Scan barcode
irene_marchiori's review against another edition
4.0
La visione di Nabokov sui classici russi è qualcosa di incredibilmente affascinante. L'approfondimento dettagliato, in particolare su Anna Karenina, svela i segreti dello stile, dell'uso della frase e della singola parola, della traduzione, e soprattutto riesce a svelare un lato del meraviglioso del libro spiegando non solo che esso è grande, ma anche il perché.
D'altra parte, sicuramente certe frasi e commenti saranno molto poco graditi dai grandi amanti di Dostojevskij, ma Nabokov non era evidentemente qualcuno disposto a usare mezze parole, anche in un corso un universitario che necessariamente doveva prevedere un "Capitolo Dostjevskij". Da parte mia, mi sono trovata davanti a quelle che poi ho riconosciuto come le precise ragioni per cui buona parte dei suoi liibri sono stati per me una lettura piuttosto scomoda.
D'altra parte, sicuramente certe frasi e commenti saranno molto poco graditi dai grandi amanti di Dostojevskij, ma Nabokov non era evidentemente qualcuno disposto a usare mezze parole, anche in un corso un universitario che necessariamente doveva prevedere un "Capitolo Dostjevskij". Da parte mia, mi sono trovata davanti a quelle che poi ho riconosciuto come le precise ragioni per cui buona parte dei suoi liibri sono stati per me una lettura piuttosto scomoda.
honestlyholle's review against another edition
I read a few sections but I think I should read more of the literature he is commenting about first.
psinoza's review against another edition
5.0
5 yıldız verip geçecektim ama belki birisinin kitabı okumasına araç olurum diye düşünerek ufak bir not düşmek istedim. nabokov'un bu çalışmasının edebiyat alanında yapılmış en kıymetli işlerden birisi olduğunu düşünüyorum. bunun sebebi ise kitabın dengeli hali. Dengeden kast ettiğim ise şu: bu kitap hiçbir zaman sizi yazar biyografisine veya eserlere dair üstünkörü açıklamalara boğmuyor. Ek olarak Nabokov'un üslubu, eseri bir çalışmadan ziyade denemeye veya "itiraf"a çeviriyor zira nabokov, yazardan ve eserinden bahsederken onunla olan geçmişinden, anısından, ilk okuma girişiminden vs. de bahsediyor.
lalettricesolitaria's review against another edition
4.0
La mia videorecensione, con un particolare riferimento al capitolo su Dostoevskij, è QUI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHdV-oEoc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHdV-oEoc0
michael5000's review against another edition
4.0
November 2011: I won't rate it, as I've only read the parts about books I've read. But Nabokov is delightfully, puckishly Nabokovian. I am eternally grateful to him for speaking some truth about Dostoevsky, who is for me easily the most mysterious entry on the long list of GAGA (Generally Accepted Great Authors). The collection tilts rather strong towards "Anna Karenin," as Nabokov insists on calling it -- he feels that to call the novel "Anna Karenina is nonsense, for reasons that are nonsense." He worked for a while on a textbook edition of AK, and his planned prefatory material is included here.
November 2016: I read the whole thing this time. Agree with him or disagree with him, Nabokov is great fun to follow as he lays down his often surprising opinions as if they were pronouncements from on high. Well, they are pronouncements from Nabokov, which counts for more than a little.
November 2016: I read the whole thing this time. Agree with him or disagree with him, Nabokov is great fun to follow as he lays down his often surprising opinions as if they were pronouncements from on high. Well, they are pronouncements from Nabokov, which counts for more than a little.
sbeerens's review against another edition
4.0
I have bought this as a guide for when I want to read more Russian literature and so far, I have only read some of the bits on novels I have already read (Crime and Punishment, Karamazov Brothers, Fathers and Sons and Anna Karenina).
This book is exactly what I expected: witty, insightful and pretty arrogant.
The most subjective guide I will ever own and read, but, because it's Nabokov, that isn't even a bad thing. I wish I would have had lectures like this back in uni.
Couldn't have asked for more.
This book is exactly what I expected: witty, insightful and pretty arrogant.
The most subjective guide I will ever own and read, but, because it's Nabokov, that isn't even a bad thing. I wish I would have had lectures like this back in uni.
Couldn't have asked for more.
vanjr's review against another edition
4.0
I don't like literary criticism. I find Nabokov pompous. Yet I give this one 4 stars. It goes to show you never know. It starts off kinda rough with a general introduction chapter called "Russian Writers, Censors, and Readers" that is hard to handle. The chapter on Gogol improves things. Nabokov loves Tolstoy and Checkov and both those chapters were outstanding. The fact that Nabokov's native language is Russian and his knowledge of local customs makes this literary critical work very instructive. Recommend for lovers of English translated Russian literature.
alcomia's review against another edition
3.0
form versus substance
I think Nabokov's lectures are good to read for young people, inculcating a useful aestheticism, provided they avoid accepting everything he says. Unfortunately I notice people often are taken by the charisma of brute pronouncements against writers they haven't read yet. (People are always looking for excuses to not read certain writers when the amount of things they have to read seems large and they haven't learned to love reading always.)
I believe Nabokov's assessment of Dostoyevsky says, as usual, more about Nabokov than of the Russian giant. It comes as no surprise, but to fully grasp his evaluation one must know of Nabokov's personality and life history as much if not more than of his work. If looking for context I advise looking at what his lectures were like to people who attended them as well as his translation work. I would say Dostoevsky and Nabokov were people at the antipodes of life experience as well as artistic sensitivities. A matter of form versus substance, one can not doubt Nabokov's word crafting skill as one can not doubt Dostoevsky's message and depth. I do not mean to establish a false equivalence, Nabokov's assessment is simply wrong, exaggerated and biased, but the reasons why this is so is what, to me, is the most interesing part. I believe it boils down to life experience, Nabokov cannot imagine the feverish states, the twisted logic of Dostoevsky's characters, cannot digest them simply because they are alien to him. Dostoevsky's characters are, to Nabokov, both cliché and unbelievable. They remind him, I think, of part of the Russian soul he dislikes and would rather forget. Dostoevsky seeks to explore and describe the extremes of thought, emotion and life he knows so well. Life can be full of hardship, of pain, and at the same time incredibly dull. To Nabokov eliciting feelings in the reader is the goal, not only of writing but of art in general. In Dostoevsky this is a byproduct of his descriptory prowess.
I'll end this rambling with a quote by someone who also spoke harshly about Dostoevsky but later in his life, when a man takes stock of his work, changed his point of view.
P. S. What's really irritating about Nabokov is that he missed out on reading To The Lighthouse, probably because the first page seemed Freudian and Woolf was a woman, when he would liked the rest of it very much. Simply sad
I think Nabokov's lectures are good to read for young people, inculcating a useful aestheticism, provided they avoid accepting everything he says. Unfortunately I notice people often are taken by the charisma of brute pronouncements against writers they haven't read yet. (People are always looking for excuses to not read certain writers when the amount of things they have to read seems large and they haven't learned to love reading always.)
Dostoyevsky. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.
I believe Nabokov's assessment of Dostoyevsky says, as usual, more about Nabokov than of the Russian giant. It comes as no surprise, but to fully grasp his evaluation one must know of Nabokov's personality and life history as much if not more than of his work. If looking for context I advise looking at what his lectures were like to people who attended them as well as his translation work. I would say Dostoevsky and Nabokov were people at the antipodes of life experience as well as artistic sensitivities. A matter of form versus substance, one can not doubt Nabokov's word crafting skill as one can not doubt Dostoevsky's message and depth. I do not mean to establish a false equivalence, Nabokov's assessment is simply wrong, exaggerated and biased, but the reasons why this is so is what, to me, is the most interesing part. I believe it boils down to life experience, Nabokov cannot imagine the feverish states, the twisted logic of Dostoevsky's characters, cannot digest them simply because they are alien to him. Dostoevsky's characters are, to Nabokov, both cliché and unbelievable. They remind him, I think, of part of the Russian soul he dislikes and would rather forget. Dostoevsky seeks to explore and describe the extremes of thought, emotion and life he knows so well. Life can be full of hardship, of pain, and at the same time incredibly dull. To Nabokov eliciting feelings in the reader is the goal, not only of writing but of art in general. In Dostoevsky this is a byproduct of his descriptory prowess.
I'll end this rambling with a quote by someone who also spoke harshly about Dostoevsky but later in his life, when a man takes stock of his work, changed his point of view.
"In the preface to an anthology of Russian literature, Vladimir Nabokov stated that he had not found a single page of Dostoevsky worthy of inclusion. This ought to mean that Dostoevsky should not be judged by each page but rather by the total of all the pages that comprise the book."
- Jorge L. Borges.
P. S. What's really irritating about Nabokov is that he missed out on reading To The Lighthouse, probably because the first page seemed Freudian and Woolf was a woman, when he would liked the rest of it very much. Simply sad
mirumir's review against another edition
5.0
"But remember that 'simplicity' is buncombe. No major writer is simple. The Saturday Evening Post is simple. Journalese is simple. Upton Lewis is simple. Mom is simple. Digests are simple. Damnation is simple. But Tolstoys and Melvilles are not simple."