Where to start with Vladimir Nabokov, /lit/? (Bonus points if

Nabokov isn't hard, why would you want a guide you idiot?

Why do you not want Lolita included? Are you too cool for books that are well-known?

I'm not giving you a recommendation because you seem like a faggot

Pnin

Start with the Greeks Lolita

Pheobe

>he hasnt even started nabokov
Just admit your a fucking pleb and read lolita

Pale fire, pnin, or ada.

I think ada is a bit hard for your first Nabokov but it's very underrated

For the love of god: Pale Fire.

>>9095955
>Starting with Pale Fire
What are you doing.

>>9095999
What's wrong with that? It's not a difficult book, contrary to what popular opinion seems to suggest

Mary

can I start with transparent things?

>>9095938
Please don't start with Ada, but move to it eventually. It is my favourite book of all time but I don't want you to punt the experience by jumping in too early.

>>9095883
This is a good order (IMO):
>Laughter in the Dark (Under-rated desu, it's a dark comedy)
>Lolita (Fuck you, it's good and will (hopefully) hook you)
>Pnin
>Pale Fire (Pay close attention, there is much more going on than it ostensibly appears)
>Ada
>...
>Anything else that interests you. Speak Memory is great

>>9096011
Shit, forgot to name this one in my recs here >>9096129

This is also a good starting point

>>9096129
This guy knows what he's talking about. Listen to him OP. You could also start with something short like Invitation to a Beheading if you don't want to jump into a whole novel, but honestly just do it. And if Laughter in the dark doesn't hook you, try Lolita anyways. If nothing more you'll love its prose.

>>9096142
I'm always hesitant to rec Invitation because it requires some trust in Nabokov, and if it's your first of his it may lead to a poor perception/experience

>>9096009
>difficult book

Is /lit/ this stupid or is this a meme?

>>9096009
It's hard to say this with out sounding like a cunt but you likely missed a lot of subtle clues about what was going on, authorship, identity of characters, etc. Pale Fire is kinda' like the (better) literary equivalent of The Usual Suspects, if the last scene wasn't included in the movie.

>>9096058
You could, but there are better places to. I'd be like Starting Pynchon with Bleeding Edge. More of a 'Why' question, even if the answer may be 'Yes'

>>9095883
The Real Life of Sebastian Knight

>>9096192
So I get lectured on missed allusions by somebody who refers to the book as 'kinda like the (better) literary equivalent of The Usual Suspects.' Yes, you do sound like a cunt, and also an idiot. At least I had read all of the poets that were name-dropped in the novel, by the way, none of whom were even remotely obscure (Andrew Marvell and John Donne, for Christ sake)

>>9096225
Where did I mention allusions. And the fact that you can't see why that analogy is apt means you obviously did miss an important facet of the book. Who do you think was writing "Kinbote's" notes?

>>9096250
Kinbote, obviously.

Don't pretend that whatever your ridiculous pet theory is somehow an authoritative reading of the novel.

>>9096265
No. Nabokov himself said it wasn't Kinbote. And there is strong, albeit inconspicuous, evidence, which you patently missed.

It was Professor V. Botkin

>>9096307
my god you're stupid. Botkin was writing under Kinbote as a pseudonym, but it was still a first-person account of events, unless you subscribe to the ridiculous theory that Shade actually created Kinbote as a device to write a biography of himself. Like I suspected, you're an idiot

I hate /lit/. Every single thread devolves into a 'who is more intelligent' pissing contest. And the funny thing is, that in your little baby contest to see who is most write in determining the 'real author' of the commentary on Pale Fire, you both miss the point of the novel entirely, which is that commentary is necessarily subordinate to the narcissism and subjective predilections of the commentator, whomever that may have been

>>9096356
I thought the point was the guy in the smoking alien suit did it?

>>9096356
right*, calling my typo before some super intelligent scholar corrects it in an attempt use it as grounds to dismiss the entire post

>>9096334
>Who wrote Kinbote's notes?
>Obviously Kinbote did
>No, it was Botkin
>...We- well duh, it's just a pseudonym

Okay

>>9096400
Oh and forgot to add, it wasn't a first person account of events.

Kinbote is King Charles, who are both invented by Botkin

>>9096307
>>9096413
Some groundbreaking exegesis right here, gentlemen. And to think he figured it all out by himself.

>>9096491
Sarcasm doesn't really get you off the hook.

When you say something like:
>Botkin was writing under Kinbote as a pseudonym, but it was still a first-person account of events

and we even have Nabokov on the record saying:
>I wonder if any reader will notice the following details: 1) that the nasty commentator is not an ex-king and not even Dr. Kinbote, but Prof. Vseslav Botkin, a Russian and a madman...

it just means that I wasn't off the mark in saying you clearly missed what was going on, despite any claims of "It being easy" and me "being an idiot"

>>9096590
You're replying to at least 2 different people and thinking they're the same person. Sincerely, a lurker