Scan barcode
A review by alcomia
Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov
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