>Camus, Albert. Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up.

>>7851220
Source please.

Cornfather was right about everyone except for Faulkner

Really seems to have a type in terms of his resentment for existentialist and absurdists, I used to really like Camus, and while I can level with a person's outrage towards that movement for being too....quasi romantic, to zealously go out of your way to individually criticize writers of the movement seems a bit counter-intuitive in a broad sense... Don't get me wrong I still love Camus, I just think I got out of that all I could, thoughts? Personal experiences? Recommendations? Shoot.

>>7851356
http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations

>>7851220
Nabokov, like his early work although his prose is patball compared to Joyce's champion game.

i feel like in order to become a really intensely good artist, you have to form a somewhat blinkered view of what that art should be, to pursue one particular aesthetic as far as you can to the exclusion of all others, in a way that can make you shut out and disregard other art that others might find worthwhile, because it doesn't sit well with your personal approach that you've brought that fucking fire to.
so that's why some great artists hate other great artists, they are so invested in their own way of doing things and the necessary rightness of that approach

whereas i'm a grazing pleb who can just consume whatever from all sorts of different people because i don't have as much of a stake in it

>>7851220
>Nabokov, Vladimir. Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. Nothing I would care to have written myself. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.

Sartre, Mann and Camus are pretty shitty tier indeed.

>Nabokov, Vladimir. A favorite between the ages 2 and 5, but no longer. Essentially a writer for very young people. Certainly inferior to King and Green. A tense-looking but really very loose type of writing. A formidable mediocrity.

I'm triggered when he mentions Dostoevsky. But again what do you expect from an immortal autistic paedophile.

>>7851544
i don't know how you can put Mann in Camus and Sartre's tier unless, as i suspect, you've never read himl.

>Nabokov, Vladimir. Intense autist. Masturbates on little girls and butterflies. Good prose.

>>7851220

He's right in much of what he says: these writers are all devoid of poetry and the ability to create memorable characters (with some exceptions in Dostoyevsky and Hemingway). Try to write a work in order to pass a message or create a philosophy is really something mediocre writers do (unexciting to create humanity or poetic fire)

And why are you people so found of Faulkner? I challenge anyone here to quote some literary excerpt from Faulkner that compares with even average bits of verbal poetry in Shakespare and Nabokov.

Faulkner admitted himself that he was a frustrated poet, and his work shows that all the time.

>>7851577
You clearly have never read any of Absalom, Absalom!

>>7851577
>I challenge anyone here to quote some literary excerpt from Faulkner that compares with even average bits of verbal poetry in Shakespare and Nabokov.
They stand in rigid terrific hiatus, the horse trembling and groaning. Then Jewel is on the horse's back. He flows upward in a stooping swirl like the lash of a whip, his body in mid-air shaped to the horse. For another moment the horse stands spraddled, with lowered head, before it bursts into motion. They descend the hill in a series of spine-jolting jumps, Jewel high, leech-like on the withers, to the fence where the horse bunches to a scuttering halt again.

>>7851220
>what the fuck was this guy's problem?
he had the nerve to have taste

>>7851577
Wow you are a fucking retard in regards to Faulkner

>Gogol, Nikolai. Nobody takes his mystical didacticism seriously. At his worst, as in his Ukrainian stuff, he is a worthless writer; at his best, he is incomparable and inimitable. Loathe his moralistic slant, am depressed and puzzled by his inability to describe young women, deplore his obsession with religion.
>am depressed and puzzled by his inability to describe young women

I thought it was hilarious how Gogol spent paragraphs explaining why how futile it would be to describe his female characters rather than actually just describe them

" a mediocre and mannered pseudo poet" houellebecq on nabokov

>>7851584

Now this is what I am talking about. This is a fine excerpt, but it lacks the sublime verbal heat, the sap of Venus ovaries, the fire that runs in the marrow of Apollo, the juice of the grape-clusters of the fantasy vineyards, things of this poetic level

“I recall certain moments, let us call them icebergs in paradise, when after having had my fill of her –after fabulous, insane exertions that left me limp and azure-barred–I would gather her in my arms with, at last, a mute moan of human tenderness (her skin glistening in the neon light coming from the paved court through the slits in the blind, her soot-black lashes matted, her grave gray eyes more vacant than ever–for all the world a little patient still in the confusion of a drug after a major operation)–and the tenderness would deepen to shame and despair, and I would lull and rock my lone light Lolita in my marble arms, and moan in her warm hair, and caress her at random and mutely ask her blessing, and at the peak of this human agonized selfless tenderness (with my soul actually hanging around her naked body and ready to repent), all at once, ironically, horribly, lust would swell again–and 'oh, no,' Lolita would say with a sigh to heaven, and the next moment the tenderness and the azure–all would be shattered.”

or

"I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another's child, but still grey eyed, still sooty- lashed, still auburn and almond... No matter, even if those eyes of hers would fade to myopic fish, and her nipples swell and crack, and her lovely young velvety delicate delta be tainted and torn even then I would go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of your dear wan face, at the mere sound of your raucous young voice, my Lolita"

or

"A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

>>7851613
>>7851613
ta-ta-ta-ta-TOLD

>>7851220

Nabokov is an engineering writer with no actual feeling in his works. Sophisticated, but dull as fuck.

>>7851577
>I challenge anyone here to quote some literary excerpt from Faulkner that compares with even average bits of verbal poetry in Shakespare and Nabokov
>in Shakespare and Nabokov
Are you actually equating these two authors? Holy shit Nabokov posters are delusional

>>7851628

No,I just mentioned something more modern and mostly written in prose to try not to be unfair with Faulkner.

Shakespeare is in a category of his own. Tolstoy is the only competitor.

>>7851613
>houellebecq

There is no need to help Nabokov on that: this guy is so much of a clown that he is his own critic and enemy.

>>7851616
That's just your preference. That's all it is.

>>7851616
>and, and, and,
Terrible. Even as a run-on sentence it lacks clear flow. Purple trash.

>>7851626
>>7851613
Agreed 100 percent

>Nabokov, Vladimir. A favorite between the ages 12 and 16. Essentially a writer for young girls. Relies on prose with no substance and deeper meaning. In mentality and emotion, hopelessly robotic. Purple trash.

>>7851616
>but it lacks the sublime verbal heat, the sap of Venus ovaries, the fire that runs in the marrow of Apollo, the juice of the grape-clusters of the fantasy vineyards
compelling argument mon senpai

>>7851616
You realize he shit on Dubliners, right?

>>7851653
dubliners was a bit shit tho lets be real

He's not nearly as much of a bitch as Tolstoy, though.

>>7851642

You can say that and be right, I admit. But my problem with Faulkner is that he tries to be poetic (he was, after all, a fan of Keats, Shakespeare and poets above all other writers) but nearly always without reliance on imagery. What kind of author is hailed as a prose poet, a poet of modernity, but it is not competent in using metaphors?

>>7851645

You are just mad with Nabokov and willing to attack him without a fair trial. I will not waste time with you. Come back when you sober up.

>>7851653

We have to be careful with the views taken of the compilations of his interviews. He often said things on a general and unspecific way things that, when he was calmer or preparing a lecture he would not say. With Joyce, and that even with Ulysses, he loved some parts to the last roots of his soul, and thought of other that they were poor and did not deserve much attention.

I do not think this final paragraph of The Dead was something that did not please him. I'm sure he thought this was a sublime passage as poetry.

>>7851651

You are mocking me, I get it

His criticisms of Dostoevsky smell like jelly

>>7851645

pleb.

>>7851653
He didn't like Finnegans Wake either despite it being the epitome of finding delight in language.

he taught people to argue against his interpretation which was a main point of all his writing. Nothing he said should be taken as a fact

>>7851698
>it being the epitome of finding delight in language.

That is Shakespeare. FW is nothing compared to the best poetry in the plays.

>>7851685
>you're just mad with Nabokov
Nah. Nothing of that first extract you posted was at all poetic. The second one is better.

>>7851616
>Finally after all these years I have become The Dead
>good

File: 1456243042989.jpg (288KB, 900x946px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 900x946px

>>7851702

underrated post

> a Jew disregarding every work regarding morality and religion as "cheap sensationalism."

How surprising

>>7851845

He was not a jew

(and that is the least dumb thing in your post)

>like Dickens and Tolstoy
>hate Dostoevsky

weird

>>7851854
His wife was. A Jew lover nevertheless.

But then again, Nabokov was the man who wrote Ada, the most conceited work of would-be art in world history, so we know not to take his opinions seriously.

his problem was that he was insanely cool and had gigantic nads

>>7851220
he's wrong about camus, dostoevsky, and hemingway.

he's definitely right about Sartre.

>Wallace, David Foster. A favourite between 3 and 1 feet above the porch. No discernible talent.

>>7851220
He browsed /lit/ too much and started thinking he mattered.

He's right. Fuck niggers who try to peddle their 10th rate philosophy throuhg cryptic ways in their """""""""""literature""""""""""".

>>7851616
What say you to this excerpt my fine fellow?

"Then he knew what that sensation in his stomach meant. He put the photograph down hurriedly and went to the bathroom. He opened the door running and fumbled at the light. But he had not time to find it and he gave over and plunged forward and struck the lavatory and leaned upon his braced arms while the shucks set up a terrific uproar beneath her thighs. Lying with her head lifted slightly, her chin depressed like a figure lifted down from a crucifix, she watched something black and furious go roaring out of her pale body. SHe was bound naked on her back on a flat car moving at speed through a black tunnel, the blackness streaming in rigid threads overhead now shredded with parallel attenuations of living fire, toward a crescendo like a held breath, an interval in which she would swing faintly and lazily in nothingness filled with pale, myriad points of light. Far beneath her she could hear the faint, uproar of the shucks."

>>7851605
Nabokov is very good with young women, very good with very young women. amiright?

>>7851616
>sublime verbal heat, the sap of Venus ovaries, the fire that runs in the marrow of Apollo, the juice of the grape-clusters of the fantasy vineyards,

I actually liked this line, especially

>the sap of Venus ovaries

>>7852403
>Menstrual blood

>>7852403
>>7852434

Joycean flavor

File: 6a00d8354d066f69e2015434bbe112970c.jpg (274KB, 457x584px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 457x584px

What would Nabokov have to say about Vonnegut, DFW, Ellis, Pynchon, Zadie Smith, Tao Lin, Green, Murakami and Rowling?

>>7852490
Vonnegut: Dislike him. A bantamweight pulp writer with pretensions to grandeur. A fool.

Wallace: Puffed-up, inconsequential, with a special talent for making any subject dull. Means absolutely nothing to me.

Ellis: An insensitive and vainglorious clod, utterly lacking in imagination and wit. Despise his smirking satires.

Pynchon: A clever but tiresome champion of the stoner tale. Some of his names are incredibly amusing. One suspects he is incapable of laughter.

Smith: Atrocious. Refuse to read any more of her after attempting "White Teeth".

Lin: Dislike him. As ephemeral as a passing cloud. A nonenity, means absolutely nothing to me.

Green: A revolting charlatan only able to communicate in the stereotyped language of kitsch. Deserves death.

Murakami: A bloated and self-important writer of books for boys. Perhaps even more juvenile than his audience. Dislike him immensely.

Rowling: Loathe her and her mean, petty, prissy little books. Her morality is gangrenous and in need of amputation.

>>7852526

lol

10/10

>>7851515
yes and no. i think that approach is only going to suit genre fiction. proper literary fiction benefits from the influence of a lot of aesthetics merging together. i understand having strong convictions, but at the same time, if an author is too invested in one way of thinking, they will keep writing the same book

>>7852526
I was waiting for this.

Arigato senpai

>>7852526
>Deserves death.

fucking lel

Have to wonder what he'd think of the Wolfester. Would he dismiss him for writing science fiction and fantasy? Would he like him the way he liked Borges? Hard to say.

>>7852261

I hope you're being ironic, because Ada is a way worse example of that than anything that Camus wrote.

>Bely, Andrei. Petersburg. Third-greatest masterpiece of 20th century prose. A splendid fantasy.

nabokov had good taste

>>7851550
He's right about Dostoevsky. Most of the people here just like him because 'muh deep themes'. He's awful as a writer.

File: 1450099539398.gif (561KB, 500x295px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 500x295px

>>7851550
>immortal

He only cares about prose, and even that has to be similar to his own.

>>7853072
You must've never read Dostoevsky pal

File: 1420868687659.gif (968KB, 380x262px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 380x262px

>>7852526

Smashing! Simply Brilliant!

File: 1452375865568.jpg (33KB, 500x654px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x654px

What an autist.

I give Lolita a 7/10 purely for the flowery prose, but the way he criticizes Gogol and Dostoevsky is hilarious since Lolita is pretty much an expressionist form second rate moralism. Nabokov makes Humbert into a pathetic human being because he knows that pedophiliac relationship presented in a naturalist way would have been too much for his readers to swallow.

Also, this so called "amoral and naturalist" writer isolated his younger brother for being gay. What a hypocritical piece of shit.

>>7853405
>Nabokov makes Humbert into a pathetic human being because he knows that pedophiliac relationship presented in a naturalist way would have been too much for his readers to swallow.
Ahahahahaha are you for real?

>>7853409

Nowhere in the book does Lolita fall in love with Humbert.

"With the gun which was too big for him, the breech-loader which did not even belong to him but to Major de Spain and which he had fired only once, at a stump on the first day to learn the recoil and how to reload it with the paper shells, he stood against a big gum tree beside a little bayou whose black still water crept without motion out of a cane-brake, across a small clearing and into the cane again, where, invisible, a bird, the big woodpecker called Lord-to-God by negroes, clattered at a dead trunk. It was a stand like any other stand, dissimilar only in incidentals to the one where he had stood each morning for two weeks; a territory new to him yet no less familiar than that other one which after two weeks he had come to believe he knew a little--the same solitude, the same loneliness through which frail and timorous man had merely passed without altering it, leaving no mark nor scar, which looked exactly as it must have looked when the first ancestor of Sam fathers' Chickasaw predecessors crept into it and looked about him, club or stone axe or bone arrow drawn and ready, different only because, squatting at the edge of the kitchen, he had smelled the dogs huddled and cringing beneath it and saw the raked ear and side of the bitch that, as Sam had said, had to be brave once in order to keep on calling herself a dog, and saw yesterday in the earth beside the gutted log, the print of the living foot. He heard no dogs at all. He never did certainly hear them. He only heard the drumming of the woodpecker stop short off, and knew that the bear was looking at him. he did not move, holding the useless gun which he knew now he would never fire at it, now or ever, tasting in his saliva that taint of brass which he had smelled in the huddled dogs when he peered under the kitchen."

- Faulkner.

>>7851637
shitty opinion m8

>>7853553
Better than yours; i could teach you but i would have to charge. La la la la la

>>7853631
keep sucking shakespeare's dick. sure no other writer has ever come even close to his greatness :^)

>>7853638
Read his works first, not just 2 or 3 of his tragedies, then we talk. Just curious: who do you think can beat him? I have never read anything like his poetry: it seems that all his works are in the same language level as the final voice of god from the tempest in the end of the book of Job.

>>7853669
Musil for philosophy/psychology
Joyce for language.
Leopardi for poetry

>>7853684
>who do you think is a better runner than usain bolt?
>[x] for shoe size
>[y] for stride
>[z] for quietness of footfall

you're a shmoe