5 ms·

"You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style." nabakov would agree with you my opinion is Pale Fire is the only thing even slightly worth consi

"You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style." nabakov would agree with you my opinion is Pale Fire is the only thing even slightly worth considering reading from him i'll refrain from recommending anything in his stead due to the fear of my disliking nabakov might sully your reception of anything i recommend; instead i'll say i empathise with your experience reading in an academic setting and encourage you to keep reading and seeking what all the fuss is about in regard other authors.. you may keep finding more and more that you enjoy reading

Fezzik 10y ago
Truly curious - what do you find his writing lacking? I am always surprised when people with any literary bent do not like him (this is the first I have heard someone who has read more than Lolita say as much...). I find his story construction and prose to be second to none.
- justifier 10y ago
  i will admit i've yet to have read your praised 'Beneficence' but i have read a few of his other works similarly to the gp's effort to 'see what all the fuss was about' i very much disliked lolita i'm unable to speak to story construction because i only vaguely recall the structure but i can speak to my distaste for the prose i have a lot of respect for multilinguals and the fact that nabokov wrote lolita in english is commendable but it reads to me like posturing i felt it was humorless yet aggressively attempting to be funny i feel people who like it inexplicably excuse its shortcomings as intentional or representative of the narrator, and i always felt if that was the penultimate interpretation i'd rather find meaning and enrichment in work that engaged with me as a reader instead of trying to troll me while hoping i grant its assumed brilliance credence i felt it self serving while being acutely self aware; further promoting said service which is also why in my opinion the only thing even slightly worth reading by nabokov is pale fire i feel it explicitly exhibits my interpretation of nabokov as an author someone obsessed with one's own literary importance based on one's own criteria of what makes good literature

Fezzik 10y ago

Truly curious - what do you find his writing lacking? I am always surprised when people with any literary bent do not like him (this is the first I have heard someone who has read more than Lolita say as much...). I find his story construction and prose to be second to none.

justifier 10y ago
i will admit i've yet to have read your praised 'Beneficence' but i have read a few of his other works similarly to the gp's effort to 'see what all the fuss was about' i very much disliked lolita i'm unable to speak to story construction because i only vaguely recall the structure but i can speak to my distaste for the prose i have a lot of respect for multilinguals and the fact that nabokov wrote lolita in english is commendable but it reads to me like posturing i felt it was humorless yet aggressively attempting to be funny i feel people who like it inexplicably excuse its shortcomings as intentional or representative of the narrator, and i always felt if that was the penultimate interpretation i'd rather find meaning and enrichment in work that engaged with me as a reader instead of trying to troll me while hoping i grant its assumed brilliance credence i felt it self serving while being acutely self aware; further promoting said service which is also why in my opinion the only thing even slightly worth reading by nabokov is pale fire i feel it explicitly exhibits my interpretation of nabokov as an author someone obsessed with one's own literary importance based on one's own criteria of what makes good literature