What does /lit/ think of Vladimir Nabokov?

>>8653942
kov general here

>>8655718
Nabokov, Vladimir. Dislike him

>>8655729

Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up.

claptrap, slapdash

File: 108-0717095706-jimmy-carter-peanut.jpg (59KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x400px

Nabokov, Vladimir. A manchild of mediocrity. Loathe him. Ephemeral, third rate. His chess puzzles are lovely, but his literature is moronic, mindless. How one gets lost in his logorrheic labyrinths! A tragedy for trees. Autistic auteur, athematic Aesthetic. Almost as bad as Sartre.

>>8655718
Bad reader of Don Quixote and Austen.

>>8655829

bad reader of almost everything.

> Okay so like, in The Metamorphosis, the translation into english is so WRONG! Let me highlight how bad it is! It says hideous insect, but that's claptrap. The german words are closer to Monstrous and Vermin. Vermin, of course, having a greater psychological depth.

> but professor, what about the theme or--

> THE BUG HAD WINGS!!! ALL THE BUG HAD TO DO WAS FLY!!! ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS BELIEVE HE COULD FLY!!! WAnna see my diagram I drew of the bug???

Put his books back in the thrift store garbage can you found them in. A better question is why do you pick up books from thrift store garbage cans. Your hands are filthy.

Laughter in the Dark is great

Lolita is a pure fun

>>8655718
Are his books on western literature a good source to learn from it?

>>8655718
Why are you asking what a bunch of people who rarely put their money where pseudo-intellectual mouths are what they think anything? Literary critics exist so you can gather educated opinions about an author or work—despite being only opinions. Here you'll get all the opinion, very ardently and dichotomously, with little 'educatedness'. So if you want to be told what to think, then look elsewhere or, better yet, find another interest where you can actually draw your own conclusions—you'll feel better in the long run and actually have an identity that way, rather than inauthentically attempt to convince yourselves and others that you're smart enough to casually enjoy high brow literature.

>>8655831

fucking kekked

>>8655718

Excellent writer of prose, interesting opinions of the capability of literature. Lolita is a great book. Also a bitter academic, treats his ego-fueled opinions as facts, memed too hard with Pale Fire and made himself look like a posturing tryhard.

>>8655829
Kek, one of my English professors likes to talk about how Nabokov had pretty strong opinions that women were terrible writers, then he read Austen and was mortified to discover that she was a genius.

I wanna piss on this dudes grave for his shitty opinions

>>8655823
your style comes across as really affected, much too self-conscious
and
>A manchild of mediocrity

he's a mediocre manchild, maybe, but a manchild of mediocrity?