[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 28 KB, 300x371, pervy russky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20675527 No.20675527 [Reply] [Original]

Why did he hate Dostoyevsky so fucking much?

>> No.20675539

>>20675527
Because Nabakov lacked a moral backbone

>> No.20675541

le sad russian guy

>> No.20675546

>>20675527
Because Dostoyevsky is the personification of reddit.

>> No.20675582

>>20675527
Because Nabakov is the personification of reddit.

>> No.20675603

Because Nabakov is the personification of reddit.

>> No.20675606

>>20675527
>Said he should've been a playwright instead of a novelist
>Found him to be a cheap sensational
>Claimed his novels were more entertaining than artistic
>Criticized his sentimentalist tropes

Basically he thought his novels were the 19th century equivalent of grandiose Oscar bait flicks

>> No.20675614

>>20675606
then lolita is a mid 20th century gay art house film

>> No.20676309

>>20675527
Nabakov seems like he was a bit of a dickhead in general.

>> No.20676314

>>20675614
It was.

>> No.20676374

>>20676309
He was born into an aristocratic Russian family, which somewhat explains it. Still my favourite author though, he was unapologetic in his views and way of life and I can only admire that.
Only Dostoevsky I've read is Notes from Underground. I hated it but I know better than to judge him based off of that.

>> No.20676401

>>20676374
What makes him your fav?

>> No.20676470

>>20676401
Mostly his prose, the feel of it and imagery that he employs. It's such a pleasure to read, great balance of effervescence and weight.
He was never afraid to be idiosyncratic in his approach and I like that too.

>> No.20676502
File: 507 KB, 598x601, 1642754216137.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20676502

>>20675527
A lot of the writers he didn't like he either disliked their style (he was an aesthete) or thought they were too black and white, "rank moralists." Basically, Dostoevsky focused on suffering too much for him and it got on Nabokov's nerves. An author like Chekhov was more palatable because he wrote a much wider range.

>> No.20676979

He liked being edgy and having controversial opinions for the sake of it. It was pure pretense, but also having this type of contrarian persona was common to writers and public intellectuals of the time. Borges behaved in the same exact way.

>> No.20676987

>>20675527
Because he's mentally unstable

>> No.20677027

>>20675527
Because he could never tolerate that for all the rich ideas and topics Dostoesvky covers, he didn't write with flowery prose. Nabokov was adament that his way of writing was the only way, and I beg to differ.

>> No.20677101

>>20675527
Because Dostoyevsky is the personification of reddit

>> No.20677119
File: 27 KB, 680x680, 179.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20677119

Jesus, I know this is a bait thread and half of the anons here are shitposting and everything but this entire thread is extremely embarrassing for a literature board.

>> No.20677144

>>20677119
Make a better one then.

>> No.20677159

>>20675527
Nabakov was a degenerate, immoral and decadent Russian aristocrat. A stranger to Dostoevsky's writing and everything he wrote about.

>> No.20677195

>>20675527
Because Dostoyevsky is a moralist. He shoves his mediocre moral takes down his readers throats and gives them little in the way of aesthetic value. Nabokov claimed that his books lack an enchanting quality and "never seem to take place anywhere". It's true, when you read Dostoyevsky you feel alienated from the worlds of the novels. He's pretty good at essay style narration but he almost always fails to integrate it seamlessly into his plots.

>> No.20677300

>Nabakov
is this some sort of a meme?

>> No.20677376

>>20677159
Indeed. Dostoevsky will never appeal to a degenerate who is too far gone in their own habits. Nabakov is a good writer; his prose is great, but Dostoevsky has deeper messages.

>> No.20677417

>>20675539
>>20676374
>>20676502
>>20676979
>>20677159
>>20677195
To summorize it: Nabakov, like many anons in this thread, was a degenerate who didn't like to be reminded that his habits were disgusting.
>moral values shoved down the readers' throats
This is what a degenerate feels when he faces a moral man expressing moral values.

>> No.20677441

>>20677417
people with present moral backbone don't need to read about it one more time in hundred pages of content that's only good for teaching teenagers basics of morals
Dosto has his moments though, the best one is the confession of Nicolas from Demons

>> No.20677927

>>20675527
пoшлocть

>> No.20677955

So why do certain Nabby posters repost this shit ad nauseam? I get it, you're weak and need the validation of your favorite writer in order to take a dump one of /lit/'s beloved figures, you're also a smug prick about it because of course you are. Why you think this isn't pathetic and you're contrarianism is actually cool, I will never understand, but fuck you anyway.

>> No.20677961

>>20677955
Epic fail

>> No.20677966

>>20677961
Sorry, not overly verbose with flowery prose enough for daddy Nabby to give you his stamp of approval. NEXT!

>> No.20677985

>>20677955
>>20677966
nabakov spends like half lolita using flowery prose describing fucking roadside motels also. so dumb.

>> No.20678059

>>20677417
>Nabakov, like many anons in this thread, was a degenerate
Dostoevsky was a massive gambler

>> No.20678067

>>20675527
Dostoyevsky disliked Jews and Nabokov was a perverted philo-semite with a Jew wife, and was possibly Jewish himself.

>> No.20678071

>>20678067
He was most definitely a jew

>> No.20678087

>>20677417
I never said I agreed with Nabokov. I actually despise his takes because I love Dosto's writing, but I will read Nabokov anyways. William "Corncob" Faulkner said it's good to read all kinds of books, I'm just astonished Nabbypoo was so tonedeaf to anger and suffering that readers want to relate to. Not everyone gets a flowery life.

>> No.20678203

>>20678071
worse, he was a tatar

>> No.20678328

He’s just completely insufferable. There’s an afterword to Lolita that nearly tainted the book to me, he is that obnoxious in it.
I read another book of his: King Queen Knave, and it had interesting prose and events but was paper thin in terms of depth. He hates Dosto because he writes “baggy monsters” as Henry James calls them, but ignores the depth because he can’t/didn’t want to do it.

>> No.20678503

why do you effeminate dorks cry and argue over nabo dabbing on dosto but think it's epic and based when corncob called proust "not literature"

>> No.20678530

>>20677119
that's what you get for dropping gatekeeping and letting leftists and com get in

>> No.20678695

>>20675527
Why the butterfly?

>> No.20678711

Like many already said, he was a failed aristocrat. He hated the working class, communism, etc. While Dosto doesn't have much to do with the left, he still wrote about poor people, criminals, and lowly people. He never suffered in his life, and he hated anything to do with morals, left or right, because he was salty he couldn't enjoy being a pedo aristocrat in Russia and rape kids in with impunity.

>> No.20678846

>>20678695
he liked killing and collecting dead butterflies

>> No.20678902

>>20678328
>There’s an afterword to Lolita that nearly tainted the book to me, he is that obnoxious in it.
How so? You recall what he said or so?

>> No.20679505

>>20678503
faulkner is a nonentity to me

>> No.20679834

Because he was an overrated one hit wonder. People actually read all of Dostoevsky's books, even Netochka Nezvanova. Nobody reads anything past Lolita.

>> No.20679871

>>20679834
Stupid. Pale Fire, Speak Memory, & Pnin get nearly as many readers as Dostoevsky's lesser works. You are lying out of malice or profound ignorance so there's no use keeping this channel of communication open. Consider yourself hidden and blocked.

>> No.20679909

>>20678846
Humbert Humbert

>> No.20679912

>>20679871
>Stupid. Pale Fire, Speak Memory, & Pnin get nearly as many readers as Dostoevsky's lesser works

Sure they do. That's why when everyone thinks of Nabokov, they think (solely) of Lolita. When's the last time you heard anyone ever talk about anything else he wrote?

>> No.20679935

>>20675527
I speak only the truth and with my word I say Dostoyevsky>Nabokov AIAEC

>> No.20679946

>>20679912
not him, but i hear pale fire mentioned every now and then, but it’s like at the same level of popularity as comparing old linkin park to anything they put out in their last one or two records.

>> No.20680145
File: 1.06 MB, 196x200, 1630172782805.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20680145

>> No.20680297

Did Nabokov focus on the prose?
Some anons said Nabokov's prose is good, but the books are shallow. Months ago I was reading about one Russian guy who translated Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and he said their writing styles are really rough in the original language.

>> No.20680302
File: 74 KB, 671x665, freg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20680302

>>20675527
Haven't read any Nabokov besides one short story but will offer my expert analysis.
Nabakov clearly hates Dosty because Dosty is his poetic father-figure whose influence that Nabakov must overcome in order to become a writer in his own write. Lolita demonstrates this struggle against overinfluence. Anyone who has read Dosty knows that he regards the scandalization/corruption of children as the ultimate crime, and so Nabby is trying to overcome his father by reveling in that which the father forbids. Yet he himself probably knows that in this very action he is living out a Dostoevskian plotline, so Lolita is probably a failure. My guess is that his weird later "artistic" books which no one reads are trying to overcome Dosty in a different way, by overidentifying with the Joycean style and in that way trying again (fruitlessly) to disguise from himself his own father.

>> No.20680511

>>20680302
Based psychoanalyst schizo.

>> No.20680520

>>20680302
based

>> No.20680521

Dostoevsky is like if Vice Journalism sold you a boner pill and you had to meet him (Vice) at his shitty lil gay house where he's gay n shit

>> No.20680544

>>20680302
Now this is the kind of literary analysis I can get behind.

>> No.20680615

>>20675527
No Nabokov novel feels “inspired.” Maybe the concept of Lolita is pretty bold and controversial.

His books have incredible workmanship and planning and attention to detail, but they’re not “inspired.” On the other hand, the two writers that made Nabokov seethe the most, Faulkner and Dostoevsky, seemed almost divinely chosen to write. Nabokov had all that leisure, that Cambridge education, the cushy teaching positions in America, then these two faggots with no patrician background and very little education are writing brilliant works to rival or outpace Nabby? Dostoevsky’s writing books just to pay off his gambling debts, frantically and with minimal revising writing absolute bangers? That’s embarrassing. He went to a Russian technical college and spent time in a Siberian work camp, he didn’t go to the Oxford or Harvard of his day. And then Faulkner, who style-wise you would expect Nabokov to love almost as much as he lives Joyce, never even graduated fucking 11th grade. That had to have Nab absolutely fuming lmao

>> No.20680632

>>20676309
I like his books but he would’ve been annoying to be around. He was very concerned with people’s perception of him. All his “interviews” were actually just people sending him the questions in advance and him giving back the written responses all at once. IMO that tells me he was worried about not coming up with smart enough sounding answers to questions, so he refused all interviews unless the questions were fully provided in advance in writing.

>> No.20680769

>>20680615
I love this class cope

>> No.20680781

>>20677119
No, it's just monoculture and insecure people trying to follow it reverently.

>> No.20681121

>>20680615
>And then Faulkner, who style-wise you would expect Nabokov to love almost as much as he lives Joyce, never even graduated fucking 11th grade.
I bet that bothered him the most. The only inheritor of Joyce who made something original (expresionwise) out of it without been sheer crushed by Joyce shadow and that actually let a tangible legacy in the literature to come after, and it had to be cornby dropout southernboy.

>> No.20681173

>>20680302
To this I would add: Lolita is bafflingly similar to Dostoyevsky's short story "The Meek One" (Кpoткaя). Almost the same narrative technique, very similar theme.