Shit writer

Nabokov was much closer to Dostoyevsky than he happened to admit.

I have only read Lolita, but I was definitely not impressed.

People who think this man was a genius are usually Americans with very little experience of actual literature - the same people who haven't read Dante, Calderón de la Barca, nor Antônio Vieira in the original, and who think they are somehow allowed to have an opinion on what exactly is meant by having a talent for using words.

Nabokov was a good pun-maker, a good painter, and that was about it. His characters are very shallow. I have never met a single girl who is similar to Lolita, although I must say Humbert Humbert is occasionally very alive, specially during the hotel scenes. The girl's mother died in a very tragic accident - almost a sort of deus ex machina to get rid of her, because he couldn't find a better way - and very little was made of it.

There are also no ideas in Lolita. There is no profound view of life. No conflict between life and death - all deaths in the book are poorly crafted and treated like a black humor joke. No comprehensive descriptions. It is a good *provincial* novel about traveling by car in mid-century America and that's about it. There's nothing else to it.

I hope his other novels are much superior to Lolita.

Nabokov's critiques aren't even original, he is borrowing from a very established commentary (Dosto writes like a playwright) as pretext to try and demean a better and more significant author.

I don't agree with you about Lolita, but except for Pale Fire and (maybe) The Gift, his fiction doesn't get better.

People who don't think this man was a genius are usually Europeans with very little experience of actual literature - the same people who haven't read Wolfram von Eschenbach, Vasily Zhukovsky, and James Fenimore Cooper in the original, and who think they are somehow allowed to have an opinion on what exactly is meant by having a talent for using words.

Or in other words: you are turgid and lame and probably skipped the foreword.

>allowed to have an opinion
D R O P P E D

...

This man, in my country, he is nothing.

>implying anyone cares about your shithole and it's inhabitants

Nabokov's genius lies in the fact that he almost makes you sympathetic for Humbert, before you realize that you are rooting for a paedophile. At least that is what I accrued from reading it.

I too have only read Lolita, but I thought it was a really good book. There's no doubt that Nabokov was really talented, gifted with a natural ability to express himself. but there is also the artistic flourish present in Lolita, even though the subject matter is disgusting and the plot is mostly dry. Humbert's narration is quite charming, and interesting as well. Nabokov uses the unreliable narrator to great efficiency.

Although I do think that his opinions are worthless crap, especially what he says about Dostoevsky and Faulkner.

>flaccid pederast
Kek'd

> I have never met a single girl who is similar to Lolita
What? She has a pretty average mind of a young girl occupied with then new industrial pop stars and comic books. As for the nymphet body type... lemme choose some examples from my collection... Post your e-mail, and I'll send some archives, but don't tell anyone you got it from me.

> almost a sort of deus ex machina to get rid of her, because he couldn't find a better way - and very little was made of it
You don't think the book was only a quest to get the girl, do you?

The accident is an end to both high tension episode with Humbert's diary and her part of the play. It, obviously, seriously affects Lolita, even though Humbert rarely considers it. Also, it is a moment of release for him, and almost an celestial sign to proceed.

>as Gore Vidal tartly observed, no one enjoyed Nabokov's books as much as Nabokov did.

Fatality

...

i read invitation to a beheading and it was the most masturbatory dry non statement about nothing I've ever read.

I tried reading for prose over content because pleb redditors say this is where he excels but he tries so hard to craft the perfect aesthetic sentence that in the end you just feel sorry for him

>flaccid pederast
I laughed

I keep coming to this board hoping that I was wrong about it having shit taste, only to continue being disappointed every single time. This place is an utter shit-hole. What happened?

There are fine ways to dislike Nabokov or even Lolita, but based on this post, please refrain from posting on Veeky Forums ever again. Thank you.

back to Veeky Forums

Friendly reminder that you should commit sodoku.

I have read Lolita and Ada. Ada was definitely better. I honestly have no clue why it has not gotten more recognition.

>tfw was really impressed with this article once and thought he described things I knew but couldn't articulate
>hear other people talk about Dostoyevsky
>realize Navokov lifted all of his criticisms
even Camus accuses Dosto of the same things

>>shit writer
i legitimately can't think of anyone in the ballpark
that's a translation you pleb

>no artifically injected ideas
>no pseud-conflict between life and death
>no obsession with making fictional characters "real" when they can't be real

sounds perfect.
Ada was better.

>Critiques have to be novel to carry merit
So what user, just because everyone calls you a loser, it doesn't make me wrong to also call you a loser

This

Anyone in this thread that is going to call Nabokov a "shit" writer without having read "Ada" should be ashamed of themselves.

As to criticizing his aestheticism, it is valid to express a concern about his lacking of moralism, but a difference in taste/concern doesn't discredit the author. I would never appraise Lemons as "shit" because "I like my food to be sweet, not sour"

Ada fucking sucked. Sure, it had its moments, but the overall impression was that of a mastubatory exercise. The main character bangs every single female character in the book, for christs sake. And that god-awful scene where a woman throws herself off a cruise ship, because she cant be with him. Not to mention all the repeated, ultra-cringey talk about how genious all the main charaters are (half-assed, uncritical self-inserts).

Nabokovs writing does have some merit, but no amount of lyrical athleticism can save him from the jarring conceit that infects almost his every page.

> The main character bangs every single female character in the book
It is not even important by itself.

To understand Ada, you need to learn three of four languages and read about a hundred classical books written in them.

> The main character bangs every single female character in the book
Van only got a blowie from Lucette you fucking liar

Who the fuck cares. Writing is not about compiling data in complex patterns, nor does the proficient use of dictionaries automatically produce meaningful narrative.

Nabokov may have an impressive command of language, but his maturity level is like that of a teenager who derives his entire self-worth from being 'smart', and who therefore constantly has to reinforce that perception in others. It is silly and so, so vain.

> arguing with a dead person

His thought process is just to complex for you to follow.

>The main character bangs every single female character in the book, for christs sake.

So? It's fiction, not an accurate record of your sex life.

That's so fucking weak. Why even bother posting, if that's all you can muster?

le mad poster is mad

> I was only pretending to be retarded