I do not know why you think it was rushed. It felt disjointed but was that not done in purpose?
Now Reading Thread
- Thread starter derbeder
- Start date
SouthernTrendkill
Super Normie
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
I Am America (And So Can You!) by Stephen Colbert. I'm not really enjoying it that much, the material is good but you need Colbert's delivery to make it hilarious.
Justin S.
Member
The Idiot- Dostoevsky
Some short works by Gogol
Malebranche's Dialouges and Treatise
Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected "Problems" of "Logic"- Heidegger
Some short works by Gogol
Malebranche's Dialouges and Treatise
Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected "Problems" of "Logic"- Heidegger
I can see no reason why he'd do that? I don't know, it just felt that way, I can't even remember why.
Might have to pick it up againI can see no reason why he'd do that? I don't know, it just felt that way, I can't even remember why.
Was not the whole theme on the book about being broken in a time which he felt was just sick?
Excellent, excellent site: http://bookforum.com/
There's a wealth of material, and much philosophical content, updated by subject/category every hour.
Also, I will add Spengler at Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html
Much like the real Spengler, he's a highly accurate pessimistic dilletante, with an excellent grasp of history/philosophy/culture, etc.
There's a wealth of material, and much philosophical content, updated by subject/category every hour.
Also, I will add Spengler at Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html
Much like the real Spengler, he's a highly accurate pessimistic dilletante, with an excellent grasp of history/philosophy/culture, etc.
Gogol and Dostoesvsky!!! Impressive. Gogol has been my favorite author for years. Really, there's nothing like him, and his fatalistic grotesque nightmarish stories of madness which somehow perfectly symbolize man.
Anyway, Im finishing up the classical canon (I had neglected a great deal of the Latin classics) with the complete works of Horace. I highly recommend him for the clearness of his voice and thought, and versatility. He;s not as fun and cutting as Juvenal or as poetic as Ovid or Virgil; but rather sort of a amalgamation of all of them. I just finished the comedies of Terence, and would not recommend them. Oh, and just started John Banville's Body of Evidence.
Read deeper!!!
However, Nabokov is sort of a cruel master of his characters--and most of his major characters (especially in his American works apart from Bend Sinister, and his autobiographical works Speak Memory/Ada) are essentially the same: a perverse perplexing protagonist with random serious problems as selected by the unreliable author, who surely is having a good laugh in whatever afterlife he is in, as 99% of readers read his novels. SO if you're looking for some redeeming quality from his characters, or even character development, prepare to be let down, or worse: fooled. His art is in the technical mastery of his plots and form; his many hidden allusions and puns; and his absolute poetic command of both Russian and English prose.
Anyway, what I am saying is that Nabokov is not for everyone, and like any writer, he has his flaws.
Everyone tells me to read deeper but nobody's pointing out at anything. Lolita is no doubt a mastery of form, but I am constantly reminded of 100 Years of Solitude while reading it. Both, from a technical standpoint, are excellent and insightful - in Lolita's case these are the aforementioned puns and blablbla aesthetics of violence - but both lack in content... There's very little humanity to be found in Lolita... It's all technical fireworks that are there to entertain. It is very well written but nothing is actually written... A dull novel, really... would rather read good old Tolstoy who does not need big words to express emotional honesty, or Pynchon whose puns actually contribute something more than "cleverness". I keep thinking he altered content so that it fits his puns because he cares more about how good it sounds than what it is about... There are simply no ideas there, really. You don't get the feeling you advance through the novel, you're stuck in the same place. Frankly, I could tell you more about the novel before I read it then after. Everything is just in the HOW its written but the content does not explore this in any meaningful way... And just because there's no character development, it does not mean the novel should not develop. There are good writers who mock and satirize but are not dull... This book just feels like there's nothing under the big words, no subtext, nothing... But that's juta feeling... I could be wrong
Well, many think the deeper meaning you speak of is that humbert represents Europe, and European ideals--old, sick, dying, perverse, etc--and Lolita represents America--young, attractive, superficial, attracted and led astray by Humbert, etc.
I really think you're not giving Nabokov credit, as truly, its a masterful work of literature even if you find him cold and indifferent and lacking in content. I could write a bit more about this, but I will wait for your reply.
Yes, I have read Steppenwolf, and I do love it.
It's an interesting way to look at it but I think this is a weak allegory... are you suggesting that European values are corrupt and evil underneath? That Europe somehow rapes America? (it's the other way around, if anything)? In any event this is not explored in the book, only in the most superficial level. How does a vivid description of a poster somehow unmasks the issue, or any other of the countless trivial details this novel is full of? There in no psychology there, and psychology is the focus of modern literature. Nothing to be learned about the world or humanity. It is mastery of big words that sound nice and not much else...
I think it an amazingly astute and deep psychological work on not only tyranny (another major theme Humbert represents), but victimization, sex, etc. Not to mention, the one thing modern literature is largely missing is art. This is an unparralled work of art. The prose is alive with poetry, exuberance, and color.
However, I do agree Nabokov is cold, and to me, he represents the extreme of modernism and decadence. In face, he might be the last true modernist/decadent in literature (I have not read anything original in form besides Nabokov--maybe Pynchon whom I dont care for) . The work is technically perfect, but it does border on art for arts sake and sort of an ultra-individualistc bourgoise nature. And remember, it was written in the early 50's when America just took over as the hegemon of the Western world.
Really, I think the only thing left to write these says is satire, especially as literature declines even further in relevance. As Juvenal stated two millenia ago: it is difficult not to write a satire.
How is it a deep psychological study of sex or tyranny or whatever? Point out at something, elaborate. Everything you say, it can all be deduced from the form of the novel and the general outline of the plot, and I agree that those are brilliant, but in no way are these issues explored in the actual content. If I missed out something, point at it, elaborate. I doubt if that's possible, though... take the main idea for example, the aesthetics of violence. In no way it is expanded upon in the novel. and of course it does not, because this novel does not discuss any ideas, only describes more and more trivial details. Also, the characters are painfully unrealistic. It's not that they have stupid emotions and thoughts that are mocked... they have no thoughts at all. Why Humbert does not rationalize his actions? What are the reasons he is a pervert? Are there non-sexual reasons why he prefers young girls to women? What his life is like hiding a terrible secret from everyone? No, these questions are not answered or touched upon... because we need more stupid descriptions of trees and of the hotel they go to and of Lolita's friends and of eroticism and whatever. Damn, there are characters in absurdist theater that are deeper than that...
And really it's not Nabokov's writing that's cold - it's fun to read and artistically makes sense. Actually cold writing is sometimes the most emotional and honest form of writing, if it makes sense in the context of the novel (like parts in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist). I don't see how Nabokov's writing is technically perfect or how writing can be technically perfect, though. It's his art that's cold to me...
And really it's not Nabokov's writing that's cold - it's fun to read and artistically makes sense. Actually cold writing is sometimes the most emotional and honest form of writing, if it makes sense in the context of the novel (like parts in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist). I don't see how Nabokov's writing is technically perfect or how writing can be technically perfect, though. It's his art that's cold to me...
I pretty much agree with you here. Nabokov's writing is perhaps aesthetically top notch, but there is no deeper meaning in many (but not all) of his novels. However, I do think his novels are so wonderfully and artistically crafted, these deficiences arent important. Plus, one also remember, that for the most part, only a few writers really get at the deeper psychology of man, and instead rely on cheap philosophy or distorted politics, so perhaps Nabokov's writing (which is free from both) will last.
I don't think a novel with no deeper meaning should be held in such a high regard... and I don't understand what you mean when you say his works are artistically crafted, because there's no craft, it's a mess. I'm not saying it's awful, but really, if it wasn't for the language nobody would care about this novel (yes, style is essential, especially to this novel so it's kinda unfair, but still...). And most importantly, I don't think we should respect something because of the things it doesn't do... I mean, seriously, I prefer a failure to grasp human psychology than no attempt at all. All novels fail in capturing the human because it is infinite but at least they try and that's what makes them such an important art. I'm pretty sure almost every lesser-known Nobel Prize winner has novels with better psychology than that.
[A thought that just came to my head: the superficiality of the novel makes sense because its about the superficial. Does not make up for everything I said, though]
Oh, and you say there are Nabokov novels that are deeper than that... so I'll be glad if you can name them because this guy obviously has amazing talents in some areas, making for a good read but very bad literature. And you also say you don't like Pynchon... that's too bad because he is amazing... I'm not smart enough for Gravity's Rainbow, I guess, but The Crying of Lot 49 is mastery.
Lord, give it a break man. I still think your reading of the novel is incredibly superficial. There's alot of depth and riddles, etc, all beneath the sparkling prose. ITs just not as direct or as overtly "serious" as you might be used to. Have you read any other novels by Nabokov?
Since Shakespeare, how many characters with real psychological depth have actually been created? I think Harold Bloom has stated not a single real character (as in seperate from the authors dictatorial control or consciousness) has been created since Shakespeare. I would say that I do believe Dostoevsky did create a few very real (although I think of them as sort of hyper-characters) characters, and Chekov brilliantly sketched real characters.
Similar threads
