heh, still, age only gains you so much credit. but for 16 thats a pretty good book.
Printable View
heh, still, age only gains you so much credit. but for 16 thats a pretty good book.
I have to say that Nabakov is over rated.... I did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing...Sorry if I offend anyone
Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
Ah, I'm so glad. :)
Guess it rests on what you consider to be a "love story"-some people may classify the relationship between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet as the perfect love story, some may prefer Heathcliff and Cathy as the perfect love story etc. Lolita can (at times) be slow, but literature is supposed to talk about and analyse the "disturbing" parts of the human mind and human nature-I do not really think that a book can be rightly criticised for being "disturbing", though even then Lolita is not particulalry disturbing in comparison to other "great" books.Quote:
did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing
Although she began writing at a very early age, I'm pretty sure Harper Lee didn't write To Kill A Mockingbird when she was sixteen. She was 34 years old when it was published in 1960, and she had worked on the novel full time in the years immediately prior to its publication. It's possible, though, that she carried the germ of the story with her for many years, especially considering its autobiographical bent. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
'I've never despised an author more than James Joyce, but I've only read a few of his books (and those many years ago). I know I've matured as a bibliophile, so I'm considering giving him one more chance.'
I suggest you try the brilliant short stories and 'Stephen Hero'. The later stuff could be called novels for novelists rather than for readers. But it would be fair to admire his belief in his artistic calling.
That was how I felt when I first read "Lolita" 2 years ago. I was on the verge of :crash: the book after he set me up so painfully for the night of the Enchanted Hunters and, well, glossed over the fornication in one line while accusing me of being a beast for daring to wish for some nice erotica. The rest of the book just became a drawl that, annoyingly, refused to end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer121
I reread the book a year later, knowing fully what to expect, and it is now one of my all-time favourites.
So I would give Nabokov another chance:p
Nabokov is a brilliant writer. And like all brilliance can be hard to look at for long. Try 'Pnin'. The Viking portable Nabokov will give you a good selection too. If you can get a hold of his translation of Lermentov then you'll see another side to Nabokov's genius.
Nabokov has a masterful tough with the English language. Lolita rings with wonderful linguistic turns. Can't say I agree that he's overrated.
Sartre...
I've read The Nausea and I found it like a palace build on nothing.
The best thing he did is to refuse the nobel, he knews that he didn't deserve it!!!!!!!!!!
Care to explain why you think he is over-rated? I didn't like "The Age of Reason" much, but "Nausea" was brilliant, in my opinion.
Ok, I'll explain my reasons with my bad, bad english...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe
Sartre is considered a brilliant philosopher and writer, and one of the founders of existentialism. I've only read "Nausea", in which the protagonist show his disgust for the pathetic aspects of his existence and the existence of the other men. Trying to simplifing, he's disgusted by the existence itself, which he found totally meaningless. Sartre took trough his character in the entire book like a severe judge of all the feeling and behaviors of the humans, and i'd admit i agree with many of his thoughts, but what's the result of his cruel exam of the meaning of the life? The author have an answer to the question that had asked himself?
Yes, and the answer is in the banal end of the work: the only think that make the life worthy of being lived is the creation trough art, that set free the individuality of the man from the chaos of the mere mass.
It's without dubts a true statement, but is 3000 years old!!!!!:D
I have read many other works of the existentialists, like Camus's "The Plague", for example, and I found it most intersting that sartre, 'cause they took about the existence's vacuum and absurdity WITHOUT find a reason or a solution, that, as heidegger himself think, cannot exist 'cause the existence itself can't be totally knowable. But I haven't a deep knowledge of the philosophic aspect of existentialism and I'm not a philosopher, so maybe I'm totally wrong...:blush:
Sartre is boring, dull, bunkum. He took his own nonsense too too seriously. Camus is better but neither are really novelists. They've got the art back to front: It's story first then ideas. They in their sophisticated French way go Ideas first then graft on some story or other - well Sartre does
Truman Capote
Wasn't Duchamp's toilet a urinal?