Scan barcode
spenkevich's review against another edition
4.0
I know more than I can express in words, and the little I can express would not have been expressed, had I not known more.
Vladimir Nabokov is a lion of literature. His writing is sleek, menacing and beautiful as it confidently marches through the savannas of languages. His words have claws and deadly jaws, and when he pounces it is a jaw-dropping display of sheer powerful grace with devastating results. Strong Opinions is a collection of Nabokov’s interviews, essays and letters to editors that captures the charismatic brilliance of his words poised at non-fiction and biography. The title is quite fitting, as Nabokov doesn’t shrink from loudly lambasting the works of those he dislikes¹ or proudly proclaiming his own opinions. Through this collections, Nabokov lets is glimpse the man behind the curtain—a very controlled glimpse, mind you—and offers incredible insight into the mind, life and thoughts on his own work.
We think not in words but in shadows of words.
Nabokov’s genius grasp of language is relentless, even when removed from his fiction writing. It is humbling to know that English is not his first spoken language, though he deftly configures the English Language to its maximum potential far more impressively than native English speakers. Even in his interviews (granted, some are formed by questions written to him to which he had the time to consider his responses and write them out in response) he is consistently mesmerizing in word choice and cadence, spurting out responses that even the most seasoned novelist would envy upon the page. Through Strong Opinions, we get Nabokov’s views on his own works (the insight into Lolita is quite interesting, as well as learning that Nabokov wrote the screenplay for Kubrick’s film and only spoke highly of it and the musical stage adaptation [I wish I could have seen that!], as well as defended the choice of a pre-teen actress in the roles), his teaching methods, his likes and dislikes in literature, and many autobiographical elements especially concerning Lepidoptera
Any reader always comes to their favorite authors wondering what their influences are. Who doesn’t want to read the favorite novels of a favorite novelist? Nabokov not only gives you his opinions on what he loves, but more often than not examines what he despises.
Nabokov shys away from interpretation of his own works, refusing to accept any critiques, even positive ones, as being true to the creation. Nabokov wishes us to view it all as a game, a simple ‘aesthetic bliss’ and laughs off any insistence on underlying meaning. This calls into question the deconstructionist interpretations where we must remove the author and asses only the text. It also seems like Nabokov enjoys playing games with readers beyond the printed word, much like David Lynch who claims nobody has ever had an accurate interpretation on Mulholland Drive. This keeps the game alive and fresh and keeps us guessing. It also seems a bit of a screen, and we have to accept that not only do we read works like Lolita through an unreliable narrator, but also through an unreliable author³.
Many will walk away from this collection viewing Nabokov as a pompous ass, though that is the sort of thing that made me find this so endlessly amusing to read. Apparently he was also a difficult professor and admits to failing students for spending time bothering with the relationship between Ulysses and [b:The Odyssey|1381|The Odyssey|Homer|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1390173285l/1381._SY75_.jpg|3356006] without knowing who the man in the brown coat is. His teaching methods are of great interest, however, as Nabokov insists on strict attention to detail. The same sort of attention to detail must be adhered to in understanding and decoding his own novels. Nabokov often mentions that he felt maps of Dublin or Gregor Samsa’s room were pivotal to the understanding of their respective books.
I have never seen a more lucid, more lonely, better balanced mad mind than mine.
A must for any Nabokov fan, Strong Opinions is exactly what it’s title promises. From butterflies to belittling the classics he disliked, this collection is a great glimpse into the mind of one of the greatest novelists of all time.
4/5
“Many accepted authors simply do not exist for me. Their names are engraved on empty graves, their books are dummies, they are complete nonentities insofar as my taste in reading is concerned. Brecht, Faulkner, Camus, many others, mean absolutely nothing to me, and I must fight a suspicion of conspiracy against my brain when I see blandly accepted as “great literature” by critics and fellow authors Lady Chatterley's copulations or the pretentious nonsense of Mr. Pound, that total fake.
¹ One thing I greatly respected about Nabokov was that he refused to speak ill of currently publishing writers and even refused to write reviews as he hated to think his opinion could damage their current career. It does seem like an unspoken message that he believes their careers are damaging enough to themselves.
² Aside from Tolstoy, Nabokov seems to have very few positives to say about Russian literature, refusing to agree with interviewers when they ask about his Russian biographies as indication of affinity with those authors. However, Nabokov seems to refuse to admit to any influences beyond his own creativity and after being asked what he learned from Joyce he responds ‘nothing.’
³ An extra special Thank You to Warwick for providing that brilliant analysis.
Vladimir Nabokov is a lion of literature. His writing is sleek, menacing and beautiful as it confidently marches through the savannas of languages. His words have claws and deadly jaws, and when he pounces it is a jaw-dropping display of sheer powerful grace with devastating results. Strong Opinions is a collection of Nabokov’s interviews, essays and letters to editors that captures the charismatic brilliance of his words poised at non-fiction and biography. The title is quite fitting, as Nabokov doesn’t shrink from loudly lambasting the works of those he dislikes¹ or proudly proclaiming his own opinions. Through this collections, Nabokov lets is glimpse the man behind the curtain—a very controlled glimpse, mind you—and offers incredible insight into the mind, life and thoughts on his own work.
We think not in words but in shadows of words.
Nabokov’s genius grasp of language is relentless, even when removed from his fiction writing. It is humbling to know that English is not his first spoken language, though he deftly configures the English Language to its maximum potential far more impressively than native English speakers. Even in his interviews (granted, some are formed by questions written to him to which he had the time to consider his responses and write them out in response) he is consistently mesmerizing in word choice and cadence, spurting out responses that even the most seasoned novelist would envy upon the page. Through Strong Opinions, we get Nabokov’s views on his own works (the insight into Lolita is quite interesting, as well as learning that Nabokov wrote the screenplay for Kubrick’s film and only spoke highly of it and the musical stage adaptation [I wish I could have seen that!], as well as defended the choice of a pre-teen actress in the roles), his teaching methods, his likes and dislikes in literature, and many autobiographical elements especially concerning Lepidoptera
Any reader always comes to their favorite authors wondering what their influences are. Who doesn’t want to read the favorite novels of a favorite novelist? Nabokov not only gives you his opinions on what he loves, but more often than not examines what he despises.
Ever since the days when such formidable mediocrities as Galsworthy, Dreiser, Tagore, Maxim Gorky, Romain Rolland and Thomas Mann were being accepted as geniuses, I have been perplexed and amused by fabricated notions about so-called "great books." That, for instance, Mann's asinine "Death in Venice," or Pasternak's melodramatic, vilely written "Dr. Zhivago," or Faulkner's corn-cobby chronicles can be considered "masterpieces" or at least what journalists term "great books," is to me the sort of absurd delusion as when a hypnotized person makes love to a chair. My greatest masterpieces of twentieth century prose are, in this order: Joyce's "Ulysses"; Kafka's "Transformation"; Bely's "St. Petersburg," and the first half of Proust's fairy tale, "In Search of Lost Time.Other authors that don’t make the cut are Joseph Conrad (much time is spent on disecting Conrad as a ‘juvenile’ writer only worthwhile to budding adolescents) and, shock and gasp for me too, Dostoevsky. However, when considering Nabokov’s opinions on what makes a good book it is evident why Nabokov dislikes Dostoevsky². Nabokov often expresses distaste for any novel with a moral or social ideology as it’s beating heart, and Dostoevsky often falls under criticism for having characters that are stand-ins for morals or ideas than being flesh-and-blood characters.
My advice to a budding literary critic would be as follows. Learn to distinguish banality. Remember that mediocrity thrives on "ideas." Beware of the modish message. Ask yourself if the symbol you have detected is not your own
footprint. Ignore allegories. By all means place the "how" above the "what" but do not let it be confused with the "so what." Rely on the sudden erection of your small dorsal hairs. Do not drag in Freud at this point. All the rest depends on personal talent
Nabokov shys away from interpretation of his own works, refusing to accept any critiques, even positive ones, as being true to the creation. Nabokov wishes us to view it all as a game, a simple ‘aesthetic bliss’ and laughs off any insistence on underlying meaning. This calls into question the deconstructionist interpretations where we must remove the author and asses only the text. It also seems like Nabokov enjoys playing games with readers beyond the printed word, much like David Lynch who claims nobody has ever had an accurate interpretation on Mulholland Drive. This keeps the game alive and fresh and keeps us guessing. It also seems a bit of a screen, and we have to accept that not only do we read works like Lolita through an unreliable narrator, but also through an unreliable author³.
Many will walk away from this collection viewing Nabokov as a pompous ass, though that is the sort of thing that made me find this so endlessly amusing to read. Apparently he was also a difficult professor and admits to failing students for spending time bothering with the relationship between Ulysses and [b:The Odyssey|1381|The Odyssey|Homer|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1390173285l/1381._SY75_.jpg|3356006] without knowing who the man in the brown coat is. His teaching methods are of great interest, however, as Nabokov insists on strict attention to detail. The same sort of attention to detail must be adhered to in understanding and decoding his own novels. Nabokov often mentions that he felt maps of Dublin or Gregor Samsa’s room were pivotal to the understanding of their respective books.
I have never seen a more lucid, more lonely, better balanced mad mind than mine.
A must for any Nabokov fan, Strong Opinions is exactly what it’s title promises. From butterflies to belittling the classics he disliked, this collection is a great glimpse into the mind of one of the greatest novelists of all time.
4/5
“Many accepted authors simply do not exist for me. Their names are engraved on empty graves, their books are dummies, they are complete nonentities insofar as my taste in reading is concerned. Brecht, Faulkner, Camus, many others, mean absolutely nothing to me, and I must fight a suspicion of conspiracy against my brain when I see blandly accepted as “great literature” by critics and fellow authors Lady Chatterley's copulations or the pretentious nonsense of Mr. Pound, that total fake.
¹ One thing I greatly respected about Nabokov was that he refused to speak ill of currently publishing writers and even refused to write reviews as he hated to think his opinion could damage their current career. It does seem like an unspoken message that he believes their careers are damaging enough to themselves.
² Aside from Tolstoy, Nabokov seems to have very few positives to say about Russian literature, refusing to agree with interviewers when they ask about his Russian biographies as indication of affinity with those authors. However, Nabokov seems to refuse to admit to any influences beyond his own creativity and after being asked what he learned from Joyce he responds ‘nothing.’
³ An extra special Thank You to Warwick for providing that brilliant analysis.
josh_paul's review against another edition
4.0
Entertaining interviews in which Nabokov mercilessly attacks everyone he's ever met or read.
wildbear's review against another edition
Only interviews were perused; the remains (letters to editors etc.) were mostly skimmed or skipped depending on the subject. Dogmatic fun as far as the colloquies are concerned. Though for all his lambasting of the trite and banal and clichéd Nabokov certainly had his fair share of stock phrases and reprised forms of dismissals. Great fun nonetheless.
doseisan's review against another edition
2.0
I mostly read this to confirm that vlady thought humbert humbert was a victim-blaming piece of garbagé, and he did... so :)
but.
as a person, I don't really like nabokov. his work - impeccable, some of the best stuff I've ever read, but in these interviews, the tact with which he constructs a phrase and the depths of thought he explores - or rather has his reader explore - is completely absent. instead we are introduced to his "strong opinions" which he more or less regards as fact - and as such never really explains. why did he hate faulkner? no idea. why does he like any of the writers he does (kafka in particular)? once again, no clue. it's not as if there are no good moments - I liked that he defended dolores, I liked that he spoke of his writing process in detail, and I did agree that art's primary focus should be to enthrall the reader, but in the case of the last one and in the case of most of his opinions, I think he takes it too far. he despises all fiction with any sort of message - he sees things in black and white - and considering that the ambiguity and infinite interpretation is something I admire about his fiction, this is disappointing
still, I tried is notecard writing system and it has worked wonders for me so I'm still giving this two stars
but.
as a person, I don't really like nabokov. his work - impeccable, some of the best stuff I've ever read, but in these interviews, the tact with which he constructs a phrase and the depths of thought he explores - or rather has his reader explore - is completely absent. instead we are introduced to his "strong opinions" which he more or less regards as fact - and as such never really explains. why did he hate faulkner? no idea. why does he like any of the writers he does (kafka in particular)? once again, no clue. it's not as if there are no good moments - I liked that he defended dolores, I liked that he spoke of his writing process in detail, and I did agree that art's primary focus should be to enthrall the reader, but in the case of the last one and in the case of most of his opinions, I think he takes it too far. he despises all fiction with any sort of message - he sees things in black and white - and considering that the ambiguity and infinite interpretation is something I admire about his fiction, this is disappointing
still, I tried is notecard writing system and it has worked wonders for me so I'm still giving this two stars
firolimn's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
Strong Opinions is repetitive—sometimes justifiably, sometimes bewilderingly—and is filled with tracts of dubious worth to the median reader. Still, there are highlights. Near the end, a delightful essay on inspiration. Before that, one of the most amusing takedowns I've read. Comedic and insightful, it is worth reading. I do recommend approaching the book with a readiness to skim passages.
a_serpent_with_corners's review
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Unremitting haughtiness, obviously, but enjoyable with it. The unreserved delight about lepidoptera is quite touching, set alongside that. Enjoyed the DEVIOUS TRICK that was pulled in one of the "interviews" as well.
sarahscire's review against another edition
5.0
This collection of articles, transcribed interviews, and editorials was alternatively fascinating and informative. Nabokov is found to be uproariously funny, undeniably genius, and startlingly bad at public speaking.
NOTE: The Wilson-Nabokov debate over a Russian translation inspired me to read their entire correspondence [book: Dear Bunny, Dear Volodya: The Nabokov-Wilson Letters].
NOTE: The Wilson-Nabokov debate over a Russian translation inspired me to read their entire correspondence [book: Dear Bunny, Dear Volodya: The Nabokov-Wilson Letters].
More...