Nabokov was right, this is fricking unreadable garbage.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Nabokov was right, this is fucking unreadable garbage.
Nabokov was right, this is fricking unreadable garbage.
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Out of the big 3 at the time, Fitzgerald was the only good one, Hemingway and Faulkner were shit
incest wasnt hardcore enough for nabokov so sound and the fury pissed him off
Haven't read this but started Go Down Moses and yes it is genuinely poorly written. I get trying to do a conversational thing or convey certain concepts with unconventional syntax. But I had to reread parts where it just wasn't at all clear what was being said. There's no excuse for that.
There's no excuse for being a wilful moron you mean, the more confounding the idea is to convey is simply a testament to the effort and conviction he put into it, at that your duty to at least fricking try no matter you're seething and filtered did you think Faulkner was trying to write according to conventions like Hemingway or some queer
Parts of it literally made no sense. Like, the only explanation would be typos. As in who the subject was, the narrator or another character. Changing back and forth incoherently.
I took it back to the library
Post something from that with unconventional syntax
Does Nabokov ever write/say something specifically on The Sound and the Fury? I know he disliked Faulkner in general. In any case, I can’t understand it - The Sound and the Fury is a masterpiece and only requires a bit of patience and concentration to appreciate its dark beauty. Returning to the first two chapters after reading through it all once is also a good idea.
its obviously not unreadable garbage but it does suffer from the same juvenile southern cliches his other writing does and definitely insists on its own poetry
i dont think he read TSaTF but in pale fire faulkner makes an appearance as a character at a party, and pale fire as a whole strangely has some surface level similarities to TSaTF that makes me think nabokov was at least conscious of it. like how both books are split into 4 distinct sections, have multiple narrators, have an appendix/index, have a shakesperean title, have suicide as a central element...
>Barn Burning and Rose for Emily,
any other southern gothic writer
>any other southern gothic writer
I was going to say a shittier Faulkner but that's basically the same thing. TSaTF and Absalom are his best. If you prefer his lesser works then you unironically got filtered.
>I was going to say a shittier Faulkner but that's basically the same thing
idk most southern gothic writers' short stories ive read were leagues better than unbearably dull faulkner stories like dry september or the brooch.
>but you look beneath the surface and it's like this cold, heartless hyper-intellectualism
beauty doesnt mean sentimentalism, so "heartless" is irrelevant, but nabokov's cleverness does like youve said get in the way of something being simply beautiful sometimes. still, his intricate worlds mean a lot more to me than books where you can see through the newly created thing into the sappy emotions it is supposed to stir up. TSaTF felt emotionally manipulative to me in a way that no nabokov book could ever be. also there is this constant pretentious aspiration of capturing the "human condition" in faulkner, which reduces his characters to symbols and his worlds to statements. in that way i find him cheap and certainly less creative.
>areligious voodoo speculation
is it really areligious if whenever the question of god comes up in his works, it is a personal intelligence rather than merely some Tao-type force or an impersonal new wave concept? whats even bad about being areligious? at least it means he doesnt fall into religious cliches
It's a matter of preference I guess but I side with the sappy human condition solvers. Give me the crazy religious prophet type of literary genius over whatever it is the Nabokovs and Flauberts are trying to do. Didn't really get Madame Bovary either.
why not both? you could have an emotional religious story about common experiences without sacrificing the particularity of your characters, the creativity of the prose, the detail of the world etc, so that it feels less insistent and more genuine.
Franny and Zooey is one of the best novels of all time, good taste anon.
what are the others?
Personally Ficciones, Ada, Pale Fire, Nine Stories, Brother's K.
I think it's decent, but my eyes do tend to glaze over a bit when it gets deep into the gossip about cousins cousins relations and what not. It does a good job showing how self sabotaging small communities can be and how misguided young people can be when left without good guidance.
I want to like this book so much as I love Salinger’s other work, but I can’t get myself to like it. The characters are obnoxiously precocious. I get that’s kinda the point and fits in with the theme but that doesn’t mean I have to enjoy it
theyre a lot less precocious than seymour from hapworth. i can see a 20 and 25 year old acting like they do, if not speaking with the stylized salinger patterns they have. did you finish it at least?
List your favorite novels please, I need to know which ones to avoid because I can't stand the crazy religious types like Dosto who couldn't portray a genuine character without inserting his own ideological preconceptions into them to save his life.
BLACKED
What's an author who writes more like Faulkner in Light in August, Barn Burning and Rose for Emily, and less like Faulkner in TSATF and Absalom, Absalom?
Nabohack writes books for mediocre white women who think they’re god’s gift to the universe because they go to Oberlin or Smith
As a prose stylist Nabokov shits all over Faulkner.
There’s a reason Faulkner’s not a household name in the way Hemingway and Fitzgerald are.
>t. Ashleiygh Williams
>Muh overly Latinate prose
>muh random French words
Faulkner is Shakespeare's heir in America.
Nabokov can write but he's missing some part of his soul or something. I just don't really get him, he values pure aesthetics, art for art's sake, but you look beneath the surface and it's like this cold, heartless hyper-intellectualism, or else areligious voodoo speculation about life after death. Feels that way to me anyway. Faulkner is in a different league.
I dunno, his first novel felt nice. His later works tend to be odd, though.
My feelings exactly, Nabokov's prose comes across as more like an intellectual exercise in beauty.
e-girlta felt written with a lot of heart and empathy but Pale Fire, pretty as parts of it were, largely felt like an academic exercise to me, so I sort of agree.
>e-girlta felt written with a lot of heart and empathy
You're not wrong. I think I overstated the point a bit because OP was using Nabokov Opinions to troll like everyone does on this board
>but Pale Fire, pretty as parts of it were, largely felt like an academic exercise to me, so I sort of agree.
in pale fire, the prettiness is hidden behind a lot of strange, off, baffling, irresolute and sometimes even eerie stuff, which is entirely the point. the thing john shade is ruminating on in the last quarter of the poem is whether or not god could be hiding in details and seemingly meaningless synchronicities in a cold uncaring world. we are invited to the search of meaning john shade went on, especially since kinbote is doing such a bad job of excavating meaning for us. ironically the meaningful details that reveal the hidden stories that make everything click in an elegant way are to be found within that bad job kinbote is doing.
but again, its a book where the main appeal is its strangeness and the way it hides the things that resolve the confusing surface. there is an infinity of books with heart, and even more that pretend to have heart, but pale fires are very rare.
got gifted Light in August, is it worth reading?
Read it for yourself and form your own opinion
well i was gonna move to middlemarch next...
I'm 1/3rd into Middlemarch right now and it's dreadful. The prose are smug and pretentious, the characters dull, the conflicts uninteresting, and the general thrust of the novel is utterly blunt and muddled.
Personally I think it’s great. Way comfier than TSatF or even As I Lay Dying, even though I ultimately think those are better works. It’s one of his least experimental works. It’s very accessible but still gives that iconic Faulkner vibe.
I was shocked at how bad this book was. IQfy's horrendous taste confirmed once again since so many posters here love this book. I mean, the first section of the book is literally moronic. Directly and literally moronic. Also the symbolism is cringe. "She got mud on her butt, get it? Her bum is dirty, she's a dirty girl, GET IT?!?". Embarrassing.
Just finished this, I thought it was amazing once I made it through the Benjy chapter. Quentin's chapter was one of my favorite sections of a book that I've ever read.
Personally I couldn't stand the Benjy chapter because I had an aunt who was severely mentally handicapped, probably a little bit more than Benjy, and it felt like someone writing a moronic character who had only ever seen them in passing. I don't know, maybe Faulkner had a closer relationship with someone like that, but it definitely doesn't come across that way.
What about it felt false to you? I took the time shifts to be more going down various memory paths, not the "no sense of time" thing that many people like to interpret it as, so it didn't seem that fantastical. The rest of the narration felt accurate to what I'd imagine the internal life of someone with nonverbal autism to be like, especially when he says stuff like "and then I was crying", as if the outer life is separated from the inner life. I don't have tons of experience on the matter but I helped run parties at my local community center for people with developmental disabilities for a while so I'm not NOT experience with it either. You clearly have more experience here though so I'd be curious to here your thoughts.
scream louder, cuck. your life is but the walking shadow, but you scream louder into the emptiness of your monitor hoping it will bring about a change, any change. even changing your own opinion would do, but that makes no sense, you're right. scream louder, homosexual. no one will listen.
read the book yourself.
who cares about Nabokov anyway? he's mid at best, Pale Fire is a masterpiece, but it's less dense and human than tsatf.
>two characters named Quentin
Bravo uncle Fauker.
one is named after the other though
hotwire cloudsong. these people make their money doing this.