/lit/ - Literature

>Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.
>The Double. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Gogol's "Nose."
>The Brothers Karamazov. Dislike it intensely.
>Crime and Punishment. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

>War and Peace. A little too long. A rollicking historical novel written for the general reader, specifically for the young. Artistically unsatisfying. Cumbersome messages, didactic interludes, artificial coincidences. Uncritical of its historical sources.


BTFO
T
F
O

>Housman, A. E. A favorite between the ages of 20 and 40, and thereafter.

Now that's a surprising one, also he has something in common with P Hitchens.

>>6831420
>Carroll, Lewis.
>One would like to have filmed his picnics.

>Gorky, Maxim. A formidable mediocrity.

I lost

>Faulkner, William. Dislike him. Writer of corncobby chronicles. To consider them masterpieces is an absurd delusion. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.
I dislike this list, rather intensely

>>6831590
probably the most serious blunder on the list

>>6831420
>Austen, Jane. Great.

Dropped.

pls no corn father

>>6831590
>dislike him
>means nothing to me

which is it, you pedo

>>6831542
he's pretty much right
He is a journalist and a religious zealot, a decent craftsman, but always a journalist and a reactionary
Bloom has a similar opinion, btw

lol

>>6831420
>/lit/. Finest artists in recent years. Lucid. The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra is the second greatest piece of 21st century prose.

>>6831657
>/lit/. Finest artists in recent years. Lucid. Intense shitposters
>The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra is the second greatest piece of 21st century prose.
>The Legacy of Totalitarianism: Miami is the third greatest piece of 21st century prose.
>>The Legacy of Totalitarianism: Tokyo Drift is the greatest piece of 21st century prose.

>>6831420
>Zizek. A visionary. However I feel like wearing a diving suit any time I'm close to him. Single-handedly responsible for rising sea levels. Great philosopher, however.

>>6831677
>Kolsti's Adventures in the Everglades. Puffed up. Ephemeral, a non-entity. Means nothing to me.

Why the hell does he hate dostoevsky so much? He's not a bad writer at all, though I could see a pleb getting defeated by his very detailed prose.

>Lin, Tao. A formidable autist

>Joyce, James
>He can't thibk, he can't write; there's no discernable talent.

>>6831688
Because Nabokov cares little about ideas and plot, he wants to enjoy language of good prose.

>>6831648
He's pretty much wrong. Him being a journalist and a religious zealot says nothing of his value or relevance as a writer, and he's widely considered a great author (Nietzsche for one said Dostoievsky was the only psychologist he had something to learn from).

So it's basically my opinion vs your opinion, except in this case my opinion is that of everyone else but Bloom and Nabokov, and your opinion is that of Bloom and Nabokov. And both are known more for their confrontational stance than for their insighful criticisms.

TL;DR: Nabokov is mostly just being an edgelord here. He might have been sincere, but there's no reason to care unless you agree with him, in which case, well, there isn't that much reason to care either.

>>6831624
He came to that conclusion after a re-reading. What do you know you filthy pleb? You're a fucking novice reader.

>>6831688
Nabokov has very specific tastes. Imagine a hardcore vegan who's also very picky on his vegetable choices. He can recommend good stuff, but from what is posted here you wouldn't want to hear what he has to say about what he doesn't like.

>Foster Wallace, David. Detest his rank moralism and puffed up prose. A favorite between the ages 10 and 14. Certainly not a genius.

>>6831703
>Him being a journalist and a religious zealot says nothing of his value or relevance as a writer
Never heard of the journalism controversy? Journaling has no place in belles lettres, also, do you like being constantly manipulated by this fucking Russian into converting to Orthodoxy? Personally I dislike that intensely

>Nietzsche for one said Dostoievsky
Nietzsche was an autist that is not to be taken at face value

>So it's basically my opinion vs your opinion
Plenty of people have criticized Dostoevsky, also, you have no opinion of your own because you constantly insist in referring to others opinions like a child instead of arguing.
Also, Bloom has plenty of insightful criticism to offer if you actually read him instead of getting the redux version from your women studies professor

>Nabokov is mostly just being an edgelord here
actually he gives about 10 descriptions of Dostoevsky which are all valid
>cheap
>sensationalist,
>clumsy and
>vulgar. A
>prophet, a
>claptrap
>journalist and a
>slapdash
>comedian. Some of his scenes are
>extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his
>reactionary journalism seriously.

>Conrad, Joseph. A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14. Essentially a writer for very young people. Certainly inferior to Hemingway and Wells. Intolerable souvenir-shop style, romanticist clichés. Nothing I would care to have written myself. In mentality and emotion, hopelessly juvenile. Romantic in the large sense. Slightly bogus.

>>6831718
>defending Jane Austen

Stay pleb.

>>6831703
>So it's basically my opinion vs your opinion, except in this case my opinion is that of everyone else but Bloom and Nabokov
Nabokov isn't criticizing Dostoevsky as a thinker. He's judging him as an artist.
Anyway, don't you know that Dostoevsky's reputation as le prosemaster is actually an Anglo country invention? In Russia, he's thought of mainly as a mystic.

>>6831763
>Certainly inferior to Hemingway and Wells

>>6831420
The only way to get butthurt by this, is if one takes Nabokov and his so-called opinions seriously.

>>6831782
Stay 14 years old.

>>6831802
The only way to be an adult is if one takes Nabokov and his so-called opinions seriously, while understanding that you have no obligation to agree with them

>>6831811
Being an adult also means recognising when some infantile individual is being as contrarian as possible to try to stay relevant.

But I'm not surprised a /lit/cuck becomes defensive; Being contrarian and edgy in desperate hope of obtaining attention is presumably 90% of what happpens here.

>>6831841
did you only read the middle part of the sentence? I suggest you read the exterior parts aswell
I'm also not defensive, if you dislike Nabokov that's fine, but if you then resort to silliness you've got nothing on Nabokov either.

>>6831841
Are you suggesting Nabokov has trouble being relevant as an author?

>Nabokov, Vladimir. Finest writer of children's anatomies in the English language. A favorite between the ages of 18 to 24. Too self-indulgent to be considered a true master.

>>6831848
Are you suggesting that isn't the case?

>>6831883
Yes.

>>6831420

I have, and I mostly agree with him. Still have a soft spot for Faulkner, but yeah, fuck Mann and his ilk honestly

>>6831761
I'd really like to take that bait but I must refrain.

>do you like being constantly manipulated by this fucking Russian into converting to Orthodoxy? Personally I dislike that intensely

Best part of your post imo. The rest is rather unfunny, except for the end.

>>6831785
>Nabokov isn't criticizing Dostoevsky as a thinker. He's judging him as an artist.

And I was commenting on Nabokov judging Dostoievsky as an artist.


>don't you know that Dostoevsky's reputation as le prosemaster is actually an Anglo country invention?

I have never seen that reputation being flaunted elsewhere than on /lit, so I'd assume it doesn't even hold in most of England. Frankly I don't even live in an Angloc country, and "prose" has never been in the list of things I've seen Dosto praised irl.


>In Russia, he's thought of mainly as a mystic.

Nothing wrong with that. Nabokov is not an edgelord for calling Dostoievsky a journalist, he's an edgelord for equating that with "vulgar", then equating "vulgar" with a few others despicable things, then adding yet another layer of contempt and throwing the whole into a five-sentence mix to produce something that can be described as a high-vocabulary hate tweet. This is what BEE would write if he was raised by richfags in early-twentieth century Russia. It's obviously all a show.

>Finnigans Wake
>Conventional

You wut.

>>6831848
Perhaps he felt overshadowed in his lifetime, who knows ? Or perhaps he's just in for the lulz.

>>6831907
I wasn't baiting, but I guess you're too insecure to notice it, that part was the only part where I was trying to be mildly funny

As for your replies to the other guy, Nabokov isn't exactly equating journalism with being vulgar, what is vulgar is him staging a gross double murder for his fucking divinity play.

What you miss is that Nabokov isn't some idiot on twitter, but a highly respected artist and scholar that knows what he's talking about, not just because of his supposed authority, but really

>>6831907
>he's an edgelord for equating that with "vulgar", then equating "vulgar" with a few others despicable things,
You're acting as if the order of the sentences in this list of opinions has been taken verbatim. That entire page is really just a mix of disparate personal letters, conversations, and interviews.

>>6832002
In this case the quote is even more of a meme and should be treated as such.

So change "Nabokov is just being an edgelord here" by "people are just cherry-picking Nabokov's quote to make him look like an edgelord". That doesn't change much the value of the quote itself. I find surprising that even /lit is sometimes capable of an actual discussion on Nietzsche, Plato or Stirner, but that Nabokov's only get those quotes.

>>6831931
Well, sorry then, but your use of the tired old strawman (strawoman in this case: "your women studies professor", how has that imaginary professor anything to do with this thread ?), your calling Nietzsche an autist but being offended that I dismissed Bloom, your complaining about referring to other's opinion when that's all your post boils down to, and your listing "10 descriptions of Dostoevsky which are all valid" without even bothering to parse them into actual descriptions ("comedian. Some of his scenes are") smelled pretty strongly of bait. I actually started writing an answer before deciding there was definitely too much blatant cheekiness for it to be genuine.

Your using of belle lettres as if the category has any meaningful existence besides the name of a literary publishing venue was also quite laughable ("les belles lettres" are anything you, your grandmother and the postman decide it to be, in no particular order, provided you, your grandmother and the postman care about those things).

I like how you used the same trick of attacking me personally again ("you're insecure") while lecturing me on arguing. It'd be natural for a thoughtless shitpost but it doesn't really fit your style.

>What you miss is that Nabokov isn't some idiot on twitter

What you miss is that I never said that. I said if the quote reads like idiotic tweet with more vocabulary and there's no reason to suspect there is more to it, we should just treat it as such. Bring an actual excerpt and we might discuss, meanwhile, I'll keep not taking those meme witticisms as anything more than meme witticisms.

>not just because of his supposed authority, but really

But Nabokov has no more actual authority on this matter than any other author recognized as "great". Which brings us back to my initial point: you agree with Nabokov, I don't agree with him, those are merely opinions and you could find more authority on my sides than on yours. But, again, the bottom line is the quote is merely a jab cut out to be offensive. Wether or not this was Nabokov's actual opinion isn't even important ultimately.

I don't quite understand while you feel so offended.


>Nabokov isn't exactly equating journalism with being vulgar

You're right, I was a bit too quick on detailing the construction of the quote, nonetheless my point stands: it's not simply a criticism, it's a rhetorical molotov cocktail, it's there to bring fire for the sake of it. It's an annoying meme that should have died out long ago, but I suppose dank memes are immortal here.

>>6832123
*why you feel so offended.

>Brand, Russell. A favorite between the ages of 8 and 20. One of the foremost political minds of our day. Certifiably genius.

>>6832136
Kek
Nabokov actually did have some thoughts about Russel. He pledged to support whatever ideals that angered him.

>>6832123
>how has that imaginary professor anything to do with this thread ?
has a lot to do with Bloom, what I was talking about
>offended
never offended, and there's nothing wrong with dismissing someone aslong as you dismiss that someone for good reason.
Second most well known literary critic alive? Probably relevant.
Opinion of someone as unreliable as N.? Well, it's unreliable.
>that's all your post boils down to
it boils down to an argument about Nabokov's opinion, the point of the thread and clearly the point of the post. I mentioned Bloom as an aside and then you drew in on him because you're interested in opinions, and you're doing a mediocre job at reflecting.
>your listing "10 descriptions of Dostoevsky which are all valid" without even bothering to parse them into actual descriptions
Wow. That's Nabokovs description from within the thread, broken into lines so the descriptors are too the left, it was easier to do than copying them all out individually and a more honest quote. That you didn't even notice that is pretty telling IMO.
> too much blatant cheekiness
I am a very cheeky lad

> as if the category has any meaningful existence
muh literariness don't real
>besides the name of a literary publishing venue was also quite laughable
completely untrue, belles letres is a categorical synonym for fine writing and quite relevant as such
>lecturing me on arguing
I was "lecturing" on reading, not being insecure being an important part of it

>I never said that
you likened as such

>meme witticisms
They're Nabokovs writings, not the musings of one of your friends

>those are merely opinions and you could find more authority on my sides than on yours
so how does that make your opinion more valid than mine when you recognize that opinions have no validity without argument?
>the quote is merely a jab cut out to be offensive
Nope, he's giving good descriptions of Dosto's writing
>*why you feel so offended.
I'm not, that's why
>You're right
yah I am
>it's not simply a criticism, it's a rhetorical molotov cocktail
he's got ten criticisms that range from the political to the moral and aesthetic, no idea what your problem is

>>6831657
>the Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra 2:Electric Boogaloo

>Borges, Jorge Luis. A favorite. How freely one breathes in his marvelous labyrinths! Lucidity of thought, purity of poetry. A man of infinite talent.
>Marx, Karl. Loathe him.
>Melville, Herman. Love him. One would like to have filmed him at breakfast, feeding a sardine to his cat.
>Salinger, J. D. By far one of the finest artists in recent years.

At least he's on point with a few of these.

>>6831688
He wanted to translate Dostoevsky but got rejected. Look it up.

>Mann, Thomas. Dislike him. Second-rate

t-triggered...

I've always wondered what Nabokov thought of Blake. Anyone able to cite anything?

>Poe, Edgar Allan. A favorite between the ages of 10 and 15, but no longer. One would like to have filmed his wedding.


What does the wedding thing even mean, i get a kek out of it nonetheless.

>>6832197
You'd have to be really retarded to take Nabokov's 2 sentences as some criticism with value.

>>6833959
Poe married his 13 year old cousin.

>>6833978

ya i knew that but idk i didn't think it was a big deal that he'd reference it.

>DFW. Absolute mediocrity. Can't read, can't write. No discernible talent.
Et tu, Vladimir?
Imagine, if he was alive and posted on /lit...

>Ulysses. A divine work of art. Greatest masterpiece of 20th century prose. Towers above the rest of Joyce's writing. Noble originality, unique lucidity of thought and style. Molly's monologue is the weakest chapter in the book. Love it for its lucidity and precision.
>Finnegans Wake. A formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book. Conventional and drab, redeemed from utter insipidity only by infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations. Detest it. A cancerous growth of fancy word-tissue hardly redeems the dreadful joviality of the folklore and the easy, too easy, allegory. Indifferent to it, as to all regional literature written in dialect. A tragic failure and a frightful bore.
Lol.

>>6833995
marrying your 13 year old cousin is kind of a big deal breh, just imagine the family sitting there at the ceremony watching the event take place