| |
|  |  |
 |
| Discussion: Vladimir Nabokov vladimir nabokov is a great great and only great writer. that is what I know about him. what do you know about nabokov? I am writing a thesis on Nabokov. Are you Iranian? What do you know about "psychoanalytic approach" to Nabokov's works? What is your topic? >>By zohreh This is going to sound stupid, but i need an answer...what 'sub-genre' would Lolita be considered? >>By Belle Has anybody ever read "the art of literature and Commonsense" by nabokov? >>By michael Nabokov was a brilliant artist. "Lolita," "Pale Fire" and "Ada" remain at the top of my list of favorite novels after more than 3 decades of serious reading. His work is awash in the beauty of language. >>By Persevere I can only surmise that an over-energetic academic thinks of VN as using the 'psychoanalytic approach'. I would like it closer to reality that he just writes. He is truly a word master. I must read more of his stuff. I would put Lolita in Erotic Fiction off the top of my head, but that's probably too simplistic (in deference to the academics). I am not an Iranian but they sure can cook. >>By sercher Rightly or not, Nabokov had nothing but disdain for psychoanalysis. Any mention of such things and the man himself in the same breath is causing the old master to roll repeatedly in his grave. (His rather cruel assessment of Freud was always the same: "That Viennese quack." You have to take the strongly opinionated V.N. on his terms or not at all. Such is the price - more often than not - of genius.) >>By Persevere Even though Vlad the Impugner may roll in his XL casket, you can still apply psychoanalytic literary criticism and theory to 'Lolita'. Just becaues Hitler hated the Jews doesn't mean a jew can't criticize Hitler, to use a flagrant bit of non-p.c. hyperbole. I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to analyze Lolita thusly, all I can say is get your Lacan on. That's the beauty of lit. theory, and often the reason its so obnoxious: you can apply it to anything -though usually its reserved for literature, I guess. Oh, and Persevere, though your admiration of Nabokov is evident, I'd say there's no greater insult to a genius than to pander to their terms. if he's such a genius then I'm sure he can endure a bit of theoretical poking and prodding. In fact, one of the reasons that Lolita does endure as a literary masterpiece is its ability to remain relevant and to turn aside, by virtue of its own excellence, petty critique. If I had to categorize it, it would be either a "Post-WWII American Novel" or "Kiddy Diddler Literature". >>By Ortho Stice i" ve read just about all he wrote and invitation to a beheading has been most influential in my work< not lolita< not pale fire< king queen nave< mary _ lolita is genre? sub_genre? why does there have to be genre at all? it is comic<sexual smart college_sex_abandonment_middle age> foreigners_beatnicks_middle class_bourgeois< proletariat >>By No Qualities I'm currently readin Lolita, and I love it so far. >>By Cult Icon What is the impact of Jorge Luis Borges on Nabokov? And how can I trace it in the Pale Fire?? Please answer me. :-) >>By Mitra To me, one of the most interesting things about Nabokov is the inherent unreliability of his texts. Lolita comes from a very biased point of view (Humbert himself), but additionally, Humbert makes allusions to how the text has passed out of his hands. At the end of the book the reader is unsure about what really happened (but I suppose plot is not foremost in appreciating Nabokov). Pnin has a similar twist at the end, in that a story you read about Pnin in the beginning is related by someone else differently, leaving the reader to wonder how much he/she can trust the narrator. What do you think of this device? >>By Rwelean What does it really mean to apply "psychoanalytic criticism?" Doesn't that approach require dialogue between the investigator and the subject? I have heard of critics psychoanalytically dissecting Hamlet before, but I confess that I was pretty confused. I can understand using concepts from psychology, in order to hypthesize as to the inner workings of a character's mind, but there can never be any feedback, or questions, for that matter. If that is true, then how can we arrive at an interesting conclusion? Perhaps it is just another wishy-washy, meaningless tactic in the long list of such devices found in the literary criticism handbook? >>By Hume Ungus You are not logged in. To access all functionality, you can log in via Flork. Flork is a worldwide community of people who are interested in music, movies and books. As a Flork-User, you can participate in this and other discussions, meet new people and exchange messages with other members directly: www.flork.com |