/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4130487]

Hey /lit/, what do you think of Vladamir Nabokov? I've only read Pale Fire (it was an interesting idea but I wasn't really immersed), and I've heard pretty disparaging comments about Lolita so I was wondering what you guys thought about him in general

[Anonymous No.4130497]

I'm now reading Pale Fire because I really enjoyed Lolita.

[Anonymous No.4130499]

>>4130487
/lit/-approved author, especially for people who like sprawling, almost-but-not-quite-purple prose.

[Anonymous No.4130501]

>>4130499
His prose has a touch of elegance in it. I don't think it's floid prose, it's something different.

[Anonymous No.4130504]

>>4130501
Yeah, this. (Same guy here.) I couldn't quite find the correct words, and this is certainly closer to what I meant.

[Anonymous No.4130543]

Lolita was one of my favorite books ever, so I decided to read Pale Fire.

I understood very little past the introduction. It was too laborious for my pleb self. I stopped trying ~80 pages in.

[Anonymous No.4130574]

he's pretty unfulfilling but if you like good prose you should read him

[Anonymous No.4130600]

>>4130487

the prose of lolita is probably the most beautiful thing I have ever read.
It is refinement and elegance incarnate.

[Anonymous No.4130618]

What I love about Nabokov is that I can enjoy his writing, even if I'm uninterested in the subject matter. Actually, through his descriptions I've found that I can become interested in things I didn't think I would ever be interested in. This was especially true when I read his memoir, which, after Lolita, I think is his best book. He would go into detail about seemingly uninteresting people, like his French governess, and yet I couldn't stop reading. Most writers don't have that ability.

[Anonymous No.4130712]

>>4130487
He is a genius of character.

[Anonymous No.4130741]

total genius way better than snorevsky even though half of his books are awful lol.