/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10351176]

Nabokov can only write in one mode, and if you've read more than his biggest two English novels you'd understand quickly why he's not a very exceptional prose stylist. He reuses his style, his syntax, his metaphors, even his uncommon words so often that it becomes plastic and trite. I firmly believe as well that he was incapable of understanding English-language poetry at the level of say, most other 20th century English-language heavyweights (I love how he calls Pound a fraud and Eliot "ToiletS" when he himself was completely incapable of writing an even mediocre English poem), and it shows in his prose. I think the first time one reads him they believe he's a master of language, and when one reads his entire English-language oeuvre (like I have done multiple times and annotated heavily) one realizes that he should have probably stuck to Russian. Still great, but hardly inimitable. The structure of his novels is probably his greatest strength, and he rarely gets any acclaim for that.

[Anonymous No.10351193]

>>10351176
he was also an annoying bitchy queen

[Anonymous No.10351203]

I agree. I also think he tried much too hard to make some of books into "puzzles". He was a genius in sheer terms of erudition and intellect, but he used his talent a bit frustratingly and pretentiously. I still love him though, one of my favorite authors, but he's definitely not perfect. Transparent Things, Ada, and Pnin are underrated, everyone usually thinks of Lolita and Pale Fire when they think of his English language novels.

[Anonymous No.10351481]

>>10351176
>Nabokov can only write in one mode
that explains why Pale Fire is so different to his Russian work
>not a very exceptional prose stylist
opinion disregarded
>incapable of understanding English language poetry
>being so pleb you want to argue that notes on prosody is incompetent
So, now that we know a Lolita reading tween raped you, how about you give us the real storytime?

[Anonymous No.10351823]

no, his poetryprose wasis excellent and top notch, one of englishs foremost prose stylist

[Anonymous No.10352276]

>>10351823
Wrong, he's nothing compared to Gaddis, Gass, McElroy or Hawkes.

[Anonymous No.10352427]

>>10351176
A lot of great stylists stick to the same syntax, etc, and while he doesn't have as much variety as, say, Joyce, "plastic" and "trite" is a little much. He was aware of repeating himself (claiming that "artistic originality has only itself to copy"), but he's better than that. Reading Sebastian Knight, Lolita, Pale Fire, and Pnin are very different experiences. While the "Pale Fire" poem is overrated, it's certainly above mediocre. His dismissal of many great authors is absurd, but writers often have idiosyncratic opinions about each other.

[Anonymous No.10352448]

>>10352427
The Pale Fire poem is an incredibly mediocre English poem that only people who don't read poetry like.

[Anonymous No.10352458]

>>10352276
My friend, many would say those authors are nothing compared to Nabokov

[Anonymous No.10352464]

>>10352458
They haven't read them then, and if they have then they would be wrong. I'm talking prose anyway, all of those authors are much better prose artists than Nabokov who is exceedingly overrated in that department.

[Anonymous No.10352643]

delet

[Anonymous No.10352697]

e

[Anonymous No.10352700]

>>10351176
fuck off, he's great

[Anonymous No.10352739]

>>10352700
fuck off, he's not. *unsheaths my katana* *chops your head off* *blood spurts from your neck stump*hehe kiddo nothing personnel *wipes blade* *sheathes katana*

[Anonymous No.10353011]

>>10351481
>opinion discarded
>post doesn't end there

[Anonymous No.10353035]

>>10351176
anyone else think he looks like hitler in that photo

[Anonymous No.10353694]

>>10351176
same thing with DFW desu

[Anonymous No.10353699]

>>10353035
he gives off some real strong pedophile vibes
which makes sense