>thinking your "big ideas" can in any way make up

Except Faulkner. He was just butthurt that Faulkner exceeded him as a writer in every way possible.

>>7976210
>He was just butthurt that Faulkner exceeded him as a writer in every way possible.

Not in poetic prose. Nabokov knew how to write metaphors, but Faulkner couldn’t do it.

And Lolita is a better book than anything by Faulkner, and will survive longer in the minds of readers and the general public.

>>7976245
And that is the immortality you and I may share

>>7976245
That's entirely due to the movie.

>>7976245

Lolita's only well known because lol pedophilia. Pale Fire is Nabokov's only masterpiece, and even it doesn't stand up to Faulkner's best novels.

Does context mean anything to you people?

>>7976265
triggered

>>7976253
>And that is the immortality you and I may share

that ending sentence is beautiful

>>7976257
Maybe.

>>7976100
all i know is infinite jest has a lot of ideas and it was boring as hell. write some essays if they are so solid, but dont mix your shit up in fiction if you cant write

>taking Nabokov literary

not contesting everything he says just like in the books he writes

>Nabodrones
Is there a more desperate bunch of tryhards on /lit/?

File: Fyodor-Dostoyevsky1.jpg (107KB, 495x435px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 495x435px

Whatever you say, vladdie laddie. You're the one that needs to be an authority.

>thinking your "beautiful descriptions" can in any way make up for your lack of ideas

>tfw your good writing can't make up for having no ideas

Would anybody be interested in reading a novel made up of just long descriptive passages and maybe a tiny bit of plot?

>>7976468
I doubt you could find a better example of a writer whose ideas are let down by dry, lifeless prose. OP is wrong, by the way. Nabokov did have ideas; his novels are not just exercises in style, though his ideas are not in your face obvious like they are with writers of lesser talent.

>>7976576
Yes? I couldn't give a fuck less about what time Greg Berrycone went to the store, or that his Aunt was the first female CEO of a long family owned local steel mill.

>>7976100
Can't imagine this closet homosexual ever doing something manly like boxing. Overrated fluff sucking Henry James' cock.

>>7976576
>>7976626
Why not just read non-fiction, then?

>>7977811
Because it might make me utterly braindead like you.

>>7977798

I'm not even gay, but do you really think homosexuality and manliness are mutually exclusive?


Oh, you must be shitposting. Carry on, then.

>>7977798
He called James a 'pale porpoise' and certainly not a genius.

Nabokov excelled in metaphysical fiction, and used the shocking 'extremities' of sociological norms to ground his meta plots.

Faulkner was able to evoke powerful emotional responses, with and without observing sociological extremities, with simpler plots and characters, but no less beautiful prose.

Both men were masters, let's just leave it at that.

>>7977854
I think Walt Whitman was pretty manly, but I would hardly demean him by calling him a closet homosexual or a faggot like I would with Nabokov.

>>7977868
>didn't catch the anxiety of influence
Just a faggot getting catty like a bitch, nigger.

God, you /lit/eratti are fucking insensitive with your implying. It's like you don't even respect anyone's opinion. Fucking edgelords. Better thump your Walter Benjamin some more at your favorite starbucks.

>>7976596
>I doubt you could find a better example of a writer whose ideas are let down by dry, lifeless prose.
And yet he's still more read than Nabokov.