>>8288311

>Austen, Jane. Great.

How can one man have such horrid opinions

>Melville, Herman. Love him. One would like to have filmed him at breakfast, feeding a sardine to his cat.

what did he mean by this?

Morning means before noon.

>recommending authors for 10-14 year olds that most 20-40 year olds can barely read

He didn't write this recently. My grandfather read Joyce when he was a young schoolboy.

>Camus, Albert. Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.
>García Lorca, Federico. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up.
>Kazantzakis, Nikos. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up.
>Lawrence, D. H. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. Mediocre. Fakes realism with easy platitudes. Execrable.
>Mann, Thomas. Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up.
>Wolfe, Thomas. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up.

The very same words sums up my thoughts on Lolita.

Did he like Woolf I wonder?

I don't think he did user

Nabokov

Why was he so perverted, mates?

Because he was human. And a male on top of it.

:( Why?

I know he said "women are in another class", but Woolf is amazing.

he had terrible taste t.bh.

>Nabokov did say he had read Woolf. In fact he claims to have read “all” of Woolf in 1933 in preparation for writing “The Admiralty Spire.”1 Yet the faults for which his story’s horrid narrator reviles “lady novelists” have nothing to do with either the subject, method, or stylistic devices of Woolf ’s novels. Nabokov finds lady novelists sentimental and famously wrote to Edmund Wilson, “I dislike Jane, and am prejudiced, in fact, against all women writers. They are in another class. Maxim D. Shrayer reviews Nabokov’s largely negative criticism of the works of Russian and anglophone women poets and prose writers, finding that he “fails to offer grounds for his dismissive remarks” about even such a poet as Marina Tsvetaeva.
muse.jhu.edu/article/520234

But he says that he dislikes Jane (Austen) and in OP's link he says
>Austen, Jane. Great.

>Salinger, J. D. By far one of the finest artists in recent years.

>Plato. Not particularly fond of him.

You're delusional, Woolf is middlebrow.

Alright, cool. Thank you!

Well if you say so. She's one of my favourite authors definitely.

>Tolstoy, Leo. A favorite between the ages of 10 and 15, and thereafter. Read complete works between 14 and 15.

I feel like such a retard.

It was a different time

You put Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and all these other great authors on a pedestal, saying they're inaccessible at a young age. That is an utterly foolish sentiment. You too could have read their works at that age if you were so inclined; you would have had a different experience of it then but you could have still read it. There's no great skill barrier to this, just pick up the fucking book and read it.

Literature is not static, it's a prism through which you view these experiences and intricacies. A boy who reads Anna Karenina at 14 will get a very different message than a man who reads it at 30.

That could put them off reading literature really though. I was 13 when I read A Tale of Two Cities and hated the thing, it was only when I was about 19 I tried it again and enjoyed it. Some ages just aren't mature enough to appreciated certain books.

>Faulkner, William. Dislike him. Writer of corncobby chronicles.
What did he mean by this?

Is that Mike Huckabee?

A girl gets raped by a gangster with a corncob.

A snob.

Y'all should read an essay (can't recall the title) on Nabokov by literary critic Simon Leys. Very spot on.

As if your non-existent mind has ever mulled over the words of play-doh, unsullied by translation.

>Humbert Humbert
Do I need to provide you with any more proof that this man is a second-rate, nonentity?

do americans really say plato as playdoh?

There are similar things written about the vast pool of artists. A thing like this won't sway my opinion, nor do I care to read it.

There are similar tings written in this vast pool of comments. A ting like ain't but convey you're a minion, nor do anyone care to read it.

Different time. If Nabokov was born in the 90's he'd be shit posting like the rest of us.

He was probably reading books when he was 2

>reading essays

In what conceivable universe is reading essays a bad thing, other than the one where you're hopefully trying haphazardly to be funny

>Kafka, Franz.
The Metamorphosis. Second-greatest masterpiece of 20th century prose.

So which one was the best?

Lolita

>not being able to read

ulysses

>You'll never inherited the Rozhdestveno estate inherited from your maternal uncle as a 16-year-old Nabokov

Why even live?

Yes, and being a son of a politician, noblemen and a millionare, which means you're really top of the tops, blue blood, then you get your fatherland destroyed, your fellow countrymen degrade in Communist Russia or nobles (remember the gap between the nobles and peasants in Russia was insane) working as taxists in Paris.
Then your father gets killed, and in order to get money you have to write in non-native tongue and teach at a state uni.

>Finnegans Wake - Conventional and drab

wtf i love nabokov now

Kek

>puzzled by his inability to describe young women,
KEK

>Pirandello, Luigi. Never cared for him
Lmao

This guy read War and Peace when he was 15?

>Dickens

No wonder you hated it

Gogol is by far the best writer Russia ever had, Nabokov is goodreads tier when it comes to opinions of literature.

>Plato. Not particularly fond of him.

What a presumptuous ass

Gogol ain't even Russian.

>Don Quixote. A cruel and crude old book.
Does anyone actually take his reviews seriously? They're awful, and I don't just mean awful as in taste, I meant they are awful as in written awfully. He said "read complete works between 14 and 15" for both Shakespeare and Tolstoy, I don't actually believe that.

He was for back then.

I don't think he's every read anything by Faulkner.

>Don Quixote. A cruel and crude old book.
I'd somewhat agree with this, Don Quixote makes me feel sad. It's like watching someone naive and poor get swindled.

>awful as in written awfully
but user, Nabokov is an awful writer

user, Nabby wrote a book about Gogol. The part the user you responded to quoted gives a distorted picture of Nabokov's sentiments concerning Gogol. Here's a link: goodreads.com/book/show/509306.Nikolai_Gogol?ac=1&from_search=true

Then what is Lolita like?

In every sense except prose, yeah, but considering he has fine prose, he could have done better than this toilet paper tier reviewing

Then Nabokov shouldn't have said such a stupid quote. He didn't say it in any other context than as a brief review.

>Austen, Jane. Great