[ 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: 80 KB, 600x671, nabo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569415 No.8569415 [Reply] [Original]

nabokov thread

According to a list of the ten greatest books of the 20th century, as voted by 125 famous authors, number one and number 10 are both by Nabokov. To have written two of the ten best novels of the 20th century (as voted by his peers), one of them number one, and to be a distinguished writer in more than one language, is strong evidence that Nabokov is the most accomplished writer of the 20th century.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/30/writers-top-ten-favorite-books/

>> No.8569419

Only cucks put faith in such lists.

>> No.8569421

>>8569419
Did you read his books then?

>> No.8569438

I read Lolita and I liked it. Should I read Pale Fire or Ada next?

>> No.8569446

>>8569438
I enjoyed ada but I haven't read pale fire. Ada has a very difficult first 50 pages, but after that it's smooth sailing. It uses three languages and also assumes an "anti-terra" (something like bizarro-earth)... it was hard to get through, but after I got through the initial wall I loved it. I don't know what ada is like.

>> No.8569453

>>8569446
sorry, I don't know what pale fire is like. 2 drunk 2 post

>> No.8569467

his style is superficial

>> No.8569480

>>8569467
he models other human beings better than any other writer

>> No.8569482
File: 45 KB, 325x433, Cj9ZyU4XIAANUkz.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569482

>>8569415

>> No.8569485

>>8569482
was actually meant for
>>8569467

My mistake sorry OP

>> No.8569507

>>8569415
> peers

>> No.8569536

Why did this windowlicker think he was good enough to critique other writers, let alone Joyce ?

>> No.8569551

>>8569536
Joyce didn't even make sense

>> No.8569564

>>8569536
how many people who make comments like this have a. read Nabokov, or read him beyond Lolita b. read Joyce c. read Nabokov on Joyce

>> No.8569583

>>8569564
I haven't read Lolita and I'm not going to because of how disappointing Pale Fire was. I can't believe I spent $16 on that book. I'm considering burning my copy of it in a pale fire because I can't stand to have it on my shelf anymore.

>> No.8569641

>>8569583
maybe you just didnt understand it

>> No.8569654

>>8569641
Or maybe it's just poorly written like it is.

>> No.8569660

>>8569654
I haven't read it, but the other nabokov stuff I've read leads me to believe that he can't write something extremely poor unless it was like the first book he wrote or something

>> No.8569666

>>8569660
Then you should read Pale Fire, because it is definitely not an impressive work of literature.

>> No.8569668

>>8569415
I've been to that site. It's American authors and Lolita is like #7 or something. Pale Fire way down there.

Not sure why you making shit up m8!

>> No.8569674
File: 38 KB, 598x575, firefox_2016-09-30_23-36-15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569674

>>8569668
Click on the link maybe? You probably had 20th century confused with all time or something.

>> No.8569677

>>8569583
>19 year old mad he doesn't get nabokov

>> No.8569685

>>8569677
I understood every part of the book and all of it was entirely unnecessary.

>> No.8569686

>>8569674
Yep.

::takes lap::

>> No.8569687

>>8569446
Read Pale Fire brah, it's awesome. Textbook Nabokov precision with some beguiling literary who's who

>> No.8569688

>>8569685
>>8569685
SAID ANON WITH NO SPINE

GO BACK 2 WIKIPEDIA

>> No.8569689

>>8569688
If I had no spine I wouldn't be alive and wouldn't be able to post on 4chan.

>> No.8569692

>>8569686
r u hitting on me or are you running extra around the track?

>> No.8569695

>>8569689
Maybe I just dissed you beyond ur comprehension, ever think about that

>> No.8569697

>>8569695
Wow, you didn't even understand my post.

>> No.8569699

>>8569583
Anon, you are being very quick to dismiss Nabokov's (highly praised) works. Are you sure it's not possible that you didn't misunderstand his intentions?

Also please read his MO (Lo) before painting a full picture of him

>> No.8569702

>>8569697
Damn, you are on a level higher than me senpai, teach me.

>> No.8569705

>>8569666
I know aesthetics/appreciation of artwork is subject, but you're objectively wrong, even though there's likely nothing I could say to dissuade you

>> No.8569706

>>8569685
tap out dude
maybe try pnin or an earlier novel? :)

>> No.8569708

>>8569699
>>8569706
I'll only read more Nabokov if I can get it for free or for very little money. I was hesitant to spend so much on Pale Fire considering how short it is, but only did so because of the praise it's received. Now I wish I had gotten Mason & Dixon instead.

>> No.8569709

>>8569699
Fuck. Scratch the word didn't

>> No.8569712

>>8569708
Wait you actually think spending $15 on a book is a lot?

This is /lit/, they don't have jobs. lel

>> No.8569714

>>8569708
>considering how short it is

Anon, you didn't only read the poem right, you read the 'introduction' and 'notes' too, correct? It is (if I recall) pretty standard in length at ~300 pages.

>> No.8569719
File: 36 KB, 375x472, NabokovBoxing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569719

Imagine not being able to appreciate the best writer of the last 100 years because you had to pay a chipotle burrito in dollars to get one of his books

And you only know one language and he knows like 3 or more

>> No.8569722

>>8569712
I got the complete works of John Milton, Edward Young, Thomas Gray, James Beattie, and William Collins for less than that, so yes.

>>8569714
Yes, I did. The poem was the best part, though the fourth canto was horrible. But considering the above, $16 for a 300 page book is pretty steep, especially considering the poor quality of the paper and the printing.

>> No.8569723

>>8569708
hm where are there free books to borrow
and if they don't let you in your school library, every nabokov is about 4 dollars used, and every used bookstore with even a semi decent selection will have some of his works

>> No.8569726

>>8569722
why are you buying new books if that matters so much to you??

>> No.8569727

>>8569719
>And you only know one language
Where are you getting this from ?

>> No.8569730

>>8569727
I'm just guessing, you know the odds are on my side, you're being deliberately obtuse

>> No.8569732

ONLY ON 4CHAN PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE NABOKOV IS NOT A GREAT AUTHOR

K
Y
S

>> No.8569735

>>8569726
I was at the store looking for The Tunnel but found out that it's out of print and that I have to order it online, so I decided to get Pale Fire so I would have something to read while waiting for it in the mail.

>>8569730
But I was born to a German mother and American father and have been speaking both languages my entire life. I'm also currently learning Spanish.

>> No.8569743

>>8569732
If he was such an objectively great author, then why didn't I enjoy Pale Fire ? I was really expecting to love it and read with a positive outlook, but I just couldn't find anything about it that made it stand out. It was just pointless.

>> No.8569745

>>8569732
tbf, nabokov was the king of shitting on whatever beloved author for his own dumb 50% of the time unfair reasons and sticking to it
he had taste though

>> No.8569749

>>8569743
>>8569745
i didn't read it but he was all about the 'feeling in the spine'. he had diff goals than you, i guess. he despised HH despite writing a novel about him

>> No.8569758

>>8569749
>he was all about the 'feeling in the spine'.
Do you mean aesthetic ? Because Joyce was a lot better at that.

>> No.8569759

>>8569749
Than me? I am not the Pale Fire hater

I'm mostly referring to him beating up on poor Henry James for the unfair part.

>> No.8569761
File: 15 KB, 560x95, chrome_2016-09-30_23-59-31.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569761

>>8569759
>>8569758

>> No.8569762

>>8569758
google it, or read the essay in the intro to his lectures on literature which is where I believe the quote originally appeared

>> No.8569765

Pale Fire is great, but it's also grating so I can see why someone would hate it if they didn't have the patience for the game Nabokov was playing with it.

>> No.8569768
File: 35 KB, 609x284, chrome_2016-10-01_00-00-41.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569768

>> No.8569770

>>8569762
>>8569761
>>8569749
Nabokov is also a top proto-troll, keep that in mind with his criticisms.

>> No.8569772

>>8569743
>If pizza is such an objectively great food, then why didn't I enjoy it

>> No.8569775

>>8569772
I can't tell whether you're arguing or agreeing with me.

>> No.8569777
File: 88 KB, 500x633, nabokov_enchanter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569777

>> No.8569802

>>8569775
Trying to characterize your position to the point that you can see that it is fallacious.

When an author is heralded as "Great", this is not a promise that every single individual who reads him/her will agree, but that 99/100 will (assuming they have the requisite foundational knowledge), and your insurgency doesn't undermine the aforementioned propositional 'truth' that the author is great.

>> No.8569804

>>8569802
But my position isn't fallacious. I'm trying to argue that no author is objectively great and you are failing to refute that. If not everyone enjoys something then it can't be universally accepted as good.

>> No.8569809

>>8569804
Go read bob the builder or whatever u like

>> No.8569811

>>8569809
But I like Ulysses not Bob the Builder.

>> No.8569812

>>8569804

See the second paragraph of >>8569802
>When an author is heralded as "Great", this is not a promise that every single individual who reads him/her will agree, but that 99/100 will ...

>> No.8569813

>>8569811
Oh I tried to read it and it was just stream of consciousness bullshit to me, maybe we are just two different species

>> No.8569817

>>8569811
Nabokov's lecture on Ulysses is nice :)

>> No.8569818

>>8569813
oh no
I hate /lit/ :(

>> No.8569821

>>8569818
why?

>> No.8569827
File: 8 KB, 460x119, firefox_2016-10-01_00-20-26.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569827

is never seeing the internet and the current year a curse or a blessing?

>> No.8569841

>>8569813
I think there's something for everyone in the book, but almost nobody is going to like every part of it. The Wandering Rocks chapter is the most accessible of the ones I've read so far. It's almost like a mini-Dubliners.

>> No.8569850

>>8569841
dont talk about joyce in my nabokov thread

>> No.8569873

bump

>> No.8569886

>>8569804
Are you autistic or just insufferably pedantic?

>> No.8569893

>>8569886
it's /lit/ bro, the answer is both

>> No.8570082

>>8569415
Wouldn't Joyce having #4 and #5 be more impressive than someone having #1 and #10? 7+6=13 > 1+10=11

>> No.8570108
File: 19 KB, 340x315, balzac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570108

>>8569768
>tfw reading with my stomach

>> No.8570125

>>>/r9k/31777712 learn steno you idiots

>> No.8570128

all fiction is for gay idiots who try really hard to 'express themselves' because they're too weak and self important to work a real job being the greatest author on earth is like being the best finger painter or the best curator of feminist postcards celebrating lesbians wearing boots it's not an achievement it just means you're a feminised sentimental girl-man-baby who can't into reality because 'science is fedora but "uggghh feelings!" shit is good" fucking idiots lol you're all shit ideologue faggots tell me more about how you've mastered mental gymnastics to convince yourself your preferences and beliefs are 'like totally objective' and others aren't lolol also lolita and therefore nabakov is just edge before people knew about edge it's novel and innovative maybe but it's not good in anyway unless you're into that gay shit so fuck nabakov and fuck all pedo apologists

>> No.8570161

>>8570082
You saying a gold medal is worth as much as a participation award?

>> No.8571125

guys I'm sorry for making this thread I was drunk

moderator please delet

>> No.8571240

>>8570128
looks like someone got rejected by too many publishers