>I believe in stressing the specific detail; the general ideas can take care of themselves. Ulysses, of course, is a divine work of art and will live on despite the academic nonentities who turn it into a collection of symbols or Greek myths. I once gave a student a C-minus, or perhaps a D-plus, just for applying to its chapters the titles borrowed from Homer while not even noticing the comings and goings of the man in the brown mackintosh. He didn't even know who the man in the brown mackintosh was. Oh, yes, let people compare me to Joyce by all means, but my English is patball to Joyce's champion game.
wew Vlad
But Joyce himself structured it to rhyme with The Odyssey...
>>7868134
>>7868183
Recall that Nabokov was overall one of the most intelligent authors that ever lived.
His books weren't necessarily the most intelligently written books, and as he himself acknowledges here, he's not the best author ever by any stretch, but he was without a doubt the most objectively intelligent person to become a significant figure in literature.
>>7868134
>wew Vlad
volodya*
>>7868183
see you're exactly the type of reader he was so disgusted by. you're so fixated by the superficial details that you could regurgitate and pontificate upon to make it seem as if you understand literature while simultaneously missing the entire "point"
>>7868134
This turn me on
"D-plus, just for applying to its chapters the titles borrowed from Homer while not even noticing the comings and goings of the man in the brown mackintosh. He didn't even know who the man in the brown mackintosh was."
Wait what does this mean?
Nabokov constantly encouraged people to challenge his views
I agree with him, at least to some extent. Missing out the work itself, its content and its magic because you were focusing on structure, general themes and so on, is just bad reading.
It's not that those latter things are unimportant though.
>>7868732
nabokov's theory is that joyce inserted himself in ulysses. it's fairly compelling in my opinion
>>7868134
>nabokov studies moths
>not based beetles
I never knew he was such a disgusting fucking plebeian.
>>7868134
>>7868732
Halfway through my second reading of Ulysses right now - have noticed the man in the brown macintosh showing up several times (most recently at the funeral, where his name is mistakenly recorded as "McIntosh" due to a misinterpreted Bloom line), but I had not heard of this theory...anyone got a link?
>I entered the class to find Professor Nabokov several sentences into his lecture; not wanting to waste another minute, he was stooped over his notes, intently reading them to thirty stunned students, a shell-shocked platoon belonging to an even tardier don. Trying to be transparent as possible, I approached the lectern and touched Nabokov in the sleeve. He turned, and peered down at me over his eyeglasses, amazed. "Mr. Nabokov," I said very quietly, "you are in the wrong classroom." He readjusted his glasses on his nose, focused his gaze on the motionless . . . figures seated before him, and calmly announced, "You have just seen the 'Coming Attraction' for Literature 325. If you are interested, you may register next fall."
>James McConkey, a writer and a professor of English Literature who inherited the European Novel course after Nabokov left Cornell, remembers seeing Nabokov, "his whole face flushed and red," running out of the classroom where he was lecturing and into the office of the (still existent at the time) Division of Literature. Nabokov appeared to be so agitated that McConkey actually worried that "he was going to have a stroke or something . . . He was stammering . . . I thought he might fall over." Apparently, this "Pninian-size rage" was occasioned by one of the students' pointed question as to whether, if Professor Nabokov refused to discuss Dostoyevsky, the student himself could.
Was Nabokov autistic?
>>7868955
>and calmly announced, "You have just seen the 'Coming Attraction' for Literature 325. If you are interested, you may register next fall."
Autistic aren't that smooth. He was just a bit absent minded or rather lived more in his head
>>7868787
just google it faggot
>>7868955
what was his deal with Dostoevsky anyway? Wasn't one of Nabokovs relatives one of the ones to sentence Fyo to death?
>>7868965
no. tell me
>>7868955
That's smooth as fuck, mate.
>>7868732
He lowered the grade because, in his opinion, the student was drawing trivial parallels rather than observing the work itself. He has a point, intertextual analysis is shallow if you're just pointing out "the chapter titles are from this other work" without extracting any meaning from that, which would require you to make substantive comparisons between the contents of the materials. It's a mistake of vacuous readers and writers both, to make some paltry reference to a better work and hope to hitch yourself to its greatness.
>>7868955
>Was Nabokov autistic?
No, he was highly intelligent and, like all extremely intelligent people, he had a hard time trying to stomach people who would do obvious mistakes repeatedly and constantly fail to see evident truths.
The average mental capacity of the population is already prone to generate great amount of trash in conversations, presentations, everyday life decisions, expression of opinion, political debating, life choices and living philosophy, and etc.
When you stop and think that people on the average zone are this stupid, remember that we still have 50% of retards under this mediocre area. It is no wonder that a man like Nabokov was constantly getting angry or disillusioned with his students, with other professor and scholars. There are a lot of things that - to a bright and talent man like himself, are simply evident - yet to see other people (even worse, people who read, study and make effort to better themselves) fail miserably to see it…Must be one of the reasons why so many extremely intelligent individuals like to live isolated and with few relations.
>Oh, yes, let people compare me to Joyce by all means
In your dreams, Vlad.
>>7869064
He was better at writing poetry and poetic prose than Joyce. His metaphors are superior to those of Joyce, and the Irish writer, even when he is trying hard to emulate Shakespeare and the densely imagistic style, never achieves the same poetic exuberance of Nabokov. Joyce was more adept of creating new words, of making word games, puns and trying different styles (this is the English game Nabokov was talking about), but, as a poet, Nabokov was superior.
Joyce is more of an innovator, but Nabokov was a great author, and he even produced a larger number of works than Joyce. I don’t think that you can say that Joyce is superior to him; they are different, but both greatly eminent.
Lolita is not only a work of genius, not only hailed by the public and the critic alike, but has achieved something even rarer: it has penetrated perpetually into the imagination of the popular culture; it is a work of high art that has immersed on the collective imagination – it will always be remembered. Joyce can’t say the same thing.
>Also, you are just mad because he probably trash-talked a writer that you like
>>7869064
Dreams? Mate, people in his very lifetime already did.
>>7869088
>Lolita.... has achieved something even rarer: it has penetrated perpetually into the imagination of the popular culture
Acting like this is impressive lmao. Harry Potter is far more prevalent in popular culture than Lolita.
Or are you referring to tumblr quotes, Lana Del Rey or Japanese fashion?
>it will always be remembered
Suggesting Joyce will be forgotten despite being older, as loved and as recommended as Nabo?
>>7869261
>it is a work of high art that has
Just kill yourself
>>7868783
I think he studied most bugs, I think he even uses a beetle to refer to the colour of Lucettes dress in Ada
>>7869275
>subjective terminology
Lmao get a load of this pleb
>>7869297
nnot him but you are the pleb, m8
you are just mad that Nabokov pissed on some writer you like (probably Dosto) and now you are criticizing him without even paying fair attention to his real artistic merits
that’s a very unfair and cowardly thing to do
>>7868699
>but he was without a doubt the most objectively intelligent person to become a significant figure in literature
wtf is wrong with u, srs
>>7869348
Nah i dont care much for Dosto. Notes and The double were alright but Devils was fucking awful and i have not much inclination to read the rest of his works.
Read Lolita and it was cool. Cant see how someone can claim Nabo is better than and will outlive Joyce however, especially one suggesting that cultural importance - which they still didn't address - as well as a greater body of work being a reasonable argument.
>>7869361
>Cant see how someone can claim Nabo is better than and will outlive Joyce however, especially one suggesting that cultural importance - which they still didn't address - as well as a greater body of work being a reasonable argument.
there was also this argument:
>>7869088
>He was better at writing poetry and poetic prose than Joyce. His metaphors are superior to those of Joyce, and the Irish writer, even when he is trying hard to emulate Shakespeare and the densely imagistic style, never achieves the same poetic exuberance of Nabokov. Joyce was more adept of creating new words, of making word games, puns and trying different styles (this is the English game Nabokov was talking about), but, as a poet, Nabokov was superior.
Also, check the dubs: >>7869088
>>7868755
where does he lay this out? I'd be quite interested to read
>>7869392
His lectures about Joyce on the book Lectures on Literature
>>7868969
No his relative was on the committee which sent the pardon letter, saving dosty.
>>7869361
>judging Dostoevsky without having read The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment
we are being memed on lads
>>7869436
M8 convince me Dosto doesnt devolve into a great bore over a larger word count. He seems better when his works are shorter.
>>7869458
you haven't even read his long works you dip
>>7869458
You're an idiot.
>praises Joyce's linguistic abilities
>dislikes Finnegans Wake
>>7868964
>He was just a bit absent minded or rather lived more in his head
And have you ever been this generous in interpreting the actions of other people in your daily life?
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.
>Carroll, Lewis. Have always been fond of him. One would like to have filmed his picnics. The greatest children's story writer of all time.
>Camus, Albert. Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.
>Poe, Edgar Allan. A favorite between the ages of 10 and 15, but no longer. One would like to have filmed his wedding.
>Brecht, Bertolt. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.
>Melville, Herman. Love him. One would like to have filmed him at breakfast, feeding a sardine to his cat.
>Shakespeare, William. Read complete works between 14 and 15. One would like to have filmed him in the role of the King's Ghost.
Absolutely banterous lad.
>>7869360
drop a name then, cunt.
>>7869579
jk rowling
checkmate atheists
>>7869565
he was right for the most part. I think he was a bit hard on Faulkner
>>7869348
His artistic merits are no excuse for him flattering himself and using his position to bully some ignorant kid.
>>7869116
shut the fuck up cunt i aint your "mate" you fuckass
>>7869458
shut the fuck up cunt i aint your "m8" you fuckass
![amazon_cover_small[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XvlOcvf.jpg "amazon_cover_small[1].jpg")
>>7869590
Look at how queen Nab described Brecht and then complain about some Faulkner! And Hannah Arendt said the same. What is it with CIA shills and shitting on old Bertolt? Is it because the Murkans just couldn't get over having deported the best writer present in their country at the end of the war to East Germany? Fools.
>>7869750
shut the fuckass up mate i aint your "cunt" fuck
>>7869458
TBK is hilarious all the way through
>>7869361
Lolita isn't even his best novel though
>>7869903
Youre probably right but what else is one to read when being introduced if not an authors most famous work?
>>7869944
I would recommend Pnin to people who have not read Nabby before. Lolita if they like that, Pale Fire and Ada (his 2 best) if they like that. But hell that's just me.
>>7869579
goethe
>Faulkner, William. Dislike him. Writer of corncobby chronicles. To consider them masterpieces is an absurd delusion. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.
lol, okay, Nabokov, I like your work, but no.
>Finnegans Wake. A formless and dull mass of phony folklore, a cold pudding of a book. Conventional and drab, redeemed from utter insipidity only by infrequent snatches of heavenly intonations. Detest it. A cancerous growth of fancy word-tissue hardly redeems the dreadful joviality of the folklore and the easy, too easy, allegory. Indifferent to it, as to all regional literature written in dialect. A tragic failure and a frightful bore.
Now that's what I'm talking about.
>>7869579
Joyce actually.
>>7870542
Tell me, did Vladimir wrestle snakes in the crib as well?
>>7869565
>Ymous, Anon. A favorite. Writer of boundless wit. The Shakespeare of shitposts. One would like to have checked his dubs.
"corncobby chronicles" makes me laugh every time
>>7869565
>Carroll, Lewis (...) One would like to have filmed his picnics
o_o
>>7868134
>just noticing and pointing out similarities with the odyssey isn't good literary analysis
>noticing and pointing out that the man in the brown mackintosh is joyce IS good literary analysis
what
But nobody knows who the man in the macintosh was. That's why he's called the man in the macintosh and not by name.
Did Robokop ever read Pynchon or was he aware he was his student? Just curious what he would've thought about his writing.
>>7868783
He studied Lepidoptera, not just "moths".
>>7869261
>Harry Potter is far more prevalent in popular culture than Lolita.
Children are literally not called Lolita anymore because of Joyce's work. It killed an entire diminutive form.
>>7869483
Finnegans Wake wasn't lit, it was ordered, publishable madness.
>>7870542
>nabokov was a genius since childhood. he had an intelligent opinion about everything. et cetera.
>>7868699
>Recall that Nabokov was overall one of the most intelligent authors that ever lived.
>but he was without a doubt the most objectively intelligent person to become a significant figure in literature
Why should I believe this? What makes you say this? What does an "intelligent person" mean? "The most" also seems highly unlikely to me.
>>7871282
>Children are literally not called Lolita anymore because of Joyce's work.
Speak for yourself, gringo.
