This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1.Monkey.
Ah, Nabokov, one of my treasured favorites! I actually just got done reading Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited. I had no idea he came from... that! Haha. Have you read him? Does he warrant your praise? Very few get more of my own praise than he does! The things he could do with words... simply indescribable!
What are your plans for this month?
What are your plans for this month?
2sweetiegherkin
I've never read any Nabokov before so I'm going to go with the obvious selection - Lolita. Feels like something I "should" read anyway, just to get all the references.
3.Monkey.
I think it's a good first pick. I think there are probably a number of things that will go over your head without you even noticing they were there (this is why I went and bought The Annotated Lolita after having read the "regular" one from the library, because I know that I missed tons of things, even though I don't yet know what they were), but that that fact doesn't take anything away from the story. You know when you were a child and you watched something for adults and you loved it and thought it was funny, and you had no idea you weren't getting all of it? Nabokov is like that. Heh. So anyway, without fussing over that stuff, it's fairly straightforward story, easy to read and admire the way he writes. It was the first thing of his I read and I fell in love.
The only "flaw" to my mind was the French things HH spouts, that Nabokov never elucidates on (this is the case in all his books, he is prone to throwing out French phrases and expecting us to know it; however, they are minor things that don't impact the larger picture).
I think I will join in with my Annotated Lolita and then maybe I can share the more prominent enlightenments it provides with anyone who reads it. The text itself is about 315pgs and then there are almost 140pgs of notes and 50pgs of introduction plus a 4pg preface. :D
The only "flaw" to my mind was the French things HH spouts, that Nabokov never elucidates on (this is the case in all his books, he is prone to throwing out French phrases and expecting us to know it; however, they are minor things that don't impact the larger picture).
I think I will join in with my Annotated Lolita and then maybe I can share the more prominent enlightenments it provides with anyone who reads it. The text itself is about 315pgs and then there are almost 140pgs of notes and 50pgs of introduction plus a 4pg preface. :D
4vwinsloe
I've read Lolita years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I never read anything else. Any more suggestions?
5.Monkey.
I've got several more on my shelves but so far I've only read Bend Sinister, which was very good but difficult and had far more that I knowingly gazed up at as it flew past my head, lmao, and his autobiography, which was interesting to learn about where he came from, but is not quite your typical bio.
On my shelves, aside of the aforementioned, are most of his non-fic, plus Transparent Things, Nabokov's Quartet, and the more recently released unpublished unfinished The Original of Laura. The former are very slim volumes, so I may read one of them for this month as well.
On my shelves, aside of the aforementioned, are most of his non-fic, plus Transparent Things, Nabokov's Quartet, and the more recently released unpublished unfinished The Original of Laura. The former are very slim volumes, so I may read one of them for this month as well.
6sweetiegherkin
The only "flaw" to my mind was the French things HH spouts, that Nabokov never elucidates on (this is the case in all his books, he is prone to throwing out French phrases and expecting us to know it; however, they are minor things that don't impact the larger picture).
I feel like that is fairly common in classic literature. I studied French in school so I can usually get the gist of it but if I can't, I look it up. That does detract a little from the reading experience though if it becomes a constant interruption.
That would be awesome if you updated with some tidbits from the annotated version. Someone was doing that with the annotated P&P over in the Jane Austen group and it was really fun. I've read P&P more than once and seen every movie version and I was still learning things I had never thought of before.
I feel like that is fairly common in classic literature. I studied French in school so I can usually get the gist of it but if I can't, I look it up. That does detract a little from the reading experience though if it becomes a constant interruption.
That would be awesome if you updated with some tidbits from the annotated version. Someone was doing that with the annotated P&P over in the Jane Austen group and it was really fun. I've read P&P more than once and seen every movie version and I was still learning things I had never thought of before.
7overlycriticalelisa
>3 .Monkey.:
yes! i freaking hate it when authors do that. he's not the only one, by far, to write in other languages and, what, expect the reader to just know? drives me crazy when authors do that. i feel like i'm probably not missing too much if i don't speak french or german or spanish (what did i recently read that had all of those languages and more?) but i also feel like, 'you wrote this so you want us to read it, how hard is a footnote at the bottom of the page??'
but, to be fair to nabokov, i had forgotten he'd done that in this book, i liked it so much. although now i remember that i was frustrated at the time.
yes! i freaking hate it when authors do that. he's not the only one, by far, to write in other languages and, what, expect the reader to just know? drives me crazy when authors do that. i feel like i'm probably not missing too much if i don't speak french or german or spanish (what did i recently read that had all of those languages and more?) but i also feel like, 'you wrote this so you want us to read it, how hard is a footnote at the bottom of the page??'
but, to be fair to nabokov, i had forgotten he'd done that in this book, i liked it so much. although now i remember that i was frustrated at the time.
8.Monkey.
Haha, yes, it's frustrating, but I'm pretty positive he didn't intend to be that way, I really think he was just in a world of his own and had no idea how many people wouldn't be able to read those lines. But he felt more comfortable with them than he did with English. Absurd, when you consider the insane wealth of his vocabulary, but, there you go!
9sweetiegherkin
> 7, 8 I think it was more common back then for well-educated people (i.e., the book readers) to speak French as well as English.
10.Monkey.
A long while back, sure, but not during the period he wrote, not in English speaking countries. He's not that old :P He didn't do it because of others, he did it because he felt more at home with French than English; whether anyone else would understand those bits or not was really not a concern to him. He was absolutely brilliant and I adore him, but he was ...well he knew his intellect was superior to most and while he didn't flaunt it, he simply couldn't be bothered to deal with anyone who didn't understand what he did.
11sweetiegherkin
Yes, I suppose I was thinking more of Victorian era writers (and earlier) but it was still fairly common even through the 50s, I believe. Interesting that he felt more at home with French than English though; I confess I know very little about his life.
12March-Hare
I've been reading portions of Lectures on Literature and I'm hooked. I'll be around even if I don't decide to read anything. Any thoughts on Pale Fire as a choice?
13.Monkey.
>11 sweetiegherkin: Yeah, he had talked about feeling like he was inadequately able to express himself in English, if you can possibly believe that! ;)
>12 March-Hare: I have that one as well as on Russian Literature :) Pale Fire is one I have not yet acquired, so I can't say personally, but I know it's one of those very highly rated of his, if that helps any.
>12 March-Hare: I have that one as well as on Russian Literature :) Pale Fire is one I have not yet acquired, so I can't say personally, but I know it's one of those very highly rated of his, if that helps any.
14Meredy
If a lurker may comment...I'd start somewhere other than with Pale Fire. It can be hard going, though in my opinion it exerts a certain necessity over a committed reader and does reward effort handsomely. (I read it last year. My review is here: http://www.librarything.com/work/7714/reviews/80056936)
My first Nabokov, a great many years back, was Despair, a Doppelgänger tale that almost seems like a parody of Dostoevsky's The Double. I went on through Invitation to a Beheading, Pnin, King, Queen, Knave, and several others before I came to Lolita. Probably my favorite was Ada, a massive thing that more or less owned me while I was reading it. This was more than thirty years ago, since which time I also read the lectures and (regrettably) The Original of Laura. I'm not actually sure I was ready for the puzzles and ambiguities of Pale Fire any sooner.
My first Nabokov, a great many years back, was Despair, a Doppelgänger tale that almost seems like a parody of Dostoevsky's The Double. I went on through Invitation to a Beheading, Pnin, King, Queen, Knave, and several others before I came to Lolita. Probably my favorite was Ada, a massive thing that more or less owned me while I was reading it. This was more than thirty years ago, since which time I also read the lectures and (regrettably) The Original of Laura. I'm not actually sure I was ready for the puzzles and ambiguities of Pale Fire any sooner.
15.Monkey.
Anyone with something to say is welcome to hop in any time. :) Interesting, I will keep that in mind.
16March-Hare
>14 Meredy: Thanks for the thoughtful post. Sounds like I might never be ready.
17edwinbcn
I haven't read anything by Nabokov since I read Speak, memory. An autobiography revisited in 1990. In March, I will read his Collected Stories and Lolita.
18almigwin
I tried to read him in chronological order, starting with the novels written in Russian and proceeding to the English ones. I loved the Russian ones, like Mary, Despair,and King, Queen, Knave, but I found his English ones, although brilliant, very cold and hard and lacking in sympathetic treatment of women. This is surprising, since he adored his wife, Vera.
I did not read Ada, but I did read the others. My favorite of the English ones is Pnin. However, His Lectures on Russian Literature and his Lectures on English Literature are marvels of helpfulness. His discussion of the topography of the Dublin Streets in Ulysses is priceless. These were written lectures given to college students. I believe it was at Cornell.
He had to work until Lolita made him a millionaire, and he was able to retire to Montreux, to a hotel that had services. He could then live the life of a pampered aristocrat that he would have been in Russia if the revolution had not driven his family out. I believe his father was assassinated in Berlin, where the family was first exiled.
Nabokov had had an English governess, and was later educated in Britain (I believe it was Cambridge), so his ability to write so well in English is partially explained. The rest is genius.
I did not read Ada, but I did read the others. My favorite of the English ones is Pnin. However, His Lectures on Russian Literature and his Lectures on English Literature are marvels of helpfulness. His discussion of the topography of the Dublin Streets in Ulysses is priceless. These were written lectures given to college students. I believe it was at Cornell.
He had to work until Lolita made him a millionaire, and he was able to retire to Montreux, to a hotel that had services. He could then live the life of a pampered aristocrat that he would have been in Russia if the revolution had not driven his family out. I believe his father was assassinated in Berlin, where the family was first exiled.
Nabokov had had an English governess, and was later educated in Britain (I believe it was Cambridge), so his ability to write so well in English is partially explained. The rest is genius.
19.Monkey.
I've read his autobiography, I know his family history very well. ;) It's not that his ability for English needs explaining, it's that he himself always said he didn't feel he was as competent in it, yet he was far more brilliant an English author than 99.9% of native-speaking ones. And he wasn't exactly the modest humble type, either, hahaha, so clearly he really meant it and felt that way! I would love to see what he'd have done had he ever felt that he truly mastered it, goodness, I can't even imagine what the result would have been!
20March-Hare
>18 almigwin: Well said on the Lectures on English Literature. Highly recommended.
21.Monkey.
I believe you guys just mean Lectures on Literature, no "English." ;)
22March-Hare
Yep
23missizicks
I'm having a year of "Always Meant To Read" and Lolita is on there so, as long as I finish War and Peace in time, I'll give it a go in March. I like the sound of Despair, as well. I love The Double, so seeing Meredy's description of Despair being like a parody of The Double intrigues me.
24Oandthegang
Oh dear. I too have had Nabakov lurking about the house, but reading this chain makes all his work sound rather daunting.
On the question of writing in more than one language, I am obviously at a disadvantage in that I haven't read the works in which the troublesome French appears, but I think it is perfectly valid for an author to change language when appropriate. It is surely a matter for the editor/publisher to include a footnote if they feel it appropriate. On two different levels, the translator of Andrea Camilleri's Inspector Montalbano series has notes at the end of each book explaining the nuance of particular expressions and/or meaning of words which could not be directly translated, but there are no annoying numbers or footnotes scattered through the book (indeed I was surprised to find the notes when I got to the end), on the other hand Patrick Leigh Fermor's books include quotations from works in other languages, particularly ancient Greek, because the people about whom he writes would themselves have quoted those works in their original languages; it is rather the point that they did. I don't speak Greek, but if I really want a translation of an ode I can look it up. If I don't I can just sail on. One might equally argue that authors should not use difficult vocabulary as the reader may have to look up unfamiliar words.
Don't know if I'll be joining this read, though I know I should.
On the question of writing in more than one language, I am obviously at a disadvantage in that I haven't read the works in which the troublesome French appears, but I think it is perfectly valid for an author to change language when appropriate. It is surely a matter for the editor/publisher to include a footnote if they feel it appropriate. On two different levels, the translator of Andrea Camilleri's Inspector Montalbano series has notes at the end of each book explaining the nuance of particular expressions and/or meaning of words which could not be directly translated, but there are no annoying numbers or footnotes scattered through the book (indeed I was surprised to find the notes when I got to the end), on the other hand Patrick Leigh Fermor's books include quotations from works in other languages, particularly ancient Greek, because the people about whom he writes would themselves have quoted those works in their original languages; it is rather the point that they did. I don't speak Greek, but if I really want a translation of an ode I can look it up. If I don't I can just sail on. One might equally argue that authors should not use difficult vocabulary as the reader may have to look up unfamiliar words.
Don't know if I'll be joining this read, though I know I should.
25overlycriticalelisa
>24 Oandthegang:
i'll admit that i get annoyed with authors who drive me to the dictionary more than i'd like (john banville's the sea comes to mind as one that i had to read with the dictionary next to me for use virtually on every page) but that's different than writing in a different language. a short conversation between two people or even just a few lines in a different language isn't as easy to look up as a word. i trust when i'm reading something that the authors put everything in their book because it matters. so not knowing german or greek or french, or how to unconjugate a verb to find its meaning isn't fair (in my opinion) as i feel like i'm missing out on something. a footnote at the bottom of the page is unobtrusive (to me) and if you don't want to bother with it you don't have to.
i'll admit that i get annoyed with authors who drive me to the dictionary more than i'd like (john banville's the sea comes to mind as one that i had to read with the dictionary next to me for use virtually on every page) but that's different than writing in a different language. a short conversation between two people or even just a few lines in a different language isn't as easy to look up as a word. i trust when i'm reading something that the authors put everything in their book because it matters. so not knowing german or greek or french, or how to unconjugate a verb to find its meaning isn't fair (in my opinion) as i feel like i'm missing out on something. a footnote at the bottom of the page is unobtrusive (to me) and if you don't want to bother with it you don't have to.
26.Monkey.
>25 overlycriticalelisa: I agree. While I agree with 24 that there's no reason not to include them when the author feels it appropriate, I do think the editor should realize that people ought to be able to know what's going on and include notes with the translation.
>24 Oandthegang: Please don't skip on Nabokov just because he's not the easiest! He's one of the most brilliant writers ever, it is most certainly worth the bit of effort it takes for what you get out of it.
>24 Oandthegang: Please don't skip on Nabokov just because he's not the easiest! He's one of the most brilliant writers ever, it is most certainly worth the bit of effort it takes for what you get out of it.
27.Monkey.
Has anyone started on their Nabokov? I'm presently in the midst of three books (not my thing, I rarely read more than one at a time, and never more than two!) but I'm almost done with one and 2/3rds done with another, so I should be getting out my Annotated Lolita in a couple days!
28aliciamay
Catching up on this group. I've just requested Lolita from the library. This will be my first Nabokov and I'm looking forward to it...well maybe that's not the right phrase.
29.Monkey.
Did anyone read their Nabokov? I started my Annotated Lolita but the annotations add a lot of extra reading that kind of takes away from the rhythm of the story so I haven't gotten too far yet. Definitely not recommended for a first read-through, it'd be crazy! I want to finish up my Holocaust book and then this ebook I need to read, but hopefully by the end of this month I'll have finished it, or at least made a good dent!
30Oandthegang
I wimped out.
32March-Hare
I'm dipping into Lectures on Russian Literature.
33.Monkey.
I have that one, but I'm saving it until I've read all the books he discusses. Technically I could just read about the ones I've read, but... I just hate not reading a book all the way through, even if it's not a plot-centered book! :P
34March-Hare
Why is that? I'm just curious because it seems a fairly prevalent approach in these forums. I mean, what would be "lost" if you didn't read something all the way through?
35overlycriticalelisa
>34 March-Hare:
like >33 .Monkey.:, i can't seem to skip around or only read "pertinent" parts of books. (last year i read a book called yes means yes and in the introduction it tells you all about how to skip through the book reading the essays in an order other than the way it's laid out if you want. can't do it.) for me - well i feel like things are arranged in the order they're in for a reason. i feel like there is often reference or building from one section to another, even in the kind of book that >33 .Monkey.: is referring to. as to skipping around in a fiction book, unless it's utterly insufferable, i also feel strongly that the writer put everything there for us to read and i'm not going to jump over anything. including the end - once i start a book i can't not finish it. maybe one day...
like >33 .Monkey.:, i can't seem to skip around or only read "pertinent" parts of books. (last year i read a book called yes means yes and in the introduction it tells you all about how to skip through the book reading the essays in an order other than the way it's laid out if you want. can't do it.) for me - well i feel like things are arranged in the order they're in for a reason. i feel like there is often reference or building from one section to another, even in the kind of book that >33 .Monkey.: is referring to. as to skipping around in a fiction book, unless it's utterly insufferable, i also feel strongly that the writer put everything there for us to read and i'm not going to jump over anything. including the end - once i start a book i can't not finish it. maybe one day...
36.Monkey.
Yup, agreed. If I don't plan on reading it through, why pick it up? To me that just doesn't make any sense. It also makes me cringe when people talk flippantly about reading series out of order, or just skimming/skipping chunks of books, or flipping to the end to find out what happens first, etc. *shrug* I think books are meant to be read cover-to-cover, in the order they're arranged, and that's that.
37overlycriticalelisa
::nods vigorously::
38March-Hare
What if you are re-reading something?
39.Monkey.
Well, for one, there are way too many things out there I want to read for me to throw away my time on something I've already read—rereads are incredibly exceptionally rare. For two, if I'm going to reread it, I'm going to reread it, front to back.
40overlycriticalelisa
>38 March-Hare:
the last thing >39 .Monkey.: said. i do reread, and i reread every word (in order) when i do.
the last thing >39 .Monkey.: said. i do reread, and i reread every word (in order) when i do.
41March-Hare
>39 .Monkey.:
But so few favorites worth returning to? I think it was Novalis who said "a good book should be like a person, quite inexhaustible".
But so few favorites worth returning to? I think it was Novalis who said "a good book should be like a person, quite inexhaustible".
