Author Spotlight
NABOKOV SMIRKING IN INTERVIEW (SORRY, KINGSLEY, I LOVE HIS TRICKS)
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldpj_5JNFoA
Every now & then I watch this interview purely for entertainment value. Nabokov. My dad gave me one of his books when I was twelve or thirteen, I think, and shortly thereafter I had a dawning-of-comprehension moment, like, this guy [my dad] might actually be pretty smart/have good taste. Which, while not quite a Nabokovian epiphanic moment, actually is a revelation to an adolescent.
I’ve long had the impression that a lot of folks in the HTMLGiant/indie lit crowd don’t care for Nabokov* or at least orient more toward Bukowski/Burroughs/Kafka & what I think of as the “Grits” (i.e. writers whose lifestyles are associated with gritty shit and/or whose writing prioritizes visceral response over sublimity), but I pretty much consider it axiomatic that VN was a genius and maybe the most skilled manipulator of the English language who ever lived. Also, nobody has ever been more successful at translating synesthesia into art. (Btw, do you know what “Martian colors” are? I call that as a title for a book.)
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wcB4RPasE&feature=related
A friend of mine was obsessed with Nabokov in the 70’s and, he told me recently, wrote a book-length biography/critical analysis that he ultimately scrapped–because he became disgusted. He was convinced that Nabokov was a cruel, contemptuous, and above all devious man. (Deception being, of course, central to Nabokov’s whole aesthetic and also at the core of his conception of beauty. Nobody disputes that!) He said that when he saw Nabokov interviewed, “He was exactly like I’d imagined… utterly sneering and contemptuous.” Oh, I don’t know. I think he’s endearing.
Martin Amis used to argue with Kingsley Amis (I think I’m remembering this from Experience) about Lolita. He read his father a particularly bravura passage and Kingsley snorted and said something like, “That’s Nabokov doing tricks to make you think he cares.” (Elsewhere about Lolita, he wrote, “The end product sadly invokes a Charles Atlas muscle-man of language as opposed to the healthy and useful adult.”) Too bad for Kingsley, he never had his own epiphanic moment. Oh well, I still love Lucky Jim.
My favorite Nabokov after Lolita is Bend Sinister. Shit, I should go reread that soon.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F3ywUpp_ps
* though some certainly appreciate!
Tags: kingsley amis, martian colors, martin amis, Nabokov, vladimir nabokov
I’m surprised you don’t think people on this site like Nabokov. ‘Lolita’ is the undisputed greatest novel of all time, right? (I’m actually a Salinger-ite, who I guess is somewhere between your Nabokov and their Bukowski, and I’m offended that he was not mentioned in this official HTMLGiant blogpost on VN)
I’m surprised you don’t think people on this site like Nabokov. ‘Lolita’ is the undisputed greatest novel of all time, right? (I’m actually a Salinger-ite, who I guess is somewhere between your Nabokov and their Bukowski, and I’m offended that he was not mentioned in this official HTMLGiant blogpost on VN)
I prefer Pale Fire
I prefer Pale Fire
agreed. or invitation to a beheading. but the poem in pale fire that the book revolves around is as good as the book itself. it’s one of the most impressive literary feats i’ve ever witnessed.
agreed. or invitation to a beheading. but the poem in pale fire that the book revolves around is as good as the book itself. it’s one of the most impressive literary feats i’ve ever witnessed.
Yeah, I think I’ve just had that impression because the folks I first knew in this approximate “scene”–most notably Tao and Noah–seemed to regard VN as a ridiculous or irrelevant figure, ultimately not that interesting. It’s clear, obviously, that he’s monumental to certain individuals in the indie lit scene, but he doesn’t seem to have much influence on the scene as a whole. Not as much as, say, KMart realists.
Yeah, I think I’ve just had that impression because the folks I first knew in this approximate “scene”–most notably Tao and Noah–seemed to regard VN as a ridiculous or irrelevant figure, ultimately not that interesting. It’s clear, obviously, that he’s monumental to certain individuals in the indie lit scene, but he doesn’t seem to have much influence on the scene as a whole. Not as much as, say, KMart realists.
Nabokov > KMart and/or its realism
every day of the week
Nabokov > KMart and/or its realism
every day of the week
Uh, yes. Yes indeed.
Uh, yes. Yes indeed.
Congratulations on listing “Bukowski/Burroughs/Kafka” in the correct order of ascendancy. About a tenth of Bukowski is quite good yet he is as much death on *imitators as he was when he aped himself.
*see Kenneth Patchen’s anti-beatnik rants.
Loved ADA. Will track down Bend Sinister.
Congratulations on listing “Bukowski/Burroughs/Kafka” in the correct order of ascendancy. About a tenth of Bukowski is quite good yet he is as much death on *imitators as he was when he aped himself.
*see Kenneth Patchen’s anti-beatnik rants.
Loved ADA. Will track down Bend Sinister.
don’t often see them as a trio — sounds like the setup for a stellar joke.
don’t often see them as a trio — sounds like the setup for a stellar joke.
Thanks, Nick, this vid is wildly entertaining. I like when N up and moves to the couch and the other follow, and I love when Trilling insists that he’s a respectable man.
Reading&loving Speak, Memory right now…the way N peels back the layers of childhood consciousness is a marvel; also I have a bit of an identity crush on his mother, who sounds splendid. Will check out Bend Sinister next. I’m a little scared of Pale Fire; I feel unequal to it. Can’t quite imagine anything surpassing Lolita but then surpassing it is hardly necessary.
Thanks, Nick, this vid is wildly entertaining. I like when N up and moves to the couch and the other follow, and I love when Trilling insists that he’s a respectable man.
Reading&loving Speak, Memory right now…the way N peels back the layers of childhood consciousness is a marvel; also I have a bit of an identity crush on his mother, who sounds splendid. Will check out Bend Sinister next. I’m a little scared of Pale Fire; I feel unequal to it. Can’t quite imagine anything surpassing Lolita but then surpassing it is hardly necessary.
I like how he appears to suppress his laughter when Trilling says a creative writer can hardly be trusted to tell us what he intended…
I like how he appears to suppress his laughter when Trilling says a creative writer can hardly be trusted to tell us what he intended…
VN is amazing, but i wonder if the reason you don’t here so much about him from youngish writers have to do with the difficulties of following his style. i mean, you can learn from his cadences and use of imagery and structures and so on, but people who go to far down the VN road — david mitchell in that one section of cloud atlas, banville, often — make me cringe a little. maybe it’s the humor that’s the hardest? has wild swings, but the basic, very arch stance of it is one that feels both super hard to pull off and less relevant to america right now then, say, the black, deadpan humor of carver.
VN is amazing, but i wonder if the reason you don’t here so much about him from youngish writers have to do with the difficulties of following his style. i mean, you can learn from his cadences and use of imagery and structures and so on, but people who go to far down the VN road — david mitchell in that one section of cloud atlas, banville, often — make me cringe a little. maybe it’s the humor that’s the hardest? has wild swings, but the basic, very arch stance of it is one that feels both super hard to pull off and less relevant to america right now then, say, the black, deadpan humor of carver.
really? does noah? i think i’ve talked to him about VN… noah, do you?
really? does noah? i think i’ve talked to him about VN… noah, do you?
This was great–thanks, Nick.
I love Nabokov, too, but me personally, I wouldn’t lump Kafka in with Bukowski and Burroughs. Do people, generally? Is Kafka gritty? I feel like not in the same way B&B are. And he had a relatively un-gritty life as a low-level beaurocrat…just my opinion. (Incidentally, I can’t stand Bukowski or Burroughs, but Kafka’s one of my favorites.)
This was great–thanks, Nick.
I love Nabokov, too, but me personally, I wouldn’t lump Kafka in with Bukowski and Burroughs. Do people, generally? Is Kafka gritty? I feel like not in the same way B&B are. And he had a relatively un-gritty life as a low-level beaurocrat…just my opinion. (Incidentally, I can’t stand Bukowski or Burroughs, but Kafka’s one of my favorites.)
YES.
YES.
speaking of, just saw the new nabokov covers via gawker — papercuts pinned in buttefly boxes. love. way more inspired than the previous ones.
speaking of, just saw the new nabokov covers via gawker — papercuts pinned in buttefly boxes. love. way more inspired than the previous ones.
Nick, I don’t think you overstate the importance and ability of Nabokov one bit. If you want to create layers and reinvent meaning and infuse newness in old world, can’t do much better than pulling apart any of his books (paragraphs, sentences – words, even). Pale Fire is fun, but the subtleties and intricacies go much further in much of his other work, like Lolita and even some of the early Russian stories (books that are not primarily driven by intricacy).
Nick, I don’t think you overstate the importance and ability of Nabokov one bit. If you want to create layers and reinvent meaning and infuse newness in old world, can’t do much better than pulling apart any of his books (paragraphs, sentences – words, even). Pale Fire is fun, but the subtleties and intricacies go much further in much of his other work, like Lolita and even some of the early Russian stories (books that are not primarily driven by intricacy).
I love Nabokov. I think he is perhaps the greatest writer of all time. Fantastic interview.
I love Nabokov. I think he is perhaps the greatest writer of all time. Fantastic interview.
Other than Joyce, I think Nabokov is the best manipulator of language who ever lived. For some reason, I really like “The Eye” a whole lot. But I also love Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, etc.
Other than Joyce, I think Nabokov is the best manipulator of language who ever lived. For some reason, I really like “The Eye” a whole lot. But I also love Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, etc.
I thought I remembered Noah being not particularly enthused. I know he takes Russian lit super seriously (I think when I went to visit him he was reading Oblamov; only time I’ve ever actually seen someone reading reading Oblamov) Noah, if you’re reading this…
I thought I remembered Noah being not particularly enthused. I know he takes Russian lit super seriously (I think when I went to visit him he was reading Oblamov; only time I’ve ever actually seen someone reading reading Oblamov) Noah, if you’re reading this…
I would agree with Roxanne. I also love Nabokov’s short stories.
No, not usually, but I don’t think they lump Burroughs & Bukowski together either… I was intentionally choosing three pretty different writers to give an idea of what I meant–not one particular school of writing, but writers who in some sense like to get down in the dirt, whether psychological, biological, or geological. Whereas Nabokov tries to achieve something sublime.
I would agree with Roxanne. I also love Nabokov’s short stories.
No, not usually, but I don’t think they lump Burroughs & Bukowski together either… I was intentionally choosing three pretty different writers to give an idea of what I meant–not one particular school of writing, but writers who in some sense like to get down in the dirt, whether psychological, biological, or geological. Whereas Nabokov tries to achieve something sublime.
I’m with you on that distinction, I think. Speak, memory seems to me unique as a memoir not of a kind of struggle forth from early hardship, but instead of a late struggle to recapture or simply retain something beautiful from childhood and from innocence. Maybe this plays into the rest of his work as well, wherein instead of facing off with the world’s horrors, he tries instead to reach for something magical that can only, if even then imperfectly, be accessed through art.
I’m with you on that distinction, I think. Speak, memory seems to me unique as a memoir not of a kind of struggle forth from early hardship, but instead of a late struggle to recapture or simply retain something beautiful from childhood and from innocence. Maybe this plays into the rest of his work as well, wherein instead of facing off with the world’s horrors, he tries instead to reach for something magical that can only, if even then imperfectly, be accessed through art.
That makes sense. Certainly, Nabokov seems to occupy a different plane and write with different purpose than the three others. There’s a sense of real metamorphosis there (no wordplay intended), a sort of transcendence, that the other three never intend to achieve. Their protagonists are glued to the ground, so to speak.
(Incidentally, I like the idea of “psychological dirt.” Grit in the id. Great image.)
That makes sense. Certainly, Nabokov seems to occupy a different plane and write with different purpose than the three others. There’s a sense of real metamorphosis there (no wordplay intended), a sort of transcendence, that the other three never intend to achieve. Their protagonists are glued to the ground, so to speak.
(Incidentally, I like the idea of “psychological dirt.” Grit in the id. Great image.)
Or a really twisted law firm.
Or a really twisted law firm.
The Gift is an incredible book, every young writer should read it.
The Gift is an incredible book, every young writer should read it.
That’s it exactly, Amy. I think this is what I find so emotionally appealing about Nabokov’s work.
That’s it exactly, Amy. I think this is what I find so emotionally appealing about Nabokov’s work.
Well, I think denying VN as a violent influence on any kind of written aesthetic that followed smacks of outright idiocy. Like denying God, denying VN is a tacit admission that the idea of Him has to be wrestled with.
Well, I think denying VN as a violent influence on any kind of written aesthetic that followed smacks of outright idiocy. Like denying God, denying VN is a tacit admission that the idea of Him has to be wrestled with.
ADA was one of the most challenging books I ever pocked up, but was damn fine.
ADA was one of the most challenging books I ever pocked up, but was damn fine.
Is the Bukowski over Nabokov line a jab at HTML? I totally disagree.
Cool video. I like when N jumped up and led them to the couch.
Is the Bukowski over Nabokov line a jab at HTML? I totally disagree.
Cool video. I like when N jumped up and led them to the couch.
Or rather, tell us what he did.
Or rather, tell us what he did.
After reading Lolita everything that I wrote for the next few years, stories, emails, shopping lists, had a piece of Nabokov in it. Lolita’s like some beautiful and disgusting onion.
After reading Lolita everything that I wrote for the next few years, stories, emails, shopping lists, had a piece of Nabokov in it. Lolita’s like some beautiful and disgusting onion.
i always feel so cliched loving ‘lolita,’ but i do. i don’t care that it’s almost unbearably self-referential, and that the humour’s so clever and self-aware as to be a bit pompous. well…self-consciously pompous, i suppose.
i just love the damn book. it’s such a fantastic mind-fuck. humbert’s one of my favourite anti-heroes of all time. even just his name is great.
i just find a lot of the language just really mesmeric. i feel like a bit of a twat even typing this, but i really feel you can actually ‘feel’ nabokov’s synaesthesia within just how rich some of the lexis is.
…though, i suppose that’s very much something he’d ‘perfected.’ something like ‘laughter in the dark’ weirdly, felt to me more like reading camus or something. merely just in that it’s so much starker, and i suppose pre-nabokov’s peak.
it’s slightly odd for me though that though i think it’s a brilliant book overall, the second half of the novel is just absolutely less gripping. i suppose it says something for it that that doesn’t diminish my overall feelings about it.
i always feel so cliched loving ‘lolita,’ but i do. i don’t care that it’s almost unbearably self-referential, and that the humour’s so clever and self-aware as to be a bit pompous. well…self-consciously pompous, i suppose.
i just love the damn book. it’s such a fantastic mind-fuck. humbert’s one of my favourite anti-heroes of all time. even just his name is great.
i just find a lot of the language just really mesmeric. i feel like a bit of a twat even typing this, but i really feel you can actually ‘feel’ nabokov’s synaesthesia within just how rich some of the lexis is.
…though, i suppose that’s very much something he’d ‘perfected.’ something like ‘laughter in the dark’ weirdly, felt to me more like reading camus or something. merely just in that it’s so much starker, and i suppose pre-nabokov’s peak.
it’s slightly odd for me though that though i think it’s a brilliant book overall, the second half of the novel is just absolutely less gripping. i suppose it says something for it that that doesn’t diminish my overall feelings about it.
Did anyone else watch the second video? Want to venture an argument for the speaker’s choice of the word “pwnd” in reference to Lolita? I think it meant she liked it. Must not be an HTML Giant fan.
Did anyone else watch the second video? Want to venture an argument for the speaker’s choice of the word “pwnd” in reference to Lolita? I think it meant she liked it. Must not be an HTML Giant fan.