[ 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: 13 KB, 214x317, g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12147430 No.12147430 [Reply] [Original]

>“I’ve been perplexed and amused by fabricated notions about so-called “great books.” That, for instance, Mann’s asinine Death in Venice, or Pasternak’s melodramatic, vilely written Doctor Zhivago, or Faulkner’s corncobby chronicles can be considered masterpieces, or at least what journalists term “great books,” is to me the same sort of absurd delusion as when a hypnotized person makes love to a chair.”

>> No.12147443

what a fucking god

>> No.12147449

what the fuck was his problem

>> No.12147497

>>12147430
>write vapid work that sounds pretty
>criticize works that are orders of magnitude better than yours
hmm

>> No.12147502

>>12147497
>corncobbier detected

>> No.12147681

>>12147430
his translations are beautifully autistic

>> No.12147698

>>12147449
He was the masterpseud

>> No.12147703

>>12147497
Beauty and harmony are prime functions of art, delusional pseud.

>> No.12147704

>>12147430
master troll

>> No.12147707

>>12147430
says the writer of sexual deviant diaries

>> No.12147715

>>12147497

>has only read Lolita and didn't even finish it

>> No.12149343

>>12147430
based

>> No.12149371

>>12147430
Nabokov is within the top 3 for English prose stylists imo, but his novels never strike a deeper chord with me.
He is the ultimate incarnation of style over substance, so it makes sense that he would only rate writers with superior style, because that's all he cared about.
Don't get me wrong, I love his writing, he's an undisputed master and deserves the acclaim. But there's just more to be found in literature than just style, and his words should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

>> No.12149376

>>12149371
why do brainlets always say he had no substance? just because he didn't rely on overt sentimentality doesnt mean there is no substance to his writing

fucking plebs who only read excerpts of lolita

>> No.12149378

>>12147703
Go to bed Mr Ruskin

>> No.12149384

>>12149376
There's substance, but not GREAT substance that you find in other great works of literature. He's just mediocre in that regard.

>> No.12149385

>>12147430
How does he btfo me so thoroughly and repeatedly

He's been dead since like the 70s, but every couple of months I discover some pithy remark he made in passing half a century ago that destroys every facet of my being

It's not fucking fair. There needs to be like antitrust legislation against Nabokov that breaks up his intellectual monopoly on literature. His IQ is too high, it's stifling competition

>> No.12149389

>>12147703
yes

>>12149376
don't call him a brainlet, that's rude

>> No.12149390

>>12149384
shut up

>> No.12149423
File: 125 KB, 600x600, 1543300019713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12149423

>Nabokov
>substance
Lolita and Invitation to a Beheading were skin deep compared to the masterpieces he criticizes. There's something in Pale Fire but it doesn't even begin to approach the level of beauty of writers like Mann and Faulkner. Even Jason's section in TSATF is deeper than anything Nabokov's ever dreaming of writing, and he didn't even realize it. He's hilariously shallow, didn't he place ulysses up on some godly divine pedestal? Lmao

>> No.12149652

>>12149423
Brainlet

>> No.12149662

Never trust a man who doesn't understand/enjoy music

>> No.12149676

Nabokov never once backed his opinions

>> No.12149685

>>12149676
Yes he does. Read lectures on literature for example.

>> No.12149695

>>12149662
He liked classical

>> No.12149697

>>12147430
I hate this old ugly pedo so much.

>> No.12149699

>>12149685
I don’t own it, sorry. Could you perhaps give some examples here?

>> No.12149727

>>12147430
“He can write, but he’s got nothing to say.” - Isaac Babel

>> No.12149743

>>12149423
ulysses is god-tier. are you new or just illiterate?

>> No.12149749

>>12149390
No. Read and experience more, peasant. To call Nabokov’s works overly cerebral and relying on dark humor is a very valid criticism.

>> No.12149750

>>12149727
"he can suck, but he's got nothing to swallow" - (you)

>> No.12149767

>>12149750
Nobbysuckers gonna suck.

>> No.12149781

>>12147430
I think he is on to something. People have a tendency to exaggerate something to be much greater than it really is, particularly if claiming to like that something will make them appear as "well-read" or "sophisticated."

Take Shakespeare for example. Nobody actually likes any of his writings, but I know you will all pretend to like it because you want people to think you're smart. There is nothing "intellectual" or "cultured" about bad puns. You pretend otherwise though, because you don't want people to think you're stupid, even though you know deep down that you don't think there's anything special about Shakespeare.

It's like the story about the Emperor's clothes. The Emperor is naked.

>> No.12149782
File: 22 KB, 480x360, Nabokovman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12149782

"There is something missing in all of Nabokov’s work. His starchy aestheticism comes through as cold, crystalline, and almost inhuman. We wait in vain for that warm human glow that pervades all the works of Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov. And his work lacks the psychological or emotional depth that might have compensated for the limited range of characters and situations."

"When I read Lolita, I was initially overwhelmed by the verbal fireworks and the sparkling wit, but I eventually tired of it, and didn’t finish it; it didn’t seem to be going anywhere."

"One can hear the clatter of surgical tools in Nabokov's prose."

"Nabokov inaugurated the literary cult(ure) of book nerds, of books by and for bookish types, and, more egregiously, books about elite middle-class professionals (i.e., wankers)."

"Nabokov‘s work theoretically deals only with questions of art and style. The artist and his art present readers with aloofness, indifference, and hermeticism It is all mechanics: the perfect Swiss watch; the prototype of a post-Darwinian vision of both life and art, devoid of any spiritual dimension and denying any ordering force in the universe."

"Essentially a bore.. self-indulgent fantasy."

"Don Quixote chased after a dream, and unwittingly traversed through a dangerous and changing world; Nabokov chased after butterflies, and undoubtedly acquired some scrapes and bruises. Which one was the fool?"

"Into the trash it goes"

>> No.12149821

Nabokov: This is my opinion and therefore it’s true.

>> No.12149830

Nabokov was the original shitposter, but I'll never be not amused by "corncobby chronicles" or "A nonentity. Means absolutely nothing to me" or "A favourite between the ages of 8 and 12, but not after".

>> No.12149851

>>12149378
>clearly has neither read The Stones of Venice (the central tenet of which espouses function over ornament for ornament's sake) nor Modern Painters.
Good lord, dude- these are his masterpieces.

>> No.12149858

Is there something wrong with me for wanting to read Lolita?

>> No.12149882

>>12149851
You know of a good edition of modern painters? Folio society did a decent stones of venice.

>> No.12149884

>>12149743
Joyce is even more style over substance than Nabokov, the ultimate pseud

>> No.12150068

>>12149385
I know what you mean, man. T.S. Eliot used to be one of my all time favorite writers. Then I encountered Nabokov’s observation that his name is an anagram of ‘toilets’ and he seems to have been ruined for me. Intellectually I understand that Nabokov’s witticism it is not a valid critique. But it’s somehow really gotten to me. Ever since then I can’t get through a single poem by him and when he comes up I’ll usually trash talk him excessively in my head. And this is a poet who I used to say changed my life and who I went around declaiming all through high school.

>> No.12150080

>>12149749
Telling people to read more when you can’t even read one book with any depth. Sad.

>> No.12150082

>>12149781
Dude, even Nabby thought Shakes was the GOAT.
The fucking length nabbyfags will go even if it mean contradicting nabby.

>> No.12150104

>>12147430
>same sort of absurd delusion as when a hypnotized person makes love to a chair
He should read Mann’s Mario and the Magician LMAO

>> No.12150145

more often than not what is taken for "substance" is just a pretentious bias. if it doesn't have style it's garbage. if it doesn't have an agenda, all the better. which is why Nab hated Orwell

>> No.12150216

>>12150145
all writing has an agenda, whether the author intended it or not

>> No.12150250

>>12147497
>vapid work that sounds pretty

sooooo all fiction ever written?

>> No.12150258

>>12150082
That guy isn't a "nabbyfag."

>> No.12150268

>>12149699
No one wants to spoonfeed you.
>>12149727
Ah yes, the great Isaac Babel. An IMMORTAL writer lmao.

>> No.12150269
File: 274 KB, 1536x1152, 371C55DA-D1EA-474D-AD5B-1D1E41F8E7E9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12150269

>>12150145
>pure style will compensate for the gaping void where a soul should be
you know who else thinks like this

>> No.12150445

>>12149390
he's right though. It's like comparing one bar of a Chopin nocturne with a Beethoven sonata. It could lead you to think that Chopin is the better composer, but actually all he wrote was nothing but perfumed garbage

>> No.12150451

>>12149882
I have rather old Everyman's Library editions (multi-volume) of each (I collect them). I rec each collection.

>> No.12150462

>>12149882
They can be had reasonably, if in pieces, on ABE. At least that was the case 5 yrs ago....

>> No.12150822

>>12150258
Let him speak for himself then.

>> No.12150922

>>12150250
coming from the guy that probably thinks philosophical works that haven't solved or done anything other than obfuscate and abstract aren't vapid, that's pretty rich

>> No.12151028

what does corncobby mean

>> No.12151352

>>12151028
set in a rural shitscape with provincial themes and wewuzzin dimwit characters

>> No.12151357

>>12151028
"better than nabokov"

>> No.12151358

>>12151352
i love faulkner btw

>> No.12151382

>>12147497
the second paragraph of lolita literally mocks this, you nu-retard

>> No.12151528

>>12151358
that's ok :)

>> No.12151589

>>12150269
fair enough. soul's sound, but agenda's not. >>12151358
so do I-he can create a moment of atmospheric impression like nobody's business-but you don't find him a bit pretentious? Joyce regretted his own odyssey reference.

>> No.12151592

>>12151352
No, dummy. It’s a reference to a salacious scene from his book Sanctuary. Which is pretty typical of Nabokov. Dismissing an entire writer’a work based on a throwaway novel written for money. I don’t particularly like Faulkner, but Vlad was just dodging having to contend with his serious work.

>> No.12151601

He's absolutely right about the fact that academia is full of charlatans who hide behind established works and figures. Take The Bacchae by Euripedes. It's absolutely worthless as art. There are literal children's books worth more than that book, yet there are droves of academics who will defend it to the death.

>> No.12151612

>>12151601
that's not a book its a play you dumb faggot and its well known Euripedes is the weakest of the tragedians

>> No.12151621

>>12151612
Your first point is weak pedantry and your second point does not disprove what he said about there being droves who would defend it.

>> No.12151633

>>12151592
oh i never read sanctuary

>> No.12151744

>>12151589
>pretentious
Nigga he never graduated high school and never mouthpieces in any of his famous works

>> No.12151753

>>12151621
Your original post about the Bacchae didn't make present any evidence or argumentation so here's my counterargument: no it's not

>> No.12151787

>>12150068
>>12149385
caring this much about his opinion
>not realizing half of what he was doing was literal trolling

Pale Fire is perhaps my favorite book, but does that mean I really put much stock into what he says about Eliot or Pound? Not really, no. I mean this for your sake, not mine, for the love of God don't dislike something merely because Nabby shit on it at one point.

>> No.12151791

>>12151592
It is? I thought it was because Faulkner smoked from a corncob pipe. Is there more info on this?

>> No.12151841

>>12147430
Nabokov upset that he is nothing compared to Mann... second rate compared to that dilettantish bourgeois nonce-ponce! What an insult.. and we all know Nabokov resented his brothers inversion...

>> No.12151842

>>12151753
It wasn’t my post, which you can tell from how I said “his” and not mine in the post you’re replying to. You’ve now shown repeatedly you have no reading comprehension. Weak little baby brain.

>> No.12151844

>>12151791
he's cuntry

>> No.12151846

>>12151791
>Is there more info on this?
Yeah, read Sanctuary or google “Sanctuary corn cob”. I don’t know why people just make up their own answers.

>> No.12151852

>>12151787
Like I said, I understand it’s not rational. I just can’t help it. Eliot’s poetry used to be one of the great joys of my life. Now when I try to read the Love Song I just hear the sound of a toilet flushing in the back of my head because of Nabokov.

>> No.12151867

>>12151841
>Nabokov upset that he is nothing compared to Mann..
Mann was fucking awful man

>> No.12151878

>>12151612
>ts well known Euripedes is the weakest of the tragedians
>The Bacchae is considered to be not only Euripides' greatest tragedy, but one of the greatest ever written, modern or ancient

>> No.12151883

>>12147430
I can't say I disagree with him, and since Nabokov's weakest works are stronger than the supposed "great books" he's criticizing I don't think we can easily dismiss his opinions here.

>> No.12151896

>>12151846
i'm the guy who made up his own answer. it just sounded like what nabokov might've meant to me. sorry if i stepped on your foot there

>> No.12151909

>>12151883
Every Faulkner book I've read and the Magic Mountain are both better than Pale Fire and Lolita (and Invitation to a Beheading fwiw). Nabokov very clearly and obviously favored style over substance.

>> No.12151936

>>12151909
He favored it but he considered “teacher” to be one of the three aspects that make a major writer and you can detect it in his work if you are not a brainlet. It is just not easy and pandering like it is in the work of people like Mann and Faulkner.

>> No.12151951

>>12151936
> It is just not easy and pandering like it is in the work of people like Mann and Faulkner.
thanks for making it clear you've never read either.

>> No.12151956

>>12151951
I’ve read everything by Faulkner (I’m the one who set people straight about the corncob diss coming from Sanctuary) and have read three of Mann’s most famous works. Their morality is easy and they are inferior to Nabokov.

>> No.12151989

How the fuck is Lolita not banned in every country

>> No.12151994

>>12151956
You make a convincing argument pseud

>> No.12151995

>>12151989
too infamous at this point

>> No.12152008

should i read pale fire

>> No.12152009

>>12151994
More convincing than yours. You haven’t made a real proposition either. I’ve at least refuted every weak thing you’ve tried to say (cited his “good readers” essay to show style isn’t his only concern and proved I’ve read the lousy writers you liked).

>> No.12152038

>>12152009
please enlighten me as to how Nabokov's "teachings" are less easy and superior to the likes of Mann and Faulkner. certainly you'd agree your viewpoint is not one that is common, intuitive, or unbiased (especially considering you lift it directly from the man you're defending)

only thing you've "proved" is that you can't get off his dick. You even use his terms and cite his essays :)

>> No.12152196

>>12151592
>but Vlad was just dodging having to contend with his serious work.
Sounds like par for the course with Nabokov really; does he ever give more than just a couple lines of polemical bullshit in his 'critiques'?

>> No.12152268

>>12152196
You can read his full lectures on two of his least favorite authors.

>> No.12152337

>>12149743
aesthetes problem, good job being a drone though

>> No.12152990

>>12150268
Lol, practically everyone on here is being spoonfed by Nabokov's unsubstantiated babble on here anyway.

>> No.12153074

>>12149371
Yeah, you're lying

>> No.12153196

What books end up being revered has little to do with their actual merit but rather the whims of society (journalists, reviewers, critics, etc.) which causes these societal 'grooves' to form where particular works become elevated for arbitrary reasons. If you disagree with this consensus, cucks will come out of the woodwork to defend it without thinking for themselves, emperor's clothes style.
He was right to challenge these conventions.

>> No.12153199

>>12153196
agreed

>> No.12153420

>>12147430
I read The Sound and the Fury two days ago and I am not sure that it surpasses your typical Mark Twain.

It's not that I don't think it's an excellent book, but it seems to me that the first part is a masterpiece of structure, the second part a masterpiece of psychology, and the two last parts are average work, written as if Faulkner just knew he had to finish it somehow and so invented a silly Hollywood story about Miss Quentin running away with a circus guy in order to (unsatisfactorily) complete the cathedral he had started to build.

>> No.12153915

>constantly see Nabokov jerked about here
>finally decide to read him
>deeply unimpressed
It's cute that he suggested Dostoyevsky was the mediocre one. Even stylistically Nabokov is very middle of the road among well known authors.

>> No.12153933

>>12153196
>merit is a social construct
that's a yikes famalam

>> No.12153942

>>12147430
absolutely based and redpilled

>> No.12153945

>>12149385
>>12150068
Wtf

>> No.12153953

Nabokov is /lit/ incarnate, he constructs a mountain of bitter contrarianism, having imagined himself in competition, to disparage those who tower above him. He's also a faggot.

>> No.12153958

>>12153953
literally our guy

>> No.12154063

>>12153915
>shitting on Nabokovs style while praising Dosto

>> No.12154070

>>12153953
He's not a contrarian though. He just has his own taste. He likes popular authors and he hates popular authors. You don't have to like everything in the canon.

>> No.12154100
File: 62 KB, 518x477, 1535335654911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12154100

>>12154063
Less is more faggot, Dosto writes with great economy of expression.
>>12154070
>>He's not a contrarian though. He just has his own taste.

>> No.12154162

reminder he thought pynchon was a BITCH

and a bad student!

>> No.12154175

>>12147430
Nabukov would be the kind of person to write stupid pseud goodreads reviews on As I Lay Dying and Heart of Darkness that we all make fun of.

Lolita was only popular because it was controversial. The plot was hot fucking garbage and the prose was nothing special.

>> No.12154176

>>12154100
Explain how he's a contrarian. He holds some of the most conventional literary opinions while diverting on others.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/magazine/nabokov-on-dostoyevsky.html

He doesn't even shit on dosto as much as people make out.

>> No.12154181

>>12154175
>only criticism he can come up with is some generic and meaningless remarks on plot and prose
>calls nabby a pseud

Why do you people act like Nabby commented on stuff he knew nothing about. You're going to have to make more than some off hand comment to prove he knew nothing about literature. It's not like the man wasn't willing to admit when his knowledge was lacking (like he does with music for example)

>> No.12154186

>>12154181
I'm sure he knew a lot about pedophilia, anon, but he didn't seem to know much about writing an engaging or meaningful plot.

Humbert's musings and internal monologues are interesting in Lolita. Literally nothing about its incredibly bland and cliche plot is.

>> No.12154204

>>12154186
lolita is full of genre parodies so of course its clichéd as fuck you faggot

>> No.12154205

>>12154162
No he didn’t.

>> No.12154209

>>12153420
i agree, the benjy and quentin parts are fucking amazing but it drops off extremely hard after that

>> No.12154211

>>12154204
I’m glad you said this. People, even his fans, seem to overlook that a big part of his work was parody.

>> No.12154213

>>12154204
>it's supposed to be cliche and uninteresting, that's the point

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting. "Commenting" on bad plots is not an excuse for writing a bad plot.

>> No.12154243

>>12152038
I’m not going to get into that since you’ve consistently shown you can’t argue or form genuine opinions. But if you or anyone else need it spelled out for you and can’t be bothered to read fiction critically then check out the book “the Secret History of Nabokov”

>> No.12154247

>>12154213
but it's not for "commenting", the whole idea behind lolita is that nabby is constructing an artifical "reality" to mislead pseuds into some kind of a moralistic stance. its not reality as fiction but fiction as reality. its littered with references to its artificiality and genre parodies are only one aspect of it

>> No.12154264

>>12149781
>Nobody actually likes any of his writings
Yeesh

>> No.12154276
File: 6 KB, 205x246, E7361444-D5F8-4D1B-8207-CA2040FD0159.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12154276

>>12154264
Yeah, Shakespeare is great!

>> No.12154284

>>12149781
>Nobody actually likes any of his writings
lol.
>>12153074
>Yeah, you're lying
But why? As I explained in a later comment, it's not that I don't think his work has ANY depth, it's more that it's not his strength. If you go by the standard that the point of art is to shine light on the human condition, I don't think his work excels in that regard.

>> No.12154293

>>12154247
This seems like a very large stretch to explain away what is by all means a poorly-written physical plotline, especially considering the “fiction as reality” is an absurd situation that has no basis in reality or truth. How many times in real life has a pedophile burst into a hedonistic millionaire’s mansion to murder him for stealing his girlwife, do you think? It’s the plot of a generic soap opera with extra pedophiles, not fiction as reality.

>> No.12154301

>>12154293
Brainlet confirmed.

>> No.12154308

>>12154276
Seriously, what's not to like about Shakespeare? Maybe if your new to Elizabethan english it's a little frustrating, but even a somewhat educated reader should be able to get over that hurdle quite easy and just have fun with it.
I could see arguing that he's overrated, but saying that no one actually enjoys his writing is pretty yikes, tbqhwy.

>> No.12154309

>>12154247
I always found it funny that Humbert baits the analysis of his childhood with the first failed sexual encounter of his adolescence, and then hands it over to the reader having made it blisteringly obvious and thus really unappealing to explore any further, purposefully dead in the critics hands.

>> No.12154321
File: 15 KB, 644x800, 86F2157F-729F-4116-B21B-C62974F787D1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12154321

>>12154308
>if you don’t like him it’s because you find him difficult
When you’re done yapping, pass the onions burgers

>> No.12154323

>>12154293
you confuse the two anon

>> No.12154326

>>12154301
Cool argument anon, I like it a lot.

>> No.12154330

>>12153933
I literally said the exact opposite, you brainlet.

>> No.12154333

>>12154326
Brainlets don’t need to be argued with :)

>> No.12154347

>>12154321
Not so much
>>if you don’t like him it’s because you find him difficult
as "if you can't understand why other people might enjoy his work, you clearly haven't got past the entry level barrier"
Almost the opposite really. My point was more that Shakespeare is NOT difficult to enjoy, so it's ridiculous to say that no on actually likes him.

>> No.12154351

>>12154293
>“fiction as reality” is an absurd situation that has no basis in reality or truth.
thats the whole point lmao

>> No.12154354

>>12154323
In your own words you said it was not reality as fiction but fiction as reality. Constructing a poor and cliched plot line isn’t presenting a fictional take as reality, it’s literally just aping trends that’ve been done before more poorly. To be entirely honest, it’s very difficult to read your explanations as anything more than cognitive dissonance to explain away Nab writing an unbelievable, meaningless, and profoundly boring plot.

>> No.12154367

>>12154321
What is it in Shakespeare you dislike or find overrated? (Genuinely curious)

>> No.12154369

>>12154333
It’s good that you don’t even bother then. I like it when someone sticks to their philosophy.

>> No.12154392

>>12154321
Just to add, I'm not arguing with you because YOU don't like Shakespeare, that's fine, I'm arguing because you made the bizarre claim that NO ONE likes him, when he's very accessible when you get past the original 400 year old language barrier - even if you don't like him, it should be easy to see why other might.

>> No.12154396
File: 21 KB, 200x210, 8A3EF625-3838-4198-AAA2-0666C8723959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12154396

>>12154347
The issue is that by making a point to say he is not difficult you are implying that’s why someone here would not like him. I know he’s not difficult. I had read and understood most of his works by 8th grade. He’s very juvenile. Again, you are a s o y loser phony.

>> No.12154402

>>12154351
Since people aren't making the logical conclusion of that statement, I guess I'll just explain it outright: Why would anyone bother reading something that neither associates itself in reality with any way nor uses its intentionally fake nature as a vehicle? Unless you want to claim that 'the artificiality is the point and it's all about how morals and ethics doesn't real', at which point the question remains of why you would possibly bother reading it in the first place.

It's better than the alternative of Nabokov just straight up writing a shitty plot, sure - which is what he actually did - but it's unrealized high-school tier philosophy at best when treated as intentionally fake.

>> No.12154407

>>12154354
there is much more to the book than you currently think, i suggest you to read the annotated version at least before making such statements

>> No.12154409

>>12154396
>if I keep pasting basedboy memes, I'll make a coherent point eventually
Again, completely missing my point. Couldn't care less that you personally don't like him, it's that you claim that no one does.

>> No.12154415

>>12154402
but it is intentionally fake anon, its the whole point of nabokov's fiction, its his gimmick that even most of his fans dont get

>> No.12154426

>>12154409
A) I never made that claim. This >>12154321 was my first post. B) you would not have liked Shakespeare if you had encountered his works anonymously. Same with pretty much everyone. Sorry you’re so s o y.

>> No.12154433

>>12147430
So what makes a great book Nobby? Why didn't you share that opinion?

Are you implying there are no "so called" great books? Because I'm convinced that there are. You yourself worshipped Ulysses as if it were the Second Coming. So what is it, dead man?

>> No.12154436

>>12154402
because its an eloquently constructed literary puzzle with no clear-cut didactic message slapped on it. its metafiction without openly admitting to being metafiction

>> No.12154441

>>12154433
Sorry you’re so poorly read http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/goodre.html

Your college failed you by not exposing you to that.

>> No.12154448

>>12154407
>>12154415
Then I'll ask again why I, or anyone else, should bother taking anything he writes seriously. If a work doesn't concern itself with reality, it's not going to say or do anything physically interesting by design (which Nabokov's works do not); the only reason to read intentionally artificial works are when the fakeness is used to convey a point about reality, such as what Waiting for Godot does. If the only point to it is the artificiality (and, circularly, that the artificiality means that the subjects of the work are irrelevant) then it's not only a philosophically empty piece, it's also a complete and utter waste of time to read through. At least, if you read for something other than pure prose, in which case your time would be spent just as well reading Rupi Kaur.

I prefer to consider Nabokov slightly more intelligent than that, if only because I don't want to have completely wasted the time I've spent reading his works.

>>12154436

Wrong. A brilliantly constructed literary work is one in which you can draw countless interesting and cohesive points and interpretations from - something like crime and punishment. A puzzle with no solution is a useless piece of shit. Claiming after the fact that not having a solution is actually the solution is circular logic and tells you absolutely nothing, but it makes pseuds go 'woah!'

>> No.12154464

>>12154448
>physically interesting
??

>> No.12154467

>>12154448
if you cant enjoy a piece of work for its aesthetic qualities and want to be spoonfed moral teachings instead than do as you wish

>> No.12154473

>>12154448
>A brilliantly constructed literary work is one in which you can draw countless interesting and cohesive points and interpretations from

>A puzzle with no solution is a useless piece of shit

lmao

>> No.12154474

>>12154321
I though you were the original anon >>12149781 I was replying to who made that claim.
Why can you not see why people would enjoy Shakespeare? Even if he is juvenile, people like juvenile things. I'm not discussing the quality of his work. People like plenty of shitty things. Your claim makes no sense, which is why I'm continuing the futile discussion to try and unravel what you could possibly mean.

>used up 4chan memes are good insults
I think juvenile or not, you could do with reading some more Shakespeare and borrow some of his wit. Good or bad, it's still miles more entertaining than yours.

>> No.12154479

>>12154464
I.e. plot and message.

>>12154467
Aesthetic qualities are meaningless and vapid if they have no significance behind them. Everyone enjoys vapid, meaningless things from time to time; listening to music that doesn't make you feel anything but sounds nice, for instance. But don't try to claim that esthetics can supersede actual meaning.

>>12154473
Brainlet.

>> No.12154486

>>12154448
As someone that greatly prefers Dostoevsky to Nabokov, you're kinda talking nonsense.
Had the same thought as this anon>>12154473
You're contradicting yourself.

>> No.12154492

>>12154479
>I.e. plot and message.
This makes me no less perplexed by your choice of of adverb

>> No.12154493

>>12154426
>you would not have liked Shakespeare if you had encountered his works anonymously
HAHAHAHAHAHA
POST SOMETHING YOU WROTE, ANYTHING THATS NOT FROM AN ONLINE DUSCUSSION, PLEASE
HAHAHA

>> No.12154496

>>12153420
Yikes

>> No.12154497

>>12154486
>>12154473
I really didn't think that needed explanation, but alright. No solution /=/ no single solution. They are vastly and dramatically different. A puzzle with no single solution could have thousands of different valid solutions that offer something interesting and fresh in interpretation, while a puzzle with no solution would be one that has no actual significance no matter what interpretation you draw from it.

>>12154492
As opposed to a piece that is 'fun to read' or aesthetic.

>> No.12154505

>>12154497
>As opposed to a piece that is 'fun to read' or aesthetic.
Yeah I get it. What I don't get is why you said 'physically.'

>> No.12154506

>>12154474
No one likes him. He’s the epitome of “good writer” in people’s minds and so they either pretend or go in trying really hard and convince themselves that they see what is supposed to be good about him. Hardly anyone who likes Shakespeare likes any writer with even a remotely similar style to him. It’s just pretend.

>> No.12154516

>>12154505
'Physical' is in reference to elements of the piece that are 'on the page', so to speak. You can lay out the plot structure of a work, interpret it's symbolism and meaning, and even analyze the prose, but the aesthetic sense is felt instead of analyzed or understood. It was relevant in the context of the discussion.

>> No.12154520

>>12154506
Explain how Shakespeare got his reputation in the first place. Especially when his contemporaries hated him and saw him as a pleb.

>> No.12154540

>>12154497
Well, I suppose I have a different definition for the word "solution" - maybe from being a maths student.
What you're talking about sounds like an interpretation, not a solution.

>> No.12154541

>>12154520
Because people liked him

>> No.12154544

>>12154516
Well just say that then.
>>12154520
>his contemporaries hated him and saw him as a pleb
source?

>> No.12154554

>>12154520
Probably some subversive Jew got the ball rolling. Not because he liked the Englishman but because he knew he could use the dick jokes and incestuous royalty to undermine western civ.

>> No.12154555

>>12154497
you are talking about interpretations not solutions, you use Beckett as an example but his plays are similar to Lolita, they provide no SOLUTIONS only a myriad of different interpretations

>> No.12154556

>>12154540
'Solution' is sometimes used in literary analysis to refer to an individual's comprehensive understanding of the overall meaning of a piece. Because understanding is relative, good literature should not have a single solution, as would a mathematical problem.

>> No.12154562

>>12154555
Read >>12154556


The entire point of what I said and my critique of your understanding of Lolita as 'fiction as reality' and an 'artificial work' is that that interpretation leaves Lolita without any valid, comprehensive, and total interpretation whatsoever (or, you know, a solution.)

>> No.12154565 [DELETED] 

>>12154506
This
But so what if they don't like writers with "similar styles". There's a reason why he's gone down as a giant in the first place and they've been largely forgotten.
That aside - what's not to enjoy? There's nothing particularly complex or inaccessible, and plenty of common plot threads that people enjoy + great word play. Putting aside the whole towering giant business, why can't people just enjoy say, Midsummer Night's Dream as they would a comedy?

>> No.12154582

>>12154506
This>>12154520
But so what if they don't like writers with "similar styles". There's a reason why he's gone down as a giant in the first place and they've been largely forgotten.
That aside - what's not to enjoy? There's nothing particularly complex or inaccessible, and plenty of common plot threads that people enjoy + great word play. Putting aside the whole towering giant business, why can't people just enjoy say, Midsummer Night's Dream as they would a comedy?

>> No.12154590

>>12154565
>but so what if they don’t like writers with “similar styles”
Weak use of quotes, faggot. It’s not a subjective concept.
It shows they are faking. You know who I think is great? Tolkien. And I like writers like him. Same with everyone and the writers they like. But meanwhile when it comes to Shakespeare, most people will be like Steinbeck fans or whatever but also just like him and not, Christopher Marlowe (or whoever).

>> No.12154595

>>12154556
Ah, okay. Just to be clear though, maths problems can have multiple solutions, it's just that the solutions don't contradict/disagree with each other. If you're right, you're right, and that's that.

>> No.12154596

>>12154562
>without any valid, comprehensive, and total interpretation whatsoever
i said it before, it's an open-ended ethical puzzle deliberately constructed to challenge your moral boundaries as a reader. Not every work of fiction has to convey some didactic message to have artistic merit. l'art pour l'art

>> No.12154612

>>12154590
>You know who I think is great? Tolkien. And I like writers like him.
Nothing wrong with Tolkien but just lol. This explains a lot.
And I approach literature very differently, there are some common threads of interest but my favourite writers are very diverse in terms of style, time period etc.

>> No.12154623
File: 213 KB, 1200x1200, herman-melville-9405239-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12154623

>>12154506
>Hardly anyone who likes Shakespeare likes any writer with even a remotely similar style to him

>> No.12154648

>>12147430
Thank God we have Proust. Who cares about Nabokov?

>> No.12154664

>>12154623
He’s the second biggest writer that people pretend to like. Hardly anyone reads him anyway though. But fair enough, Bloom and a few others may genuinely like Shakespeare though.

>> No.12154677
File: 934 KB, 2628x3000, 20-091310402943739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12154677

>>12147430
Just the fact that most of Nabby's criticisms are sweeping and vague and one or two lines is reason enough to disregard them.

At the VERY least, the works of Mann, Conrad, Hemingway, Faulkner etc deserve more than what Nabokov gives them, and in fact Nabokov's statements are fairly irresponsible and frankly childish. Nabokov himself said that criticism "gives readers, including the author of the book, some information about the critic’s intelligence, or honesty, or both," and his cavalier assessments betray more than a little about either his honesty or intelligence (or both).

Nabokov's four great masterpieces of the 20th century are all very pretty reads (at least in English translation, probably moreso in the native language), but with the possible exception of Bely's Petersburg they are painfully shallow and wear their themes on their sleeves; they are not works renowned for their thematic depth or teachings (as Nabokov would put it) on, to be cliche but appropriate, "the human condition". Nabokov's famous works widely conform to this characteristic as well except it's never really clear what is being taught, or if anything is being taught at all. Pale Fire particularly is essentially a treasure hunt with no treasure when you finally find the X and start digging. Enchanting, sure, but ultimately vapid and dull masked under smoke and mirrors. Lolita is the same. I don't mean this as a criticism, more as stating the facts.

So it's no surprise that Nabokov likes the works that he does and dislikes works that have some depth under the surface like Dosto and Mann and Faulkner and Conrad. Best just to take his opinions at face value the same way you'd take some random faggot on 4chan's; discard them. There's nothing there except lack of intelligence or honesty, and there's no point reading into it.

>> No.12154684

>>12154677
>these interview snippets aren't full criticisms

>> No.12154687

>>12147703
Kill your self. I usually just write down kys but you deserve it in full.

>> No.12154697

>>12154612
>And I approach literature very differently,
Your approach is to lie to yourself.

>> No.12154700

>>12154677
>In Search of Lost Time
>painfully shallow
kys

>> No.12154713

>>12154684
>Nabokov, Vladimir. Shitty ESL writer, probably pedophile. Dislike him. Works read pretty but ultimately are a form of mental masturbation; there's nothing under the surface. Thought well of him from age 8-12 but have since grown up.

>> No.12154723

>>12151989
>banning books in 2018, in non nigger countries

>> No.12154734

>>12154700
Not him but the primary motif is literally (unironically) in the title desu senpai

>> No.12154750

>>12154734
Jokes aside, the search is worth the effort.

>> No.12154758

>>12149371
did you read pale fire

>> No.12154893

>>12154758
Yes, there's nothing in it. Please prove me wrong (protip: you can't)

>> No.12155010

>>12154697
>everyone with different tastes to me must be lying
There are plenty of supposedly great writers I dislike, and plenty I love that aren't seen as important. I still have quite a diverse list of things I like, and dislike many things that are supposedly similar (for example, I love Camus and hate Sartre).

>> No.12155012

lol this thread proves you guys have such an elementary understanding of literature

>> No.12155014

>>12154648
People that can't speak frog

>>12154758
I'm the one you're replying to. Yes, it's my favourite of his

>> No.12155030
File: 42 KB, 709x498, a0262207ed927f7e47c93518dc887e42598eae72edac041d04528319b5e3523c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12155030

>>12155010
>I love Camus and hate Sartre

>> No.12155034

>>12155012
yes please tell me how you use criticism to arrive at objective "ranks" of works

>> No.12155048

>>12150068
Thats fucking brilliant.

>> No.12155050

>>12150068
based nabby strikes again

>> No.12155075

>>12155034
since when did Nabokov even claim it to be objective? he is clearly using his own opinion you twit

>> No.12155096

>>12150269
>
Cormac McCarthy

>> No.12155305

>>12147430

He was just mad he couldn't produce something with the same honesty as The Sound and the Fury. What a pathetic cunt.

>> No.12155438

>>12150068
>anagram...toilets
just a sophisticated form of aesthetic censure, a type fwr very effective these days. By 'aesthetic' I mean 'makes a direct appeal to the (reader's) senses,' of course. Consider Nietzsche for instance who employs this mode over and over again- the stench of Christianity, for instance- he must plug his nose and turn quickly away lest he vomit all over the place etc. Essentially Nabokov does the same at the remove of two figures- an anagram that doubles as a metonymy (the plural toilets brings public toilets to mind) where toilets = stinks: T. S. Eliot stinks....
I'd say youve been seduced by his wit. When a broader understanding is gained of the use of such figures, the mighty don't fall so easily in one's microcosmos.

>> No.12155626

>>12150068
Kek, but also I’ve quite recently really gone off Eliot.

>> No.12155718

>>12155305
Says the guy who got mad over comments made over 60 years ago

Lmfao baka

>> No.12156069

>>12155075
Brainlet, read his comments

>> No.12156095

>>12155075
He presented it as though it were pretty objective

>> No.12156106

is he the greatest pseud to ever walk this earth?

>> No.12156113

>>12149782
based

>> No.12156205

I hate Nabokov but Mann's prose fucking sucks

>> No.12156309

>>12155010
I personally don't get the hype of Conrad. I don't understand why he's hailed as such an amazing prose stylist, and I didn't find Heart of Darkness very engaging in either its themes or narrative.
I'd like to understand. but I don't.

>> No.12156445 [DELETED] 

nabakov is a great writer in the sense that he is a great grammarian. he isn't a great writer in the sense that dostoevsky is a great writer. this explains nearly all his bad takes. all these critiques of his have the same tone as those of the university educated playwrights from shakespeare's day who disdained him before he was universally recognized as a genius. i'm convinced that this snobbery is an intellectual limitation more than anything, aesthetic provincialism with its nose turn up. a great writer, by the standards of critics of this sort, would seem to one who is a master of form (content be damned) whose style does nothing to offend the literary fashions and cultural sensibilities of the intellectual elite in the particular time period in which they are writing, which it goes without saying are drastically different from those of critics living in previous and subsequent periods. yet dostoevsky has saved the lives of countless young men living over a hundred years after he died. will anyone in the throes of despair ever decided against committing suicide because they read pale fire? it seems more likely they'd go through it before finishing it.

>> No.12156449

>>12156205
I’ve only read Mann in translation, The Magic Mountain and his Faustus, and whilst I enjoyed them I felt at the time that his characters were a little too prone to enacting his theories for him, like vessels for his ideas, feeling a little unnatural - though at other times they seemed really believable. There does seem something quite unfashionable about his modernist realism.

>> No.12156458

>>12149371
>a huge grain of salt

>> No.12156465

>>12147430
>Faulkner’s corncobby chronicles
goddam

>> No.12156466

nabokov is a great writer in the sense that he is a great grammarian. he isn't a great writer in the sense that dostoevsky is a great writer. this explains nearly all his bad takes. all these critiques of his have the same tone as those of the university educated playwrights from shakespeare's day who disdained him before he was universally recognized as a genius. i'm convinced that this snobbery is an intellectual limitation more than anything, aesthetic provincialism with its nose turn up. a great writer, by the standards of critics of this sort, would seem to one who is a master of form (content be damned) whose style does nothing to offend the literary fashions and cultural sensibilities of the intellectual elite in the particular time period in which they are writing, which it goes without saying are drastically different from those of critics living in previous and subsequent periods. yet dostoevsky has saved the lives of countless young men living over a hundred years after he died. will anyone in the throes of despair ever decided against committing suicide because they read pale fire? it seems more likely they'd go through it before finishing it.

>> No.12156513

>>12156466
Lol shut up faggot

>> No.12156580

>>12156466
you could just have said he is a pseud

>> No.12156786

>>12156309
I do see why he's revered as prose stylist, but I also failed to engage with Heart of Darkness despite that. I've decided just to come back to him later to see if it clicks.

>> No.12156797

>>12154321
based

>> No.12157512

>>12154321
>>12147497
based and redpilled

>>12147430
dude was a pedophile libtard, but I repeat myself

>> No.12157559
File: 58 KB, 949x1186, heart_club-reglan-tshirt-boogzel-apparel_6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12157559

>>12147430
>rereading Lolita
>crying uncontrollably again
Every fucking time, bros.

>> No.12158425

>>12156309
>>12156786
Nabokov is right about him, Conrad is a romantic writer for boys, past a certain age you stop caring about him

>> No.12158544

>>12149743
>ulysses is god-tier. are you new

confirmed for being unable to form his own opinions outside of 4chan

a modern tragedy really

>> No.12158551

>>12158425
Actually probably the complete opposite. Conrad's prose is actually difficult because it's so dense - and this is probably the reason why he gets such low ratings on goodreads.
I don't even like Conrad (yet), but two of the most well read and educated people I know say he's a favourite and advise me to come back to him at a future date, I trust their judgement more than some guy on 4chan and a man who flippantly (albeit entertainingly) discarded half the best works ever.

>> No.12158564

>>12158551
Nabokov was more well read and educated than your friends, I can promise you that.

But that's besides the point, you don't even like Conrad but are deferring because of his reputation? Grow a spine lmao

>> No.12158600

>>12158564
I don't like Conrad, but I don't think I "get" him. I'm always wary of disparaging writers who have gone down as Great, as there's pretty much always a good reason for it. It's an easy way to look like an idiot. Three years ago I wouldn't have seen the point of many of my favourite authors now, and there's no better guide than what history has deemed worth keeping thus far.
I don't doubt Nabokov's genius, but with the amount of great writers he's derided that I do revere, it would be foolish to take his comment as the truth.
Also, forgot to add that both people are decades older than me and much more experienced - certainly not "schoolboys". Conrad may not ever be up my alley, but discarding his talents just sounds ignorant.
Nabakov may have gotten away with it because he was Nabokov, but most everyelse just sounds foolish saying it.

>> No.12158665

>>12158600
>I don't like Conrad, but I don't think I "get" him.
He's a fairly simple writer, most of his novels are nautical adventures and spy thrillers with some didactic moralising.
>I'm always wary of disparaging writers who have gone down as Great, as there's pretty much always a good reason for it.
Hype doesn't equal quality.

>> No.12158696

>>12158665
>Hype doesn't equal quality.
I think after 100 years, it's not really "hype" anymore.
>>12158665
>He's a fairly simple writer, most of his novels are nautical adventures and spy thrillers with some didactic moralising.
Only read Heart of Darkness, and this was the complete opposite of my experience. This just sounds like someone just read the blurb for the Good Soldier or something. You make him sound like John le Carré

>> No.12158710

>>12149743
>NPC meets literature

>> No.12158716

>>12158696
Le Carré is a better writer than Conrad, as it happens

>> No.12158718

>>12156786
I think Heart of Darkness is incredibly overrated, but Conrad takes a lot of the ideas from the novel and rewrites them in Lord Jim a few years later, which interestingly seems self aware of its romance - I really recommmend it - much more psychological and (dare I say) ironic than HoD. (Also The Secret Agent is an absolute bop)

>> No.12158728

>>12147703
This

Only a retarded, arrogant pseud desperate to validate their hobby values "meaning" over beauty. A masterful writer let alone storyteller can imbue their art with meaning but its in every single way secondary to the purest essence of the art itself

>> No.12158734
File: 63 KB, 645x729, 1535683898822.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12158734

>>12149423
>deeper

>> No.12158760

>>12150250
This. It's cringey when they try to have a 'point', especially when the point is just the author's retarded, undeveloped opinions poorly inserted and ruinous. No good fiction writer is going to have good ideas, in the deep sense, and if they do they won't be able to marry them. It's best when left vague and interpretive so you can actually derive something, by your own mind, that isn't so vapid and childish. These points can be written plainly, their vapidity exposed. Whereas something without a point, at least not a strict one, can result in the reader walking down their own nuanced paths of thought and reevaluation.

Actually, I'd like to experiment with generated text (by many means, random included) and see if it would be useful in coming up with ideas or new angles. We see things subjectively, of course, so different people can get very different ideas about some piece of text when attempting to derive its meaning, despite it lacking any that is intentional. We have different memories, habits, personalities, associations, and so forth. You could think of it as trying to find a good trigger.

>> No.12158887

>>12158760
It's not about the ideas themselves, but how their communicated - good "idea" writers like Dostoevsky aren't good in simply having the idea, but in the picture they paint to elucidate it. If it were just an idea that can be communicated without the work, there's no point to their work. It's about what they show about the human condition that can't be communicated just telling someone an idea, but in showing them the idea.
And there's a beauty in that itself. There's a lot of ways to write good literature than merely aesthetically pleasing work.

>> No.12159541

>>12154664
are you saying Melville isn't a good writer though? cause i will admit typee isn't too great

>> No.12160152

>>12153420
if anything, Jason's chapter is the most psychologically probing