The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov (1899 – 1977), Russian and American novelist, short-story writer, poet, translator, and lepidopterist was born into a wealthy St. Petersburg family. He grew up trilingual from childhood, studied at the Tenishev School. Nabokov’s father, Vladimir Dmitrievich, played a prominent role in the provisional government. In November 1917 the Nabokovs left for Crimea and in 1919, the family fled to England. Vladimir Nabokov enrolled in Cambridge where he took a degree in Slavic and Roman Literatures.

Fiction
Translated
Mary
King, Queen, Knave
The Luzhin Defense
The Eye
Glory
Laughter in the Dark
Despair
Invitation to a Beheading
The Gift
The Enchanter
Written in English
The Real Life of Sebastian Knight
Bend Sinister
Lolita
Pnin
Pale Fire
Ada, or Ardor: A Family Chronicle
Transparent Things
Look at the Harlequins!
The Original of Laura

Short Story Collections
Available in English
Nine Stories
Nabokov's Dozen: Thirteen Stories
Nabokov's Quartet
Nabokov's Congeries
A Russian Beauty and Other Stories
Tyrants Destroyed and Other Stories
Details of a Sunset & Other Stories
The Stories of Vladimir Nabokov
Poetry
Available in English
Collected Poems
Selected Poems
Poems and ProblemsPale Fire: A Poem in Four Cantos by John ShadeLolita and Poems

I don’t know if I can call myself a Nabokov fan after only two novels, but Pale Fire, which I read a few years ago, was so good that I was willing to attempt his notorious Lolita, which I finished last night and was so good that I can’t start another book until this book buzz subsides.
I will be reading more Nabokov, he is brilliant, funny, and his prose is sublime.

Anyone else read Lolita? I couldn’t write a review that didn’t sound as if I was defending the protagonist or author so I didn’t.

I’ve read all 18 of his finished novels. Laughter in the Dark, Lolita and Pnin being my favorites. I didn’t much care for Pale Fire, I’m definitely in the small minority of Nabokov fans on that one!

Lee wrote: "I’ve read all 18 of his finished novels. Laughter in the Dark, Lolita and Pnin being my favorites. I didn’t much care for Pale Fire, I’m definitely in the small minority of Nabokov fans on that one!"

I didn't like Pale Fire either it felt.... forced?? I think Lolita is great though from characterization to writing style

I thought Lolita was fantastic. I liked Pale Fire but didn't love it. I didn't care much for Bend Sinister. Nabokov seems brilliant and I agree with Wendy's take on his prose. Definitely on my completist list.

I couldn’t overcome my feeling of disgust with Lolita and haven’t really felt inclined to read anything else by him since.

I did try Speak, Memory once which was Ok but nothing more.

Someone I have filed under the category of “glad other authors have read him so I don’t have to”.

I have only read three of the novels - Pnin, Pale Fire and Laughter in the Dark. All very clever, but Pnin was the most enjoyable by a distance. I didn't like the gratuitous cruelty of Laughter in the Dark, and I am not sure how much I understood of Pale Fire though I liked elements of it. I also read the story collection Nabokov's Dozen years ago, but don't remember much about it.

He always strikes me as the Dominic Cummings of the literary world (not sure what the US equivalent is - Elon Musk has shades of it)

Edmund Wilson who was originally his literary champion wrote of him (in a review of a re-translation by Nabakov):

“Mr. Nabokov is in the habit of introducing any job of this kind which he undertakes by an announcement that he is unique and incomparable, and that everybody else who has attempted it is an oaf and an ignoramus.”

I’ve loved the Nabokov that I’ve read: Pale Fire is one of my favorite books, ever.

Lolita was wonderful, though very uncomfortable- I made the mistake of trying to read it when my kids were in their early teens, and had to set it aside until they were in college.

I've also read Pnin and Ada, and loved them both, though Ada was also an uncomfortable read at times.

I plan to get to some of his others someday.

In my final year, I had fulfilled most of my degree requirements in terms of specific classes, so I was able to fill my schedule with a few classes that were purely of interest outside my degree's focus - so I was able to take a Nabokov course, having never read any of his work before. It was fantastic! [Another course I was able to attend was Horror Film - a similarly interesting experience given that I did not enjoy horror movies at all - but I do after taking the course!]

I've read the following, of which I am an especial fan of Despair and Invitation to a Beheading (in addition to Lolita, Pnin, and Pale Fire):

Mary
The Eye
Glory
Despair
Invitation to a Beheading
The Gift
The Enchanter
The Real Life of Sebastian Knight
Lolita
Pnin
Pale Fire
The Original of Laura

I've read Lolita several times and think it's in a class of its own, for the way it portrays the grotesque realities of child sexual abuse through the excuses of the abuser. There is a reading that criticizes the book for making Humbert Humbert sound too reasonable, and I just can't see it--Dolores Haze's trauma shines through for me.

I'm also a big fan of Bend Sinister, for its strangeness. And for the puddle.

But my favorite Nabokov is the short story "Symbols and Signs" (sometime published as "Signs and Symbols"). On a short list, for me, of 'best story ever writtens.'

Mary Gaitskill reads it:
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/fic...

text:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/19...

I can understand anyone who felt they couldn’t go on with Lolita and began my very brief review with the novel should come with a trigger warning.
I wrote a longer post in Reading 20th Century explaining my feelings towards Lolita. I basically felt the novel was a sort of metafiction in which Nabokov groomed and seduced the reader, in much the same way an abuser grooms a young victim, with the elegance of his prose and in the way he teased and flattered us with wordplay and obscure references he pretended to assume we’d get, so by the time the worst happens, which I did not know would actually happen, we are caught up in the chase across the country. Nabokov and HH both remind us the HH knows he is a monster, knows he stole a child’s childhood, and that he was writing this story from prison, so we need not feel too guilty.
I think if I knew all that happened was going to happen I wouldn’t have bought the book. I thought HH flirted with Lolita and was obsessed with her, and I recalled the scene when she ran back in the house and kissed him goodbye, but I was shocked at all that happened. Still, I write with mixed feelings, I loved this book.

I read Lolita, Pale Fire and Pnin in my 20's (ages ago) and was all aboard the adoring Nabokov train. I recently picked up Pale Fire again and it struck me as pretentious art-for-arts-sake writing. Exquisite, but pointless.

Nabokov is great though for me he sometimes placed such an emphasis on cleverness and intellectual acrobatics over meaning and over humanity that it makes me weary. Particularly in his later works - Pale Fire and, especially, Ada, where six hundred pages of it was more than a bit much.

But his first four English language novels… what a run! The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Bend Sinister, Lolita, Pnin. Incredible. Almost incomprehensible that he did this when English was not his native language.

This line from Ada sums up for me Nabokov’s (usually justified) self-confidence, or arrogance, if you like:

“A faint element of farce and falsity flawed it, preventing an angel - if angels could visit Ardis - from being completely at ease; and yet it was a marvelous show which no artist would have wanted to miss.”

If you appreciate real art, Nabokov says, you’re not going to want to miss what I’m doing…

He was born into an aristocratic family, so he was destined to be pompous, but he is a fantastic writer.

WndyJW wrote: "He was born into an aristocratic family, so he was destined to be pompous, but he is a fantastic writer."

Pompous aristocrats - he reminds me of Prince Andrew.

Ew. I just got Pnin, I’m going to erase the thought of Andrew from my mind so I can enjoy Pnin. #teamharry

Try #teamnoneofthem

That’s more accurate, but in the age of you’re either for us or you’re agin’ us, I’d choose Harry every time.

who are these people of which you speak

I thought they were supposed to be unlikable, like the characters on Succession.

Prince Andrew is the Queen’s son and a “friend of Jeremy Epstein”. Likes Pizza Hut but incapable of sweating.

Usedtobeprince Harry the Queen’s grandson who made the mistake of marrying someone who wasn’t a second cousin and has been stripped of his royal titles.

For some reason talking about Nabakov and his most famous book (perhaps the book that I dislike the most of any I have read) brought Prince Andrew to mind.

(Queen of England I should say. And maybe America once you’ve realised this Presidential system really isn’t working out!!)

Don’t think I haven’t found the idea of a Philosopher Queen appealing! Not from the aristocracy though. I think a woman of color, from the south or perhaps Midwest, (we Midwesterners have some common sense, right David?) who grew up lower middle class.

Harry and Meghan walked away from the royal nonsense, though not so far that they don’t still use Duke and Duchess of Sussex for financial endeavors.

In Chicago, our philosopher queen is Lori Lightfoot who matches your criteria. Last I saw, her approval rating was 15%.

I am a republican Wendy but unfortunately your country has undermined our case by giving the easy counter example and argument for why a monarchy might make sense (or at least what a disaster an anglophone Presidential system might be) - I am reading Booth currently and am having to resist going on Amazon to order bunting for Thursday.

While Nabokov did opine that "democracy is humanity at its best" one does wonder if he wouldn't have more sympathy for another viewpoint given events of recent years:

"Of the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule [but] our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master." The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

WndyJW wrote: "I can understand anyone who felt they couldn’t go on with Lolita and began my very brief review with the novel should come with a trigger warning.
I wrote a longer post in Reading 20th Century exp..."

I've read a few of his novels including 'Lolita' which made a really strong impression, I like your interpretation Wndy, I don't read it as an entirely realist novel either. I also read 'Speak Memory' which, like Paul, didn't really hold my attention. I think he's an impressive, intelligent writer, and his background feeds into that, his skill with language for example. He's not always the most likeable author but one I've found worth the time and effort. I also appreciated his approach in 'Lolita' recently there've been a spate of novels and shows dealing with similar territory which tend to lapse into sentimentality or surface moralising or go for shock value, and I find that makes them less powerful or convincing.

We’re still reeling from yet another slaughter of young children so I’ll spare us all my response to GY, except to say I think I know you well enough, GY, to know you would be comfortable in the Republican Party of my parents, not the Rep party of the last 8 years.

I agree with you Alwynne. In the Reading the 20th Century group a member suggested that the entire Lolita affair might well have been all in the mind of HH, who reminded us often of his stays in psychiatric hospitals. Not that it all being a fantasy makes being in the mind of a pedophile any easier.

David, I’m thinking of a truly gifted, wise, enlightened woman. Perhaps Ms Lightfoot doesn’t measure up. And in our attempts to be a democracy even the best leaders are thwarted and undermined by the opposition.

A republican in the UK is someone who doesn’t think we should have a monarch as head of state. Nothing to do with the US party of same name but with a capital R.

Precisely - that’s why I wrote republican and apologies I had thought the meaning was completely clear from the context.

Paul wrote: "A republican in the UK is someone who doesn’t think we should have a monarch as head of state. Nothing to do with the US party of same name but with a capital R."

And a position I find increasingly sympathetic as I prepare to dodge my local Jubilee celebrations!

I am a republican but far from a Republican. My mischievous and probably unworkable solution is that we should privatise the monarchy and let those who want to keep it buy shares in it.

Hugh wrote: "I am a republican but far from a Republican. My mischievous and probably unworkable solution is that we should privatise the monarchy and let those who want to keep it buy shares in it."

Wonderful! Maybe that would thin the herd too, as then only the key ones would be likely to get support.

I guess a much more democratic approach (that’s with a small d for those in the US) would be a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy as other countries have done. The results though would I am almost certain unfortunately be a huge win for retention - particularly if an alternative was specified (of course one the flaws of the Brexit vote was the lack of a specified alternative which is why we are where we are)

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/three-fiv...

The argument always seems to be in relation to tourism revenue, but the figures seem to shift depending on the source, so hard to work out overall costs versus benefits. There does seem to be a lot of support for Kate, for example, although personally I find it hard to care about her fashion choices or any other aspects of her life. The dodgier aspects of the family's politics, social attitudes, personal behaviour have been very much to the fore recently, whether that has made any impact is hard to tell. The notion of being in/out of touch with 'ordinary people' is an interesting one though, what does that actually mean in practice? But am, I think, quite curmudgeonly on this subject, even the local bunting annoys me as likely to end up discarded and seems environmentally very wasteful, and could fund quite a lot of additional donations to local food banks, which are sorely needed.

Fortunately in UK though we don't really have a monarchy for practical purposes. The Prime Minister is also the President.

But in terms of diversity the signal that having a monarchy sends, particularly given Britain's history, is still unhelpful, particularly given the "dodgier aspects of the family's politics" as Alwynne puts it.

"Out of touch" means things like realising that employing someone to squeeze your toothpaste is not really necessary.

GY - I am a little confused at your republican streak. Those tickets you have for the ceremonial lighting of the beacon at Sandringham, the Queen's country home, to celebrate her Jubilee - were those forced upon you unsolicited?

Paul wrote: "Fortunately in UK though we don't really have a monarchy for practical purposes. The Prime Minister is also the President.

But in terms of diversity the signal that having a monarchy sends, partic..."

True although my cynicism is possibly made more so by having attended a university that was crawling with minor aristos and old Etonians, and people given to hanging braces of rotting birds out of their windows.

I got them for you and your family Paul as you know - hope you enjoy.

I did go to Sandringham this weekend but that was to see The Abba Tribute band (not Queen).

This Nabokov discussion seems to have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

I’ve read some short stories but I might make Lolita my next read. That and Pale Fire are a permanent on my TBR. Not sure why I haven’t tackled them yet.

The only interesting thing about the royals is their genealogy, but they are rather a ridiculous institution. They do seem to have a lot of loyal supporters. Charles and Camilla are icky, Kate and Will are boring so maybe their popularity will fade.

Except understated and respectful (ie boring) is good with a figurehead monarch - that’s what William and Kate have worked out. And their approval ratings (often at say +50 or +60) are far higher than can recall ever seeing from any politician on either side of the Atlantic - so we are kidding ourselves if we think they are going anywhere soon in a democracy.

But we should really get this chat back to the author and his dodgy books

I'd rather talk about the Royal family. I think Lolita would be in my bottom 5 novels of all time which I have had the misfortune to read.

WndyJW wrote: "I basically felt the novel was a sort of metafiction in which Nabokov groomed and seduced the reader, in much the same way an abuser grooms a young victim, with the elegance of his prose and in the way he teased and flattered us with wordplay and obscure references he pretended to assume we’d get"

Well said, Wendy! This was also my experience. I stopped and started Lolita several times, and even returned the book at one point because of the ick factor, but was eventually sucked in by this magnificent work.

I am reluctant to admit this, but I would easily count Lolita in the top five books I've ever read -- ahem, maybe even the top two.

Hope you enjoy Pnin, Wendy. Pnin (the character) is a real palate cleanser after HH. Charmingly and amusingly sadsack, you'll really feel for him. I believe Nabokov modeled the character after another Russian emigre professor he knew.

I agree, Debra, and I am also reluctant to agree. Although, there are many books about sex abuse and pedophiles, the most recent being Creatures of Passage, a book enjoyed by most of us here who read it, so I’m not sure we need to be bashful about saying we found the writing in Lolita remarkable and that novel itself layered. I count it among my favorites.

To bring this back on the monarchy and away from talk of 'that book', but still with a literary angle, here is former Booker judge on the Jubilee:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

I apologise for perpetuating it, but think we should draw a line under the monarchy discussion or at least continue it somewhere else (Cafe Quito?) - it has no real relevance to Nabokov.

Well he does remind me of Prince Andrew, and I hold both in equal regard, which is how this started, but agreed.

I think you'll love Pnin, Wendy. If his Pale Fire is cleverly constructed as a puzzle work with an unreliable narrator (I had a couple of false starts foolishly trusting the narrator Kinbote), Pnin is by contrast filled with humor and melancholy that form around the genuinely lovable eponymous character.

It's curious that Nabokov wrote Pnin around the same time when writing Lolita which I have never read (and unlikely to read) for the reasons Paul mentioned though more than once I found it tempting after seeing enthusiastic reactions like yours that it's a literary masterpiece.

His short stories are worth a try (my favorite is "Spring in Fialta") but I am not entirely convinced that the shorter form suits him that well as do novels.