[ 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, 346x450, nabokov2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
899743 No.899743 [Reply] [Original]

Hi /lit/
I am wondering, is there any good criticism on Nabokov? All i read is only praising so is he really that good, or is it another overrated author? Never read anything from him, i am not really into modern literature, but i would give it a try if he is really that good.

>> No.899753

Go read Pale Fire right now goddamn it.

>> No.899750

He failed, where greater writers succeeded. He was experimental, sure. He wrote a controversial book, and that explains his popularity. Mostly people playing the devil's advocate. He is over-hyped, imo.

>> No.899754

The only negative stuff I've ever encountered was by Amis when the Original of Laura was finally published. I read the book anyways and it was basically as advertised on the tin: a novel in fragements - probably only of interest to Nabokov scholars.

>> No.899758

I've read Lolita and Pale Fire, both amazingly written and constructed. You have to read him.

When you say you're not into modern literature, what do you mean? What do you hate in modern literature?

>> No.899768

OP, I misread you. Try Brian boyd - he has written a ton on Nab. All good stuff.

>> No.899779

>>899750
Oh God I hate it when the first (and only) thing people mention about Lolita is that it's "controversial"... First of all there's nothing to be shocked really, and if you only noticed that, you missed the fucking point.

>> No.899782

>>899779
No, I got the point of Lolita and even liked it. But you can't really think that the book was not controversial. I didn't say the controversy was deserved (even though there are scenes from the novel which are pretty raw) and probably it resulted from a misreading. I do think the fact that he wrote a novel with a pedophile protagonist may have something to do with his notoriety. (also i'm going to start a band and name it ''pedophile protagonist'' now)

>> No.899783

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F3ywUpp_ps
Some interesting criticisms of Nabokov's Lolita here.

>> No.899786

>>899758
I don't hate it, i just don't find it as interesting as older literature. By modern literature i meant literature of 20th century.

>> No.899791

>>899783
Bitch is ugly. Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_8toD2CFlg this is actually legit criticism and the prof is extremely intelligent. Also, I have a mind crush on her and completely look up to her.... SOOOO.

>> No.899796

>>899782
Yes, I know the controversy is real and due to the narrator's attraction to nymphets.
He was read before Lolita was published, but is surly gave him a lot more notoriety. I just hate it when the "controversial" side of this book is more discussed than the book itself.

>> No.899803

>>899791
And+ she's not fat

>> No.899804

>>899750
I kind of wonder how much of his stuff you've read if all you can say about his style is "eh, experimental." I'm really impressed with his creative use of format and narrators. He doesn't just write down stories, he creates documents that exist in their own universe.

That's just why I like him, though.

>> No.899805

>>899796
Agreed. It's bullshit. Pisses me off even more when people think they're sooo intelligent and got it, that it's actually about "questioning morals" and shit, when Nabokov was EXTREMELY clear in stating that he didn't want any of dat shit in novels, especially his.

The goddamn novel's about aestheticism. Not if it's okay to fuck 10 year olds.

Rageragerage. Of course that's assuming that we're not going to be douches and completely toss out the author's opinion of his own novel, as is customary with modern criticism...

>> No.899807

>>899796
I feel you, I think Lolita is an excellent psychological book and also a book which is subtly subversive to strongly held views on love and sex. I do like the book quite a lot, but on 4chan the man is overrated BECAUSE of the controversy.

>> No.899808

Was it true that he was a pervert

>> No.899811

>>899808
5/10, noice trollan

>> No.899829

I don't agree with almost any of his critics. He sounds as if he would know the author personally, using rash assumptions. He puts aesthetic before anything else, that's why Dostoevsky in his eyes is mediocre author - his 15 pages long monologues could not satisfy him. Overall his criticism really reminds me of those tier lists of books : my taste > your taste .

>> No.899835

>>899829
Agreed. Although I love him as an author, he was a bit of a pretentious dick in that he saw things through his philosophy and his philosophy alone. Ironic, considering Pale Fire.

>> No.899837
File: 175 KB, 440x550, 167-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
899837

Mary McCarthy's essay on Pale Fire is great criticism. She figured out most of the novel before anyone else understood a word of it.

And Boyd's biography is very good. Although I don't share his fanaticism for "Ada".

>> No.899841

>>899837
Is it in a book of hers or did you read it online?

>> No.899844
File: 101 KB, 1024x768, 1273588096718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
899844

>mfw people think there's only one, definite meaning to a book

>> No.899843

>>899743
Lolita is the shit.

>> No.899853

>>899844
>mfw people pale fire it up

>> No.899869

Problem with Nabokov's critics is that he thought there is only one way. Only one true art. He demanded art that would not be dependant on time when it was written. Well that would be nice, but it is only matter of opinion, i would say you can't separate one thing from the whole. His critic of Freud was mainly because of his sexual motives, and that it was pseudo-science, yet latest research about brain functions show that sexuality is really that important aspect of our live. You see, even his critics are bound to time when they were written.

>> No.899874

>>899869
-_____________-

>> No.899878

Quite frankly, he's not overrated.

He is a great writer, and even those who dislike his work can find loads of stuff to discuss and argue about the meaning of.

If that is not the mark of talent, what is?

>> No.899880

>>899869
...But that doesn't make Freud any less of a quack. It's pretty common knowledge in the Psychology community that even though he's great and blah blah started it all, the vast majority of what he said was completely bull shit.

>> No.899887

>>899880
Freud was not bullshit in the truest sense of that word, I believe he was sincere at least. The significance of freud is that he produced a unified theory of psychology. He is very interesting when he writes about art. He is more important to structural theory (and therefore, deconstruction) than he is to modern, therapeutic psychology.

>> No.899889

>>899880
True, but what bothered Nabokov was presence of sexuality in everything.

>> No.899893

Art for art's sake, pretty good read

>> No.899903

>>Is it in a book of hers or did you read it online?

I read it in an anthology of her critical essays. But it is online. Here's a link:

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bolt-the-blue

>> No.899916

I feel stupid when I read his novels. His writing-style forces me to read almost every other sentence of his twice.

>> No.899915

>>899889
Sincerity doesn't make him any less of a bother to modern psychology.

>> No.899920

>>899889
...Sigh. I could argue with you that sexuality isn't in everything and blah blah blah, but we'd be recycling the same old arguments and using the same rebuttals we both already know.
So agree to disagree.

>> No.899941

>>899920
Sure, i am not trying to say that sexuality is in everything, just that EEG scans and better knowledge of brain structure showed that sexuality and ritualistic behavior from our ancestors are still playing very important part in our life.

>> No.899956

Anyone here belong to the VN mailing list? Please say yes.

>> No.899966

I remember reading a essay Gore Vidal wrote on him one time, but don't remember where it was.

>> No.900033

>>899956
>>899956
>>899956

Th-there's a mailing list?

...Do want.

>> No.900057

>>899743
Why don't you actually READ his work?

>> No.900601

Joooooin. I occasionally post, everyone on there is a pretentious faggot (including yours truly), and we all get pissed at Boyd. It's lolz all around.
>http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Just don't dick around with it. Kthx.

>> No.900692

>>899887

>Freud produced a unified theory of psychology
>unified theory of psychology
> Dipshit

>> No.900699

>>900692
explain yourself and stop acting like an internet tough guy

>> No.900766

>>900699

What is there to explain. You simply do not have any idea of what you are talking about. Do a simple google search, talk to a psychologist, read a book on the subject, or take a psychology course at your local college. Then if your head is still not up your ass, you will finally understand.