Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.92 AVERAGE
3.92 AVERAGE
Despite the subjects of his other works, Nabokov is kind of shockingly funny, and even more rudely opinionated (which I find funny). I just think the format of the book, which is 2/3rds extracts from interviews and 1/3rd letters and book reviewsz feels a bit cheapening. Not that he's alive for a revised edition, but I would have liked to see a compendium of micro-essays (eg JB Priestley Delight) or even some of his lectures reproduced here.
First 2/3 (the interviews) were excellent, last 1/3 (letters to editors, articles) was boring to the point of despair - unfortunately I do not have a sufficiently parasocial enough relationship to Nabokov to be entertained by him listing out locations where he captured butterfly specimens.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
“I have never seen a more lucid, more lonely, better balanced mad mind than mine.”
― Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions
Vladimir Nabokov lets us know directly that his every word recorded in these interviews was carefully and thoughtfully written out after having received, in writing, specific questions from the respective interviewers. In other words, in typical Nabokov fashion, his answers are the result of much reflection and written in solitude. The topics covered range from his childhood in Russia to Hollywood films, from his literary critics to beauties of language. To share a sample of what a reader will find in Nabokov's provocative answers to interviewer questions, below are a number of VN quotes along with my modest comments:
“I pride myself on being a person with no public appeal. I have never been drunk in my life. I never use schoolboy words of four letters. I have never worked in an office or in a coal mine. I have never belonged to any club or group. No creed or school has had any influence on me whatsoever. Nothing bores me more than political novels and the literature of social intent."
No wonder Nabokov enjoyed chess problems, since, unlike an actual game of chess with an opponent, a chess problem permits a person to work out a solution in solitude. Personally, I very much enjoy the fact he preferred to live his life without direct public involvement or a clamoring to be in the limelight, he was never drunk or never had to resort to using four letter schoolboy words, he was never a joiner or ever once affiliated himself with a group or movement.
On writing his novels: “I find now that index cards are really the best kind of paper that I can use for the purpose. I don’t write consecutively from the beginning to the next chapter and so on to the end. I just fill in the gaps of the picture, of this jigsaw puzzle which is quite clear in my mind, picking out a piece here and a piece there and filling out part of the sky and part of the landscape and part of the – I don’t know, the carousing hunters.”
Such a unique approach – I can visualize VN penning a highly artful sentence on an index card and then, like an expert lepidopterist painstakingly pinning a butterfly correctly on a board, carefully placing the card at exactly the right spot in his card box. Observing how a great novelist developed his own highly personalized methodology in writing his novels can perhaps open us up to discover unconventional approaches to our own writing and art.
“I don’t think that an artist should bother about his audience. His best audience is the person he sees in his shaving mirror every morning. I think that the audience an artist imagines, when he imagines that kind of a thing, is a room filled with people wearing his own mask.”
Echoes of the Bard: “This above all else. To thy own self be true.” Ultimately, we have to live with our own writing, our own creation. If we take even a first step in abandoning our vision to placate, accommodate or please others, according to VN, we are no longer a serious artist.
“A creative writer must study carefully the works of his rivals, including the Almighty. He must possess the inborn capacity not only of recombining but of re-creating the given world. In order to do this adequately, avoiding duplication of labor, the artist should know the given world. Imagination without knowledge leads no farther than the back yard of primitive art, the child’s scrawl on the fence, and the crank’s message in the market place. Art is never simple.”
It has been said again and again, if we want to be good writers, we must be good readers, reading widely and deeply. I recall even Stephen King in his book On Writing emphatically insists, as a first step in becoming a writer seeking publication and an appreciative audience, we need to make a lifetime practice of daily reading.
“I have no ear for music, a shortcoming I deplore bitterly. When I attend a concert – which happens about once in five years – I endeavor gamely to follow the sequence and relationship of sounds but cannot keep it up for more than a few minutes. Visual impressions, reflections of hands in lacquered wood, a diligent bald spot over a fiddle, these take over and soon I am bored beyond measure by the motions of the musicians.”
If you are committed to literature and the arts and have a weakness or two or three in any particular area, no need to despair as even the great Vladimir Nabokov didn’t have it all his own way in the world of the arts.
“I could never explain adequately to certain students in my literature classes, the aspects of good reading – the fact that you read an artist’s book not with your heart (the heart is a remarkably stupid reader), and not with your brain alone, but with your brain and spine. “Ladies and gentlemen, the tingle in the spine really tells you what the author felt and wished you to feel.”
Food for thought. I suspect the heart can play a large part, even a huge part, for many readers of fiction. My sense is Nabokov was warning his students of being overly sentimental in their assessment of literature.
“There are some varieties of fiction that I never touch – mystery stories, for instance, which I abhor, and historical novels. I also detest the so-called “powerful” novel – full of commonplace obscenities and torrents of dialogue.”
Tastes are so individual. Kiss of the Spider Woman by Manuel Puig is written almost entirely in dialogue. Does this disqualify it from being an excellent work of literature? My own judgement is “no” as each work should be assessed individually.
“I have never been able to see any generic difference between poetry and artistic prose. As a matter of fact, I would be inclined to define a good poem of any length as a concentrate of good prose, with or without the addition of recurrent rhythm and rhyme. The magic of prosody may improve upon what we call prose by bringing out the full flavor of meaning, but in plain prose there are also certain rhythmic patterns, the music of precise phrasing, the beat of thought rendered by recurrent peculiarities of idiom and intonation.”
Anyone familiar with Lolita, especially read by Jeremy Irons, knows Nabokov’s novel is pure poetry.
"Galsworthy, Dreiser, a person called Tagore, another called Maxim Gorky, a third called Romain Rolland, used to be 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 and vilely written Zhivago or Faulkner’s corncobby chronicles can be considered “masterpieces,” or at least what journalists call “great books,” is to me an absurd delusion, as when a hypnotized person makes love to a chair.”
Strong opinions, anyone? Ouch! That can really sting, Vladimir. William Faulkner’s bold innovations, including his novelistic construction and weaving of time, has provided inspiration for many first-rate authors, including a number of Latin American writers of magical realism. I included this VN quote as an example of just how lively and contentious his views and opinions.
White to play and mate in three. Nabokov enjoyed the icy solitude of chess problems.
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
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.
Entertaining interviews in which Nabokov mercilessly attacks everyone he's ever met or read.
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.
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
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