Was Nabokov's dislike of Faulkner anything but jealousy?
Nabokov's attitude towards Faulkner seems to be one not merely of distaste but of hatred and disdain. He completely disregards him as a major Western writer. Not only does this fly in the face of the average judgment of Faulkner, it sets up a rather embarrassing contrast between Faulkner's work and Nabokov's.
In comparing the two, I think you pretty clearly and immediately see effort vs genius. Nabokov's writing is great, beautiful, evocative, alluring, but you can also see the careful craftsmanship that makes it that way. You can sense, you can taste, the striving and the working that Nabokov puts in to make his writing as good as it is.
Faulkner's greatest work is nearly elemental. You sense perhaps the influence of others, but only insofar as parents influence a child. Faulkner is an effortless artist, a brilliant builder whose work seems to fall from the sky like lightning strikes. Faulkner is the sort of genius you see Mozart depicted as in the movie "Amadeus." Effortless, tireless, undying, he seems to literally shit brilliance.
I think Nabokov recognized this and was forever hateful towards Faulkner because of it. I think all Nabokov's disdain for Faulkner is is petty jealousy. After all, what the hell kind of criticism is "corncobby"? What does that even mean? It's just a schoolyard insult. Nabokov's a strong B+ student who can't tolerate the fact that Faulkner cruises to A+ marks.
Nah, he just didn't like his work. Nabby's criticism isn't all that different from what you see here.
If I don't like it, it's shit. If I thought it was just ok, it's shit. If I am intimidated and afraid I don't understand, it's pretentious shit.
>>7781590
>Faulkner is the sort of genius you see Mozart depicted as in the movie "Amadeus." Effortless, tireless, undying, he seems to literally shit brilliance.
Certainly not on the level of Mozart. This also implies Mozart didn't work his ass off. How can you be this bad at watching a movie?
As I Lay Dying, The Sound & The Fury, and Absalom, Absalom! are the three works of Faulkner I've read. Will try to get around to reading Light in August as some point. People say Joe Christmas is a wondrous character.
Time to stock up on pipe tobacco and whiskey, again.
>>7781661
>he actually ran out of whiskey
I hope you at least have some vodka or tequila on hand. No one living the literary lifestyle should ever actually run out of strong drink.
>>7781671
Don't worry. We always keep half a bottle of whisky on hand. Single malt scotches are nice (Islay whiskies like Ardbeg and Laphroaig). However, I really am starting to get into bourbons. Evan Williams is pretty tasty. Dirt cheap, too.
>>7781708
IMO, Jim Beam is a great low-cost bourbon. Not quite as rough as Maker's Mark, cheaper too. Nice and smooth.
They also make a good rye. Rye is great.
>>7781727
Not a huge fan of Jim Beam or Maker's Mark. But I do like Wild Turkey 101 and Evan Williams. Looking forward to trying either some Four Roses, George Dickel, or Elijah Craig next.
>>7781753
Elijah Craig is a step above, of course, and it costs more. The 12 year old bourbon is wonderful.
Never had Four Roses. I'm eager to try it some time.
>>7781767
Elijah Craig it is then. ^_^
>>7781772
Also, if you don't like the normal Jim Beam, you might try the Signature edition, which is aged 10 years. See if the extra time in the barrels makes a difference.
1- You dont know Faulkner's life-history and the evolution of his writings: he started as a sub-mediocre poet and worked very hard to learn the fundamentals of novel-writing. He even said he started trying to master poetry, but failed; then he left for the short-story, and failed again, and only then he left for the novel. He was not a natural genius, and to compare his gifts with those of Mozart is just ridiculous. Mozart is one of the greatest composers of all time, his equivalents in literature are writers such as Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Homer, not Faulkner. By the way: Mozart was not like the figure exposed in Amadeus. Although the film is a masterpiece, Mozart actually struggled a lot and produced drafts and sketches when composing (not even near the quantity that Beethoven sketched, but still he was not "composing perfect pices in his head". After his death his wife burned and destroyed many manuscripts, to help perpetuate the aura of unblemished genius.
2-Nabokov was probably more gifted than Faulkner. Both had diferent views of art, and Nabokov was much more concearned with language and verbal beauty than Faulkner. His prose is much more similar to Shakespeare's verse (that Fualkner loved, for he admired poets above all other writers) in its metaphoric exuberance than anything Faulkner has ever wrote.
3-"I think Nabokov recognized this and was forever hateful towards Faulkner because of it." Nabokov was always ready to aknowledge genius and brilliance when he saw it. He liked and admired a lot of old writers as well as contemporary ones, but he did not care for ideas and philosophies in writing, and for this reason many writers who do not possessed verbal and poetic talent sounded like mediocrities to him (and to be honest, it guess he is mostly right in his views about art).
Faulkner is literally the greatest American writer. He tops Melville, he tops Twain. The only man that has tried to best Faulkner is McCarthy and he still came up short.
>>7781812
i didn't know melville was a bottom though i knew he was gay
>>7781590
Nice wall of text, Trump would be proud
>>7781809
Did Nab pass comment on Carver?
>>7781809
I agree that Faulkner is not a genius on the level of Mozart, but he was inarguably a genius. One of his most admired works, As I Lay Dying, was written in 2 months while he worked night shift at some factory or something. Also, The Sound and the Fury is more densely packed and interesting prosaically, narratively, and symbolically than anything I've read by Nabokov (except MAYBE Pale Fire).
That being said, I love Nabokov, and I think his critique of Faulkner is mostly their difference in style. As you said, Faulkner was not a writer of ideas, and Faulkner absolutely was. Different strokes I guess. Both are great authors though.
>>7782020
>Faulkner was not a writer of ideas, and Faulkner absolutely was
wew lad
>>7781617
i don't remember mozart working his ass off either.
i mean, sure, when he's dying, but he was fuckin dying.
Why are all most american writers from the south
>>7782091
Too dumb to STEM.
>>7781590
C O R N C O B B Y
O
R
N
C
O
B
B
Y
>>7781809
>His prose is much more similar to Shakespeare's verse (that Fualkner loved, for he admired poets above all other writers) in its metaphoric exuberance than anything Faulkner has ever wrote.
kek no
Anyway, as Borges said- Faulkner was one of the rare writers who could combine aesthetic skill and ethical thought.
>>7781590
What exactly would there have been to be jealous of? In his own time, Faulkner, by his own admission, was a literary nonentity in his own country. In terms of success and significance, Nabokov was much more highly regarded.
Besides, Nabokov wasn't afraid to admit it when he thought someone was better than him even if he didn't care for all their work. He said Joyce's English was much better than his even though he only liked Ulysses.
>>7782115
>non-humanities
>human
>>7782909
>Besides, Nabokov wasn't afraid to admit it when he thought someone was better than him even if he didn't care for all their work. He said Joyce's English was much better than his even though he only liked Ulysses
Kek, do you call that humble? Joyce is a top five prose stylist
>>7782943
>Let people compare me to Joyce by all means, but my English is patball to Joyce's champion game. A genius.
>>7782943
I hold Faulkner in higher esteem than Joyce. The whole human condition is more comprehensively expressed in Faulkner's oeuvre than Joyce's because of the latter's attachment to his own mastery of prose. His musicality is like a veil hanging in front of his characterizations, whereas Faulkner excelled at letting his characterization dictate the style. He was a prose master as well, however, his characters just struck me as more realistically human than almost anything in Joyce. Nabokov is nowhere near Faulkner. I agree with OP.
>>7783014
What an empty, purely personal criticism.
faulkner is often overwrought but the description of thomas sutpen's childhood from when they moved to the tidewater to when he decided to leave his family is one of the best things in all literature.
>>7783040
Empty know.
>>7783040
What an empty, purely personal criticism.
