Do you guys think this is worth reading?
When reading Nabokov's opinions, I often grow tired of the extremity with which he disregards the pedagogical and sentimental virtues or literature. Nevertheless, I still find his radicalism stimulating and, as an undergrad who has been the victim of much critical theory, personally resonant.
Bruh, are you in my class?
Possibly lmao
i just read his shit to disagree with him intensely.
my dad swore by it. he was cool. i never read it. also, lectures on physics is supposed to be good, also my dads fave, also i never read. i am dilettante.
good lord OP, you do realize that speaking that way just makes you sound insufferable right?
>an undergrad who has been the victim of much critical theory
You too?
It sucks man. It honestly makes me consider dropping out.
>t. textspeak brainlet
u ok? lol
I'm aware, but I've had trouble fixing the problem. What do you suggest I change? Word choice? Syntax? I don't mean to come off as a snobby pseud, it's just how my voice naturally comes out.
don't change your voice for some pleb on the fucking internet. fuck that dude. as long as you're writing in earnest, fuck that bitch ass nyucka.
Definitely.
Now that I'm older I do regard his uncompromising aestheticism ultimately shallow and 'bury-head-in-the-sand' narrow-minded. But just like you said, when most modern literary criticism is filtered through some kind of theoretical lens, the perspective is refreshing and a good example of how to read literature-as-literature. Just don't forget literature is ALSO the ideas behind it.
But it's not just him making that criticism. Teachers, friends, and even my parents have told me that my prose is too decorative, extravagant, bombastic, purple, and other synonyms for that overall sentiment.
The problem is that I pride myself on concision, which often leads to me ignoring style and clarity for the sake of density and specificity.
Lighten up, Francis.
yes and no. some of the passages are brilliant, in particular the introduction. they are some of the best things ever written about literature. but the majority of the book is fairly prosaic descriptions of what happens in classic books, and often what happens is honestly fairly obvious to begin with. not great analysis of texts, but wonderful analysis of what literature is about, basically.
>I pride myself on concision
>Proceeds to write everything in the least concise way possible
You are saying so much and conveying so little. Needlessly fluffing up and overcomplicating your sentences with every big adjective you can think of makes you sound like a douche. Just stop trying to sound so smart, dood.
Writers think mostly of what they could do and how they could improve a work, which is very specific and adheres to a certain aesthetic.
Readers are far more eclectic and open to a wide variety of styles, plots, characters, and intrigues.
Critics, who are supposed to be professional readers, are too often just failed writers and so speak ill of anything that doesn't fit their ideal of what literature is. It's sad that nobody can be a professional reader the way someone like Roger Ebert was a professional watcher.
>concision
What bothers people is the subject matter and its corresponding egocentricity you dish out the language for. You say:
>The problem is that I pride myself on concision, which often leads to me ignoring style and clarity for the sake of density and specificity.
See, no one cares right off the bat so we can only pretend at best. Upon reading the very first word I already know everything you're going to say and same with the OP.
It's okay to be proud of the way you speak (schizophrenic btw) but when you're talking about yourself the knife is just turned against you so you don't want to add force to that now. If you're writing or talking about something itself ((this is that, that is this) which includes your mental processes) you can't do it with pride, right? lol. Language is its own entity and to be proud of it is analogous to a mother proud of her son. Surely, he sees things a different way as does "your" language.
There's an inherent connection between such things.
"Nevertheless, I--" (pic related)
Interesting perspective. Not sure if I entirely agree though, especially in regards to critics---there are plenty of examples of critics and criticism that are more 'objective.' For example, formalism (e.g. Richards, Brooks) sought to be a soft science of literature and many critics such as Robert Alter or Bloom or Frye don't fall under your assessment about the field.
With that said, Nabokov certainly suffers from your judgments. Like c'mon, to read, say, Kafka as if he has no 'ideas' behind his work aside from solely 'imaginative aesthete' is so silly as to be willfully parochial. But I guess that's the result of his ex-aristocratic mindset where art doing anything but looking pretty in the main foyer of one's gargantuan-sized manor is the wasted pursuits of posturing artists trying to influence the masses.
>concision
You either have zero self awareness or no idea what that word means my dude, it's readily apparent you're trying too hard.
Just finished Pale Fire last night. It was great, but N doesn't like Faulkner so personally I'm inclined to not even bother with his opinions. I'll probably read Speak Memory though.
>my prose is too decorative, extravagant, bombastic, purple, and other synonyms for that overall sentiment
>I pride myself on concision
huh?
This, tbqh. Your friends and family think you're a tryhard. Seems like they're right, imo.
His essay on Madame Bovary is pretty good desu.