Was the Kid Diddler Nabokov right about Faulkner?
>Dislike him. Writer of corncobby chronicles. To consider them masterpieces is an absurd delusion. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.
Also, what the fuck does "corncobby" mean?
>>7862074
Corncobby - the whole farmer, southern vibe that Faulkner had. Used as pejorative here to denote that Faulkner was unsophisticated, uneducated, etc. Not a valid criticism in my opinion.
Nabokov is right that Faulkner's works aren't masterpieces, but neither are his own works.
>>7862074
Say what you will about Nabokov but his criticisms were pretty amusing.
>>7862074
Corncobby is a reference to a scene in Sanctuary where a sadistic but impotent gangster rapes a woman with a corncob.
For a while, especially in Europe, Sanctuary was Faulkners most popular novel. Faulkner himself considered it a cynical attempt to make money.
>kid
Lolita was post-pubescent. Perfectly fuckable.
>>7862074
Nabokov's unreliable narrator also applies to his literature opinions
>>7862118
>>7862091
>Faulkner's works aren't masterpieces
heh
Faulkner is greater than Nabokov. Nabokov is a lesser mind and cannot comprehend him.
>>7862091
The problem with Nabokov is that he infects his own work. Reading Pale Fire, or Ada, or even Lolita on its own could lead you to think they are masterpieces, but taken within the context of Nabokov's works in their entirety, you realise that at least two of them are just treading water.
>>7862091
>Nabokov is right that Faulkner's works aren't masterpieces, but neither are his own works.I feel the exact same way
>Nabokov
Overrated. Writes only of European pederasts. Only remembered because of Lolita's controversy. Distinct suspicion he enjoyed the fragrance of his own flatulence.
c o r n
o
b
b
y
>>7862435
lol
Im surprised i haven't seen this done before
You can take this as the ramblings of a talentless faggot if you want, but I've read both Faulkner and Nabokov, and in my entirely biased opinion Faulkner obliterates him as a stylist.
The trouble with all of Nabokov's work is that it feels crafted. It feels that with every sentence and clause old Vlad went into the writing thinking to himself, "How can I make this remarkable?", then he decided how he could do it, then he did it. This marks him as a great scholar and a great technician, but it doesn't quite mark him as great overall.
Faulkner's writing feels alive in a way Nabokov's does not. With Faulkner it feels like his style and his prose flow organically according to just what he's writing about. There's brilliance in his writing, but unlike with Nabokov it doesn't feel forced. It's very original and organic, and it doesn't feel contrived.
Basically, Nabokov's genius comes off as fake and Faulkner's doesn't.
>>7862492
Tell that to Nabokov
>>7862099
pretty amusing? they are god-tier trolling. i never fail to laugh at his witty criticisms of other writers. they are always spot on, if exaggerated. why anyone takes them seriously is beyond me. take them joyously, laugh, and then read more Nabokov (and Faulkner).
>>7862501
What do you think of Bach?
>>7862501
I feel the exact same way about Nabokov. The first thing people always praise about him is his style, but it seems so cloyingly artificial to me.
>>7862516
This.
People always post that first paragraph of Lolita like it's some stand-alone tour-de-force; it reads like fucking goon lit to me. BUT MUH ALLITERATION. Semi-literate faggots.
>>7862502
Tell that to kanjiklub
>>7862492
>subjectivistic
This is fucking beyond pedantic.
>>7862543
Why?
First paragraph of Absalom, Absalom! > first paragraph of Lolita
>>7862543
maybe from your point of view:^)
>>7862501
This anon is correct. Nabokov is great, don't get me wrong, but he tries harder than DFW.
>>7862501
This. Though it doesn't make Nabokov bad, but it completely prevents him from reaching that level he so desperately desires to reach.
>>7862726
I find Wallace's style to be a lot more genuine than Nabokov's, at least based on his short fiction and essays. I can easily imagine Nabokov spending an absurd amount of time to perfect a single sentence, whereas Wallace's thoughts seem to appear unfiltered on the page.
Then again, they were completely different writers in aim, so it's probably not fair to compare their prose.
why is faulky so cute bros
ITT: Provincial Corncobbers violently rimming each other over mediocre prose
>>7864575
What are some books with good prose then?
>>7864699
Pnin
Ada
Pale Fire
>>7864716
Why only give titles of Nabokov? Seems so selective and biased. And Faulkner is supposed to be mediocre compared to Nabokov or something?
>>7865167
>Faulkner is supposed to be mediocre compared to Nabokov or something
yes. only provincial hicks think otherwise.
>>7865174
>Obvious bait is obvious
But really it depends on what you want from your prose.
As >>7862501 said, they are like Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart's scores were impeccable, having been fully visualized before he even put pen to paper, whereas Beethoven's were labored, scribbled over and erased obsessively.
Like Beethoven, Nabokov painstakingly crafts his art, similar to Grant from The Plague. The result is largely very successful, many of Nabokov's works being brilliantly composed.
However, Faulkner is known to have written with a feverish haste, typically writing about 3-4,000 words a day at his height. This shows in his writing, which is very "alive," to borrow the phrasing of the above poster.
TL;DR One isn't necessarily better, but they're quite different.
