Vladimir Nabokov and Edmund Wilson’s Epic Literary Feud | Hacker News Reader

Vladimir Nabokov and Edmund Wilson’s Epic Literary Feud

publishersweekly.com

46 pointssamclemens22 comments

Weird. I read the New York Review of Books articles about Eugene Onegin last week, because I'm reading it (in a different translation) at the moment.

Douglas Hofstadter spends a chapter in Le Ton Beau De Marot, his book about translation, talking about and comparing various translations of Eugene Onegin, and he covers the Wilson/Nabokov feud described here. He is deeply antithetical to Nabokov's approach to translating it (I have to agree) and says that he finds some of Nabokov's remarks about Wilson unspeakably cruel.

He also says that his favourite translation is James Falen's; I can't comment on how it compares to the others, not having looked at them, but I can confirm that it seems excellent.

Russian lit student here, can confirm that Falen is the best translator of Pushkin into English.

Nabokov's Onegin translation is more like a piece of (unbelievably well-researched) performance art. But be sure to read the book-length footnote about dueling.

I never appreciated Literature in college. I took the courses, and faked my way through the course work. Yea--I read the books, but most were just dry, and hard to read; for myself.

Years later, I read Lolita. There was a part of me that almost put it down. I read it because I wondered what all the fuss was about. From the first page, it might be the best written book I have ever read.

My favorite bit of wordplay in that book is when he calls Dolores Haze "dolorous and hazy".

I highly recommend reading some of his other books if you enjoyed Lolita - I find them to be more complicated (in a good way) and also written magnificently. The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, Bend Sinister, Despair, 'Ada, or Ardor', Pale Fire, and Transparent Things are all personal favorites. But all of his novels are absurdly good.

His short story 'Beneficence' may be may favorite piece of writing ever. He had a knack for capturing a simple occurrence, making it moving and immersive, and wrapping up his story with a poignant conclusion that I have found in very few other authors' works.

"You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style."

nabakov would agree with you

my opinion is Pale Fire is the only thing even slightly worth considering reading from him

i'll refrain from recommending anything in his stead due to the fear of my disliking nabakov might sully your reception of anything i recommend; instead i'll say i empathise with your experience reading in an academic setting and encourage you to keep reading and seeking what all the fuss is about in regard other authors.. you may keep finding more and more that you enjoy reading

Truly curious - what do you find his writing lacking? I am always surprised when people with any literary bent do not like him (this is the first I have heard someone who has read more than Lolita say as much...). I find his story construction and prose to be second to none.

i will admit i've yet to have read your praised 'Beneficence' but i have read a few of his other works similarly to the gp's effort to 'see what all the fuss was about'

i very much disliked lolita

i'm unable to speak to story construction because i only vaguely recall the structure but i can speak to my distaste for the prose

i have a lot of respect for multilinguals and the fact that nabokov wrote lolita in english is commendable but it reads to me like posturing

i felt it was humorless yet aggressively attempting to be funny

i feel people who like it inexplicably excuse its shortcomings as intentional or representative of the narrator, and i always felt if that was the penultimate interpretation i'd rather find meaning and enrichment in work that engaged with me as a reader instead of trying to troll me while hoping i grant its assumed brilliance credence

i felt it self serving while being acutely self aware; further promoting said service

which is also why in my opinion the only thing even slightly worth reading by nabokov is pale fire

i feel it explicitly exhibits my interpretation of nabokov as an author

someone obsessed with one's own literary importance based on one's own criteria of what makes good literature

Ugh, the way this writer talks about women is pretty gross. I know its a piece about two of the most macho types in midcentury literature, but must the author of the article really refer to women as "conquests"?

Thanks for the warning -- this sounds borderline NSFW. Will avoid the article while on a work system.

I know you are being ironic, but the fact that this is the reply and im getting downvotes just shows how HN thinks about and treats women.

People who receive downvotes frequently speculate as to why. It's rare that they speculate that they were downvoted for making comments which are flame-bait, uninteresting, or off-topic.

I believe that HN could use a huge improvement in how "we" treat women, but I'm not going to point to your comment or downvotes as an example of fighting the good fight.

Then what is fighting the good fight if not bringing attention to negative attitudes towards women? It's an article about two very overrated writers who treated women terribly and yet rather than critically approach the attitudes of these authors, the article's writer gleefully revels in their chauvinism. I was bringing it to attention since it is very relevant to the article at hand.

Your reaction to downvotes looks extremely flame-baity to me. It certainly makes me cringe. But that's just me, I didn't downvote you.

I am puzzled what you consider being sexist here. It's just consented sex between adults, no need to feel sorry for anyone. Both men and women who have had many partners often get cynical about that and I have heard this kind of language from people of both sexes. And it does not mean treating partners terribly. Two people can meet, have sex and part ways thinking that they had another "conquest" without having any bad feelings about the encounter.

If this is something you want to discuss, I suggest re-submitting next week after the detox ends. Some of the down-votes you're receiving could be due to members trying to stay in keeping with the detox:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404

I've never read an article about Genghis Khan that warns us that murder is bad.

It's assumed that we can discuss his actions without making them a template for our own.

Actually, the post you replied to seemed serious.

fwiw, I read that as being in the voice of "his wife's biographer", not the modern author. And either way, to be about the fellow's behavior, not some actual judgement of the worth of women.

You were right; this was sincere. Any article about Literally Vladimir Nabokov is going to be a questionable choice for workplace reading; if the author's cheering on his and Wilson's promiscuity, it's definitely not something you want open when a co-worker comes over.

No, I wasn't being ironic. I'm pretty familiar with how shady both men's sexual ethics were...

This article doesn't belong here on political detox week. Both writers were deeply politically engaged, and their feud is not seperable from their politics.

Flag the article then if you think so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com