What do you think?
Rate this book
Lectures on Literature
For two decades, first at Wellesley and then at Cornell, Nabokov introduced undergraduates to the delights of great fiction. Here, collected for the first time, are his famous lectures, which include Mansfield Park, Bleak House, and Ulysses. Edited and with a Foreword by Fredson Bowers; Introduction by John Updike; illustrations.
385 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
603 people are currently reading
9,264 people want to read
About the author
Vladimir Nabokov
833books14.4kfollowersRussian:
Владимир Набоков
.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, also known by the pen name Vladimir Sirin, was a Russian-American novelist. Nabokov wrote his first nine novels in Russian, then rose to international prominence as a master English prose stylist. He also made significant contributions to lepidoptery, and had a big interest in chess problems.
Nabokov's Lolita (1955) is frequently cited as his most important novel, and is at any rate his most widely known one, exhibiting the love of intricate wordplay and descriptive detail that characterized all his works.
Lolita was ranked fourth in the list of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels; Pale Fire (1962) was ranked 53rd on the same list, and his memoir, Speak, Memory (1951), was listed eighth on the publisher's list of the 20th century's greatest nonfiction. He was also a finalist for the National Book Award for Fiction seven times.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, also known by the pen name Vladimir Sirin, was a Russian-American novelist. Nabokov wrote his first nine novels in Russian, then rose to international prominence as a master English prose stylist. He also made significant contributions to lepidoptery, and had a big interest in chess problems.
Nabokov's Lolita (1955) is frequently cited as his most important novel, and is at any rate his most widely known one, exhibiting the love of intricate wordplay and descriptive detail that characterized all his works.
Lolita was ranked fourth in the list of the Modern Library 100 Best Novels; Pale Fire (1962) was ranked 53rd on the same list, and his memoir, Speak, Memory (1951), was listed eighth on the publisher's list of the 20th century's greatest nonfiction. He was also a finalist for the National Book Award for Fiction seven times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 206 reviews
August 15, 2017
At first I was wary of this book, being a former grad student and current exile from the literary academy with no interest in rejoining those stale debates. But what a breath of fresh air it proved to be. Nabokov was, not surprisingly, a keen reader, and he brings all his technical prowess to bear on works from Dickens, Austen, Flaubert, and others. He has the gift of entering a work on its own terms and bringing it to life, not deadening it with some inane theory. I read these lectures alongside the books they describe, and I found them delightfully illuminating.
August 25, 2017
“A writer might be a good storyteller or a good moralist, but unless he be an enchanter, an artist, he is not a great writer.�
I have always wanted to know Nabokov the reader � who hates allegories (say Animal Farm), novels where characters act are just what mouth pieces for different kind of opinions (Magic Mountain - not a fan either), moral tales (can’t agree more), allusions to other works and signs and symbolisms unless they are directly related (not a fan either), sentimental readings (chick-lit romances) and finds detective novels boring (because of their poor prose).
On Allegories
It is his dislike of allegories including those like Animal Farm which shocked me. I can see why it might be annoying when critics or readers are matching the elements in the allegories to real world but best of allegories can stand on their even if you didn’t know the real world parallels which they originally used as supporting structures. Even people who know nothing about Russian revolution can enjoy Animal farm while people knowing nothing about Odyssey can enjoy Ulysses. Rushdi's works which began like Allegories are often capable of losing themselves to natural growth of their chracters. Nabokov himself argues that Dr. Jeckyll and Hyde (a minor classic according to Nabokov) is not an allegory (I agree) and would have failed if it was one. According to him, same goes for Kafka’s Metamorphosis (don’t agree).
Nabokov's Spine
The thing is he frowns upon readers who read to gain knowledge (I do that) or/and sentimental pleasure(I do that too). So what kind of satisfaction he seeks from reading?
“It seems to me that a good formula to test the quality of a novel is, in the long run, a merging of the precision of poetry and the intuition of science. In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading. Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual, we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass.
And thus a Tolstoy (Anna Karenina gets repeated allusions even though he wasn’t teaching it) or a Dickens (Bleak House) are kind of authors he admires � because of their ability to carry on several chains of a lot of characters and themes at the same time. And if the author is able to bring these chains of stories to a satisfactory end, the author is a genius. According to him the correct way to reading Metamorphosis is by looking at how Kafka maintains a balance between Gregor’s insect and human behavior (!!!).
This love for juggling several characters, themes and stories need notonly be fr novel as whole though, it can be shown in a single scene with lots of characters and story threads going at same time- examples being agricultural fair scene from Madame Bovary (Llosa also admired that scene) and the chapter 10 (one with several vignettes and characters) of Ulysses � with first getting a much higher praise from Nabokov.
To be honest, I think this whole juggling thing is a technical aspect which can only fascinate a writer who is trying to achieve something similar. A common reader won’t have a spine sensitive to the perfection of art and is more likely to love characters from Dostoevsky’s imperfect scenes who provide emotional and intellectual food. Nabokov thinks of such readers as bad readers but in this, he sounds very snobbish to me.
On Prose
Now some things we do agree on.
Nabokov also wants you to pay attention to details. He is someone who actually drew a sketch of bug Samsa turned into ( he was really knowledgeable about insects and bugs) as well as the design of his house as well as twin houses of Dr. Jekyll and Hyde. He wants authors to focus on all corners, and triffle spots � and work them into perfect prose, there should be no weak sentences or, Devil forbid, passages. :
“Some readers may suppose that such things as these evocations are trifles not worth stopping at; but literature consists of such trifles. Literature consists, in fact, not of general ideas but of particular revelations, not of schools of thought but of individuals of genius. Literature is not about something: it is the thing itself, the quiddity. Without the masterpiece, literature does not exist.�
He uses graphs to show Jekyll wasn’t a perfectly good person. He goes into depths of how those two last got their names. He can quote � the lectures are 70% quotes � whole passages, sometimes whole pages. And not quotes that stand out for themselves but descriptions, descriptions like those describing Jekyll turning into Hyde. That is what he wants you to work on as an author � on prose, to keep on writing it and rewriting it until everything is perfect. If you ask him, when it comes to descriptions, no one beats Flaubert with his Madame Bovary (which Im willing to bet is Nabhokov’s favorite book along with another book on famous cheating wife of literature � Anna Karenina) and Proust with his Remembrance of things Past ( “the greatest novel of the first half of our century�) though he only discusses Swann’s Way.
On character aspects and sketches
Nabokov wants you to keep a distance from characters and so there is not a lot of time spent analyzing them (though few insights he does give are brilliant). His analysis of Emma Bovary’s is disagreeable to me (but would be agreeable to Flaubert). Same with psychology, he cracks a lot of jokes at expense of Freud (� that medieval quack�). He doesn’t spend much time commenting on the sensitivity of Proust’s protagonist either (who and Freud unknowingly reflected much on each other’s works).
He loves Joyce’s work too but is not particularly impressed by Joyce’s “Incomplete, rapid, broken wording rendering the so-called stream of consciousness, or better say the stepping stones of consciousness� giving reasons like
“First, the device is not more "realistic� or more "scientific" than any other. In fact if some of Molly’s thoughts were described instead of all of them being recorded, their expression would strike one as more "realistic,� more natural. The point is that the stream of consciousness is a stylistic convention because obviously we do not think continuously in words—we think also in images; but the switch from words to images can be recorded in direct words only if description is eliminated as it is here. Another thing: some of. our reflections come and go, others stay; they stop as it were, amorphous and sluggish, and it takes some time for the flowing thoughts and thoughtlets to run around those rocks of thought. The drawback of simulating a recording of thought is the blurring of the time element and too great a reliance on typography.�
I agree and I agree again when he says that Molly’s thoughts in last chapters of Ulysses would read just as good as they do now if Joyce's editor had introduced punctuation marks in those run-on sentences. Although I wonder what he would have said about Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway in which thoughts are described instead of being recorded as Nabokov would prefer them. The only female author that is included is Jane Austen with her Mansfield Park towards whom Nabokov takes a patronizing attitude as if to a younger artist. And oh, while we are on Joyce, he declares Finnegans Wake to be one of the greatest failures in literature.
On Reality
"Literature was not born the day when a boy crying "wolf, wolf" came running out of the Neanderthal valley with a big gray wolf at his heels; literature was born on the day when a boy came crying "wolf, wolf" and there was no wolf behind him.�
My best take from the book is his ideas on the use of words like realism and naturalism in criticism. He doesn’t understand the habit of dividing books into fantasies or realist ones- according to him all novels including those like The Trial, The Overcoat and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are realist as well as fantasies.
A very long quote (� must be impact of Nabhokov’s company) in spoiler about how Nabokov understands novelist’s reality
More Quotes
Read
August 4, 2024اولین بار که با نقد ناباکوف/ناباکف/نباکف/نابوکوف (و حالا هر تلفظی که میشه کرد) مواجه شدم، تازه پی بردم چقدر فرق وجود داره میون یه ریویونویس و فضای حاکم گودریدز با کسی که کارش موشکافی آثار هست و باید در برابرش کلی درس پس بدم.
وقتی مسخ از کافکا رو خوندم، یه دل نه صد دل عاشق زیبایی نگاه بزرگوار به اثر شدم. جوری که شاید از اون موقع پی بردم به هر کسی خواننده� خوب نگم. هر نوشتها� رو تحلیل، تفسیر و نقد خطاب نکنم. اون زمان، ناباکف بهم یاد داد کمتر گوزگوز کنم و هر ریویویی هم لایک نکنم. چون طبق حرفاش پی میبردم کدوم یک از دوستان، سطحی به اثر نگاه کرده و کی نه. سعی میکردم به اونی که ناحق چیزی پرونده حتی شده با یه لایک هم پر و بال ندم و تا حدی رو این جنبه کار کردم. اگرچه شقایق سابق هم سطحی عمل میکر� و تازه یکم داره یاد میگیره با ادبیات بهتر برخورد کنه.
یکی از کارهای ناباکف، تدریس و موشکافی آثار بوده. وقتی جلد اول در جستجوی زمان از دست رفته رو تموم کردم، دل تو دلم نبود تا ببینم چطور بهش نگاه کرده. یاد دو تا از کتابها� افتادم که تحت عنوان درسگفتارهای ادبیات روس و اروپا با ترجمه� فرزانه طاهری چاپ شده بودن. قضیه� این کتابه� از چه قرار بودن؟
و خلاصه تا طرف خانه� سوان رو تموم کردم، با آغوش باز به سمت نسخه� انگلیسی درسگفتارهاش رفتم. این جلد شامل ریزبینی و انتقادات ناباکف به آثار زیر هست:
منسفیلد پارک اثر جین آستین
خانه� قانون زده اثر چارلز دیکنز
مادام بواری اثر گوستاو فلوبر
ماجراهای عجیب دکتر جکلیل و مستر هاید اثر رابرت لویی استیونسن
در جست و جوی زمان از دست رفته (در واقع تمرکز بر جلد اول مجموعهس�) اثر مارسل پروست
مسخ اثر فرانتس کافکا
اولیس اثر جیمز جویس
البته جدای از موارد بالا، بخشها� زیر هم وجود داره:
پیشگفتار ویراستار
مقدمه� جان آپدایک
خوانندگان خوب و نویسندگان خوب
هنر ادبیات و عقل سلیم
سخن پایانی
من فقط بخشهای� رو خوندم که خود اثر هم از قبل خونده باشم. و با توجه به همون بخشه� امتیاز ۵ رو لحاظ میکنم. اما چون جزئی از کل رو خوندم و میدونم اگه عمری باشه بهش برمیگردم، درست نمیدونم که با نصفه نیمه خوندن بهش امتیازی بدم و صبر میکنم تا وقتی کاملش کردم ازش بهتر بگم.
اگر مسخ کافکا رو با ترجمه� فرزانه طاهری خونده باشین، بخش نقد و خوانندگان خوب و نویسندگان خوب در اون نسخه قرار گرفته شده.
اگر میخواین به نقدش از پروست نگاه بندازین، با احتیاط انجام بدین چون تا پایان مجموعه هم کم و بیش اسپویل کرده. به انضمام اینکه با ارجاعاتش به آثار دیگه مثل جنگ و صلح، میتونه بخشهای� از بقیه� کتابه� هم لو بده.
نظرم راجع به انتقاداتش؟ مثل همیشه عالی، زیرکانه و درست. کلی به فهم و درک من از اثر کمک کرد و لذت بردم از اینکه با استدلال و منطقش بررسی میکنه. چیزهایی رو کشف کردم که قبل خوندنش در متن پی نبرده بودم و حالا با لذت دوچندان میتونم مرور کنم. بدون شک استاد بیبدی� و درخشانی بودی. قبلا گفتم و باز هم میگم که به شاگردات حسودی میکنم. اونا چون تویی داشتن و با یه استاد کاربلد طرف بودن. چنین لعبتهای� تو زندگی کم پیدا میشه و من خوشحالم که لااقل بخشی از سخنرانیها� رو میتونم بخونم و کیف کنم.
وقتی مسخ از کافکا رو خوندم، یه دل نه صد دل عاشق زیبایی نگاه بزرگوار به اثر شدم. جوری که شاید از اون موقع پی بردم به هر کسی خواننده� خوب نگم. هر نوشتها� رو تحلیل، تفسیر و نقد خطاب نکنم. اون زمان، ناباکف بهم یاد داد کمتر گوزگوز کنم و هر ریویویی هم لایک نکنم. چون طبق حرفاش پی میبردم کدوم یک از دوستان، سطحی به اثر نگاه کرده و کی نه. سعی میکردم به اونی که ناحق چیزی پرونده حتی شده با یه لایک هم پر و بال ندم و تا حدی رو این جنبه کار کردم. اگرچه شقایق سابق هم سطحی عمل میکر� و تازه یکم داره یاد میگیره با ادبیات بهتر برخورد کنه.
یکی از کارهای ناباکف، تدریس و موشکافی آثار بوده. وقتی جلد اول در جستجوی زمان از دست رفته رو تموم کردم، دل تو دلم نبود تا ببینم چطور بهش نگاه کرده. یاد دو تا از کتابها� افتادم که تحت عنوان درسگفتارهای ادبیات روس و اروپا با ترجمه� فرزانه طاهری چاپ شده بودن. قضیه� این کتابه� از چه قرار بودن؟
The lectures collected in these two volumes represent Vladimir Nabokov’s teaching at Wellesley and Cornell—with four lectures preparedfor special occasions. For the convenience of readers, the lectures have beenseparated into two volumes: 1. British, French, and German Writers;2. Russian Writers.
و خلاصه تا طرف خانه� سوان رو تموم کردم، با آغوش باز به سمت نسخه� انگلیسی درسگفتارهاش رفتم. این جلد شامل ریزبینی و انتقادات ناباکف به آثار زیر هست:
منسفیلد پارک اثر جین آستین
خانه� قانون زده اثر چارلز دیکنز
مادام بواری اثر گوستاو فلوبر
ماجراهای عجیب دکتر جکلیل و مستر هاید اثر رابرت لویی استیونسن
در جست و جوی زمان از دست رفته (در واقع تمرکز بر جلد اول مجموعهس�) اثر مارسل پروست
مسخ اثر فرانتس کافکا
اولیس اثر جیمز جویس
البته جدای از موارد بالا، بخشها� زیر هم وجود داره:
پیشگفتار ویراستار
مقدمه� جان آپدایک
خوانندگان خوب و نویسندگان خوب
هنر ادبیات و عقل سلیم
سخن پایانی
من فقط بخشهای� رو خوندم که خود اثر هم از قبل خونده باشم. و با توجه به همون بخشه� امتیاز ۵ رو لحاظ میکنم. اما چون جزئی از کل رو خوندم و میدونم اگه عمری باشه بهش برمیگردم، درست نمیدونم که با نصفه نیمه خوندن بهش امتیازی بدم و صبر میکنم تا وقتی کاملش کردم ازش بهتر بگم.
اگر مسخ کافکا رو با ترجمه� فرزانه طاهری خونده باشین، بخش نقد و خوانندگان خوب و نویسندگان خوب در اون نسخه قرار گرفته شده.
اگر میخواین به نقدش از پروست نگاه بندازین، با احتیاط انجام بدین چون تا پایان مجموعه هم کم و بیش اسپویل کرده. به انضمام اینکه با ارجاعاتش به آثار دیگه مثل جنگ و صلح، میتونه بخشهای� از بقیه� کتابه� هم لو بده.
نظرم راجع به انتقاداتش؟ مثل همیشه عالی، زیرکانه و درست. کلی به فهم و درک من از اثر کمک کرد و لذت بردم از اینکه با استدلال و منطقش بررسی میکنه. چیزهایی رو کشف کردم که قبل خوندنش در متن پی نبرده بودم و حالا با لذت دوچندان میتونم مرور کنم. بدون شک استاد بیبدی� و درخشانی بودی. قبلا گفتم و باز هم میگم که به شاگردات حسودی میکنم. اونا چون تویی داشتن و با یه استاد کاربلد طرف بودن. چنین لعبتهای� تو زندگی کم پیدا میشه و من خوشحالم که لااقل بخشی از سخنرانیها� رو میتونم بخونم و کیف کنم.
May 2, 2020
Rischiamo di lasciarci sfuggire il meglio della vita, se non sappiamo fremere, se non impariamo a sollevarci appena più su del normale per assaggiare i frutti artistici più rari e maturi che il pensiero umano ha da offrirci.
Vladimir Nabokov che parla di letteratura pubblicato da Adelphi? La perfezione.
Prima di parlare del contenuto, vorrei spendere due parole sul contenitore: chi mi conosce sa che sogno di avere una libreria da mille e una sfumature di Adelphi e quindi sono di parte, ma questo tomo è esteticamente curatissimo: la traduzione, gli scan degli appunti di Nabokov, le note integrative, la qualità della carta, l'azzurro delle copertina... Splendido anche solo come oggetto d'arredamento.
Feticci estetici a parte, il saggio consiste in una raccolta di lezioni che Vladimir Vladimiroviç tenne tra la fine degli anni 40 e 50: si parla di sette grandi capolavori della letteratura europea (Mansfield Park, Bleak House, Madame Bovary, Lo strano caso del Dr. Jekyll e Mr. Hyde, Dalla parte di Swann, La Metamorfosi e Ulisse), incastonati tra due riflessioni sui lettori, gli autori e la letteratura e a cui segue un congedo agli studenti che avrei voluto scrivere io, in quanto esprime perfettamente ciò che penso rappresentino i romanzi. Solo che l'ha scritto Nabokov e il suo stile è di un altro mondo, vale la pena leggere questo libro solo per le tre pagine finali.
Essendo delle lezioni, sono molto lineari e non si addentrano in speculazioni e simbolismi accademici, anzi lo stesso Nabokov afferma di essere contrario a queste analisi esagerate: si lavora molto sul testo, su brani anche abbastanza lunghi (sconsigliato vivamente la lettura se siete suscettibili agli spoiler) e molto lavoro di comprensione dell'architettura dell'opera oggetto della lezione, spesso in relazione allo scrittore esaminato. Abbondano le analisi tecniche su stile, temi e contenuti, senza però tramutarsi in una di quelle introduzioni ai libri dove il curatore parla di aria fritta infarcita di paroloni che ti fanno solo illudere di star acquisendo maggiori informazioni sul testo ma in realtà ti lasciano solo un gran mal di testa.
Ciò che mi ha fatto veramente apprezzare questo libro è che, pur non essendo un'opera che Nabokov aveva pensato per la pubblicazione, mi ha fatto capire molto della sua concezione della letteratura: parecchie opinioni non le ho condivise, altre mi hanno fatta sorridere e qualcuna (vedisi Jane Austen) mi hanno fatta storcere parecchio il naso, ma è stato affascinante sentire un autore che amo salire in cattedra e spiegarmi le peculiarità dello stile di Proust. Sto rimasta incantata per tutta la lettura.
In sintesi: leggetelo tutti perchè è scritto benissimo e parla di libri bellissimi.
Vladimir Nabokov che parla di letteratura pubblicato da Adelphi? La perfezione.
Prima di parlare del contenuto, vorrei spendere due parole sul contenitore: chi mi conosce sa che sogno di avere una libreria da mille e una sfumature di Adelphi e quindi sono di parte, ma questo tomo è esteticamente curatissimo: la traduzione, gli scan degli appunti di Nabokov, le note integrative, la qualità della carta, l'azzurro delle copertina... Splendido anche solo come oggetto d'arredamento.
Feticci estetici a parte, il saggio consiste in una raccolta di lezioni che Vladimir Vladimiroviç tenne tra la fine degli anni 40 e 50: si parla di sette grandi capolavori della letteratura europea (Mansfield Park, Bleak House, Madame Bovary, Lo strano caso del Dr. Jekyll e Mr. Hyde, Dalla parte di Swann, La Metamorfosi e Ulisse), incastonati tra due riflessioni sui lettori, gli autori e la letteratura e a cui segue un congedo agli studenti che avrei voluto scrivere io, in quanto esprime perfettamente ciò che penso rappresentino i romanzi. Solo che l'ha scritto Nabokov e il suo stile è di un altro mondo, vale la pena leggere questo libro solo per le tre pagine finali.
Essendo delle lezioni, sono molto lineari e non si addentrano in speculazioni e simbolismi accademici, anzi lo stesso Nabokov afferma di essere contrario a queste analisi esagerate: si lavora molto sul testo, su brani anche abbastanza lunghi (sconsigliato vivamente la lettura se siete suscettibili agli spoiler) e molto lavoro di comprensione dell'architettura dell'opera oggetto della lezione, spesso in relazione allo scrittore esaminato. Abbondano le analisi tecniche su stile, temi e contenuti, senza però tramutarsi in una di quelle introduzioni ai libri dove il curatore parla di aria fritta infarcita di paroloni che ti fanno solo illudere di star acquisendo maggiori informazioni sul testo ma in realtà ti lasciano solo un gran mal di testa.
Ciò che mi ha fatto veramente apprezzare questo libro è che, pur non essendo un'opera che Nabokov aveva pensato per la pubblicazione, mi ha fatto capire molto della sua concezione della letteratura: parecchie opinioni non le ho condivise, altre mi hanno fatta sorridere e qualcuna (vedisi Jane Austen) mi hanno fatta storcere parecchio il naso, ma è stato affascinante sentire un autore che amo salire in cattedra e spiegarmi le peculiarità dello stile di Proust. Sto rimasta incantata per tutta la lettura.
In sintesi: leggetelo tutti perchè è scritto benissimo e parla di libri bellissimi.
February 6, 2019
Όταν ο ίδιος ο Δάσκαλος παραδίδει μαθήματα λογοτεχνίας, παίρνουμε χαρτί και μολύβι και απλά κρατάμε ευλαβικά σημειώσεις. Και όντως πρόκειται περί μαθημάτων (παραδόσεων για να κυριολεκτήσω) σε πανεπιστήμια των ΗΠΑ και συγκεκριμένα στα Wellesley και Cornell, με αντικείμενο κάποια από τα σημαντικότερα έργα της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας (μεταξύ αυτών, "Μαντάμ Μποβαρύ", "Ζοφερός οίκος", "Οδυσσέας").
Το πιο ενδιαφέρον σημείο του βιβλίου αυτού, για εμένα τουλάχιστον, δεν είναι τόσο η ανάλυση των συγκεκριμένων βιβλίων-σταθμών (καλύτερα να τα έχει διαβάσει κάποιος προτού επιχειρήσει να εισέλθει στην ανάλυσή τους), αλλά η άποψη του Ναμπόκοφ για το τι εστί λογοτεχνία, αλλά και πώς πρέπει να είναι ο ιδανικός αναγνώστης (rereader, για την ακρίβεια). Από αυτά προκύπτει ένα αυστηρό κανονιστικό πλαίσιο, στο οποίο προφανώς ανταποκρίνεται μια μικρή ελίτ αναγνωστών και συγγραφέων, γεγονός εξαιρετικά διαφωτιστικό και� απελευθερωτικό συνάμα.
Δεν βαυκαλίζομαι, να ξεκαθαρίσω, πως ανήκω σ' αυτή τη μικρή, πλην όμως εξαίσια κοινότητα, καίτοι εν πολλοίς ταυτίζομαι με τον Δάσκαλο, τουλάχιστον όσον αφορά τα κριτήρια αξιολόγησής του, αλλά όχι απαραίτητα τις (συχνά εξοργιστικές) αξιολογικές κρίσεις του για επιμέρους έργα και συγγραφείς.
Για να γίνω πιο συγκεκριμένος, ο Δάσκαλος αποδεικνύεται όχι μόνο αυστηρός και απόλυτος στα κριτήριά του, αλλά ταυτόχρονα δεν δείχνει διατεθειμένος να επιδείξει την παραμικρή ανοχή στους διαφωνούντες, στους μετριοπαθείς, στους…χλιαρού�, όσον αφορά τα λογοτεχνικά τους ήθη και πεπραγμένα.
"Η λογοτεχνία είμαι Εγώ" μοιάζει να είναι το υπόρρητο (;) moto του και βεβαίως δεν ορρωδεί στην κριτική του απέναντι σε όσους θεωρεί ακατάλληλους για το ρόλο αυτόν. Από την άλλη, σε μια εποχή "ανόδου της ασημαντότητας", τιτάνες όπως ο Ναμπόκοφ μας υπενθυμίζουν, συχνά με τρόπο ωμό, πως η Αριστεία (λέξη που έχει εκπέσει στο επίπεδο της φτηνής δημοσιογραφίας ) είναι μία και μόνη: εκείνη του Πνεύματος!
Βρίσκω εξαιρετικά διασκεδαστική αυτή τη συγκαλυμμένη -και μη- απολυτότητα, όσον αφορά τα υψηλά κριτήρια και τις αισθητικές κρίσεις απέναντι σε ομοτέχνους του και στους μαθητές του (όλους εμάς δηλαδή), μιας και ούτε προς στιγμή δεν αποδέχεται το…ελαφρυντικ� της υποκειμενικότητας. Τουτέστιν, αν διαφωνείς μαζί του, τότε ξεκάθαρα το λάθος είναι όλο δικό σου - ένας παραπάνω λόγος να αγαπήσω τον Δάσκαλο και την "επί του Όρους" ομιλία του.
Αυτή εξάλλου είναι και η (μία ακόμα) διαφορά μας: Ως μέτριος, είμαι και μετριοπαθής (και ενοχικός συνακόλουθα). Ο Ναμπόκοφ μόνο μετριοπαθής δεν είναι (άρα, μη ενοχικός), όπως παγερά και άτυπτα ανατέμνει το έργο των ομογάλακτών του. Με βασική διαφορά του πως εκεί που ο ίδιος τρύγησε τον ιχώρ των Θεών της λογοτεχνίας, οι λοιποί (πλην ελαχίστων φωτεινών εξαιρέσεων), εξέπεσαν της Χάριτος.
Κλείνω με κάποιες από τις βασικές αρχές που διέπουν την κριτική και το έργο του και τις οποίες έχω αφομοιώσει και -προσπαθήσει- να ενσωματώσω στον τρόπο με τον οποίο αντιλαμβάνομαι και διαβάζω τη λογοτεχνία:
"Στη λογοτεχνία, το ύφος και η δομή είναι το άπαν, οι ιδέες είναι ανοησίες."
"Η λογοτεχνία δεν ξεκίνησε την ημέρα εκείνη που ένας νεαρός βγήκε από το δάσος φωνάζοντας 'λύκος, λύκος!', με έναν μεγάλο μαύρο λύκο στο κατόπι του. Η λογοτεχνία γεννήθηκε την ημέρα που το αγόρι φώναζε 'λύκος, λύκος!' και δεν υπήρχε κανένας λύκος πίσω του�"
"The -isms go, the -ist dies, art remains!"
Το πιο ενδιαφέρον σημείο του βιβλίου αυτού, για εμένα τουλάχιστον, δεν είναι τόσο η ανάλυση των συγκεκριμένων βιβλίων-σταθμών (καλύτερα να τα έχει διαβάσει κάποιος προτού επιχειρήσει να εισέλθει στην ανάλυσή τους), αλλά η άποψη του Ναμπόκοφ για το τι εστί λογοτεχνία, αλλά και πώς πρέπει να είναι ο ιδανικός αναγνώστης (rereader, για την ακρίβεια). Από αυτά προκύπτει ένα αυστηρό κανονιστικό πλαίσιο, στο οποίο προφανώς ανταποκρίνεται μια μικρή ελίτ αναγνωστών και συγγραφέων, γεγονός εξαιρετικά διαφωτιστικό και� απελευθερωτικό συνάμα.
Δεν βαυκαλίζομαι, να ξεκαθαρίσω, πως ανήκω σ' αυτή τη μικρή, πλην όμως εξαίσια κοινότητα, καίτοι εν πολλοίς ταυτίζομαι με τον Δάσκαλο, τουλάχιστον όσον αφορά τα κριτήρια αξιολόγησής του, αλλά όχι απαραίτητα τις (συχνά εξοργιστικές) αξιολογικές κρίσεις του για επιμέρους έργα και συγγραφείς.
Για να γίνω πιο συγκεκριμένος, ο Δάσκαλος αποδεικνύεται όχι μόνο αυστηρός και απόλυτος στα κριτήριά του, αλλά ταυτόχρονα δεν δείχνει διατεθειμένος να επιδείξει την παραμικρή ανοχή στους διαφωνούντες, στους μετριοπαθείς, στους…χλιαρού�, όσον αφορά τα λογοτεχνικά τους ήθη και πεπραγμένα.
"Η λογοτεχνία είμαι Εγώ" μοιάζει να είναι το υπόρρητο (;) moto του και βεβαίως δεν ορρωδεί στην κριτική του απέναντι σε όσους θεωρεί ακατάλληλους για το ρόλο αυτόν. Από την άλλη, σε μια εποχή "ανόδου της ασημαντότητας", τιτάνες όπως ο Ναμπόκοφ μας υπενθυμίζουν, συχνά με τρόπο ωμό, πως η Αριστεία (λέξη που έχει εκπέσει στο επίπεδο της φτηνής δημοσιογραφίας ) είναι μία και μόνη: εκείνη του Πνεύματος!
Βρίσκω εξαιρετικά διασκεδαστική αυτή τη συγκαλυμμένη -και μη- απολυτότητα, όσον αφορά τα υψηλά κριτήρια και τις αισθητικές κρίσεις απέναντι σε ομοτέχνους του και στους μαθητές του (όλους εμάς δηλαδή), μιας και ούτε προς στιγμή δεν αποδέχεται το…ελαφρυντικ� της υποκειμενικότητας. Τουτέστιν, αν διαφωνείς μαζί του, τότε ξεκάθαρα το λάθος είναι όλο δικό σου - ένας παραπάνω λόγος να αγαπήσω τον Δάσκαλο και την "επί του Όρους" ομιλία του.
Αυτή εξάλλου είναι και η (μία ακόμα) διαφορά μας: Ως μέτριος, είμαι και μετριοπαθής (και ενοχικός συνακόλουθα). Ο Ναμπόκοφ μόνο μετριοπαθής δεν είναι (άρα, μη ενοχικός), όπως παγερά και άτυπτα ανατέμνει το έργο των ομογάλακτών του. Με βασική διαφορά του πως εκεί που ο ίδιος τρύγησε τον ιχώρ των Θεών της λογοτεχνίας, οι λοιποί (πλην ελαχίστων φωτεινών εξαιρέσεων), εξέπεσαν της Χάριτος.
Κλείνω με κάποιες από τις βασικές αρχές που διέπουν την κριτική και το έργο του και τις οποίες έχω αφομοιώσει και -προσπαθήσει- να ενσωματώσω στον τρόπο με τον οποίο αντιλαμβάνομαι και διαβάζω τη λογοτεχνία:
"Στη λογοτεχνία, το ύφος και η δομή είναι το άπαν, οι ιδέες είναι ανοησίες."
"Η λογοτεχνία δεν ξεκίνησε την ημέρα εκείνη που ένας νεαρός βγήκε από το δάσος φωνάζοντας 'λύκος, λύκος!', με έναν μεγάλο μαύρο λύκο στο κατόπι του. Η λογοτεχνία γεννήθηκε την ημέρα που το αγόρι φώναζε 'λύκος, λύκος!' και δεν υπήρχε κανένας λύκος πίσω του�"
"The -isms go, the -ist dies, art remains!"
July 10, 2020
Questo bellissimo saggio del professore Nabokov mi ha accompagnato per tutto un anno. È stato d'ispirazione e mi ha spinta a leggere o rileggere tutti i romanzi in esso contenuti,ed è stata un'occasione di crescita come lettrice. Capire le strutture dei grandi classici, approfondire i personaggi,rivedere le vite degli autori e le loro invenzioni è stata un esperienza molto bella e gratificante. Consigliato a tutti gli amanti dei classici e della letteratura.
March 14, 2023
Avrupa kurmaca eserleri arasından seçilen yedi eser ve yazarın, derinlemesine analizini içeren bu kitap, uzun ve teknik bir eser olmasına rağmen, akıcı, şaşırtıcı, ufuk açıcı.
Çok etkileyici.
Çok etkileyici.
March 4, 2019
-İlk not: yorum biraz şahsi notlar ve yorumlar içerecektir.-
"Kişi yalnız yarım düzine kitabı bilse, alim olurdu." - Flaubert
Nabokov Amerika'da verdiği Edebiyat Dersine Flaubert'ten bu alıntıyı yaparak başlıyor; çünkü Nabokov'da da Flaubert gibi bir kitabı bilme ediminin tanımı epey derinlikli bir tanım. Göndermeler, üslup, karşılaştırmalar, yazarın düşün dünyası vs diye giden pek çok çerçeveden esere bakmayı ve bakılan bu çerçevelerden eserin manzarasını da tamamen görebilmeyi/keşfedilmiş olabilmeyi kast ediyorlar. Bu iş zor Yonca.
İlk notta belirttiğim şahsilik ise, özellikle edebi eser okuma konusunda, okuduğum kitapların bölümünde Nabokov'un açtığı pencereler muazzamdı. O kadar kötü bir okur değilimdir -biraz mütevazilik lütfen!-; ama yine de bir eseri Flaubertçi anlamıyla "bilmek" ediminde, esere yaklaşırken bazı eksikliklerim olduğunu keşfettim Nabokov sayesinde. Her ne kadar Nabokov, iyi bir okurun kitabı hayal etmemesi, karakterlerle kendini özdeşleştirmemesi gerektiği konusunda bin kere vurgu yapsa da; kendimi bir amfide Nabokov'un bu kitapları derste işleyişini düşünmekten alıkoyamadım. Bir edebiyat dersi hocası olarak seçtiği kitaplar bile sırasıyla mükemmel iken, bu kitapları okuduktan sonra böyle etraflıca ele alınmasını düşünmeyelim de ne yapalım?
Bu arada Nabokov'un derste sırasıyla işlediği romanlar:
1 - Mansfield Parkı - Jane Austen
2 - Kasvetli Ev - Charles Dickens
3 - Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
4 - Tuhaf Bir Vaka: Doktor Jeykıll ve Bay Hyde - Robert Louis Stevenson
5 - Swanların Tarafı - Marcel Proust
6 - ٱğş - Franz Kafka [Varlık Yayınları çevirisi kullanılmış bu kitapta o yüzden Dönüşüm değil]
7 - Ulysses - James Joyce
Bu kitaplar arasında okumadığım ve çok çok öncesinde okuduğum bir kaç kitap mevcut. Buralarda Nabokov'u takip ederken biraz zorlandım, ama bolca ilgili kitaptan alıntı yaparak hatırlattığı için hafıza yenilemesi konusunda hakkını yemeyelim.
Bir sürü notum var kitaplarla ilgili, ama burada mutlaka üstünde durmam gereken ve en sevdiğim yönlerden biri Nabokov'un biraz sınırları zorlayıcı-kışkırtıcı yorumlarda bulunması, ilgili eserler hakkında bildiğimiz genel yorumları ise çoğunlukla reddetmesi. Bu kışkırtıcı dilin, gerçekten çok ufuk açıcı olduğunun altını mutlaka çizmem gerekiyor.
Aldığım sayfalarca notlar bana kalsın, ama bir mühendis olarak; edebiyat okuyanları, hatta Nabokov'dan alınan edebiyat derslerini çok kıskandım. Bu yazıyı da Nabokov'un Madame Bovary ile ilgili hazırladığı sınav sorusuyla bitirmek istiyorum:
"Kasvetli Ev'in kurgusu Dickens'ın daha önceki eserlerine göre büyük bir gelişme sergilese de Dickens yine de eserini tefrika etmenin gerekliliklerine uymak zorundaydı. Madame Bovary'yi yazarken Flaubert sanatının dışında kalan tüm meseleleri yok saydı. Madame Bovary'deki kimi yapısal noktaları belirtiniz."
"Kişi yalnız yarım düzine kitabı bilse, alim olurdu." - Flaubert
Nabokov Amerika'da verdiği Edebiyat Dersine Flaubert'ten bu alıntıyı yaparak başlıyor; çünkü Nabokov'da da Flaubert gibi bir kitabı bilme ediminin tanımı epey derinlikli bir tanım. Göndermeler, üslup, karşılaştırmalar, yazarın düşün dünyası vs diye giden pek çok çerçeveden esere bakmayı ve bakılan bu çerçevelerden eserin manzarasını da tamamen görebilmeyi/keşfedilmiş olabilmeyi kast ediyorlar. Bu iş zor Yonca.
İlk notta belirttiğim şahsilik ise, özellikle edebi eser okuma konusunda, okuduğum kitapların bölümünde Nabokov'un açtığı pencereler muazzamdı. O kadar kötü bir okur değilimdir -biraz mütevazilik lütfen!-; ama yine de bir eseri Flaubertçi anlamıyla "bilmek" ediminde, esere yaklaşırken bazı eksikliklerim olduğunu keşfettim Nabokov sayesinde. Her ne kadar Nabokov, iyi bir okurun kitabı hayal etmemesi, karakterlerle kendini özdeşleştirmemesi gerektiği konusunda bin kere vurgu yapsa da; kendimi bir amfide Nabokov'un bu kitapları derste işleyişini düşünmekten alıkoyamadım. Bir edebiyat dersi hocası olarak seçtiği kitaplar bile sırasıyla mükemmel iken, bu kitapları okuduktan sonra böyle etraflıca ele alınmasını düşünmeyelim de ne yapalım?
Bu arada Nabokov'un derste sırasıyla işlediği romanlar:
1 - Mansfield Parkı - Jane Austen
2 - Kasvetli Ev - Charles Dickens
3 - Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
4 - Tuhaf Bir Vaka: Doktor Jeykıll ve Bay Hyde - Robert Louis Stevenson
5 - Swanların Tarafı - Marcel Proust
6 - ٱğş - Franz Kafka [Varlık Yayınları çevirisi kullanılmış bu kitapta o yüzden Dönüşüm değil]
7 - Ulysses - James Joyce
Bu kitaplar arasında okumadığım ve çok çok öncesinde okuduğum bir kaç kitap mevcut. Buralarda Nabokov'u takip ederken biraz zorlandım, ama bolca ilgili kitaptan alıntı yaparak hatırlattığı için hafıza yenilemesi konusunda hakkını yemeyelim.
Bir sürü notum var kitaplarla ilgili, ama burada mutlaka üstünde durmam gereken ve en sevdiğim yönlerden biri Nabokov'un biraz sınırları zorlayıcı-kışkırtıcı yorumlarda bulunması, ilgili eserler hakkında bildiğimiz genel yorumları ise çoğunlukla reddetmesi. Bu kışkırtıcı dilin, gerçekten çok ufuk açıcı olduğunun altını mutlaka çizmem gerekiyor.
Aldığım sayfalarca notlar bana kalsın, ama bir mühendis olarak; edebiyat okuyanları, hatta Nabokov'dan alınan edebiyat derslerini çok kıskandım. Bu yazıyı da Nabokov'un Madame Bovary ile ilgili hazırladığı sınav sorusuyla bitirmek istiyorum:
"Kasvetli Ev'in kurgusu Dickens'ın daha önceki eserlerine göre büyük bir gelişme sergilese de Dickens yine de eserini tefrika etmenin gerekliliklerine uymak zorundaydı. Madame Bovary'yi yazarken Flaubert sanatının dışında kalan tüm meseleleri yok saydı. Madame Bovary'deki kimi yapısal noktaları belirtiniz."
September 13, 2011
This took me several years to read, and I was very pleased with the way my approach to the lectures worked out. Having listened to very learned lectures on Literature as an undergraduate-- but laboring under the frequent interwoven influences of marijuana daze and 'haven't-quite-read-the-book-in-question' handicaps ...
I took Mr. Nabokov's course, in the nineties. Before starting his chapter on each book, I read that book, without the company, this time, of bong, coed, or Tangerine Dream Lp. Each of the classics here was worth the read, the re-read, or the first-time read, and the reward was having VN to sum it up.
Youth, as we all know, is wasted on the young, and who can read books when there are other distractions that are catnip to the undergraduate... ?
Take the challenge, take the course, read the books, go back to square one. Like old schooldays, but with actual learning taking place.
Then, take a break, and twist a fat one.
I took Mr. Nabokov's course, in the nineties. Before starting his chapter on each book, I read that book, without the company, this time, of bong, coed, or Tangerine Dream Lp. Each of the classics here was worth the read, the re-read, or the first-time read, and the reward was having VN to sum it up.
Youth, as we all know, is wasted on the young, and who can read books when there are other distractions that are catnip to the undergraduate... ?
Take the challenge, take the course, read the books, go back to square one. Like old schooldays, but with actual learning taking place.
Then, take a break, and twist a fat one.
October 6, 2012
Ok, so first thing: the lecture on Ulysses in here is the best of the bunch and a must for anyone who wants to read that novel, but is intimidated by its (alleged) impenetrability. I'll argue to my death that Ulysses isn't really that hard as long as you apply yourself, and it's way worth the effort, but I will admit it can be a bit tough to follow without the proper grounding. I think the main trick is to read a summary of each chapter BEFORE you read that chapter, and then you'll be able to easily pick up what's going on. N does just that. And not only does he offer neat summaries, he calls attention to lots of the small, neat details that provide a good chunk of the novel's joy. N has clearly read Ulysses dozens of times, he's picked up on all of the subtle little coincidences and themes and chains of events that line the novel, and he imparts this wisdom to the first-time reader.
And that's really the core of all of these lectures. N believed that great novels should be read many times, and only on repeat readings do you pick up on the little things that provide the type of joy that he feels is the true purpose of literature. These lectures provide examples of these, and in turn helps teach the reader how to look for them, how to admire the the skill that goes into creating a great work, and how to read on a deeper, more careful level than we're used to.
And while the lectures are generally pretty fun to read, the real utility of this book doesn't come from the actual experience of reading it, but rather from noticing how the points N harps on have invaded your mind and changed the way you look at art in general.
And that's really the core of all of these lectures. N believed that great novels should be read many times, and only on repeat readings do you pick up on the little things that provide the type of joy that he feels is the true purpose of literature. These lectures provide examples of these, and in turn helps teach the reader how to look for them, how to admire the the skill that goes into creating a great work, and how to read on a deeper, more careful level than we're used to.
And while the lectures are generally pretty fun to read, the real utility of this book doesn't come from the actual experience of reading it, but rather from noticing how the points N harps on have invaded your mind and changed the way you look at art in general.
September 27, 2013
If you love classic literature, there is much to be enjoyed in Nabokov's lectures. This volume covers seven novels - Mansfield Park, Bleak House, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Walk by Swann's Place (aka "Swann's Way"), The Metamorphosis (Kafka), and Ulysses. In each case, Nabokov's erudition and unapologetic perspectives offer the reader a way to dig deeper into these classics. Time permitting, I'm looking forward to rereading these novels along with Nabokov's lectures nearby.
In a short essay at the beginning of the book, Nabovkov writes:
There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three � storyteller, teacher, enchanter � but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer.
I believe he's on to something here. What is it that the greatest writers do that capture our imaginations? Of course! They enchant us, they seduce us, they carry us away into those magical, enchanted lands and lives and when we finally reach the last page, the enchantment lingers on and we contentedly sigh, "What a great book..."
Highly recommended for readers and writers alike!
In a short essay at the beginning of the book, Nabovkov writes:
There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three � storyteller, teacher, enchanter � but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer.
I believe he's on to something here. What is it that the greatest writers do that capture our imaginations? Of course! They enchant us, they seduce us, they carry us away into those magical, enchanted lands and lives and when we finally reach the last page, the enchantment lingers on and we contentedly sigh, "What a great book..."
Highly recommended for readers and writers alike!
October 27, 2016
Benim acı ve hayal kırıklığı yüklü Madame Bovary'm meğer hiciv dolu bir esermiş, bunu Nabokov'dan öğrendim. Bu sayede kitap bambaşka anlamlarla dolup taştı gözümün önünde. (Sayfalarını bir çiçeğin yaprakları gibi açtı önüme, diyeyim de belki sevgili Flaubert'in hoşuna gider =P) Önce kim bilir okuduğum diğer klasiklerde neleri kaçırıyorumdur diye düşündüm. Eh, her eserin dedektifliğini yapan bir başka eser okumak da, nasıl desem, hangi yazar ister ki böyle okuru? Belki de bütün bunlar Nabokov'un aşırıyorumudur, dedim sonra, bu kıvrak zekalıyı bu kadar ciddiye almamak gerek. Ama bilirsiniz, bazen bir eser hakkında yazılan metin, eserin kendisinden de iyi olabiliyor. Nabokov da bu kitapta adı geçen ustalarla kapışır bence.
June 18, 2018
به نام او
پیش از این کتاب کتاب درس گفتارهای ادبیات روس را خوانده بودم که واقعا اثر خوبی بود و حکایت از ذوق و در عین حال دقت بالای ناباکف در مواجهه با اثر ادبی داشت، خصوصا قسمت مربوط به آناکارنینا که تقریبا نیمی از کتاب را به خودش اختصاص داده بود.
من از درسگفتارهای اروپایی فقط پروست و فلوبر را خواندم که این کتاب هم مانند آن کتاب به نکات مهمی در رابطه با این دو شاهکار ادبی اشاره کرده بود.
پیش از این کتاب کتاب درس گفتارهای ادبیات روس را خوانده بودم که واقعا اثر خوبی بود و حکایت از ذوق و در عین حال دقت بالای ناباکف در مواجهه با اثر ادبی داشت، خصوصا قسمت مربوط به آناکارنینا که تقریبا نیمی از کتاب را به خودش اختصاص داده بود.
من از درسگفتارهای اروپایی فقط پروست و فلوبر را خواندم که این کتاب هم مانند آن کتاب به نکات مهمی در رابطه با این دو شاهکار ادبی اشاره کرده بود.
July 30, 2024
Edebiyat Dersleri, Vladimir Nabokov'un Cornell Üniversitesinde verdiği Edebiyat 311-312 dersinde işlediği bazı kitaplara dair ders notlarının düzenlenmiş hali. Ele alınan kitaplar; , , , , , ve . İncelemelerin yanında "İyi Okurlar ve İyi Yazarlar" ve "Edebiyat Sanatı ve Sağduyu" başlıklı iki deneme ile dersin amacını etkileyici biçimde açıklayan sonsöz var.
Sonsözden, notlarından ve öğrencilerinin kendisini mutlulukla yâd etmesinden Nabokov'un iyi bir hoca olduğunu anlıyorsunuz. Bunun yanında çok dilli ve farklı kültürlerin etkisinde yetişen, küçük yaşlardan itibaren iyi okur olan yazar aynı zamanda çeviri yanlışlarını açıklamasıyla düzeltebilecek kadar yetenekli bir dil bilgini. Bekleneceği üzere böyle bir kişinin bakış açısıyla kitap incelemek öğretici ve epeyce keyifli.
Vladimir Nabokov'un iyi edebiyat nedir sorusuna verdiği cevaplar hem beklendikti hem de ilginç bulduğum yaklaşımları oldu. Örnek vermek gerekirse; dedektif/gizem/suç kitaplarını sanattan saymıyor. Kafka'nın yanında Rilke ve Thomas Mann'ı önemsiz görüyor. "Uslüp ve yapı kitabın özüdür; büyük fikirler ise yavandır." diyor. Kitaplar hakkında düşünürken yazarın hayatını unutun diyor. Bunu bir dereceye kadar kabul edebilirim ama kendisi bile bu kuralını ihmal ediyor kimi yerde. Sanatçı ve eserinin tamamen ayrılabileceğini düşünmüyorum.
Okur olarak beni geliştirdiğini düşündüğüm kitaplardan. Deneme ve kitap incelemesi okumayı seviyorsanız tavsiye ederim.
Not: Ayşe Lucie Batur'un çevirileri hoşuma gitmedi. Bir kelime oyununu verememiş mesela. Daha akıcı kurulabileceğini düşündüğüm çok cümle vardı. Metin okunuyor ama daha iyi olabilirdi bence.
Sonsözden, notlarından ve öğrencilerinin kendisini mutlulukla yâd etmesinden Nabokov'un iyi bir hoca olduğunu anlıyorsunuz. Bunun yanında çok dilli ve farklı kültürlerin etkisinde yetişen, küçük yaşlardan itibaren iyi okur olan yazar aynı zamanda çeviri yanlışlarını açıklamasıyla düzeltebilecek kadar yetenekli bir dil bilgini. Bekleneceği üzere böyle bir kişinin bakış açısıyla kitap incelemek öğretici ve epeyce keyifli.
Vladimir Nabokov'un iyi edebiyat nedir sorusuna verdiği cevaplar hem beklendikti hem de ilginç bulduğum yaklaşımları oldu. Örnek vermek gerekirse; dedektif/gizem/suç kitaplarını sanattan saymıyor. Kafka'nın yanında Rilke ve Thomas Mann'ı önemsiz görüyor. "Uslüp ve yapı kitabın özüdür; büyük fikirler ise yavandır." diyor. Kitaplar hakkında düşünürken yazarın hayatını unutun diyor. Bunu bir dereceye kadar kabul edebilirim ama kendisi bile bu kuralını ihmal ediyor kimi yerde. Sanatçı ve eserinin tamamen ayrılabileceğini düşünmüyorum.
Okur olarak beni geliştirdiğini düşündüğüm kitaplardan. Deneme ve kitap incelemesi okumayı seviyorsanız tavsiye ederim.
Not: Ayşe Lucie Batur'un çevirileri hoşuma gitmedi. Bir kelime oyununu verememiş mesela. Daha akıcı kurulabileceğini düşündüğüm çok cümle vardı. Metin okunuyor ama daha iyi olabilirdi bence.
May 22, 2017
"The isms go; the ist dies; art remains."
The above is quoted directly from this book and in particular is a comment made in reference by Nabokov on Flaubert's Madam Bovary.
This expresses a thought I have had for decades, but lack Nabokov's brilliance eloquence.
The scattered gems that sparkle throughout this book are what kept me reading.
And now I know that the preceding is a hackneyed image, and why it is a ...
What might you be looking for that would bring you to this collection of lectures?
Like me, you want to view literature from inside the mind of a favorite writer.
You are a serious student of the written word and open to advice on how to read.
You have been assigned a paper on one or more of the following:
Jan Austin's Mansfield Park
Charles Dickens's Bleak House
Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Marcel Proust's The Walk by Swan's Way
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis
James Joyce's Ulysses
In other words this is not a book that will appeal to many readers. Speaking as a fan of Nabokov, this fan status may not be sufficient motive to finish the lectures.
Absent a plot summery, these are lectures given by VN as a professor of European Literature at Cornell University in 1948. The above selections represent not so much VN`s personal favorites, but examples he chose to facilitate lecture points. The lectures tend to contain highly detailed recountings of each book. Within each discussion is an emphasis on the details, the geography, specific events and images chosen by each writer. His thesis seems to be that writer's use these details to specify the created universe that is their particular universe.
Nabokov believes that the writer is a creator. Readers who insist that the writer is recounting experience and retelling reality are missing the point of the creative process. That is; within a story reality is no more or less than what the writer needs it to be. Therefore details matter. Further more a real reader has a duty to reread works of art or else risk missing these details. Not only read for detail, but "fondle" them.
Against this concept, at once romantic and mechanistic Nabokov adds in another eloquent observation. A real reader:
"In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine." (Thank you [web reference removed]
For also noting this quote)
It is the tingle between the shoulders that marks a good read, and a good reader.
For all of this I have to agree with many of the other reviewers here at Amazon. There is something overly sanitized and dispassionate about Nabokov's method of literary analysis. Great themes and cosmic struggles fall away while we create maps and clock synchronicities. VN may not care about `isms' and 'ists'; but are we better readers if we see the art as so many themes and specifics?
The almost Victorian squeamishness Nabokov demonstrates on matter of sex and body functions -he is hampered in his ability to fully discuss or appreciate Ulysses may be appreciated by those who automatically dismiss books with such references. Yet this same VN is the author of the famous novel, Lolita. This is a book about a pedophile. Granted, an oversimplification, but the irony exists.
I am glad I finished this book. I am not sure how long it will be before I attempt more literary analyses by Vladimir Nabokov.
The above is quoted directly from this book and in particular is a comment made in reference by Nabokov on Flaubert's Madam Bovary.
This expresses a thought I have had for decades, but lack Nabokov's brilliance eloquence.
The scattered gems that sparkle throughout this book are what kept me reading.
And now I know that the preceding is a hackneyed image, and why it is a ...
What might you be looking for that would bring you to this collection of lectures?
Like me, you want to view literature from inside the mind of a favorite writer.
You are a serious student of the written word and open to advice on how to read.
You have been assigned a paper on one or more of the following:
Jan Austin's Mansfield Park
Charles Dickens's Bleak House
Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Marcel Proust's The Walk by Swan's Way
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis
James Joyce's Ulysses
In other words this is not a book that will appeal to many readers. Speaking as a fan of Nabokov, this fan status may not be sufficient motive to finish the lectures.
Absent a plot summery, these are lectures given by VN as a professor of European Literature at Cornell University in 1948. The above selections represent not so much VN`s personal favorites, but examples he chose to facilitate lecture points. The lectures tend to contain highly detailed recountings of each book. Within each discussion is an emphasis on the details, the geography, specific events and images chosen by each writer. His thesis seems to be that writer's use these details to specify the created universe that is their particular universe.
Nabokov believes that the writer is a creator. Readers who insist that the writer is recounting experience and retelling reality are missing the point of the creative process. That is; within a story reality is no more or less than what the writer needs it to be. Therefore details matter. Further more a real reader has a duty to reread works of art or else risk missing these details. Not only read for detail, but "fondle" them.
Against this concept, at once romantic and mechanistic Nabokov adds in another eloquent observation. A real reader:
"In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine." (Thank you [web reference removed]
For also noting this quote)
It is the tingle between the shoulders that marks a good read, and a good reader.
For all of this I have to agree with many of the other reviewers here at Amazon. There is something overly sanitized and dispassionate about Nabokov's method of literary analysis. Great themes and cosmic struggles fall away while we create maps and clock synchronicities. VN may not care about `isms' and 'ists'; but are we better readers if we see the art as so many themes and specifics?
The almost Victorian squeamishness Nabokov demonstrates on matter of sex and body functions -he is hampered in his ability to fully discuss or appreciate Ulysses may be appreciated by those who automatically dismiss books with such references. Yet this same VN is the author of the famous novel, Lolita. This is a book about a pedophile. Granted, an oversimplification, but the irony exists.
I am glad I finished this book. I am not sure how long it will be before I attempt more literary analyses by Vladimir Nabokov.
October 26, 2018
Se fossi stata una studentessa di Nabokov mi sarei innamorata dopo due secondi
April 18, 2020
En general este libro es una gran experiencia. Los análisis de Nabokov me hicieron bien feliz
Ayuda ene para comprender la relación critica entre la buena lectura y la buena escritura. Una joyita
Ayuda ene para comprender la relación critica entre la buena lectura y la buena escritura. Una joyita
August 8, 2016
Leer este libro ha sido una gran experiencia para mí, en él está plasmado todo el amor de Nabokov por los libros, por el arte que ocultan, por las maravillosas capacidades encantadoras de los escritores y la pasión que cada uno de ellos pone por sus obras. El trabajo minucioso de Nabokov se ve reflejado en las diversas imágenes que van apareciendo; de anotaciones en sus ejemplares para las clases, los diversos esquemas y hojas sueltas llenas de análisis detallados. Sus constantes quejas sobre las malas traducciones dejan en evidencia a un lector exigente, que no admite que se juegue con la literatura. Su seriedad y sentido pedagógico le entrega al texto una calidad impresionante. Te invita a apreciar la belleza de la literatura con el respeto que se merece. Sus puntos de vista y reflexiones no dejarán a nadie indiferente, porque no se deja llevar por las emociones y su lado científico mantiene sus ideas frías frente al torrente de caos y emociones que surgen de las letras de Austen, Dickens, Stevenson, Flaubert, Proust, Kafka y Joyce.
Mi consejo es que antes de leer este libro, se deberían leer o releer las obras que aquí aparecen estudiadas, eso facilitará en gran medida el aprendizaje. Pero incluso si no las han leído, Nabokov te lleva de la mano y es imposible perderse en sus explicaciones, porque te presenta los textos y deja que busques lo que él ve en ellos. Es un profesor metódico y sumamente preciso.
No puedo negar que mi manera de ver los libros ha cambiado. Ahora los aprecio desde otra perspectiva. Muchas veces no me sentía preparado para abordar a Proust y ni pensar en Joyce, pero ahora sé qué es lo que me faltaba, simplemente, yo era un mal lector y me la pasaba buscando una aventura y una historia ágil, lo cual no está mal; pero descifrar, entender y apreciar el arte detrás de la construcción de una historia, es otra forma de motivarte a leer, es el siguiente paso; descubrir el secreto que guardan muchas de las grandes obras que han permanecido inmortalizadas por el tiempo no me lo perdería por nada del mundo.
Mi consejo es que antes de leer este libro, se deberían leer o releer las obras que aquí aparecen estudiadas, eso facilitará en gran medida el aprendizaje. Pero incluso si no las han leído, Nabokov te lleva de la mano y es imposible perderse en sus explicaciones, porque te presenta los textos y deja que busques lo que él ve en ellos. Es un profesor metódico y sumamente preciso.
No puedo negar que mi manera de ver los libros ha cambiado. Ahora los aprecio desde otra perspectiva. Muchas veces no me sentía preparado para abordar a Proust y ni pensar en Joyce, pero ahora sé qué es lo que me faltaba, simplemente, yo era un mal lector y me la pasaba buscando una aventura y una historia ágil, lo cual no está mal; pero descifrar, entender y apreciar el arte detrás de la construcción de una historia, es otra forma de motivarte a leer, es el siguiente paso; descubrir el secreto que guardan muchas de las grandes obras que han permanecido inmortalizadas por el tiempo no me lo perdería por nada del mundo.
March 29, 2023
Kitapların ve yazarların bu kadar iyi analiz edilmesine rağmen (4 yıldız bu bakımdan aldı) eser bana göre değildi ki ; şu açıdan okuduğum , sevdiğim bir eserlerin bu kadar cımbızla alınması yani mikroskop altında tutulması belki bir çoğumuzun beğenisini kazanması doğal ,okurların , yazarları olsun konuyu olsun daha açık bir şekilde görmesini sağlayabilmesini sağlıyor mutlaka amma ne yazık ki ben bunu istemiyorum kendi açımdan. Okurken iç dünyamda yarattığım olaylar kişiler daha gerçek hale getirmiş Nabokov yani benim hayal dünyamdan uzaklaşmışlar.
Ben okurken ; örnek olarak '' Madam Bovary'' yi yazayım ; Flaubert' den bana gelen bir anlatı artık bana ait. Flaubert bu anlatıyı yazarken şekillendirdikleri bende biraz daha değişiyor mutlaka. Bu da oldukça doğal yani. Aynı dönemin aynı kültürün insanları olmadığımıza göre romanın benim dünyamda ki durumu bana göre iyi hoş amma Nabokov onu daha bilimsel daha geniş ve tekniksel açıdan ele almış ,mutlaka hayranlık verici bir durum olmasına rağmen benimle yazarın arasına girmesi benim hiç benimseyeceğim bir şey değil. Sevdiğim beğendiğim bir yazar Nabokov birçoğumuz gibi ''Lolita'' sını bende okudum oldukça da beğendim . Algı anlayışımız her zaman herkes de farklıdır bence benzer yanları olsa dahi. Bunları yazarken sanki bir şeyleri eksik anlatmış gibi hissettim!
Ben okurken ; örnek olarak '' Madam Bovary'' yi yazayım ; Flaubert' den bana gelen bir anlatı artık bana ait. Flaubert bu anlatıyı yazarken şekillendirdikleri bende biraz daha değişiyor mutlaka. Bu da oldukça doğal yani. Aynı dönemin aynı kültürün insanları olmadığımıza göre romanın benim dünyamda ki durumu bana göre iyi hoş amma Nabokov onu daha bilimsel daha geniş ve tekniksel açıdan ele almış ,mutlaka hayranlık verici bir durum olmasına rağmen benimle yazarın arasına girmesi benim hiç benimseyeceğim bir şey değil. Sevdiğim beğendiğim bir yazar Nabokov birçoğumuz gibi ''Lolita'' sını bende okudum oldukça da beğendim . Algı anlayışımız her zaman herkes de farklıdır bence benzer yanları olsa dahi. Bunları yazarken sanki bir şeyleri eksik anlatmış gibi hissettim!
October 25, 2007
for a split second, this made me nostalgic for college. then i recovered my senses.
December 20, 2024
ENGLISH: Nabokov's comments on the seven works he uses in the course are very interesting. However, I find this course on European literature rather incomplete. Four of the seven works are in English, two in French, and one in German. He mentions Don Quixote once, but just that. And he talks a lot about Tolstoy and Gogol, in comparison to the books he has chosen.
These books are Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park," Dickens' "Bleak House," Flaubert's "Madame Bovary," Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Proust's "Swann's Way," Kafka's "The Metamorphosis," and Joyce's "Ulysses." I had read four of them, whose review by Nabokov I have liked. The other three I hadn't read before, and after reading Nabokov's review of them, I don't intend to read them ever.
ESPAÑOL: Los comentarios de Nabokov sobre las siete obras que utiliza en el curso son muy interesantes. Sin embargo, me parece que este curso de literatura europea es poco completo. Cuatro de las siete obras son en lengua inglesa, dos en francés y una en alemán. Menciona una vez El Quijote, pero nada más. Y habla mucho de Tolstoi y de Gogol, pero comparándolos con los libros que ha elegido.
Esos libros son "Mansfield Park" de Jane Austen; "Casa Desolada" de Dickens; "Madame Bovary" de Flaubert; "Dr. Jeckyll y Mr. Hyde" de Stevenson; "Por el camino de Swann" de Proust; "La Metamorfosis" de Kafka; y "Ulises" de Joyce. Había leído cuatro de ellos, cuya reseña por Nabokov me ha gustado. Los otros tres no los había leído antes, y después de leer la reseña de Nabokov sobre ellos, no tengo intención de leerlos.
These books are Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park," Dickens' "Bleak House," Flaubert's "Madame Bovary," Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Proust's "Swann's Way," Kafka's "The Metamorphosis," and Joyce's "Ulysses." I had read four of them, whose review by Nabokov I have liked. The other three I hadn't read before, and after reading Nabokov's review of them, I don't intend to read them ever.
ESPAÑOL: Los comentarios de Nabokov sobre las siete obras que utiliza en el curso son muy interesantes. Sin embargo, me parece que este curso de literatura europea es poco completo. Cuatro de las siete obras son en lengua inglesa, dos en francés y una en alemán. Menciona una vez El Quijote, pero nada más. Y habla mucho de Tolstoi y de Gogol, pero comparándolos con los libros que ha elegido.
Esos libros son "Mansfield Park" de Jane Austen; "Casa Desolada" de Dickens; "Madame Bovary" de Flaubert; "Dr. Jeckyll y Mr. Hyde" de Stevenson; "Por el camino de Swann" de Proust; "La Metamorfosis" de Kafka; y "Ulises" de Joyce. Había leído cuatro de ellos, cuya reseña por Nabokov me ha gustado. Los otros tres no los había leído antes, y después de leer la reseña de Nabokov sobre ellos, no tengo intención de leerlos.
May 5, 2012
Nabokov wasn't just a brilliant and playful writer--he was also an excellent reader, even in a language which he pretended not to know very well. My only objection to this collection is that three of the five chapters are on writers fairly unfamiliar to me. But for the two that I do know--Jane Austen and Charles Dickens--Nabokov is brilliant. He is precise and very fair to Jane Austen, even though her interests are not his own; but his real kinship is with Dickens. He discusses Bleak House at great length, analyzing every aspect of its construction and presentation, stoutly defending it against charges of sentimentality, and reveling in Dickens' mastery of descriptive metaphor. He compares Dicken's description of the sea with a similar passage in Mansfield Park, and Jane Austen comes off much the worse (although to be fair, describing nature was not Austen's forte.) It is wonderful to share the pleasures of careful reading with such a sensitive and witty companion.
September 21, 2024
چرا سه دادم؟
از سه تا لکچری که خوندم یکیش (دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید) بیشتر خلاصه� داستان بود تا تجزیه و تحلیل و موشکافی و این به شدت توی ذوقم زد اما دو لکچر دیگه یعنی مادام بوواری و منسفیلد پارک رو به شدت دوست داشتم.
هر کتاب نقد ادبی یا تحلیل رمانی که قبلا خونده بودم روی اهمیت درک بافتار تاریخی و اجتماعی و زندگی نویسنده به عنوان دو عنصر پیش نیاز برای درک آثارش تاکید کرده بودن. ناباکوف اما روش دیگها� داره و معتقده هیچ کدوم ضروری نیستن چون دنیایی که نویسنده خلق میکنه صرفا زاده� خیال اون نویسندهس�. همچنین اعتقاد داره هرگونه امپاتی و سمپاتی با شخصیتها� داستان غلطه و اصلا نباید خودتون رو بهشون نزدیک کنین. البته که این قضیه با حرفی که خودش اول کتاب زده و خواننده� خوب رو تعریف کرده (کسی که تخیل و حافظه� قوی داره) در تضاده. اگر قرار باشه خواننده خودش رو جای اون شخصیت نگذاره تخیل به چه کار میاد؟ نکته� دیگه اینکه به عنوان شخصی که روی فلسفه� امپاتی و سمپاتی کار کرده باید بگم طبق آخرین نظریات ما نمیتونیم انتخاب کنیم که با چه چیزی امپاتی یا سمپاتی کنیم. در بهترین حالت میشه این توانایی رو در افراد پرورش داد ولی نمیشه جلوی روند ناخودآگاه رو گرفت، این قضیه به خصوص درباره� امپاتی صادقه�. نکته� سوم اینکه چرا واقعا این عقیده� مسخره که عقل و احساس باید از هم جدا باشن هنوز طرفدار داره؟ البته که سانتیمانتالیس� افراطی و کور بدون توجه به جوانب منطقی نکوهیدهس� ولی در اون سر طیف عقلگرای� افراطی بدون توجه به جوانب انسانی و احساسی هم ماشینی و غیرطبیعیه فلذا در بافتار روزمره ی انسانه� قابل استفاده نیست و در حد حرف باقی میمونه�. چرا هنوز هستن کسایی که فکر میکنن طرف یا با عقل تصمیم میگیره یا احساس و تاثیرگذاری هردو در فرایند تصیمیمساز� به صورت متعادل ممکن نیست؟ نمیدونم�. ولی ناباکوف چنین تصوری داشته و خودش هم بهش اعتراف میکنه و میگه هیج وقت با اثری از لحاظ احساسی درگیر نشید! خوشبختانه یا متاسفانه از نظر نوروساینس و روانشناس� خیلی وقته که این دید صفر و صدی به عقل و احساس منسوخ شده.
اما جنبه� مثبت! ناباکوف معتقده سبک یا style مهمتری� چیزیه که در تحلیل آثار باید بهش دقت بشه. نمونهها� از سبک لایهساز� یا موازی (پاراللساز�) یا استفاده از انواع و اقسام روایته� یا روند تغییر پاراگرافه� هست. توی کتاب مثالها� زیادی راجع بهش وجود داره. مثلا روی کیک عروسی اما بوواری یک کیوپید روی تاب نشسته که بعدا مجددا توی اتاقی که اما و معشوقش توی هتل هم رو میدیدن هم به شکل ساعت ظاهر میشه (لایهساز�/ موازیساز�). یا مثلا تم اسبسوار� سرتاسر کتاب به چشم میخوره، هرجا اتفاق مهمی در حال افتادنه سر و کله� یک اسب پیدا میشه. در اولین ملاقات شارل و اما اسب شارل با نزدیک شدن به مزرعه� پدر اما شیهه میکشه و بی قرار میشه. اما طی یک اسبسوار� شیطنت آمیز با معشوق دومش آشنا میشه و ...
نکته� جالب دیگه اینکه ناباکوف معتقده اونچه مادام بوورای رو جاودانه کرده ربطی به "رئال" بودنش نداره، ممکنه در زمان خودش نسبت به بقیه� آثار رئال بوده باشه ولی در دنیای امروز نه، چون رئالیسم هم مثل هر ایسم دیگها� امری نسبیه. ناباکوف معتقده سبک سمفونیوا� فلوبر باعث جاودانه شدن این اثر شده.
معتقده سبک بازتابی از شخصیت یک نویسنده و کاملا منحصر به فرده و ریشه در شیوه روایتی داره که اون نویسنده بر حسب مواجهه در دوران کودکی یا مواجهه شغلی باهاش راحتتر� و بر همین اساس چیزی نیست که بشه کپی� کرد یا با آموزش به وجودش آورد و شاکله� باید در نویسنده باشه و این نتیجه رو میگیره که "پس نمیتونیم بگیم همه میتونن نویسنده باشن".
نظرم درباره� این جمله رو هنوز کاملا نمیدونم ولی میدونم تشخیص سبک نویسنده احتیاج به ممارست و دقت فراوان داره و همونطور که ناباکوف میگه فقط از عهده� نوابغ یا استادهای فسیل ادبیات برمیاد که ناباکوف قطعا یکی ازونهاست. من در زمینه� سبکشناس� کمتر کسی به نکته سنجی اون دیدم.
از سه تا لکچری که خوندم یکیش (دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید) بیشتر خلاصه� داستان بود تا تجزیه و تحلیل و موشکافی و این به شدت توی ذوقم زد اما دو لکچر دیگه یعنی مادام بوواری و منسفیلد پارک رو به شدت دوست داشتم.
هر کتاب نقد ادبی یا تحلیل رمانی که قبلا خونده بودم روی اهمیت درک بافتار تاریخی و اجتماعی و زندگی نویسنده به عنوان دو عنصر پیش نیاز برای درک آثارش تاکید کرده بودن. ناباکوف اما روش دیگها� داره و معتقده هیچ کدوم ضروری نیستن چون دنیایی که نویسنده خلق میکنه صرفا زاده� خیال اون نویسندهس�. همچنین اعتقاد داره هرگونه امپاتی و سمپاتی با شخصیتها� داستان غلطه و اصلا نباید خودتون رو بهشون نزدیک کنین. البته که این قضیه با حرفی که خودش اول کتاب زده و خواننده� خوب رو تعریف کرده (کسی که تخیل و حافظه� قوی داره) در تضاده. اگر قرار باشه خواننده خودش رو جای اون شخصیت نگذاره تخیل به چه کار میاد؟ نکته� دیگه اینکه به عنوان شخصی که روی فلسفه� امپاتی و سمپاتی کار کرده باید بگم طبق آخرین نظریات ما نمیتونیم انتخاب کنیم که با چه چیزی امپاتی یا سمپاتی کنیم. در بهترین حالت میشه این توانایی رو در افراد پرورش داد ولی نمیشه جلوی روند ناخودآگاه رو گرفت، این قضیه به خصوص درباره� امپاتی صادقه�. نکته� سوم اینکه چرا واقعا این عقیده� مسخره که عقل و احساس باید از هم جدا باشن هنوز طرفدار داره؟ البته که سانتیمانتالیس� افراطی و کور بدون توجه به جوانب منطقی نکوهیدهس� ولی در اون سر طیف عقلگرای� افراطی بدون توجه به جوانب انسانی و احساسی هم ماشینی و غیرطبیعیه فلذا در بافتار روزمره ی انسانه� قابل استفاده نیست و در حد حرف باقی میمونه�. چرا هنوز هستن کسایی که فکر میکنن طرف یا با عقل تصمیم میگیره یا احساس و تاثیرگذاری هردو در فرایند تصیمیمساز� به صورت متعادل ممکن نیست؟ نمیدونم�. ولی ناباکوف چنین تصوری داشته و خودش هم بهش اعتراف میکنه و میگه هیج وقت با اثری از لحاظ احساسی درگیر نشید! خوشبختانه یا متاسفانه از نظر نوروساینس و روانشناس� خیلی وقته که این دید صفر و صدی به عقل و احساس منسوخ شده.
اما جنبه� مثبت! ناباکوف معتقده سبک یا style مهمتری� چیزیه که در تحلیل آثار باید بهش دقت بشه. نمونهها� از سبک لایهساز� یا موازی (پاراللساز�) یا استفاده از انواع و اقسام روایته� یا روند تغییر پاراگرافه� هست. توی کتاب مثالها� زیادی راجع بهش وجود داره. مثلا روی کیک عروسی اما بوواری یک کیوپید روی تاب نشسته که بعدا مجددا توی اتاقی که اما و معشوقش توی هتل هم رو میدیدن هم به شکل ساعت ظاهر میشه (لایهساز�/ موازیساز�). یا مثلا تم اسبسوار� سرتاسر کتاب به چشم میخوره، هرجا اتفاق مهمی در حال افتادنه سر و کله� یک اسب پیدا میشه. در اولین ملاقات شارل و اما اسب شارل با نزدیک شدن به مزرعه� پدر اما شیهه میکشه و بی قرار میشه. اما طی یک اسبسوار� شیطنت آمیز با معشوق دومش آشنا میشه و ...
نکته� جالب دیگه اینکه ناباکوف معتقده اونچه مادام بوورای رو جاودانه کرده ربطی به "رئال" بودنش نداره، ممکنه در زمان خودش نسبت به بقیه� آثار رئال بوده باشه ولی در دنیای امروز نه، چون رئالیسم هم مثل هر ایسم دیگها� امری نسبیه. ناباکوف معتقده سبک سمفونیوا� فلوبر باعث جاودانه شدن این اثر شده.
معتقده سبک بازتابی از شخصیت یک نویسنده و کاملا منحصر به فرده و ریشه در شیوه روایتی داره که اون نویسنده بر حسب مواجهه در دوران کودکی یا مواجهه شغلی باهاش راحتتر� و بر همین اساس چیزی نیست که بشه کپی� کرد یا با آموزش به وجودش آورد و شاکله� باید در نویسنده باشه و این نتیجه رو میگیره که "پس نمیتونیم بگیم همه میتونن نویسنده باشن".
نظرم درباره� این جمله رو هنوز کاملا نمیدونم ولی میدونم تشخیص سبک نویسنده احتیاج به ممارست و دقت فراوان داره و همونطور که ناباکوف میگه فقط از عهده� نوابغ یا استادهای فسیل ادبیات برمیاد که ناباکوف قطعا یکی ازونهاست. من در زمینه� سبکشناس� کمتر کسی به نکته سنجی اون دیدم.
Read
January 3, 2022Masterful. I would recommend you get into it having some prior knowledge/having already read the books analyzed.
June 17, 2009
Some time back, I reviewed "Crime and Punishment" for Amazon. One of the commentators on my review suggested that I take a look at Vladimir Nabokov's critical analysis of Dostoevsky. So, via Amazon, I purchased Vladimir Nabokov's book, "Lectures in Literature." As luck would have it, this was not the volume covering Dostoevsky! The end result? A greater appreciation for Nabokov--and also a sense that I'm not apt to invest a great deal of time reading other of his literary analysis.
The essays in this book represent lectures that he gave at Wellesley College and Cornell University. John Updike's Introduction provides some context for this work. He notes that Nabokov's lectures provide (Page xxv): ". . .a dazzling demonstration, for those lucky Cornell students in the remote, clean-cut fifties, of the irresistible artistic sensibility." He also notes, in Nabokov's words, the truth of novels, that (Pages xxv-xxvi): ". . .great novels are great fairy tales--and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales. . . ." Nabokov himself points out that a writer can be considered as (a) a storyteller, (b) a teacher, and (c) an enchanter (Page 5). And, above all, he values style and structure in authors' creations.
Maybe a couple examples will illustrate his critical approach. First, Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park." Nabokov is very pleased with her work. Given his emphasis on style and structure, he details how well she constructs this work. For instance, at one point, the characters, among whom there are a variety of tensions to begin with, select a play to perform. The decision as to which of the characters in Austen's story would play which characters in the play is well discussed by Nabokov. The play itself raises questions--it was, in fact, an actual play that scandalized some of the characters in the novel. And it exacerbated pre-existing tensions among the characters. All in all, Nabokov makes a great case that Austen's structure of this segment of the novel was well done indeed. And, in terms of style, he says of Austen that (Page 59) "she handles it with perfection." Nabokov convinced me that Austen was a terrific technical writer, who wed her genius to technique and style and structure to create something special.
Another example. . . . Kafka's "Metamorphosis," a story I read several decades ago. I recall the sense of despair I felt reading about the travails of Gregor Samsa--and a sense that, despite the awful/offal nature of the work that there was something important here. Nabokov is very positive about this piece. Much of this lecture is a simple description of the work, scene by scene, and Nabokov spennds some time noting how Kafka's work is so much better than Stevenson's work discussed above. Samsa's unexplained transformation into a beetle is the event that triggers this story. Nabokov notes how this tragedy has positive elements--a family finally getting its act together even as it abandons Gregor--and illustrates Kafka's style. Of the latter, Nabokov says (Page 283): "You will mark Kafka's style. Its clarity, its precise and formal intonation in such striking contrast to the nightmare matter of his story."
I admire his emphasis on style and structure, but I also think there is an almost sanitary quality about some of his observations. But I'm a political scientist--not a literary critic. Overll, this is an intellectually exciting book, as one learns how a literary critic from one critical perspective examining a series of works--Austen, Dickens, Flaubert, Stevenson, Proust, Kafka, and Joyce. If interested in Nabokov's critical perspective, this is a good starting point!
The essays in this book represent lectures that he gave at Wellesley College and Cornell University. John Updike's Introduction provides some context for this work. He notes that Nabokov's lectures provide (Page xxv): ". . .a dazzling demonstration, for those lucky Cornell students in the remote, clean-cut fifties, of the irresistible artistic sensibility." He also notes, in Nabokov's words, the truth of novels, that (Pages xxv-xxvi): ". . .great novels are great fairy tales--and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales. . . ." Nabokov himself points out that a writer can be considered as (a) a storyteller, (b) a teacher, and (c) an enchanter (Page 5). And, above all, he values style and structure in authors' creations.
Maybe a couple examples will illustrate his critical approach. First, Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park." Nabokov is very pleased with her work. Given his emphasis on style and structure, he details how well she constructs this work. For instance, at one point, the characters, among whom there are a variety of tensions to begin with, select a play to perform. The decision as to which of the characters in Austen's story would play which characters in the play is well discussed by Nabokov. The play itself raises questions--it was, in fact, an actual play that scandalized some of the characters in the novel. And it exacerbated pre-existing tensions among the characters. All in all, Nabokov makes a great case that Austen's structure of this segment of the novel was well done indeed. And, in terms of style, he says of Austen that (Page 59) "she handles it with perfection." Nabokov convinced me that Austen was a terrific technical writer, who wed her genius to technique and style and structure to create something special.
Another example. . . . Kafka's "Metamorphosis," a story I read several decades ago. I recall the sense of despair I felt reading about the travails of Gregor Samsa--and a sense that, despite the awful/offal nature of the work that there was something important here. Nabokov is very positive about this piece. Much of this lecture is a simple description of the work, scene by scene, and Nabokov spennds some time noting how Kafka's work is so much better than Stevenson's work discussed above. Samsa's unexplained transformation into a beetle is the event that triggers this story. Nabokov notes how this tragedy has positive elements--a family finally getting its act together even as it abandons Gregor--and illustrates Kafka's style. Of the latter, Nabokov says (Page 283): "You will mark Kafka's style. Its clarity, its precise and formal intonation in such striking contrast to the nightmare matter of his story."
I admire his emphasis on style and structure, but I also think there is an almost sanitary quality about some of his observations. But I'm a political scientist--not a literary critic. Overll, this is an intellectually exciting book, as one learns how a literary critic from one critical perspective examining a series of works--Austen, Dickens, Flaubert, Stevenson, Proust, Kafka, and Joyce. If interested in Nabokov's critical perspective, this is a good starting point!
March 11, 2011
Read this book and join Nabokov for a typically droll, dry, witty take on some classics of European lit.
There are downsides of course. The book pays little attention to twentieth-century literary theory, relying instead on a kind of commonsense model of how literature "should" work. Nabokov's totalizing claims often strike me as fussy bullshit, and his analysis is sometimes just summary. Still, if just for the prose and the pithy remarks, the book's worth reading.
I mean, check it out:
So right about Bleak House: "I must say that despite the superb planning of the novel, the main mistake was to let Esther tell part of the story. I would not have let the girl near!"
On Madame Bovary: "...adultery being a most conventional way to rise above the conventional."
On Joyce: "Indeed, in verbal generosity he is a veritable Santa."
Great contrast: "Joyce takes a complete and absolute character, God-known, Joyce-known, then breaks it up into fragments and scatters these fragments over the space-time of the book. The good rereader gathers these puzzle pieces and gradually puts them together. On the other hand, Proust contends that a character, a personality, is never known as an absolute but always as a comparative one."
There are downsides of course. The book pays little attention to twentieth-century literary theory, relying instead on a kind of commonsense model of how literature "should" work. Nabokov's totalizing claims often strike me as fussy bullshit, and his analysis is sometimes just summary. Still, if just for the prose and the pithy remarks, the book's worth reading.
I mean, check it out:
So right about Bleak House: "I must say that despite the superb planning of the novel, the main mistake was to let Esther tell part of the story. I would not have let the girl near!"
On Madame Bovary: "...adultery being a most conventional way to rise above the conventional."
On Joyce: "Indeed, in verbal generosity he is a veritable Santa."
Great contrast: "Joyce takes a complete and absolute character, God-known, Joyce-known, then breaks it up into fragments and scatters these fragments over the space-time of the book. The good rereader gathers these puzzle pieces and gradually puts them together. On the other hand, Proust contends that a character, a personality, is never known as an absolute but always as a comparative one."
December 1, 2020
I didn't expect to get so easily attached to these pages. Something I would recommend to anyone who sees the stories in the books (especially the classics) with a deeper point of view. Being a good reader is as complexed as being a good writer.
Definitely one of my favorite readings this year.
Definitely one of my favorite readings this year.
January 3, 2019
Un testo interessantissimo e curato contenente le lezioni di letteratura universitarie che Nabokov tenne tra il '41 e il' 58, un'indagine sul mistero delle strutture letterarie che coinvolge e approfondisce testi di importanza fondamentale come Mansfield Park di Jane Austen, Casa desolata di Dickens, La metamorfosi di Kafka, Madame Bovary di Flaubert, solo per citarne alcuni.
Lo avevo in corso di lettura da novembre, è il libro perfetto da tenere sul comodino e consultare ogni qualvolta si cerchi approfondimento su un classico o anche solo un intervento eseguito magnificamente (Nabokov della parola ne è maestro).
Lo avevo in corso di lettura da novembre, è il libro perfetto da tenere sul comodino e consultare ogni qualvolta si cerchi approfondimento su un classico o anche solo un intervento eseguito magnificamente (Nabokov della parola ne è maestro).
January 27, 2018
«همیشه چیزها در خانه طور دیگری است. موطنِ کهنهٔ انسان، اگر با آگاهی در آن زندگی کند، با آگاهی کامل نسبت به بستگیه� و وظیفههای� در برابر دیگران، همیشه تازه است. انسان در واقع تنها از این راه، از راهِ بستگی هاست که آزاد میشو�..» گفتگو باکافکا، اثر گوستاو یانوش
February 23, 2021
Después de leer este libro, siento que he sido un abandono como lector durante toda mi vida. Y uno entiende por qué Nabokov fue uno de los más grandes novelistas del siglo XX, que es como decir de todos los tiempos. Porque en esencia, un gran escritor es primero un gran lector, lo que no es baladí ni decir solo quien lee mucho en poco tiempo. Sus análisis tan pormenorizados, tan detallados, con esquemas, diagramas, mapas y toda suerte de apuntes, descubren al lector obsesivo por descerrajar los artilugios de una novela. Encontrar la clave, no escatimar en esfuerzos, rearmar el puzzle que otro genio ha preparado con tanto empeño e intuición, esos son los objetivos de un buen lector, aquel que ahonda y se sumerge y no solo busca el entretenimiento en las palabras, sino que lo encuentra en el ordenamiento y sus misterios. Así, más placer hay en quien pilla al escritor aun en aquello que el escritor no había notado de su propia obra. Este libro se aprovecha mucho más si antes se han leído las obras estudiadas en él, lo que me ayudó a pasar páginas que a veces se volvían pesadas.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 206 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.