writers who care about the things that he does. gordon lish once edited one of his passages and cut it down and sent it back to him and he was like "who is this guy??" anyways i like gordon lish too. one is a minimalist and the other a maximalist but they both really get whats good. theres like a harmony and rhythm to their stuff. but both have short stories that are kinda meh

Nabokov is like David Lynch to me
Stylistic genius but artistically empty from a "human" perspective

Charles Bookowski

>>16859536
>soulless
>>16861893
>empty
i never got this. lolita, pnin and pale fire, to pick just a few, are among the most powerful/moving books i've ever read, they're bursting with emotion and highly precise captures of the "human condition". not to mention the gift, sebastian knight, mary... nabokov is in all regards a high-water mark of literary fiction

>>16862063
I agree, Pnin in particular is such a human, sensitive book.

> Nabokov may have been a soulless pedophile
t. another retard who’s only read Lolita

>>16859536
>Nabokov may have been a soulless pedophile
You're never gonna make it

>>16862783
*not even read lolita
ftfy

>>16859536
Love him
Have read his complete fictions (bar his plays)
Was reading Strong Opinions the other day and I just had to smile at his habitual pedantic notions like one's smiles at a friend's idiosyncracies.

Favorite work is Pale Fire. Others favorites are LATH, Speak Memory and his Short Stories
Even though I have read Lolita 4 times, and while it's obviously a work of supreme prose, I'm still, in a way, unsure what to think of it

>>16859536
Just finished Pnin today. He really is a lovely writer. Like everyone I started him on Lolita but I think I'll keep cutting though his other works.

>stroking it to muh prose
Just read poetry at that point

>>16862917
Basically agree. I love this mfer's novels. Anything from King, Queen, Knave to Pale Fire is gold. Gets spotty after.

>>16859536
I'm trying out that exercise of copying down passages of your favorite authors and memorizing them, and I've chosen Nabokov among others, and I'm starting to realize he's actually kind of a pseud.

>>16864152
well don't leave us hanging anon, continue

>>16859536
Ada > Sebastian Knight > Pale Fire > Lolita > Pnin

He wasn't a pedophile, and if you think he was you should also assume he was in a consensual sexual relationship with his sister since he also wrote about that.

>>16865299
I hope the suspense hasn't killed you, anon.
It's his prose. I've begun to realize there's not much to it. It's just a fancy word here and there, a parenthetical here and there, a general sense of playfulness from a child who has not fully mastered the craft. He stumbles as much as he does soar, and I think it's only by luck that the good half of his phrases come off nicely, while the others are clunky, purple, and... cringey.

He's really not so much different than brother Rice Cuck when you think of it.

>>16866290
Can you show some examples?

>>16866427
No because then I'll be proven to be the pseud.

>>16866494
ok

>>16866290
please no, corn father

>>16866504
I'll throw you a bone, though. I initially really liked this passage but now I feel it's useless. He goes right into describing the wire receptacle and goes on a check-list. Some of his tricks don't impress—genuflection lubricity—and what the fuck does "linenish" mean? Lime-ish? "Gemmed in Rubinov" feel awkwardly-phrased. I'm also pretty certain he completely used an em-dash and semicolon incorrectly.

>>16866559
Forgot the passage:
The rain had been canceled miles before. It was a black warm night, somewhere in Appalachia. Now and then cars passed me, red tail-lights receding, white headlights advancing, but the town was dead. Nobody strolled and laughed on the sidewalks as relaxing burghers would in sweet, mellow, rotting Europe. I was alone to enjoy the innocent night and my terrible thoughts. A wire receptacle on the curb was very particular about acceptable contents: Sweepings. Paper. No Garbage. Sherry-red letters of light marked a Camera Shop. A large thermometer with the name of a laxative quietly dwelt on the front of a drugstore. Rubinov’s Jewelry company had a display of artificial diamonds reflected in a red mirror. A lighted green clock swam in the linenish depths of Jiffy Jeff Laundry. On the other side of the street a garage said in its sleep–genuflection lubricity; and corrected itself to Gulflex Lubrication. An airplane, also gemmed by Rubinov, passed, droning, in the velvet heavens. How many small dead-of-night towns I had seen! This was not yet the last.

>>16863052
OP here. I’m a big fan of poetry but I’ve never encountered verse that ‘turns on’ the literary part of my brain like Nab’s prose does. The two strike me as pretty different things. I find the best poetry evinces meanings previously inexpressible (TS Eliot said something like “the business of poetry is to communicate meaning where language fails but consciousness still exists;” I’m inclined to agree), whereas the best prose just describes something already within the extant bounds of language, though in a very efficient and memorable way. I wouldn’t call Nabokov a poet (for his prose anyway, I know he wrote poetry too), but his prose (such as I’ve described it) is the best I’ve encountered.

>>16866703
yep this is it. everything after nabokov's big ones is in one way or another a disappointment

>>16866575
The troubles you speak of with Nabokov's prose -- the clunky, the purple -- are troubles specific to Lolita, and for good reason. I'll explain

“linenish”, as an adjective never struck me as nonsencial, it sorta struck me as signifying an aura of whiteness and cloth, but on closer inspection it’s pretty awkward, as is most of Lolita’s prose, which I’ll get to in a sec.
“gemmed in Rubinov” on the other hand I thought was a reference to an earlier image where HH described Lolita’s scratches as “tiny dotted lines of coagulated rubies”. This is repetition so vague that, one that perhaps feels inclined to accept Lolita’s framing device, as being chronologically written during a 62-days craze. In that case, vague echoes of images do make sense, but not in carefully construed narratives (unless intentionally ofcourse). So far so good, because Lolita purports not to be carefully construed.
But, Lolita you may recall is replete with such repetitions, with names like McFate that pop up at various well-timed instances during the narrative; why this nonsensical insistince of mirros everywhere, which ostensibly serve to undermine the narrative? Recall Lolita’s thematisation of ‘performance’; recall what Nabokov said about Shakespeare: “the play is the thing” – so too Lolita: the performance is the thing. Not only does Humbert notorious unreliability undermine the narrative’s authority, it is HH’s very prose – the prose of a grandiloquent narcissist, not of Nabokov! –, which is, despite “scintillating” also intentionally stylized, even clunky, and riddled with tricks and curiosities – which is perhaps more Nabokov’s hand than Humbert’s. All of this being my point: where does HH end and Nabokov begin? It doesn’t really makes sense. The novel is so tricky that it seems to deconstruct itself, and it is in Lolita’s very prose that this deconstruction occurs imo.

Sorry for this brief “just saying”-bit. I know it’s a weird response.
I never quite mastered punctuation myself, so please forgive me. ESL too.

I agree that this passage is especially awkward and I don’t really know how much of that is intentional and how much that is Nabokov’s shortcomings as an ESL or just a writer in general. But I feel like his other novels – RSLK for example – have a very well-measured prose, so I’m inclined to say that Nabby knows what he is doing when he’s being awkard.

>>16859536
Anyone knows what's that other book by Nabokov with a premise similar to Lolita? I think it was a novel and had a title with a female name.
I saw the cover a few days ago and the synopsis looked interesting but I lost it, and now I can't seem to find it on his bibliography.
I got "Despair" but it wasn't that one (still plan to read it).

>>16866575
>The rain had been canceled miles before.
This evokes the idea of nature/God and the weather forecasts HH probably heard constantly on the radio (the weather people playing at God, the American stereotype of people being obsessed with trivial information).
>also gemmed by Rubinov
I have no idea why this dude is talking about the scratches (>>16868266) but Rubinov is the name of the town's jewelry store (literally on the same paragraph). The store front is shown with a diamond case lit in gawdy red. An airplane seen from the ground would have tiny red blinking lights, which might look cheap (like "fake diamonds"), in opposition to the stars (the true gems of the night sky).

>>16868431
The enchanter

> Rubinov is the name of the town's jewelry store (literally on the same paragraph).
Yes, and Nabokov elected that name for a very specific reason, which is my point

>>16868459
another way of phrasing it would be that the image of "coagulated rubies" was elected for a very specific reason instead, because the narrative's composition was ofcourse not chronoogical.

>>16868431
You're probably looking for Mashen'ka (translated in English as "Mary")

>>16868431
> the rain had been canceled miles before.
This actually also ties in with my interpretation of Lolita as play/performance, because who but the stage director is in charge of the decor or the props, i.e. cancelling implies agency and who but Nabokov has that power

>>16859536
Nabokov is special because he makes purple prose good and readable. The only one who could.

>>16868459
>The Enchanter
Thanks, that's the one, I think.

Rubinov is a Jewish name. Jews are known as jewelers. The description of the store and its name has two fairly obvious effects. Ruby+nov implies someone who sells rubies (i.e., gems). And rubies are red, hence the red mirror or the red reflection on the fake diamonds. It's a bit on American marketing being corny (for HH there's nothing aesthetically elevated in the whole town).
The scratches as coagulated rubies is a non related image. Rubies are red, like blood (hence coagulated rubies and not just rubies, that would be weirder and sound more pretentious). He's obsessed with her so he sees them as precious gems. If she were to spit a chewed grape, he might see it as a rough emerald.
There's a total of 2 mentions of rubies in the novel (one in relation to Lolita, another to a glass plane). Thinking the store and her scratches are related is pretty farfetched tbqh. Not everything must be an echo of a previous image (see Jiffy Jeff Laundry). The fact it's lit in red seems more incidental and has more potential meanings. One, it implies blood in general (deflowering Lolita) and it's the color of passion. It also recalls the color of law and order (or maybe police lights were already blue back then) and ambulance lights. Personally, I think it's just a coincidence, I don't see any meaning behind it considering the whole night scene description insists on gawdy (possibly neon) lights. The red, the green, the drugstore sign. It's a vulgar even grotesque scene. Still, on a non related note, these impressionistic touches ripping on stereotypical American aesthetics and customs, call on an impressionable HH's senses, fixing on details like a a nervous person would.

>>16866290
>playfulness from a child who has not fully mastered the craft
that's exactly what ascended masters of their craft do. To learn how to draw like a child again. Or in this case: write.

>>16868588
I think you make some good points with regards to American Marketing, and how the colors potentially echo HH's nervousness with regards to law and order

> Thinking the store and her scratches are related is pretty farfetched tbqh
I know it does, but Nabokov was that kind of writer who did'nt do anything -- and I mean anyhting-- that wasn't intentional, either as a red herring or as a 'genuine' element

bumpert bumpert

>>16868266
Very thoughtful reply that I can't fully respond to using half my brain while I work, but I thank you. I will say I have not given thought to the repetitiveness of certain things. As far as where Nabokov and Humbert begins, I would think that no matter what, the author can't escape his own voice. But maybe I'm not as good as a writer.

>>16868601
Well that's a good point, anon.

>>16868431
>but Rubinov is the name of the town's jewelry store (literally on the same paragraph).
Well no crap, I know that. I just didn't like the phrase itself "gemmed in Rubinov." It actually reminds me of phrasing I would use in my writing, and now I realize where I got it from. Just seems... I don't know... too much? I don't know, it just has a smell of pretentiousness to it.

>>16862063
this. by not being pathetic and sentimental you get to be called soulless by knuckledraggers.

>>16870203
One little correction with regards to my reply. I said that Nabokov said the follow about shakespeare "the play is the thing". In reality he says the "the metaphor is the thing", which in this case is ofcourse the play, or the performance.

Two things in specific I would like to point out with regards to the repetitions in Lolita are the lists "who's who in the limelight" and Lolita's class list. If you (re)read lolita, with a keen eye for detail, you will see that almost every name in those lists refers to some detail, some event within Lolita, meaning that ofcourse all these names are complete bogus, they're mere inversions of the events laid out in Lolita

>>16870725
Interesting. What, about, for instance, Mary Rose? That name particularly has always stuck with me.

>>16870858
I just had another look at the list, and it's perhaps not very correct of me to claim that every name refers to some disparate event, detail within Lolita.

But in any case, even though I cannot accurately recall what each name echoes, something curious is instantly apparent. There are no less than 5 twins within her class (recall what I said about mirrors, double, repetitions -- the twins are ofcourse another double), and in Mary Rose's case, she too is accompanied by Carmine Rose, Honeck Rosaline and Rosato Emil, among lots of other flowers in the list. Quote from the book "So strange and sweet was it to discover this "Haze, Dolores" (she!) in its special bower of names, with its bodyguard or roses -- a fairy princess between her two maids of honor"

The class list is ofcourse completely ridiculous so Humbert's "discovery" doesn't make any sense. So what does this all mean? Did he invent this list? Did he construe the names out of future events (or perhaps even the other way around)? Why would he intentionally produce a list that calls into question the validity of the narrative (mcfate, mccrystal)?
This is why I said in my original post that Lolita deconstructs itself, because certain cracks in the surface, certain things -- by nabokov's design -- don't make any sense

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.”

>>16861893
David Lynch is as stylistic as your average film student.

I would to add on to my post >>16871012
Another wholly unrelated question to ponder:
HH claims he chronologically wrote the book in 62 days
he's caught September 25 by the police
According to that odd figure John Ray, he dies november 16 of coronary thrombosis "a few days before his trial was scheduled to start"

Now this time period is less than 62 days. The plot thickens

>>16871076
oh it's 56, not 62, but it's still a little too short

>>16866290
please no, corn father

>>16865649
I actually don't care very much at this point, but this article makes a good point and may even add another layer to Lolita.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40754944?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

>>16871012
Do you think that Lolita's precocious initiation was real?
>This is why I said in my original post that Lolita deconstructs itself, because certain cracks in the surface, certain things -- by nabokov's design -- don't make any sense
Maybe this is HH toying with authority, an honest admission of guilt if they are keen-eyed, or another trick, a faux admission?

>>16871273
You are, I take it, referring to Lolita's deflowering (wink). I think Nabokov is very smart to realize that he could use America's hysteria regarding preteen sex to make the highly unlikely seem plausible. If HH did indeed make this fact up about Lolita, it's pretty obvious why he should do it. But whether or not I think this particular instance of an unlikely situation is real is less important than to recognize that plot-wise there is an entire string of unlikely situations. Take for example Charlotte's death. How unlikely is that? Very. So if her death is a lie or is made up, then what of the narrative is real? Were the actual events perhaps too gruesome to describe, and is this why HH wrote such a farcical account? Is HH just a madman -- a mad genius, to be sure -- dreaming this entire farce up, is he innocent nut stuck in an insane asylum?
There is another piece that doesn't quite make sense: the very odd character John Ray. HH claims he wrote Lolita in 56 days. According to John Ray HH died before being able to complete 56 days in captivity. So who is he, John Ray? Is he another figment of HH's crazed imagination? Is HH even held in captivity at all? But if he is not, then who is HH, what even is Lolita?
A little Anecdote about Nabokov: he was fond of a particular drawing in which person that was being drawn held the pencil with which he was drawing his uncompleted leg. You can apply this metaphor to Lolita and you'll have the most radical deconstructivist reading: HH is writing himself and the story into being and ofcourse like the person in the drawing he doesn't really exist. The only person to exist is Nabokov

I won't answer you're second question because by posing so many rhetorical question I have I think kinda touched upon it

>>16862063
Exactly. Never got the soulless charge either.

>>16871165
can u share this somehow

bump

bUMP

"However apparently insignificant the event, whether it be the ring of tobacco ash surrounding the table, the direction from which the wild geese first appeared, or a series of seemingly meaningless human movements, he couldn’t afford to take his eyes off it and must note it all down, since only by doing so could he hope not to vanish one day and fall a silent captive to the infernal arrangement whereby the world decomposes but is at the same time constantly in the process of self-construction." Laszlo Krasznahorkai

>>16861893
lol, completely wrong. DAvid Lynch is just a good film maker, the whole point of his films too are just to provoke emotion and get strong performances and such. They are both artists, and very human. I don't really care about David lynch though, but i use to.

>>16872338
just go to college bro

>>16866290

>>16859536
Which edition of Lolita should I get?

>>16859536
Nabokov, Vladimir. Insipid purple prose masquerading as high art. Dislike him. A favourite between the ages of 14-16. Pale Fire is his best work. Nobody takes his aesthetic didacticism seriously.

>>16875650
Filtered

bump

>>16871165
interesting article. do you (or anyone else) have any other nabokov papers to recommend? i could read about this guy for hours

Turns out nabokov spoke and wrote english way much better than russian
So his writing gift is just that, pure talent given from birth.

>>16859536
Any very good prose has that effect on me, anon. I'd suggest Joyce, Melville, Faulkner, McCarthy and other powerful prose stylist of the english language.

>>16859536
He wrote book about pedophile he did not do it for reals jeues christ

>>16859536
Also he only author that like the kubrick version of someone books

Even through he hate kubrick rejected his script

>>16879600
Phoneposter

>>16879600
If you ever read his script and know a thing or two about screenplays, you would agree with Kubrick that it was "unfilmable." it's kind of cute. He even writes himself in as a cameo.

>>16866290
Please no, corn father

>>16878966
LMAO, what?
Do you even speak Russian?

>>16866290
please no, corn father

As much of an achievement that Pale Fire's structure was, Lolita's prose still wins me over.

>>16880645
yeah the script is a mess but it's the closest we'll ever get to lolita "outtakes" which fascinates me. like the burnt down house and HH meeting mona dahl again