Is it any good?
>>7615154
Sure it is.
>Third-greatest masterpiece of 20th century prose. A splendid fantasy
http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations
>>7615968
>Austen, Jane. Great.
>>7615154
must read desu
>>7615154
there's absolutely no point of reading it in translation.
>>7615154
Read it and tell us.
>>7615968
>http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations
>Faulkner, William.
>Dislike him. Writer of corncobby chronicles. To consider them masterpieces is an absurd delusion. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.
lmao
>>7615968
Nabokov's taste is inconsistent, oscillates from absolute shit to decent
>>7615968
Nabokov, Vladimir. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.
>>7616111
Seriously, is Jane Austen any good?
Many writers despite her.
>>7616477
If you hate them so much Uncle Clemens, maybe you should stop reading the beginning of them over and over.
>>7616482
I read pride and prejudice and thought it was really good.
I do think a large part of status is that she was one of the earliest writers of novels as we now know them.
Her characters are interesting and well developed, the pacing is good for the type of story it is, and prose-wise there aren't really any lazy sentences.
The hangup a lot of people have with her novels is that the things her characters are concerned about and the sources of their conflicts have very little bearing on the contemporary way of life, so it can be hard to relate the characters. Probably more so if you are male.
Pride and prejudice is a fairly quick read. I would say you should just bite the bullet and read it so that you can say you did and have an opinion about Austen.
>>7615968
What the other anon said, wildly inconsistent taste. His judgment of Freud is on point tho
